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 reader will now be able to understand how it was that the protective
system, and the notions of subordination connected with it, gained in
France a strength unknown in England, and caused an essential divergence
between the two countries. To complete the comparison, it seems
necessary to examine how this same spirit influenced the purely
intellectual history of France as well as its social and political
history. For the ideas of dependence upon which the protective scheme is
based, encouraged a belief that the subordination which existed in
politics and in society ought also to exist in literature; and that the
paternal, inquisitive, and centralizing system which regulated the
material interests of the country, should likewise regulate the
interests of its knowledge. When, therefore, the Fronde was finally
overthrown, everything was prepared for that singular intellectual
polity which, during fifty years characterised the reign of Louis XIV.,
and which was to French literature what feudalism was to French
politics. In both cases, homage was paid by one party, and protection
and favour accorded by the other. Every man of letters became a vassal
of the French crown. Every book was written with a view to the royal
favour; and to obtain the patronage of the king was considered the most
decisive proof of intellectual eminence. The effects produced by this
system will be examined in the present chapter. The apparent cause of
the system was the personal character of Louis XIV.; but the real and
overruling causes were those circumstances which I have already pointed
out, and which established in the French mind associations that remained
undisturbed until the eighteenth century. To invigorate those
associations, and to carry them into every department of life, was the
great aim of Louis XIV.; and in that he was completely successful. It is
on this account that the history of his reign becomes highly
instructive, because we see in it the most remarkable instance of
despotism which has ever occurred; a despotism of the largest and most
comprehensive kind; a despotism of fifty years over one of the most
civilized people in Europe, who not only bore the yoke without repining,
but submitted with cheerfulness, and even with gratitude, to him by whom
it was imposed.[433]
[433] On the disgraceful subserviency of the most eminent men of
letters, see _Capefigue's Louis XIV._, vol. i. pp. 41, 42, 116;
and on the feeling of the people, Le Vassor, who wrote late in
the reign of Louis XIV., bitterly says, 'mais les Français,
accoutumés à l'esclavage, ne sentent plus la pesanteur de leurs
chaînes.' _Le Vassor_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. vi. p. 670.
Foreigners were equally amazed at the general, and still more, at
the willing servility. Lord Shaftesbury, in a letter dated
February 1704-5, passes a glowing eulogy upon liberty; but he
adds, that in France 'you will hardly find this argument
understood; for whatever flashes may now and then appear, I never
yet knew one single Frenchman a free man.' _Forster's Original
Letters of Locke, Sidney, and Shaftesbury_, 1830, p. 205. In the
same year, De Foe makes a similar remark in regard to the French
nobles, _Wilson's Life of De Foe_, vol. ii. p. 209; and, in 1699,
Addison writes from Blois a letter which strikingly illustrates
the degradation of the French. _Aikin's Life of Addison_, vol. i.
p. 80. Compare _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iv. p. 365, on 'the
gross excess of flattery to which the French have run, beyond the
examples of former ages, in honour of their king.'
