OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH INTELLECT FROM THE MIDDLE OF
THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF LOUIS XIV.
PAGE
Importance of the question, as to whether the historian should
begin with studying the normal or the abnormal condition of
society 1-3
Greater power of the church in France than in England 4
Hence in France during the sixteenth century everything was more
theological than in England 6-8
Hence, too, toleration was impossible in France 9-11
But at the end of the sixteenth century scepticism appeared in
France, and with it toleration began, as was seen in the Edict
of Nantes 11-15
The first sceptic was not Rabelais, but Montaigne 15-18
Continuation of the movement by Charron 18-21
Henry IV. encouraged the Protestants 23-24
And they were tolerated even by the queen-regent during the
minority of Louis XIII. 24-26
The most remarkable steps in favour of toleration were,
however, taken by Richelieu, who effectually humbled the
church 27-34
He supported the new secular scheme of government against the
old ecclesiastical scheme 34-42
His liberal treatment of the Protestants 42-46
They are deserted by their temporal leaders, and the management
of the party falls into the hands of the clergy 46-51
Hence the French Protestants, being headed by the clergy,
become more intolerant than the French Catholics, who are
headed by statesmen 51-55
Evidence of the illiberality of the French Protestants 55-72
They raise a civil war, which was a struggle of classes rather
than of creeds 73
Richelieu put down the rebellion, but still abstained from
persecuting the Protestants 73-76
This liberal policy on the part of the government was only part
of a much larger movement 76-77
Illustration of this from the philosophy of Descartes 77-92
Analogy between Descartes and Richelieu 92-93
The same anti-ecclesiastical spirit was exhibited by their
contemporaries 93-95
And by Mazarin 96-98
It was also seen in the wars of the Fronde 99-102
But notwithstanding all this, there was a great difference
between France and England; and the prevalence of the
protective spirit prevented the French from becoming free 102-107
CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT, AND COMPARISON OF IT IN FRANCE AND
ENGLAND.
About the eleventh century the spirit of inquiry began to
weaken the church 108-110
Coinciding with this, the feudal system and an hereditary
aristocracy appeared 110-112
The nobles displace the clergy, and celibacy is opposed by the
principle of hereditary rank 112
In England the nobles were less powerful than in France 113-116
And were glad to ally themselves with the people against the
crown 116-118
Hence a spirit of popular independence unknown in France, where
the nobles were too powerful to need the help of the people 118-119
Effects of this difference between the two countries in the
fourteenth century 119-122
Centralization was in France the natural successor of feudality 122-126
This state contrasted with that of England 126-127
Power of the French nobles 128-131
Illustration from the history of chivalry 131-135
Another illustration from the vanity of the French and pride of
the English 135-137
Also from the practice of duelling 137
The pride of Englishmen encouraged the Reformation 138
Analogy between the Reformation and the revolutions of the
seventeenth century 138-139
Both were opposed by the clergy and nobles. Natural alliance
between these two classes 139-142
In the reign of Elizabeth both classes were weakened 143-146
James I. and Charles I. vainly attempted to restore their power 147
Chapter III.
THE ENERGY OF THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT IN FRANCE EXPLAINS THE FAILURE OF
THE FRONDE. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FRONDE AND THE CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH
REBELLION.
Difference between the Fronde and the great English rebellion 148-150
The English rebellion was a war of classes 150-159
But in France the energy of the protective spirit and the power
of the nobles made a war of classes impossible 160-162
Vanity and imbecility of the French nobles 162-170
As such men were the leaders of the Fronde, the rebellion
naturally failed 167-173
But the English rebellion succeeded because it was a democratic
movement headed by popular leaders 174-175
CHAPTER IV.
THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT CARRIED BY LOUIS XIV. INTO LITERATURE. EXAMINATION
OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE INTELLECTUAL CLASSES
AND THE GOVERNING CLASSES.
The protective spirit in France, having produced these
political evils, was carried into literature under Louis XIV.,
and caused an alliance between literature and government 176-177
Servility in the reign of Louis XIV. 177-181
Men of letters grateful to Louis XIV. 182
But his system of protecting literature is injurious 183-188
Its first effect was to stop the progress of science 188-192
Even in mechanical arts nothing was effected 192-194
Decline in physiology, in surgery, and in medicine 194-197
Also in zoology and in chemistry 197
Nor was anything done in botany 198-202
Intellectual decay under Louis XIV. was seen in every
department of thought, and was the natural consequence of
patronage 202-205
Illustrations from the history of French art 205-208
And from every branch of literature 208-210
Universal decline of France during the latter part of the reign
of Louis XIV. 210-212
CHAPTER V.
DEATH OF LOUIS XIV. REACTION AGAINST THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT, AND
PREPARATIONS FOR THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
English literature unknown in France in the reign of Louis XIV. 213-214
But began to be studied after his death, when the most eminent
Frenchmen visited England. This caused a junction of French and
English intellects 215-227
Admiration of England expressed by Frenchmen 228-229
Hence liberal opinions in France, which the government
attempted to stifle 229
Consequent persecution of literary men by the French government 230-242
Violence of the government 242-246
In France literature was the last resource of liberty 246-247
Reasons why literary men at first attacked the church and not
the government 247-253
Hence they were led to assail Christianity 254-258
But until the middle of the reign of Louis XV. the political
institutions of France might have been saved; after that period
all was over 258-259
CHAPTER VI.
STATE OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE IN FRANCE FROM THE END OF THE SIXTEENTH
TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Historical literature in France before the end of the sixteenth
century 261-265
Improvement in the method of writing history late in the
sixteenth century 266-267
Still further progress early in the seventeenth century 268-270
Which became more marked in Mezeray's history in 1643 271-272
Retrograde movement under Louis XIV. 273-279
Illustration of this from the work of Audigier 279-282
And from that of Bossuet 282-291
Immense improvements introduced by Voltaire 292-313
His History of Charles XII. 292-295
His Age of Louis XIV. 296-297
His Morals, Manners, and Character of Nations 297-298
His views adopted by Mallet, Mably, Velly, Villaret, Duclos,
and Hénault 299-300
His habit of looking at epochs 301
A remark of his adopted by Constant 302
He advocated free trade 304
His anticipation of Malthus 304-305
His attack on the Middle Ages 305-306
And on the pedantic admirers of antiquity 306-308
He weakened the authority of mere scholars and theologians 308-309
Who had repeated the most childish absurdities respecting the
early history of Rome 309-310
In attacking which Voltaire anticipated Niebuhr 310-313
Ignorant prejudice against him in England 313
His vast labours were aided by Montesquieu 314
The works of Montesquieu, and value of his method 314-319
The discourses of Turgot, and their influence 320-321
All this hastened the advance of the French Revolution 321-322
CHAPTER VII.
PROXIMATE CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AFTER THE MIDDLE OF THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Recapitulation of preceding views 323
Difference between certainty and precision 324-326
The intellect of France began to attack the state about 1750 326-327
Rise of the political economists 327-330
Influence of Rousseau 330-331
Just at the same time the government began to attack the church 332-334
And to favour religious toleration 334-336
Abolition of the Jesuits 336-346
Calvinism is democratic; Arminianism is aristocratic 339-342
Jansenism being allied to Calvinism, its revival in France
aided the democratic movement, and secured the overthrow of
the Jesuits, whose doctrines are Arminian 343-345
After the fall of the Jesuits the ruin of the French clergy was
inevitable 347-348
But was averted for a time by the most eminent Frenchmen
directing their hostility against the state rather than against
the church 349-351
Connexion between this movement and the rise of atheism 351-353
Same tendency exhibited in Helvétius 353-357
And in Condillac 357-360
The ablest Frenchmen concentrate their attention on the
external world 360-361
Effects of this on the sciences of heat, light, and electricit 361-363
Also on chemistry and geology 364-373
In England during the same period there was a dearth of great
thinkers 374-375
But in France immense impetus was given to zoology by Cuvier
and Bichat 375-376
Bichat's views respecting the tissues 377-421
Connexion between these views and subsequent discoveries 383-386
Relation between inventions, discoveries, and method; and
immense importance of Bichat's method 386-389
Bichat's work on life 390-395
Great and successful efforts made by the French in Botany 395-399
And in mineralogy by De Lisle and Haüy 399-403
Analogy between this and Pinel's work on insanity 403-404
All these vast results were part of the causes of the French
Revolution 405
Physical science is essentially democratic 406-410
The same democratic tendency was observable in changes of dress 410-412
And in the establishment of clubs 412-415
Influence of the American Rebellion 415-418
Summary of the causes of the French Revolution 418-420
General reflections 420-424
CHAPTER VIII.
OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF THE SPANISH INTELLECT FROM THE FIFTH TO THE
MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
In the preceding Chapters four propositions have been
established 425-426
The truth of which may be further verified by studying the
history of Spain 426
In Spain, superstition is encouraged by physical phenomena 426-434
It was also encouraged by the great Arian war with France 434-439
And, subsequently, by the war with the Mohammedans 439-444
These three causes influenced the policy of Ferdinand and
Isabella 444-446
Continuation of the same policy by Charles V. and by Philip II. 446-453
Philip II., notwithstanding his repulsive qualities, was loved
by the nation 453-455
Their affection for him was the result of general causes,
which, during several centuries, have made the Spaniards the
most loyal people in Europe 455
Origin of Spanish loyalty, and evidence of it 455-461
Loyalty became united with superstition, and each strengthened
the other 461-462
In consequence of this union, great foreign conquests were
made, and a great military spirit was developed 461-465
But this sort of progress, depending too much upon individuals,
is necessarily unstable 465-466
The progress of England, on the other hand, depends upon the
ability of the nation, and therefore, continues, whether
individual rulers are skilful, or whether they are unskilful 466-467
In Spain, the ruling classes were supreme; the people counted
for nothing; and hence the grandeur of the country, which was
raised up by the able princes of the sixteenth century, was as
quickly pulled down by the weak princes of the seventeenth 467-472
The decay of Spain, in the seventeenth century, was connected
with the increasing influence of the clergy 472-483
The first use which the clergy made of their power was to expel
all the Moors 483-496
Effect of this expulsion in impoverishing Spain 497-499
Decline of manufactures, and of population, and increase of
poverty 499-511
In 1700, when affairs were at their worst, the Austrian dynasty
was succeeded by the Bourbon 513-514
Spain was now ruled by foreigners 514-520
Who endeavoured to improve the country by weakening the church 521-525
But the authority of the church had so enfeebled the national
intellect, that the people, immersed in ignorance, remained
inert 525-543
Government attempted to remedy this ignorance by calling in
foreign aid 534-545
The influence of foreigners in Spain was displayed in the
expulsion of the Jesuits, in 1767 545-546
And in the attacks made on the Inquisition 547-548
It was also displayed in the foreign policy of Spain 548-550
All this was promoted by the authority and high character of
Charles III. 552-554
But it was of no avail; because politicians can do nothing,
when the spirit of the country is against them 534-555
Still, Charles III. effected great improvements, from which, on
a superficial view, permanent benefit might have been expected 555-568
Summary of what was accomplished for Spain, by the government,
between the years 1700 and 1788 568-570
Inasmuch, however, as these ameliorations were opposed to the
habits of the national character, a reaction was inevitable 570-571
In 1788, Charles III. was succeeded by Charles IV., and the new
king, being a true Spaniard, the reaction began 571-573
In the nineteenth century, political reformers again
endeavoured to improve Spain 574
For the reasons already stated, their efforts were fruitless,
notwithstanding the early establishment in that country of
municipal privileges, and of popular representation 575-576
In this way, general causes always triumph over particular
actions 577-578
Those general causes predetermined the country to superstition,
and it was impossible for individuals to make head against them 578-583
Nothing can weaken superstition but knowledge 583
Such failures are the more observable, because Spain enjoys
immense natural advantages 583-585
And has possessed great patriots and great legislators 585
The Spaniards have, moreover, long been celebrated for honour,
courage, temperance, humanity, and religious sincerity 585-588
So far, however, as national progress is concerned, these noble
qualities are useless, while ignorance is so gross and so
general 588-592
This it is, which, isolating Spain from the rest of the
civilized world, keeps alive that spirit of superstition, that
reverence for antiquity, and that blind and servile loyalty,
which, as long as they last, will render improvement
impossible; and which must last until ignorance is removed 592-597
HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.