What makes this the more strange is, that the reign of Louis XIV. must
be utterly condemned if it is tried even by the lowest standard of
morals, of honour, or of interest. A coarse and unbridled profligacy,
followed by the meanest and most grovelling superstition, characterized
his private life, while in his public career he displayed an arrogance
and a systematic perfidy which eventually roused the anger of all
Europe, and brought upon France sharp and signal retribution. As to his
domestic policy, he formed a strict alliance with the church; and
although he resisted the authority of the Pope, he willingly left his
subjects to be oppressed by the tyranny of the clergy.[434] To them he
abandoned everything except the exercise of his own prerogative.[435]
Led on by them, he, from the moment he assumed the Government, began to
encroach upon those religious liberties of which Henry IV. had laid the
foundation, and which down to this period had been preserved
intact.[436] It was at the instigation of the clergy that he revoked the
Edict of Nantes, by which the principle of toleration had for nearly a
century been incorporated with the law of the land.[437] It was at their
instigation that, just before this outrage upon the most sacred rights
of his subjects, he, in order to terrify the Protestants into
conversion, suddenly let loose upon them whole troops of dissolute
soldiers, who were allowed to practise the most revolting cruelties. The
frightful barbarities which followed are related by authentic
writers;[438] and of the effect produced on the material interests of
the nation, some idea may be formed from the fact, that these religious
persecutions cost France half a million of her most industrious
inhabitants, who fled to different parts, taking with them those habits
of labour, and that knowledge and experience in their respective trades,
which had hitherto been employed in enriching their own country.[439]
These things are notorious, they are incontestable, and they lie on the
surface of history. Yet, in the face of them there are still found men
who hold up for admiration the age of Louis XIV. Although it is well
known that in his reign every vestige of liberty was destroyed; that the
people were weighed down by an insufferable taxation; that their
children were torn from them by tens of thousands to swell the royal
armies; that the resources of the country were squandered to an
unprecedented extent; that a despotism of the worst kind was firmly
established;--although all this is universally admitted, yet there are
writers, even in our own day, who are so infatuated with the glories of
literature, as to balance them against the most enormous crimes, and who
will forgive every injury inflicted by a prince during whose life there
were produced the Letters of Pascal, the orations of Bossuet, the
Comedies of Molière, and the Tragedies of Racine.
[434] The terms of this compact between the crown and the church are
fairly stated by M. Ranke: 'Wir sehen, die beiden Gewalten
unterstützten einander. Der König ward von den Einwirkungen der
weltlichen, der Clerus von der unbedingten Autorität der
geistlichen Gewalt des Papstthums freigesprochen.' _Die Päpste_,
vol. iii. p. 168.
[435] This part of his character is skilfully drawn by Sismondi, _Hist.
des Français_, vol. xxv. p. 43.
[436] Flasson supposes that the first persecuting laws were in 1679:
'Des l'année 1679 les concessions faites aux protestans avaient
été graduellement restreintes.' _Diplomatie Française_, vol. iv.
p. 92. But the fact is, that these laws began in 1662, the year
after the death of Mazarin. See _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxv. p. 167; _Benoist_, _Edit. de Nantes_, vol. iii. pp.
460-462, 481. In 1667, a letter from Thynne to Lord Clarendon
(_Lister's Life of Clarendon_, vol. iii. p. 446) mentions 'the
horrid persecutions the reformed religion undergoes in France;'
and Locke, who travelled in France in 1675 and 1676, states in
his Journal (_King's Life of Locke_, vol. i. p. 110) that the
Protestants were losing 'every day some privilege or other.'
[437] An account of the revocation will be found in all the French
historians; but I do not remember that any of them have noticed
that there was a rumour of it in Paris twenty years before it
occurred. In March 1665 Patin writes, 'On dit que, pour miner les
huguenots, le roi veut supprimer les chambres de l'édit, et
abolir l'édit de Nantes.' _Lettres de Patin_, vol. iii. p. 516.
[438] Compare _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iii. pp. 73-76, with _Siècle de
Louis XIV_, in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xx. pp. 377, 378.
Voltaire says that the Protestants who persisted in their
religion 'étaient livrés aux soldats, qui eurent toute licence,
excepté celle de tuer. Il y eut pourtant plusieurs personnes si
cruellement maltraitées qu'elles en moururent.' And Burnet, who
was in France in 1685, says, 'all men set their thoughts on work
to invent new methods of cruelty.' What some of those methods
were, I shall now relate; because the evidence, however painful
it may be, is necessary to enable us to understand the reign of
Louis XIV. It is necessary that the veil should be rent; and that
the squeamish delicacy which would hide such facts, should give
way before the obligation which the historian is under of holding
up to public opprobrium, and branding with public infamy, the
church by which the measures were instigated, the sovereign by
whom they were enforced, and the age in which they were
permitted.