CHAPTER I.
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH INTELLECT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF LOUIS XIV.
The consideration of these great changes in the English mind, has led me
into a digression, which, so far from being foreign to the design of
this Introduction, is absolutely necessary for a right understanding of
it. In this, as in many other respects, there is a marked analogy
between investigations concerning the structure of society and
investigations concerning the human body. Thus, it has been found, that
the best way of arriving at a theory of disease is by beginning with the
theory of health; and that the foundation of all sound pathology must be
first sought in an observation, not of the abnormal, but of the normal
functions of life. Just in the same way, it will, I believe, be found,
that the best method of arriving at great social truths, is by first
investigating those cases in which society has developed itself
according to its own laws, and in which the governing powers have least
opposed themselves to the spirit of their times.[1] It is on this
account that, in order to understand the position of France, I have
begun by examining the position of England. In order to understand the
way in which the diseases of the first country were aggravated by the
quackery of ignorant rulers, it was necessary to understand the way in
which the health of the second country was preserved by being subjected
to smaller interference, and allowed with greater liberty to continue
its natural march. With the light, therefore, which we have acquired by
a study of the normal condition of the English mind, we can, with the
greater ease, now apply our principles to that abnormal condition of
French society, by the operations of which, at the close of the
eighteenth century, some of the dearest interests of civilization were
imperilled.
[1] The question as to whether the study of normal phenomena should or
should not precede the study of abnormal ones, is of the greatest
importance; and a neglect of it has introduced confusion into every
work I have seen on general or comparative history. For this
preliminary being unsettled, there has been no recognized principle
of arrangement; and historians, instead of following a scientific
method suited to the actual exigencies of our knowledge, have
adopted an empirical method suited to their own exigencies; and
have given priority to different countries, sometimes according to
their size, sometimes according to their antiquity, sometimes
according to their geographical position, sometimes according to
their wealth, sometimes according to their religion, sometimes
according to the brilliancy of their literature, and sometimes
according to the facilities which the historian himself possessed
for collecting materials. All these are factitious considerations;
and, in a philosophic view, it is evident that precedence should be
given to countries by the historian solely in reference to the ease
with which their history can be generalized; following in this
respect the scientific plan of proceeding from the simple to the
complex. This leads us to the conclusion that, in the study of Man,
as in the study of Nature, the question of priority resolves itself
into a question of aberration; and that the more aberrant any
people have been, that is to say, the more they have been
interfered with, the lower they must be placed in an arrangement of
the history of various countries. Coleridge (_Lit. Remains_, vol.
i. p. 326, and elsewhere in his works) seems to suppose that the
order should be the reverse of what I have stated, and that the
laws both of mind and body can be generalized from pathological
data. Without wishing to express myself too positively in
opposition to so profound a thinker as Coleridge, I cannot help
saying that this is contradicted by an immense amount of evidence,
and, so far as I am aware, is supported by none. It is contradicted
by the fact, that those branches of inquiry which deal with
phenomena little affected by foreign causes, have been raised to
sciences sooner than those which deal with phenomena greatly
affected by foreign causes. The organic world, for example, is more
perturbed by the inorganic world, than the inorganic world is
perturbed by it. Hence we find that the inorganic sciences have
always been cultivated before the organic ones, and at the present
moment are far more advanced than they. In the same way, human
physiology is older than human pathology; and while the physiology
of the vegetable kingdom has been successfully prosecuted since the
latter half of the seventeenth century, the pathology of the
vegetable kingdom can scarcely be said to exist, since none of its
laws have been generalized, and no systematic researches, on a
large scale, have yet been made into the morbid anatomy of plants.
It appears, therefore, that different ages and different sciences
bear unconscious testimony to the uselessness of paying much
attention to the abnormal, until considerable progress has been
made in the study of the normal; and this conclusion might be
confirmed by innumerable authorities, who, differing from
Coleridge, hold that physiology is the basis of pathology, and that
the laws of disease are to be raised, not from the phenomena
presented in disease, but from those presented in health; in other
words, that pathology should be investigated deductively rather
than inductively, and that morbid anatomy and clinical observations
may verify the conclusions of science, but can never supply the
means of creating the science itself. On this extremely interesting
question, compare _Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire_, _Hist. des Anomalies de
l'Organisation_, vol. ii. pp. 9, 10, 127; _Bowman's Surgery_, in
_Encyclop. of the Medical Sciences_, p. 824; _Bichat_, _Anatomie
Générale_, vol. i. p. 20; _Cullen's Works_, vol. i. p. 424;
_Comte_, _Philos. Positive_, vol. iii. pp. 334, 335; _Robin et
Verdeil_, _Chimie Anatomique_, vol. i. p. 68; _Esquirol_, _Maladies
Mentales_, vol. i. p. 111; _Georget_, _de la Folie_, pp. 2, 391,
392; _Brodie's Pathology and Surgery_, p. 3; _Blainville_,
_Physiologie comparée_, vol. i. p. 20; _Feuchtersleben's Medical
Psychology_, p. 200; _Lawrence's Lectures on Man_, 1844, p. 45;
_Simon's Pathology_, p. 5.
Another confirmation of the accuracy of this view is, that
pathological investigations of the nervous system, numerous as they
have been, have effected scarcely anything; the reason evidently
being, that the preliminary knowledge of the normal state is not
sufficiently advanced. See _Noble on the Brain_, pp. 76-92, 337,
338; _Henry on the Nervous System_, in _Third Report of Brit.
Assoc._ p. 78; _Holland's Medical Notes_, p. 608; _Jones and
Sieveking's Patholog. Anat._ p. 211.
In France, a long train of events, which I shall hereafter relate, had,
from an early period, given to the clergy a share of power larger than
that which they possessed in England. The results of this were for a
time decidedly beneficial, inasmuch as the church restrained the
lawlessness of a barbarous age, and secured a refuge for the weak and
oppressed. But as the French advanced in knowledge, the spiritual
authority, which had done so much to curb their passions, began to press
heavily upon their genius, and impede its movements. That same
ecclesiastical power, which to an ignorant age is an unmixed benefit, is
to a more enlightened age a serious evil. The proof of this was soon
apparent. For when the Reformation broke out, the church had in England
been so weakened, that it fell almost at the first assault; its revenues
were seized by the crown,[2] and its offices, after being greatly
diminished both in authority and in wealth, were bestowed upon new men,
who, from the uncertainty of their tenure, and the novelty of their
doctrines, lacked that long-established prescription by which the claims
of the profession are mainly supported. This, as we have already seen,
was the beginning of an uninterrupted progress, in which, at every
successive step, the ecclesiastical spirit lost some of its influence.
In France, on the other hand, the clergy were so powerful, that they
were able to withstand the Reformation, and thus preserve for themselves
those exclusive privileges which their English brethren vainly attempted
to retain.
[2] A circumstance which Harris relates with evident delight, and goes
out of his way to mention it. _Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. iii. p.
300. On the amount of loss the church thus sustained, see
_Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. i. pp. 181-184, and
_Eccleston's English Antiquities_, p. 228.
This was the beginning of that second marked divergence between French
and English civilization,[3] which had its origin, indeed, at a much
earlier period, but which now first produced conspicuous results. Both
countries had, in their infancy, been greatly benefited by the church,
which always showed itself ready to protect the people against the
oppressions of the crown and the nobles.[4] But in both countries, as
society advanced, there arose a capacity for self-protection; and early
in the sixteenth, or probably even in the fifteenth century, it became
urgently necessary to diminish that spiritual authority, which, by
prejudging the opinions of men, has impeded the march of their
knowledge.[5] It is on this account that Protestantism, so far from
being, as its enemies have called it, an aberration arising from
accidental causes, was essentially a normal movement, and was the
legitimate expression of the wants of the European intellect. Indeed,
the Reformation owed its success, not to a desire of purifying the
church, but to a desire of lightening its pressure; and it may be
broadly stated, that it was adopted in every civilized country, except
in those where preceding events had increased the influence of the
ecclesiastical order, either among the people or among their rulers.
This was, unhappily, the case with France, where the clergy not only
triumphed over the Protestants, but appeared, for a time, to have gained
fresh authority by the defeat of such dangerous enemies.[6]
[3] The first divergence arose from the influence of the protective
spirit, as I shall endeavour to explain in the next chapter.
[4] On the obligations Europe is under to the Catholic clergy, see some
liberal and very just remarks in _Kemble's Saxons in England_, vol.
ii. pp. 374, 375; and in _Guizot's Civilisation en France_. See
also _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. iii. pp. 199-206,
255-257, vol. v. p. 138, vol. vi. pp. 406, 407; _Palgrave's
Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth_, vol. i. p. 655; _Lingard's Hist. of
England_, vol. ii. p. 44; _Klimrath_, _Travaux sur l'Hist. du
droit_, vol. i. p. 394; _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of
England_, vol. i. p. 157.
[5] The way in which this acted is concisely stated by Tennemann: 'Wenn
sich nun auch ein freierer Geist der Forschung regte, so fand er
sich gleich durch zwei Grundsätze, welche aus jenem Supremat der
Theologie flossen, beengt und gehemmt. Der erste war: die
menschliche Vernunft kann nicht über die Offenbarung
hinausgehen.... Der zweite: die Vernunft kann nichts als wahr
erkennen, was dem Inhalte der Offenbarung widerspricht, und nichts
für falsch erkennen, was derselben angemessen ist,--folgte aus dem
ersten.' _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. viii. part i. p. 8.
[6] As to the influence of the Reformation generally, in increasing the
power of the Catholic clergy, see M. Ranke's important work on the
_History of the Popes_; and as to the result in France, see
_Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. v. pp. 233-235. Corero,
who was ambassador in France in 1569, writes, 'Il papa può dire a
mio giudizio, d'aver in questi romori piuttosto guadagnato che
perduto, perciochè tanta era la licenza del vivere, secondo che ho
inteso, prima che quel regno si dividesse in due parti, era tanta
poca la devozione che avevano in Roma e in quei che vi abitavano,
che il papa era più considerato come principe grande in Italia, che
come capo della chiesa e pastore universale. Ma scoperti che si
furono gli ugonotti, cominciarono i cattolici a riverire il suo
nome, e riconoscerlo per vero vicario di Cristo, confirmandosi
tanto più in opinione di doverlo tener per tale, quanto più lo
sentivano sprezzare e negare da essi ugonotti.' _Relations des
Ambassadeurs Vénitiens_, vol. ii. p. 162. This interesting passage
is one of many proofs that the immediate advantages derived from
the Reformation have been overrated; though the remote advantages
were undoubtedly immense.
The consequence of all this was, that in France, every thing assumed a
more theological aspect than in England. In our country, the
ecclesiastical spirit had, by the middle of the sixteenth century,
become so feeble, that even intelligent foreigners were struck by the
peculiarity.[7] The same nation, which, during the Crusades, had
sacrificed innumerable lives in the hope of planting the Christian
standard in the heart of Asia,[8] was now almost indifferent to the
religion even of its own sovereign. Henry VIII., by his sole will,
regulated the national creed, and fixed the formularies of the church,
which, if the people had been in earnest, he could not possibly have
done; for he had no means of compelling submission; he had no standing
army; and even his personal guards were so scanty, that at any moment
they could have been destroyed by a rising of the warlike apprentices of
London.[9] After his death, there came Edward, who, as a Protestant
king, undid the work of his father; and, a few years later, there came
Mary, who, as a Popish queen, undid the work of her brother; while she,
in her turn, was succeeded by Elizabeth, under whom another great
alteration was effected in the established faith.[10] Such was the
indifference of the people, that these vast changes were accompanied
without any serious risk.[11] In France, on the other hand, at the mere
name of religion, thousands of men were ready for the field. In England,
our civil wars have all been secular; they have been waged, either for a
change of dynasty, or for an increase of liberty. But those far more
horrible wars, by which, in the sixteenth century, France was desolated,
were conducted in the name of Christianity, and even the political
struggles of the great families were merged in a deadly contest between
Catholics and Protestants.[12]
[7] The indifference of the English to theological disputes, and the
facility with which they changed their religion, caused many
foreigners to censure their fickleness. See, for instance, _Essais
de Montaigne_, livre ii. chap. xii. p. 365. Perlin, who travelled
in England in the middle of the sixteenth century, says, 'The
people are reprobates, and thorough enemies to good manners and
letters; for they don't know whether they belong to God or the
devil, which St. Paul has reprehended in many people, saying, Be
not transported with divers sorts of winds, but be constant and
steady to your belief.' _Antiquarian Repertory_, vol. iv. p. 511,
4to, 1809. See also the remarks of Michele in 1557, and of Crespet
in 1590; _Ellis's Original Letters_, 2nd series, vol. ii. p. 239;
_Hallam's Constitutional History_, vol. i. p. 102; _Southey's
Commonplace Book_, 3rd series, p. 408.
[8] An historian of the thirteenth century strikingly expresses the
theological feelings of the English crusaders, and the complete
subordination of the political ones: 'Indignum quippe judicabant
animarum suarum salutem omittere, et obsequium c[oe]lestis Regis,
clientelæ regis alicujus terreni postponere; constituerunt igitur
terminum, videlicet festum nativitatis beati Johannis Baptistæ.'
_Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 671. It is said, that the first
tax ever imposed in England on personal property was in 1166, and
was for the purpose of crusading. _Sinclair's Hist. of the
Revenue_, vol. i. p. 88: 'It would not probably have been easily
submitted to, had it not been appropriated for so popular a
purpose.'
[9] Henry VIII. had, at one time, fifty horse-guards, but they being
expensive, were soon given up; and his only protection consisted of
'the yeomen of the guard, fifty in number, and the common servants
of the king's household.' _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 46.
These 'yeomen of the guard were raised by Henry VII. in 1485.'
_Grose's Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 167. Compare _Turner's
Hist. of England_, vol. vii. p. 54; and _Lingard's Hist. of
England_, vol. iii. p. 298.
[10] Locke, in his first Letter on Toleration, has made some pungent,
and, I should suppose, very offensive, observations on these rapid
changes. _Locke's Works_, vol. v. p. 27.
[11] But, although Mary easily effected a change of religion, the
anti-ecclesiastical spirit was far too strong to allow her to
restore to the church its property. 'In Mary's reign, accordingly,
her parliament, so obsequious in all matters of religion, adhered
with a firm grasp to the possession of church-lands.' _Hallam's
Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 77. See also _Short's Hist. of the Church
of England_, p. 213; _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp.
339, 340; _Butler's Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. i. p. 253; and
_Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. i. p. 346.
[12] 'Quand éclata la guerre des opinions religieuses, les antiques
rivalités des barons se transformèrent en haîne du prêche ou de la
messe.' _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme et de la Ligue_, vol.
iv. p. 32. Compare _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._, vol.
ii. pp. 422, 563; and _Boullier_, _Maison Militaire des Rois de
France_, p. 25, 'des querelles d'autant plus vives, qu'elles
avoient la religion pour base.'
The effect this difference produced on the intellect of the two
countries is very obvious. The English, concentrating their abilities
upon great secular matters, had, by the close of the sixteenth century,
produced a literature which never can perish. But the French, down to
that period, had not put forth a single work, the destruction of which
would now be a loss to Europe. What makes this contrast the more
remarkable is, that in France the civilization, such as it was, had a
longer standing; the material resources of the country had been earlier
developed; its geographical position made it the centre of European
thought;[13] and it had possessed a literature at a time when our
ancestors were a mere tribe of wild and ignorant barbarians.
[13] The intellectual advantages of France, arising from its position
between Italy, Germany, and England, are very fairly stated by M.
Lerminier (_Philosophie du Droit_, vol. i. p. 9).
The simple fact is, that this is one of those innumerable instances
which teach us that no country can rise to eminence so long as the
ecclesiastical power possesses much authority. For, the predominance of
the spiritual classes is necessarily accompanied by a corresponding
predominance of the topics in which those classes delight. Whenever the
ecclesiastical profession is very influential, ecclesiastical literature
will be very abundant, and what is called profane literature will be
very scanty. Hence it occurred, that the minds of the French, being
almost entirely occupied with religious disputes, had no leisure for
those great inquiries into which we in England were beginning to
enter;[14] and there was, as we shall presently see, an interval of a
whole generation between the progress of the French and English
intellects, simply because there was about the same interval between the
progress of their scepticism. The theological literature, indeed,
rapidly increased;[15] but it was not until the seventeenth century that
France produced that great secular literature, the counterpart of which
was to be found in England before the sixteenth century had come to a
close.
[14] Just in the same way, the religious disputes in Alexandria injured
the interests of knowledge. See the instructive remarks of M.
Matter (_Hist. de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie_, vol. ii. p. 131).
[15] _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. vi. p. 136. Indeed, the
theological spirit seized the theatre, and the different
sectarians ridiculed each other's principles on the stage. See a
curious passage at p. 182 of the same learned work.
Such was, in France, the natural consequence of the power of the church
being prolonged beyond the period which the exigencies of society
required. But while this was the intellectual result, the moral and
physical results were still more serious. While the minds of men were
thus heated by religious strife, it would have been idle to expect any
of those maxims of charity to which theological faction is always a
stranger. While the Protestants were murdering the Catholics,[16] and
the Catholics murdering the Protestants, it was hardly likely that
either sect should feel tolerance for the opinions of its enemy.[17]
During the sixteenth century, treaties were occasionally made between
the two parties; but they were only made to be immediately broken;[18]
and, with the single exception of l'Hôpital, the bare idea of toleration
does not seem to have entered the head of any statesman of the age. It
was recommended by him;[19] but neither his splendid abilities, nor his
unblemished integrity, could make head against the prevailing
prejudices, and he eventually retired into private life without
effecting any of his noble schemes.[20]
[16] The crimes of the French Protestants, though hardly noticed in
_Felice's History of the Protestants of France_, pp. 138-143, were
as revolting as those of the Catholics, and quite as numerous
relatively to the numbers and power of the two parties. Compare
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 516, 517, with
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. ii. p. 173, vol. vi. p.
54; and _Smedley_, _Hist. of the Reformed Religion in France_,
vol. i. pp. 199, 200, 237.
[17] In 1569 Corero writes: 'Ritrovai quel regno, certo, posto in
grandissima confusione; perchè, stante quella divisione di
religione (convertita quasi in due fazioni e inimicizie
particolari), era causa ch' ognuno, senza che amicizia o parentela
potesse aver luoco, stava con l'orecchie attente; e pieno
disospetto ascoltava da che parte nasceva qualche romore,' _Relat.
des Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. ii. p. 106. He emphatically adds,
'Temevano gl' ugonotti, temevano li cattolici, tenieva il
prencipe, temevano li sudditi.' See also, on this horrible state
of opinions, _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 21,
22, 118-120, 296, 430. On both sides, the grossest calumnies were
propagated and believed; and one of the charges brought against
Catherine de Medici was, that she caused the Cesarean operation to
be performed on the wives of Protestants, in order that no new
heretics might be born. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol.
vii. p. 294.
[18] _Mably_, _Observations sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. iii. p. 149. In
the reign of Charles IX. alone, there were no less than five of
these religious wars, each of which was concluded by a treaty. See
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie Française_, vol. ii. p. 69.
[19] For which l'Hôpital was accused of atheism: 'Homo doctus, sed verus
atheus.' _Dict. Philos._ article _Athéisme_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. xxxvii. pp. 181, 182.
[20] I have not been able to meet with any good life of this great man:
that by Charles Butler is very superficial, and so is that by
Bernardi, in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxiv. pp. 412-424. My own
information respecting l'Hôpital is from _Sismondi_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 431-436; _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la
Réforme_, vol. ii. pp. 135-137, 168-170; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._
vol. iii. pp. 519-523, vol. iv. pp. 2-8, 152-159, vol. v. pp.
180-182, 520, 521, 535, vol. vi. pp. 703, 704; _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. i. p. 234. Duvernet (_Hist. de la
Sorbonne_, vol. i. pp. 215-218) is unsatisfactory, though fully
recognizing his merit.
Indeed, in the leading events of this period of French history, the
predominance of the theological spirit was painfully shown. It was shown
in the universal determination to subordinate political acts to
religious opinions.[21] It was shown in the conspiracy of Amboise, and
in the conference of Poissy; and still more was it shown in those
revolting crimes so natural to superstition, the massacres of Vassy and
of St. Bartholomew, the murder of Guise by Poltrot, and of Henry III. by
Clement. These were the legitimate results of the spirit of religious
bigotry. They were the results of that accursed spirit, which, whenever
it has had the power, has punished even to the death those who dared to
differ from it; and which, now that the power has passed away, still
continues to dogmatize on the most mysterious subjects, tamper with the
most sacred principles of the human heart, and darken with its miserable
superstitions those sublime questions that no one should rudely touch,
because they are for each according to the measure of his own soul,
because they lie in that unknown tract which separates the Finite from
the Infinite, and because they are as a secret and individual covenant
between Man and his God.
[21] 'Ce fut alors que la nation ne prit conseil que de son fanatisme.
Les esprits, de jour en jour plus échauffés, ne virent plus
d'autre objet que celui de la religion, et par piété se firent les
injures les plus atroces.' _Mably_, _Observations sur l'Hist. de
France_, vol. iii. p. 145.
How long these sad days[22] would, in the ordinary course of affairs,
have been prolonged in France, is a question which we now perhaps have
no means of answering; though there is no doubt that the progress even
of empirical knowledge must, according to the process already pointed
out, have eventually sufficed to rescue so great a country from her
degraded position. Fortunately, however, there now took place what we
must be content to call an accident, but which was the beginning of a
most important change. In the year 1589, Henry IV. ascended the throne
of France. This great prince, who was far superior to any of the French
sovereigns of the sixteenth century,[23] made small account of those
theological disputes which his predecessors had thought to be of
paramount importance. Before him, the kings of France, animated by the
piety natural to the guardians of the church, had exerted all their
authority to uphold the interests of the sacred profession. Francis I.
said, that if his right hand were a heretic, he would cut it off.[24]
Henry II., whose zeal was still greater,[25] ordered the judges to
proceed against the Protestants, and publicly declared that he would
'make the extirpation of the heretics his principal business.'[26]
Charles IX., on the celebrated day of St. Bartholomew, attempted to
relieve the church by destroying them at a single blow. Henry III.
promised to 'oppose heresy even at the risk of his life;' for he said,
'he could not find a prouder grave than amidst the ruins of heresy.'[27]
[22] The 19th and 20th volumes of _Sismondi's Histoire des Français_
contain painful evidence of the internal condition of France
before the accession of Henry IV. Indeed, as Sismondi says (vol.
xx. pp. 11-16), it seemed at one time as if the only prospect was
a relapse into feudalism. See also _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers
Etats_, vol. v. pp. 242-249: 'plus de trois cent mille maisons
détruites.' De Thou, in the memoirs of his own life, says, 'Les
loix furent méprisées, et l'honneur de la France fut presque
anéanti ... et sous le voile de la religion, on ne respiroit que
la haîne, la vengeance, le massacre et l'incendie,' _Mém. de la
Vie_, in _Histoire Univ._ vol. i. p. 120; and the same writer, in
his great history, gives almost innumerable instances of the
crimes and persecutions constantly occurring. See, for some of the
most striking cases, vol. ii. p. 383, vol. iv. pp. 378, 380, 387,
495, 496, 539, vol. v. pp. 189, 518, 561, 647, vol. vi. pp. 421,
422, 424, 426, 427, 430, 469. Compare _Duplessis_, _Mém. et
Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 41, 42, 322, 335, 611, 612, vol. iii.
pp. 344, 445, vol. iv. pp. 112-114; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. i. pp. 307, 308; _Duvernet_, _Hist. de la Sorbonne_,
vol. i. p. 217.
[23] This, indeed, is not saying much; and far higher praise might be
justly bestowed. As to his domestic policy, there can be only one
opinion; and M. Flassan speaks in the most favourable terms of his
management of foreign affairs. _Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie
Franç._ vol. ii. pp. 191, 192, 294-297, vol. iii. p. 243. And see,
to the same effect, the testimony of M. Capefigue, an unfriendly
judge. _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vii. p. xiv. vol. viii. p. 156.
Fontenay Mareuil, who was a contemporary of Henry IV., though he
wrote many years after the king was murdered, says, 'Ce grand roy,
qui estoit en plus de considération dans le monde que pas un de
ses prédécesseurs n'avoit esté depuis Charlesmagne.' _Mém. de
Fontenay_, vol. i. p. 46. Duplessis Mornay calls him 'le plus
grand roy que la chrestienté ait porté depuis cinq cens ans;' and
Sully pronounces him to be 'le plus grand de nos rois.' _Duplessis
Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. xi. pp. 30, 77, 131; _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. vii. p. 15. Compare vol. vi. pp. 397,
398, vol. ix. pp. 35, 242, with some sensible remarks in _Mém. de
Genlis_, Paris, 1825, vol. ix. p. 299.
[24] So it is generally related: but there is a slightly different
version of this orthodox declaration in _Smedley's Hist. of the
Reformation in France_, vol. i. p. 30. Compare _Maclaine's note_
in _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 24, with _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xvi. pp. 453, 454, and _Relat. des
Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. i. p. 50, vol. ii. p. 48. It was also
Francis I. who advised Charles V. to expel all the Mohammedans
from Spain, _Llorente_, _Hist. de l'Inquisition_, vol. i. p. 429.
[25] The historian of the French Protestants says, in 1548, 'le nouveau
roi Henry II. fut encore plus rigoureux que son père.' _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. p. 12.
[26] M. Ranke (_Civil Wars in France_, vol. i. pp. 240, 241) says, that
he issued a circular 'addressed to the parliaments and to the
judicial tribunals, in which they were urged to proceed against
the Lutherans with the greatest severity, and the judges informed
that they would be held responsible, should they neglect these
orders; and in which he declared plainly, that as soon as the
peace with Spain was concluded, he was determined to make the
extirpation of the heretics his principal business.' See also, on
Henry II., in connexion with the Protestants, _Mably_, _Observ.
sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. iii. pp. 133, 134; _De Thou_, _Hist.
Univ._ vol. i. pp. 334, 335, 387, vol. ii. p. 640, vol. iii. pp.
365, 366; _Felice's Hist. of the French Protestants_, p. 58.
[27] He said this to the Estates of Blois in 1588. _Ranke's Civil Wars
in France_, vol. ii. p. 202. Compare his edict, in 1585, in
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. iv. pp. 244, 245, and his
speech in vol. v. p. 122; and see _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. i. p. 328; _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Corresp._
vol. i. p. 110; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. i. p. 250, vol.
viii. p. 651, vol. x, pp. 294, 589, 674, 675.
These were the opinions expressed, in the sixteenth century, by the
heads of the oldest monarchy in Europe.[28] But with such feelings, the
powerful intellect of Henry IV. had not the slightest sympathy. To suit
the shifting politics of his age, he had already changed his religion
twice; and he did not hesitate to change it a third time,[29] when he
found that by doing so he could ensure tranquillity to his country. As
he had displayed such indifference about his own creed, he could not
with decency show much bigotry about the creed of his subjects.[30] We
find, accordingly, that he was the author of the first public act of
toleration which any government promulgated in France since Christianity
had been the religion of the country. Only five years after he had
solemnly abjured Protestantism, he published the celebrated Edict of
Nantes,[31] by which, for the first time, a Catholic government granted
to heretics a fair share of civil and religious rights. This was,
unquestionably, the most important event that had yet occurred in the
history of French civilization.[32] If it is considered by itself, it is
merely an evidence of the enlightened principles of the king; but when
we look at its general success, and at the cessation of religious war
which followed it, we cannot fail to perceive that it was part of a vast
movement, in which the people themselves participated. Those who
recognize the truth of the principles I have laboured to establish, will
expect that this great step towards religious liberty was accompanied by
that spirit of scepticism, in the absence of which toleration has
always been unknown. And that this was actually the case, may be easily
proved by an examination of the transitionary state which France began
to enter towards the end of the sixteenth century.
[28] With what zeal these opinions were enforced, appears, besides many
other authorities, from Marino Cavalli, who writes in 1546, 'Li
maestri di Sorbona hanno autorità estrema di castigare li eretici,
il che fanno con il fuoco, brustolandoli vivi a poco a poco.'
_Relat. des Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. i. 262; and see vol. ii.
p. 24.
[29] Indeed, Clement VIII. was afterwards apprehensive of a fourth
apostasy: 'Er meinte noch immer, Heinrich IV. werde zuletzt
vielleicht wieder zum Protestantismus zurückkehren, wie er es
schon einmal gethan.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 246. M.
Ranke, from his great knowledge of Italian manuscripts, has thrown
more light on these transactions than the French historians have
been able to do.
[30] On his conversion, the character of which was as obvious then as it
is now, compare _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. i.
p. 257, with _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ii. p. 126. See
also _Howell's Letters_, book i. p. 42; and a letter from Sir H.
Wotton in 1593, printed in _Reliquiæ Wottonianæ_, p. 711. See also
_Ranke_, _Civil Wars in France_, vol. ii. pp. 257, 355;
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vi. pp. 305, 358.
[31] The edict of Nantes was in 1598; the abjuration in 1593.
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxi. pp. 202, 486. But in
1590 it was intimated to the pope as probable, if not certain,
that Henry would 'in den Schooss der katholischen Kirche
zurückkehren.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 210.
[32] Of this edict, Sismondi says, 'Aucune époque dans l'histoire de
France ne marque mieux peut-être la fin d'un monde ancien, le
commencement d'un monde nouveau.' _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxi.
p. 489.
The writings of Rabelais are often considered to afford the first
instance of religious scepticism in the French language.[33] But, after
a tolerably intimate acquaintance with the works of this remarkable man,
I have found nothing to justify such an opinion. He certainly treats the
clergy with great disrespect, and takes every opportunity of covering
them with ridicule.[34] His attacks, however, are always made upon their
personal vices, and not upon that narrow and intolerant spirit to which
those vices were chiefly to be ascribed. In not a single instance does
he show any thing like consistent scepticism;[35] nor does he appear to
be aware that the disgraceful lives of the French clergy were but the
inevitable consequence of a system, which, corrupt as it was, still
possessed every appearance of strength and vitality. Indeed, the immense
popularity which he enjoyed is, almost of itself, a decisive
consideration; since no one, who is well informed as to the condition of
the French early in the sixteenth century, will believe it possible that
a people, so sunk in superstition, should delight in a writer by whom
superstition is constantly attacked.
But the extension of experience, and the consequent increase of
knowledge, were preparing the way for a great change in the French
intellect. The process, which had just taken place in England, was now
beginning to take place in France; and in both countries the order of
events was precisely the same. The spirit of doubt, hitherto confined to
an occasional solitary thinker, gradually assumed a bolder form: first
it found a vent in the national literature, and then it influenced the
conduct of practical statesmen. That there was, in France, an intimate
connexion between scepticism and toleration, is proved, not only by
those general arguments which make us infer that such connexion must
always exist, but also by the circumstance, that only a few years before
the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes, there appeared the first
systematic sceptic who wrote in the French language. The Essays of
Montaigne were published in 1588,[36] and form an epoch, not only in the
literature, but also in the civilization, of France. Putting aside
personal peculiarities, which have less weight than is commonly
supposed, it will be found that the difference between Rabelais and
Montaigne is a measure of the difference between 1545[37] and 1588, and
that it, in some degree, corresponds with the relation I have indicated
between Jewel and Hooker, and between Hooker and Chillingworth. For, the
law which governs all these relations is the law of a progressive
scepticism. What Rabelais was to the supporters of theology, that was
Montaigne to the theology itself. The writings of Rabelais were only
directed against the clergy; but the writings of Montaigne were directed
against the system of which the clergy were the offspring.[38] Under the
guise of a mere man of the world, expressing natural thoughts in common
language, Montaigne concealed a spirit of lofty and audacious
inquiry.[39] Although he lacked that comprehensiveness which is the
highest form of genius, he possessed other qualities essential to a
great mind. He was very cautious, and yet he was very bold. He was
cautious, since he would not believe strange things because they had
been handed down by his forefathers; and he was bold, since he was
undaunted by the reproaches with which the ignorant, who love to
dogmatize, always cover those whose knowledge makes them ready to
doubt.[40] These peculiarities would, in any age, have made Montaigne a
useful man: in the sixteenth century they made him an important one. At
the same time, his easy and amusing style[41] increased the circulation
of his works, and thus contributed to popularize those opinions which he
ventured to recommend for general adoption.
[33] On Rabelais, as the supposed founder of French scepticism, compare
_Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. ii. p. 306; _Stephen's
Lectures on the History of France_, vol. ii. p. 242; _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xvi. p. 376.
[34] Particularly the monks. See, among numerous other instances, vol.
i. pp. 278, 282, vol. ii. pp. 284, 285, of _[OE]uvres de
Rabelais_, edit. Amsterdam, 1725. However, the high dignitaries of
the church are not spared; for he says that Gargantua 'se morvoit
en archidiacre,' vol. i. p. 132; and on two occasions (vol. iii.
p. 65, vol. iv. pp. 199, 200) he makes a very indecent allusion to
the pope. In vol. i. pp. 260, 261, he satirically notices the way
in which the services of the church were performed: 'Dont luy dist
le moyne: Je ne dors jamais à mon aise, sinon quand je suis au
sermon, ou quand je prie Dieu.'
[35] His joke on the strength of Samson (_[OE]uvres de Rabelais_, vol.
ii. pp. 29, 30), and his ridicule of one of the Mosaic laws (vol.
iii. p. 34), are so unconnected with other parts of his work, as
to have no appearance of belonging to a general scheme. The
commentators, who find a hidden meaning in every author they
annotate, have represented Rabelais as aiming at the highest
objects, and seeking to effect the most extensive social and
religious reforms. This I greatly doubt, at all events I have seen
no proof of it; and I cannot help thinking that Rabelais owes a
large share of his reputation to the obscurity of his language. On
the other side of the question, and in favour of his
comprehensiveness, see a bold passage in _Coleridge's Lit.
Remains_, vol. i. pp. 138, 139.
[36] The two first books in 1580; the third in 1588, with additions to
the first two. See _Niceron_, _Mém. pour servir à l'Hist. des
Hommes illustres_, vol. xvi. p. 210, Paris, 1731.
[37] The first impression of the Pantagruel of Rabelais has no date on
the title-page; but it is known that the third book was printed in
1545, and the fourth book in 1546. See _Brunet_, _Manuel du
Libraire_, vol. iv. pp. 4-6, Paris, 1843. The statement in _Biog.
Univ._ vol. xxxvi. pp. 482, 483, is rather confused.
[38] Mr. Hallam (_Lit. of Europe_, vol. ii. p. 29) says, that his
scepticism 'is not displayed in religion.' But if we use the word
'religion' in its ordinary sense, as connected with dogma, it is
evident, from Montaigne's language, that he was a sceptic, and an
unflinching one too. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that all
religious opinions are the result of custom: 'Comme de vray nous
n'avons aultre mire de la vérité et de la raison, que l'exemple et
idée des opinions et usances du païs où nous sommes: _là est
tousiours la parfaicte religion_, la parfaicte police, parfaict et
accomply usage de toutes choses.' _Essais de Montaigne_, p. 121,
livre i. chap. xxx. As a natural consequence, he lays down that
religious error is not criminal, p. 53; compare p. 28. See also
how he notices the usurpations of the theological spirit, pp. 116,
508, 528. The fact seems to be, that Montaigne, while recognizing
abstractedly the existence of religious truths, doubted our
capacity for knowing them; that is to say, he doubted if, out of
the immense number of religious opinions, there were any means of
ascertaining which were accurate. His observations on miracles
(pp. 541, 653, 654, 675) illustrate the character of his mind; and
what he says on prophetic visions is quoted and confirmed by
Pinel, in his profound work _Aliénation Mentale_, p. 256. Compare
_Maury_, _Légendes Pieuses_, p. 268 note.
[39] His friend, the celebrated De Thou, calls him 'homme franc, ennemi
de toute contrainte.' _Mémoires_, in _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol.
i. p. 59: see also vol. xi. p. 590. And M. Lamartine classes him
with Montesquieu, as 'ces deux grands républicains de la pensée
française.' _Hist. des Girondins_, vol. i. p. 174.
[40] He says (_Essais_, p. 97), 'Ce n'est pas à l'adventure sans raison
que nous attribuons à simplesse et ignorance la facilité de croire
et de se laisser persuader.' Compare two striking passages, pp.
199 and 685. Nothing of this sort had ever appeared before in the
French language.
[41] Dugald Stewart, whose turn of mind was very different from that of
Montaigne, calls him 'this most amusing author.' _Stewart's
Philos. of the Mind_, vol. i. p. 468. But Rousseau, in every
respect a more competent judge, enthusiastically praises 'la
naïveté, la grâce et l'énergie de son style inimitable.' _Musset
Pathay_, _Vie de Rousseau_, vol. i. p. 185. Compare _Lettres de
Sévigné_, vol. iii. p. 491, edit. Paris, 1843, and _Lettres de
Dudeffand à Walpole_, vol. i. p. 94.
This, then, is the first open declaration of that scepticism, which,
towards the end of the sixteenth century, publicly appeared in
France.[42] During nearly three generations, it continued its course
with a constantly increasing activity, and developed itself in a manner
similar to that which took place in England. It will not be necessary to
follow all the steps of this great process; but I will endeavour to
trace those which, by their prominence, seem to be the most important.
[42] 'Mais celui qui a répandu et popularisé en France le scepticisme,
c'est Montaigne.' _Cousin_, _Hist. de la Philos._, II. série, vol.
ii. pp. 288, 289. 'Die erste Regung des skeptischen Geistes finden
wir in den Versuchen des Michael von Montaigne.' _Tennemann_,
_Gesch. der Philos._ vol. ix. p. 443. On the immense influence of
Montaigne, compare _Tennemann_, vol. ix. p. 458; _Monteil_,
_Divers Etats_, vol. v. pp. 263-265; _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque
Françoise_, pp. 80-91; _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique_,
vol. iv. p. 527.
A few years after the appearance of the Essays of Montaigne, there was
published in France a work, which though now little read, possessed in
the seventeenth century a reputation of the highest order. This was the
celebrated _Treatise on Wisdom_, by Charron, in which we find, for the
first time, an attempt made in a modern language to construct a system
of morals without the aid of theology.[43] What rendered this book, in
some respects, even more formidable than Montaigne's, was the air of
gravity with which it was written. Charron was evidently deeply
impressed with the importance of the task he had undertaken, and he is
honourably distinguished from his contemporaries, by a remarkable purity
both of language and of sentiment. His work is almost the only one of
that age in which nothing can be found to offend the chastest ears.
Although he borrowed from Montaigne innumerable illustrations,[44] he
has carefully omitted those indecencies into which that otherwise
charming writer was often betrayed. Besides this, there is about the
work of Charron a systematic completeness which never fails to attract
attention. In originality, he was, in some respects, inferior to
Montaigne; but he had the advantage of coming after him, and there can
be no doubt that he rose to an elevation which, to Montaigne, would
have been inaccessible. Taking his stand, as it were, on the summit of
knowledge, he boldly attempts to enumerate the elements of wisdom, and
the conditions under which those elements will work. In the scheme which
he thus constructs, he entirely omits theological dogmas;[45] and he
treats with undissembled scorn many of those conclusions which the
people had hitherto universally received. He reminds his countrymen that
their religion is the accidental result of their birth and education,
and that if they had been born in a Mohammedan country, they would have
been as firm believers in Mohammedanism as they then were in
Christianity.[46] From this consideration, he insists on the absurdity
of their troubling themselves about the variety of creeds, seeing that
such variety is the result of circumstances over which they have no
control. Also it is to be observed, that each of these different
religions declares itself to be the true one;[47] and all of them are
equally based upon supernatural pretensions, such as mysteries,
miracles, prophets, and the like.[48] It is because men forget these
things, that they are the slaves of that confidence which is the great
obstacle to all real knowledge, and which can only be removed by taking
such a large and comprehensive view, as will show us how all nations
cling with equal zeal to the tenets in which they have been
educated.[49] And, says Charron, if we look a little deeper, we shall
see that each of the great religions is built upon that which preceded
it. Thus, the religion of the Jews is founded upon that of the
Egyptians; Christianity is the result of Judaism; and, from these two
last, there has naturally sprung Mohammedanism.[50] We, therefore, adds
this great writer, should rise above the pretensions of hostile sects,
and, without being terrified by the fear of future punishment, or
allured by the hope of future happiness, we should be content with such
practical religion as consists in performing the duties of life; and,
uncontrolled by the dogmas of any particular creed, we should strive to
make the soul retire inward upon itself, and by the efforts of its own
contemplation, admire the ineffable grandeur of the Being of beings, the
supreme cause of all created things.[51]
[43] Compare the remarks on Charron in _Tennemann_, _Geschichte der
Philosophie_, vol. ix. p. 527, with two insidious passages in
_Charron_, _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 4, 366.
[44] The obligations of Charron to Montaigne were very considerable, but
are stated too strongly by many writers. _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque
Françoise_, p. 93; and _Hallam's Literature of Europe_, vol. ii.
pp. 362, 509. On the most important subjects, Charron was a bolder
and deeper thinker than Montaigne; though he is now so little
read, that the only tolerably complete account I have seen of his
system is in _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philosophie_, vol. ix. pp.
458-487. Buhle (_Geschichte der neuern Philosophie_, vol. ii. pp.
918-925) and Cousin (_Hist. de la Philos._ II. série, vol. ii. p.
289) are short and unsatisfactory. Even Dr. Parr, who was
extensively read in this sort of literature, appears only to have
known Charron through Bayle (see notes on the Spital Sermon, in
_Parr's Works_, vol. ii. pp. 520, 521); while Dugald Stewart, with
suspicious tautology, quotes, in three different places, the same
passage from Charron. _Stewart's Philosophy of the Mind_, vol. ii.
p. 233, vol. iii. pp. 365, 393. Singularly enough, Talleyrand was
a great admirer of _De la Sagesse_, and presented his favourite
copy of it to Madame de Genlis! See her own account, in _Mém. de
Genlis_, vol. iv. pp. 352, 353.
[45] See his definition, or rather description, of wisdom, in Charron,
_De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 295, vol. ii. pp. 113, 115.
[46] _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 63, 351.
[47] 'Chacune se préfère aux autres, et se confie d'être la meilleure et
plus vraie que les autres, et s'entre-reprochent aussi les unes
aux autres quelque chose, et par-là s'entre-condamnent et
rejettent.' _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 348; see also vol. i. pp.
144, 304, 305, 306, vol. ii. p. 116. Expressions almost identical
are used by M. Charles Compte, _Traité de Législation_, vol. i.
p. 233.
[48] 'Toutes trouvent et fournissent miracles, prodiges, oracles,
mystères sacrés, saints prophètes, fêtes, certains articles de foy
et créance nécessaires au salut.' _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 346.
[49] Hence he opposes proselytism, and takes up the philosophic ground,
that religious opinions, being governed by undeviating laws, owe
their variations to variations in their antecedents, and are
always, if left to themselves, suited to the existing state of
things: 'Et de ces conclusions, nous apprendrons à n'épouser rien,
ne jurer à rien, n'admirer rien, ne se troubler de rien, mais quoi
qu'il advienne, que l'on crie, tempête, se resoudre à ce point,
que c'est le cours du monde, _c'est nature qui fait des siennes_.'
_Dela Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 311.
[50] 'Mais comme elles naissent l'une après l'autre, la plus jeune bâtit
toujours sur son aînée et prochaine précédente, laquelle elle
n'improuve, ni ne condamne de fond en comble, autrement elle ne
seroit pas ouïe, et ne pourroit prendre pied; mais seulement
l'accuse ou d'imperfection, ou de son terme fini, et qu'à cette
occasion elle vient pour lui succéder et la parfaire, et ainsi la
ruine peu-à-peu, et s'enrichit de ses dépouilles, comme la
Judaïque a fait à la Gentille et Egyptienne, la Chrétienne à la
Judaïque, la Mahometane à la Judaïque et Chrétienne ensemble: mais
les vieilles condamnent bien tout-à-fait et entièrement les
jeunes, et les tiennent pour ennemies capables.' _De la Sagesse_,
vol. i. p. 349. This, I believe, is the first instance in any
modern language of the doctrine of religious development; a
doctrine which, since Charron, has been steadily advancing,
particularly among men whose knowledge is extensive enough to
enable them to compare the different religions which have
prevailed at different times. In this, as in other subjects, they
who are unable to compare, suppose that everything is isolated,
simply because to them the continuity is invisible. As to the
Alexandrian doctrine of development, found particularly in Clement
and Origen, see _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. ii. pp.
234-257; and in particular pp. 241, 246.
[51] _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 356, 365; two magnificent passages.
But the whole chapter ought to be read, livre ii. chap. v. In it
there is an occasional ambiguity. Tennemann, however, in the most
important point, understands Charron as I do in regard to the
doctrine of future punishments. _Geschichte der Philosophie_,
vol. ix. p. 473.
Such were the sentiments which, in the year 1601, were for the first
time laid before the French people in their own mother-tongue.[52] The
sceptical and secular spirit, of which they were the representatives,
continued to increase; and, as the seventeenth century advanced, the
decline of fanaticism, so far from being confined to a few isolated
thinkers, gradually became common, even among ordinary politicians.[53]
The clergy, sensible of the danger, wished the government to check the
progress of inquiry;[54] and the pope himself, in a formal remonstrance
with Henry, urged him to remedy the evil, by prosecuting the heretics,
from whom he thought all the mischief had originally proceeded.[55] But
this the king steadily refused. He saw the immense advantages that would
arise, if he could weaken the ecclesiastical power by balancing the two
sects against each other;[56] and therefore, though he was a Catholic,
his policy rather leaned in favour of the Protestants, as being the
weaker party.[57] He granted sums of money towards the support of their
ministers and the repair of their churches;[58] he banished the Jesuits,
who were their most dangerous enemies;[59] and he always had with him
two representatives of the reformed church, whose business it was to
inform him of any infraction of those edicts which he had issued in
favour of their religion.[60]
[52] The first edition of _La Sagesse_ was published at Bourdeaux in
1601. _Niceron_, _Hommes illustres_, vol. xvi. p. 224; _Hallam's
Lit. of Europe_, vol. ii. p. 509; _Biog. Univ._ vol. viii. p. 250.
Two editions were susequently published in Paris, in 1604 and
1607. _Brunet_, _Manuel du Libraire_, vol. i. p. 639.
[53] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. p. 86) and Lavallée
(_Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 84) have noticed the
diminution of religious zeal early in the seventeenth century; and
some curious evidence will also be found in the correspondence of
Duplessis Mornay. See, for instance, a letter he wrote to Diodati,
in 1609: 'A beaucoup aujourd'hui il fault commencer par là, qu'il
y a une religion, premier que de leur dire quelle.' _Duplessis_,
_Mém. et Corresp._ vol. x. p. 415. This middle, or secular party,
received the name of 'Politiques,' and began to be powerful in
1592 or 1593. Benoist (_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. p.
113), under the year 1593, contemptuously says: 'Il s'éleva une
foule de conciliateurs de religion;' see also pp. 201, 273. In
1590, and in 1594, the 'Politiques' are noticed by De Thou (_Hist.
Univ._ vol. xi. p. 171, vol. xii. p. 134); and on the increase, in
1593, of 'le tiers parti politique et négociateur,' see
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vi. p. 235. See also,
respecting 'les politiques,' a letter from the Spanish ambassador
to his own court, in 1615, in _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p.
93; and for the rise in Paris, in 1592, of a 'politisch und
kirchlich gemässigte Gesinnung,' see _Ranke_, _die Päpste_,
vol. ii. p. 243.
[54] The Sorbonne went so far as to condemn Charron's great work, but
could not succeed in having it prohibited. Compare _Duvernet_,
_Hist. de la Sorbonne_, vol. ii. p. 139, with _Bayle_, article
Charron, note F.
[55] In the appendix to Ranke (_Die Römischen Päpste_, vol. iii. pp.
141, 142), there will be found the instructions which were given
to the nuncio, in 1603, when he was sent to the French court; and
which should be compared with a letter, written in 1604, in
_Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. v. p. 122, edit. 1820.
[56] 'Sein Sinn war im Allgemeinen, ohne Zweifel, das Gleichgewicht
zwischen ihnen zu erhalten.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. pp.
430, 431. 'Henri IV, l'expression de l'indifférentisme religieux,
se posa comme une transaction entre ces deux systèmes.'
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vi. p. 358. 'Henry IV.
endeavoured to adjust the balance evenly,' _Smedley's Hist. of the
Reformed Religion in France_, vol. iii. p. 19. See also _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. p. 136. Hence, of course,
neither party was quite satisfied. _Mably's Observations_, vol.
iii. p. 220; _Mezeray_, _Histoire de France_, vol. iii. p. 959.
[57] Compare _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. viii. p. 61, with
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp. 32, 33. See also, on
his inclination towards the Protestants, _Mém. de Fontenay
Mareuil_, vol. i. p. 91. Fontenay, p. 94, mentions, as a singular
instance, that 'il se vist de son temps des huguenots avoir des
abbayes.'
[58] _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. iv. p. 134, vol. vi. p. 233;
_Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Corresp._ vol. xi. p. 242; _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 68, 205. These grants
were annual, and were apportioned by the Protestants themselves.
See their own account, in _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. i.
pp. 198, 222, 246, 247, 249, 275-277.
[59] Henry IV. banished the Jesuits in 1594; but they were allowed,
later in his reign, to make fresh settlements in France.
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie_, vol. vi. p. 485; _Bazin_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 106; _Monteil_, _Divers Etats_,
vol. v. p. 192 note; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 298.
Compare the notices of them in _Sully_, _[OE]conomies_, vol. ii.
p. 234, vol. iv. pp. 200, 235, 245. But there can be little doubt
that they owed their recall to the dread entertained of their
intrigues (_Grégoire_, _Hist. des Confesseurs_, p. 316); and Henry
evidently disliked as well as feared them. See two letters from
him in _Duplessis_, _Mém. et Corresp._ vol. vi. pp. 129, 151. It
would appear, from the _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. v. p. 350, Paris,
1823, that the king never restored to them their former authority
in regard to education.
[60] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp. 142, 143; _Le Vassor_,
vol. i. p. 156; _Sismondi_, vol. xxii. p. 116; _Duplessis Mornay_,
vol. i. p. 389; _Sully_, _[OE]conomies_, vol. vii. pp. 105, 432,
442.
Thus it was, that in France, as well as in England, toleration was
preceded by scepticism; and thus it was, that out of this scepticism
there arose the humane and enlightened measures of Henry IV. The great
prince, by whom these things were effected, unhappily fell a victim to
that fanatical spirit which he had done much to curb;[61] but the
circumstances which occurred after his death, showed how great an
impetus had been given to the age.
[61] When Ravaillac was examined, he said, 'qu'il y avait été excité par
l'intérêt de la religion, et par une impulsion irrésistible.'
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 38. This work contains
the fullest account I have met with of Ravaillac; of whom there
is, moreover, a description in _Les Historiettes de Tallemant des
Réaux_, vol. i. p. 85, Paris, 1840, a very curious book.
On the murder of Henry IV., in 1610, the government fell into the hands
of the queen, who administered it during the minority of her son, Louis
XIII. And it is a remarkable evidence of the direction which the mind
was now taking, that she, though a weak and bigoted woman,[62] refrained
from those persecutions which, only one generation before, had been
considered a necessary proof of religious sincerity. That, indeed, must
have been a movement of no common energy, which could force toleration,
early in the seventeenth century, upon a princess of the house of
Medici, an ignorant and superstitious Catholic, who had been educated
in the midst of her priests, and had been accustomed to look for their
applause as the highest object of earthly ambition.
[62] Le Vassor (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 279) calls her
'superstitieuse au dernier point;' and, in vol. v. p. 481, 'femme
crédule et superstitieuse.' See also vol. iii. p. 250, vol. vi. p.
628; and _Grégoire_, _Hist. des Confesseurs_, p. 65.
Yet this was what actually occurred. The queen continued the ministers
of Henry IV., and announced, that in every thing she would follow his
example.[63] Her first public act was, a declaration, that the Edict of
Nantes should be inviolably preserved; for, she says, 'experience has
taught our predecessors, that violence, so far from inducing men to
return to the Catholic church, prevents them from doing so.'[64] Indeed,
so anxious was she upon this point, that when Louis, in 1614, attained
his nominal majority, the first act of his government was another
confirmation of the Edict of Nantes.[65] And, in 1615, she caused the
king, who still remained under her tutelage,[66] to issue a
declaration, by which all preceding measures in favour of the
Protestants were publicly confirmed.[67] In the same spirit, she, in
1611, wished to raise to the presidency of parliament the celebrated De
Thou; and it was only by making a formal announcement of his heresy,
that the pope succeeded in frustrating what he considered an impious
design.[68]
[63] 'Elle annonça qu'elle vouloit suivre en tout l'exemple du feu
roi.... Le ministère de Henri IV, que la reine continuoit.'
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 206, 210; and see
two letters from her, in _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Corresp._
vol. xi. p. 282, vol. xii. p. 428. Sully had feared that the death
of Henry IV. would cause a change of policy: 'que l'on s'alloit
jeter dans des desseins tous contraires aux règles, ordres et
maximes du feu roy.' _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. viii. p. 401.
[64] See the declaration in Bazin, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp.
74, 75; and notices of it in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 58;
_Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 27; _Benoist_, _Hist. de
l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 7; _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. i. p. 58. But none of these writers, nor Sismondi
(vol. xxii. p. 221), appear to be aware that the issuing of this
declaration was determined on, in council, as early as the 17th of
May; that is, only three days after the death of Henry IV. This is
mentioned by Pontchartrain, who was then one of the ministers. See
_Mém. de Pontchartrain_, edit. Petitot, 1822, vol. i. p. 409; a
book little known, but well worthy of being read.
[65] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. p. 262; _Benoist_, _Hist.
de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p. 140; _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_,
vol. i. p. 257; _Le Vassor_, vol. i. p. 604.
[66] 'Laissant néanmoins l'administration du royaume à la reine sa
mère.' _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. ii. p. 52. Compare _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies_, vol. ix. p. 177. She possessed complete authority
over the king till 1617. See _Mémoires de Montglat_, vol. i. p.
24: 'avoit été tenu fort bas par la reine sa mère.' See also _Le
Vassor, Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. pp. 640, 677, 716, 764.
[67] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. i. pp. 381, 382.
[68] In 1611, 'le pape le rejeta formellement comme hérétique.' _Bazin_,
vol. i. p. 174. This is glossed over by Pontchartrain (_Mémoires_,
vol. i. p. 450); but the statement of M. Bazin is confirmed in the
preface to _De Thou_, _Histoire Universelle_, vol. i. p. xvi.
The turn which things were now taking, caused no little alarm to the
friends of the hierarchy. The most zealous churchmen loudly censured the
policy of the queen; and a great historian has observed that when,
during the reign of Louis XIII., such alarm was caused in Europe by the
active encroachments of the ecclesiastical power, France was the first
country that ventured to oppose them.[69] The nuncio openly complained
to the queen of her conduct in favouring heretics; and he anxiously
desired that those Protestant works should be suppressed, by which the
consciences of true believers were greatly scandalized.[70] But these,
and similar representations, were no longer listened to with the respect
they would formerly have received; and the affairs of the country
continued to be administered with those purely temporal views, on which
the measures of Henry IV. had been avowedly based.[71]
[69] 'Der erste Einhalt den die kirchliche Restauration erfuhr, geschah
in Frankreich,' _Ranke_, _die Römischen Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 160.
[70] This desire was expressed several times, but in vain: 'Gern hätten
die Nuntien Werke wie von Thou und Richer verboten, aber es war
ihnen nicht möglich,' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 181,
Anhang. Compare _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 68; _Mém. de
Pontchartrain_, vol. i. p. 428.
[71] This decline of the ecclesiastical power is noticed by many writers
of the time; but it is sufficient to refer to the very curious
remonstrance of the French clergy, in 1605, in _De Thou_, _Hist.
Univ._ vol. xiv. pp. 446, 447.
Such was now the policy of the government of France; a government
which, not many years before, had considered it the great duty of a
sovereign to punish heretics and extirpate heresy. That this continued
improvement was merely the result of the general intellectual
development, is evident, not only from its success, but also from the
character of the queen-regent and the king. No one who has read the
contemporary memoirs, can deny that Mary de Medici and Louis XIII. were
as superstitious as any of their predecessors; and it is, therefore,
evident, that this disregard of theological prejudices was due, not to
their own personal merits, but to the advancing knowledge of the
country, and to the pressure of an age which, in the rapidity of its
progress, hurried along those who believed themselves to be its rulers.
But these considerations, weighty as they are, will only slightly
diminish the merit of that remarkable man, who now appeared on the stage
of public affairs. During the last eighteen years of the reign of Louis
XIII., France was entirely governed by Richelieu,[72] one of that
extremely small class of statesmen to whom it is given to impress their
own character on the destiny of their country. This great ruler has, in
his knowledge of the political art, probably never been surpassed,
except by that prodigy of genius who, in our time, troubled the fortunes
of Europe. But, in one important view, Richelieu was superior to
Napoleon. The life of Napoleon was a constant effort to oppress the
liberties of mankind; and his unrivalled capacity exhausted its
resources in struggling against the tendencies of a great age.
Richelieu, too, was a despot; but his despotism took a nobler turn. He
displayed, what Napoleon never possessed, a just appreciation of the
spirit of his own time. In one great point, indeed, he failed. His
attempts to destroy the power of the French nobility were altogether
futile;[73] for, owing to a long course of events, the authority of that
insolent class was so deeply rooted in the popular mind, that the
labours of another century were required to efface its ancient
influence. But, though Richelieu could not diminish the social and moral
weight of the French nobles, he curtailed their political privileges;
and he chastised their crimes with a severity which, for a time at
least, repressed their former license.[74] So little, however, can even
the ablest statesman effect, unless he is seconded by the general temper
of the age in which he lives, that these checks, rude as they were,
produced no permanent result. After his death, the French nobles, as we
shall presently see, quickly rallied; and, in the wars of the Fronde,
debased that great struggle into a mere contest of rival families. Nor
was it until the close of the eighteenth century, that France was
finally relieved from the overweening influence of that powerful class,
whose selfishness had long retarded the progress of civilization, by
retaining the people in a thraldom, from the remote effects of which
they have not yet fully recovered.
[72] As M. Monteil says (_Hist. des Français des divers Etats_, vol.
vii. p. 114), 'Richelieu tint le sceptre; Louis XIII. porta la
couronne.' And Campion (_Mémoires_, p. 37) calls him 'plutôt le
maître que le ministre;' and adds, pp. 218, 219, that he 'avoit
gouverné dix-huit ans la France avec un pouvoir absolu et une
gloire sans pareille.' Compare _Mém. du Cardinal de Retz_, vol. i
p. 63.
[73] The common opinion, put forth in _Alison's Hist. of Europe_, vol.
i. pp. 101-104, and in many other books, is that Richelieu did
destroy their influence; but this error arises from confusing
political influence with social influence. What is termed the
political power of a class, is merely the symptom and
manifestation of its real power; and it is no use to attack the
first, unless you can also weaken the second. The real power of
the nobles was social, and that neither Richelieu nor Louis XIV.
could impair; and it remained intact until the middle of the
eighteenth century, when the intellect of France rebelled against
it, overthrew it, and finally effected the French Revolution.
[74] Richelieu appears to have formed the design of humbling the nobles,
at least as early as 1624. See a characteristic passage in his
_Mémoires_, vol. ii. p. 340. In _Swinburne's Courts of Europe_,
vol. ii. pp. 63-65, there is a curious traditional anecdote,
which, though probably false, shows, at all events, the fear and
hatred with which the French nobles regarded the memory of
Richelieu more than a century after his death.
Although in this respect Richelieu failed in achieving his designs, he
in other matters met with signal success. This was owing to the fact,
that his large and comprehensive views harmonized with that sceptical
tendency, of which I have just given some account. For this remarkable
man, though he was a bishop and a cardinal, never for a moment allowed
the claims of his profession to make him forego the superior claims of
his country. He knew, what is too often forgotten, that the governor of
a people should measure affairs solely by a political standard, and
should pay no regard to the pretensions of any sect, or the propagation
of any opinions, except in reference to the present and practical
welfare of men. The consequence was, that, during his administration,
there was seen the marvellous spectacle of supreme authority wielded by
a priest, who took no pains to increase the power of the spiritual
classes. Indeed, so far from this, he often treated them with what was
then considered unexampled rigour. The royal confessors, on account of
the importance of their functions, had always been regarded with a
certain veneration; they were supposed to be men of unspotted piety;
they had hitherto possessed immense influence, and even the most
powerful statesmen had thought it advisable to show them the deference
due to their exalted position.[75] Richelieu, however, was too familiar
with the arts of his profession, to feel much respect for these keepers
of the consciences of kings. Caussin, the confessor of Louis XIII., had,
it seems, followed the example of his predecessors, and endeavoured to
instill his own views of policy into the mind of the royal penitent.[76]
But Richelieu, so soon as he heard of this, dismissed him from office,
and sent him into exile; for, he contemptuously says, 'the little father
Caussin' should not interfere in matters of government, since he is one
of those 'who have always been brought up in the innocence of a
religious life.'[77] Caussin was succeeded by the celebrated Sirmond; but
Richelieu would not allow the new confessor to begin his duties, until
he had solemnly promised never to interfere in state affairs.[78]
[75] On their influence, see _Grégoire_, _Histoire des Confesseurs_; and
compare the remarks of Mr. Grote, a great writer, whose mind is
always ready with historical analogies. _Grote's Hist. of Greece_,
vol. vi. p. 393, 2nd edit. 1851. Many of the French kings had a
strong natural affection for monks; but the most singular instance
I have found of this sort of love is mentioned by no less a man
than De Thou, respecting Henry III. De Thou (_Hist. Univ._ vol. x.
pp. 666, 667) says of that prince: 'Soit tempérament, soit
éducation, la présence d'un moine faisait toujours plaisir à
Henri; et je lui ai moi-même souvent entendu dire, que leur vue
produisoit le même effet sur son âme, que le chatouillement le
plus délicat sur le corps.'
[76] One of his suggestions was, 'sur les dangers que couroit le
catholicisme en Allemagne, par ses liaisons avec les puissances
protestantes.' _Grégoire_, _Histoire des Confesseurs_, p. 342. The
fullest account of Caussin is in _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. ix. pp. 287-299; to which, however, Grégoire never
refers. As I shall have frequent occasion to quote Le Vassor, I
may observe, that he is far more accurate than is generally
supposed, and that he has been very unfairly treated by the
majority of French writers, among whom he is unpopular, on account
of his constant attacks on Louis XIV. Sismondi (_Hist. des
Français_, vol. xxii. pp. 188, 189) speaks highly of his _Hist. of
Louis XIII_; and so far as my own reading extends, I can confirm
his favourable opinion.
[77] 'Le petit père Caussin.' _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. x. p. 206; and
at p. 217, he is classed among the 'personnes qui avoient toujours
été nourries dans l'innocence d'une vie religieuse;' see also p.
215, on his 'simplicité et ignorance.' Respecting Richelieu's
treatment of Caussin, see _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. pp. 173-175;
_Lettres de Patin_, vol. i. p. 49; _Des Réaux, Historiettes_, vol.
ii. p. 182.
[78] _Sismondi, Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 332; _Tallemant des
Réaux, Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 78 note. Le Vassor (_Hist. de
Louis XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 761) says, that Sirmond 'se
soutint à la cour sous le ministère de Richelieu, parce qu'il ne
se mêloit point des affaires d'état.' According to the same writer
(vol. viii. p. 156), Richelieu thought at one time of depriving
the Jesuits of their post of confessor to the king.
On another occasion of much more importance, Richelieu displayed a
similar spirit. The French clergy were then possessed of enormous
wealth; and, as they enjoyed the privilege of taxing themselves, they
were careful not to make what they considered unnecessary contributions
towards defraying the expenses of the state. They had cheerfully
advanced money to carry on war against the Protestants, because they
believed it to be their duty to assist in the extirpation of
heresy.[79] But they saw no reason why their revenues should be wasted
in effecting mere temporal benefits; they considered themselves as the
guardians of funds set apart for spiritual purposes, and they thought it
impious that wealth consecrated by the piety of their ancestors should
fall into the profane hands of secular statesmen. Richelieu, who looked
on these scruples as the artifices of interested men, had taken a very
different view of the relation which the clergy bore to the country.[80]
So far from thinking that the interests of the church were superior to
those of the state, he laid it down as a maxim of policy, that 'the
reputation of the state was the first consideration.'[81] With such
fearlessness did he carry out this principle, that having convoked at
Nantes a great assembly of the clergy, he compelled them to aid the
government by an extraordinary supply of 6,000,000 francs; and finding
that some of the highest dignitaries had expressed their discontent at
so unusual a step, he laid hands on them also, and to the amazement of
the church, sent into exile not only four of the bishops, but likewise
the two archbishops of Toulouse and of Sens.[82]
[79] _Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii. p. 87; _Le Vassor_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. p. 208; _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. ii. p. 144; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_,
vol. ii. pp. 337, 338. Benoist says: 'Le clergé de France,
ignorant et corrompu, croyoit tout son devoir compris dans
l'extirpation des hérétiques; et même il offroit de grandes
sommes, à condition qu'on les employât à cette guerre.'
[80] In which he is fully borne out by the high authority of Vattel,
whose words I shall quote, for the sake of those politicians who
still cleave to the superannuated theory of the sacredness of
church-property: 'Loin que l'exemption appartienne aux biens
d'église parce qu'ils sont consacrés à Dieu, c'est au contraire
par cette raison même, qu'ils doivent être pris les premiers pour
le salut de l'état; car il n'y a rien de plus agréable au Père
commun des hommes, que de garantir une nation de sa ruine. Dieu
n'ayant besoin de rien, lui consacrer des biens, c'est les
destiner à des usages qui lui soient agréables. De plus, les biens
de l'église, de l'aveu du clergé lui-même, sont en grande partie
destinés aux pauvres. Quand l'état est dans le besoin, il est sans
doute le premier pauvre, et le plus digne de secours.' _Vattel_,
_le Droit des Gens_, vol. i. pp. 176, 177.
[81] 'Que la réputation de l'état est préférable à toutes choses.' _Mém.
de Richelieu_, vol. ii. p. 482. This was in 1625, and by way of
refuting the legate.
[82] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. pp. 477, 478;
_Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. pp. 325, 326. The
Cardinal de Retz, who knew Richelieu personally, says: 'M. le
cardinal de Richelieu avoit donné une atteinte cruelle à la
dignité et à la liberté du clergé dans l'assemblée de Mante, et il
avoit exilé, avec des circonstances atroces, six de ses prélats
les plus considérables.' _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 50.
If these things had been done fifty years earlier, they would most
assuredly have proved fatal to the minister who dared to attempt them.
But Richelieu, in these and similar measures, was aided by the spirit of
an age which was beginning to despise its ancient masters. For this
general tendency was now becoming apparent, not only in literature and
in politics, but even in the proceedings of the ordinary tribunals. The
nuncio indignantly complained of the hostility displayed against
ecclesiastics by the French judges; and he said that, among other
shameful things, some clergymen had been hung, without being first
deprived of their spiritual character.[83] On other occasions, the
increasing contempt showed itself in a way well suited to the coarseness
of the prevailing manners. Sourdis, the archbishop of Bourdeaux, was
twice ignominiously beaten; once by the Duke d'Epernon, and afterwards
by the Maréchal de Vitry.[84] Nor did Richelieu, who usually treated the
nobles with such severity, seem anxious to punish this gross outrage.
Indeed, the archbishop not only received no sympathy, but, a few years
later, was peremptorily ordered by Richelieu to retire to his own
diocese; such, however, was his alarm at the state of affairs, that he
fled to Carpentras, and put himself under the protection of the
pope.[85] This happened in 1641 and nine years earlier, the church had
incurred a still greater scandal. For in 1632, serious disturbances
having arisen in Languedoc, Richelieu did not fear to meet the
difficulty by depriving some of the bishops, and seizing the
temporalities of the others.[86]
[83] 'Die Nuntien finden kein Ende der Beschwerden die sie machen zu
müssen glauben, vorzüglich über die Beschränkungen welche die
geistliche Jurisdiction erfahre.... Zuweilen werde ein Geistlicher
hingerichtet ohne erst degradirt zu seyn.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_,
vol. iii. p. 157: a summary, in 1641, of the complaints of the
then nuncio, and of those of his predecessors. Le Vassor (_Hist.
de Louis XIII_, vol. v. pp. 51 seq.) has given some curious
details respecting the animosity between the clergy and the
secular tribunals of France in 1624.
[84] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 301; _Mém. de
Bassompierre_, vol. iii. pp. 302, 353. Bazin, who notices this
disgraceful affair, simply says (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iii.
p. 453): 'Le maréchal de Vitry, suivant l'exemple qui lui en avoit
donné le duc d'Epernon, s'emporta jusqu'à le frapper de son
bâton.' In regard to Epernon, the best account is in _Mém. de
Richelieu_, where it is stated (vol. viii. p. 194) that the duke,
just before flogging the archbishop, 'disoit au peuple,
"Rangez-vous, vous verrez comme j'étrillerai votre archevêque."'
This was stated by a witness, who heard the duke utter the words.
Compare, for further information, _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis
XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 97, with _Tallemant des Réaux_,
_Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 116. Des Réaux, who, in his own way,
was somewhat of a philosopher, contentedly says: 'Cet archevêque
se pouvoit vanter d'être le prélat du monde qui avoit été le plus
battu.' His brother was Cardinal Sourdis; a man of some little
reputation in his own time, and concerning whom a curious anecdote
is related in _Mém. de Conrart_, pp. 231-234.
[85] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 470. Le Vassor
(_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 149) says: 'Il
s'enfuit donc honteusement à Carpentras sous la protection du
pape.'
[86] 'Les évêques furent punis par la saisie de leur temporel; Alby,
Nimes, Uzés, furent privées de leurs prélats.' _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, Paris, 1844, vol. ii. p. 24. The Protestants were
greatly delighted at the punishment of the bishops of Alby and
Nimes, which 'les ministres regardoient comme une vengeance
divine.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 528,
529.
The indignation of the clergy may be easily imagined. Such repeated
injuries, even if they had proceeded from a layman, would have been hard
to endure; but they were rendered doubly bitter by being the work of one
of themselves--one who had been nurtured in the profession against which
he turned. This it was which aggravated the offence, because it seemed
to be adding treachery to insult. It was not a war from without, but it
was a treason from within. It was a bishop who humbled the episcopacy,
and a cardinal who affronted the church.[87] Such, however, was the
general temper of men, that the clergy did not venture to strike an
open blow; but, by means of their partisans, they scattered the most
odious libels against the great minister. They said that he was
unchaste, that he was guilty of open debauchery, and that he held
incestuous commerce with his own niece.[88] They declared that he had no
religion; that he was only a Catholic in name; that he was the pontiff
of the Huguenots; that he was the patriarch of atheists;[89] and what
was worse than all, they even accused him of wishing to establish a
schism in the French church.[90] Happily the time was now passing away
in which the national mind could be moved by such artifices as these.
Still the charges are worth recording, because they illustrate the
tendency of public affairs, and the bitterness with which the spiritual
classes saw the reins of power falling from their hands. Indeed, all
this was so manifest, that in the last civil war raised against
Richelieu, only two years before his death, the insurgents stated in
their proclamation, that one of their objects was to revive the respect
with which the clergy and nobles had formerly been treated.[91]
[87] In a short account of Richelieu, which was published immediately
after his death, the writer indignantly says, that 'being a
cardinal, he afflicted the church.' _Somers Tracts_. vol. v. p.
540. Compare _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. iv. p. 322.
[88] This scandalous charge in regard to his niece was a favourite one
with the clergy; and among many other instances, the accusation
was brought by the Cardinal de Valençay in the grossest manner.
See _Tallemant des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. iii. p. 201.
[89] 'De là ces petits écrits qui le dénonçaient comme le "pontife des
huguenots" ou "le patriarche des athées."' _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 312.
[90] Compare _Des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. ii. p. 233, with _Le
Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. viii. part ii. pp. 177, 178,
vol. ix. p. 277.
[91] See the manifesto in _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii.
pp. 452, 453.
The more we study the career of Richelieu, the more prominent does this
antagonism become. Every thing proves that he was conscious of a great
struggle going on between the old ecclesiastical scheme of government
and the new secular scheme; and that he was determined to put down the
old plan, and uphold the new one. For, not only in his domestic
administration, but also in his foreign policy, do we find the same
unprecedented disregard of theological interests. The House of Austria,
particularly its Spanish branch, had long been respected by all pious
men as the faithful ally of the church; it was looked upon as the
scourge of heresy; and its proceedings against the heretics had won for
it a great name in ecclesiastical history.[92] When, therefore, the
French government, in the reign of Charles IX., made a deliberate
attempt to destroy the Protestants, France naturally established an
intimate connexion with Spain as well as with Rome;[93] and these three
great powers were firmly united, not by a community of temporal
interests, but by the force of a religious compact. This theological
confederacy was afterwards broken up by the personal character of Henry
IV.,[94] and by the growing indifference of the age; but during the
minority of Louis XIII., the queen-regent had in some degree renewed it,
and had attempted to revive the superstitious prejudices upon which it
was based.[95] In all her feelings, she was a zealous Catholic; she was
warmly attached to Spain; and she succeeded in marrying her son, the
young king, to a Spanish princess, and her daughter to a Spanish
prince.[96]
[92] Late in the sixteenth century, 'fils aîné de l'Eglise' was the
recognized and well-merited title of the kings of Spain. _De
Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. xi. p. 280. Compare _Duplessis Mornay_,
_Mém. et Correspond._ vol. xi. p. 21. And on the opinions which
the Catholics, early in the seventeenth century, generally held
respecting Spain, see _Mém. de Fontenay_, _Mareuil_, vol. i. p.
189; _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. i. p. 424.
[93] As to the connexion between this foreign policy and the massacre of
Saint Bartholomew, see _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_,
vol. iii. pp. 253, 268, 269.