The two original sources for our knowledge of these events are,
_Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, 1692, folio; and _Benoist_,
_Histoire de l'Edit de Nantes_, 1695, 4to. From these works I
extract the following accounts of what happened in France in
1685. 'Afterwards they fall upon the persons of the Protestants;
and there was no wickedness, though never so horrid, which they
did not put in practice, that they might enforce them to change
their religion.... They bound them as criminals are when they be
put to the rack; and in that posture, putting a funnel into their
mouths, they poured wine down their throats till its fumes had
deprived them of their reason, and they had in that condition
made them consent to become Catholics. Some they stripped stark
naked, and after they had offered them a thousand indignities,
they stuck them with pins from head to foot; they cut them with
pen-knives, tear them by the noses with red-hot pincers, and
dragged them about the rooms till they promised to become Roman
Catholics, or that the doleful outcries of these poor tormented
creatures, calling upon God for mercy, constrained them to let
them go.... In some places they tied fathers and husbands to the
bed-posts, and ravished their wives and daughters before their
eyes.... From others they pluck off the nails of their hands and
toes, which must needs cause an intolerable pain. They burnt the
feet of others. They blew up men and women with bellows, till
they were ready to burst in pieces. If these horrid usages could
not prevail upon them to violate their consciences, and abandon
their religion, they did then imprison them in close and noisome
dungeons, in which they exercised all kinds of inhumanities upon
them.' _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. pp. cxxx. cxxxi. 'Cependant
les troupes exerçoient partout de cruautez inouies. Tout leur
étoit permis, pourveu qu'ils ne fissent pas mourir. Ils faisoient
danser quelquefois leurs hôtes, jusqu'à ce qu'ils tombassent en
défaillance. Ils bernoient les autres jusqu'à ce qu'ils n'en
pouvoient plus.... Il y en eut quelques-uns à qui on versa de
l'eau bouillante dans la bouche.... Il y en eut plusieurs à qui
on donna des coups de bâton sous les pieds, pour éprouver si ce
supplice est aussi cruel que les relations le publient. On
arrachoit à d'autres le poil de la barbe.... D'autres brûloient à
la chandelle le poil des bras et des jambes de leurs hôtes.
D'autres faisoient brûler de la poudre, si près du visage de ceux
qui leur resistoient, qu'elle leur grilloit toute la peau. Ils
mettoient à d'autres des charbons allumez dans les mains, et les
contraignoient de les tenir fermées, jusqu'à ce que les charbons
fussent éteints.... On brûla les pieds à plusieurs, tenant les
uns long-tems devant un grand feu; appliquant aux autres une
pelle ardente sous les pieds; liant les pieds des autres dans des
bottines pleines de graisse, qu'on faisoit fondre et chauffer peu
à peu devant un brasier ardent.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. v. pp. 887-889. One of the Protestants, named Ryau,
they 'lièrent fort étroitement; lui sevrèrent les doigts des
mains; lui fichèrent des épingles sous les ongles; lui firent
brûler de la poudre dans les oreilles; lui percèrent les cuisses
en plusieurs lieux, et versèrent du vinaigre et du sel dans ses
blessures. _Par ce tourment ils épuisèrent sa patience en deux
jours; et le forcèrent à changer de religion_,' p. 890. 'Ses
dragons étoient les mêmes en tous lieux. Ils battoient, ils
étourdissoient, ils brûloient en Bourgogne comme en Poitou, en
Champagne comme en Guyenne, en Normandie comme en Languedoc. Mais
ils n'avoient pour les femmes ni plus de respect, ni plus de
pitié que pour les hommes. Au contraire, ils abusoient de la
tendre pudeur qui est une des propriétez de leur sexe; et ils
s'en prevaloient pour leur faire de plus sensibles outrages. On
leur levoit quelquefois leurs juppes par dessus la tête, et on
leur jetoit des seaux d'eau sur le corps. Il y en eut plusieurs
que les soldats mirent en chemise, et qu'ils forcèrent de danser
avec eux dans cet état.... Deux filles de Calais, nommées le
Noble, furent mises toutes nuës sur le pavé, et furent ainsi
exposées à la mocquerie et aux outrages des passans.... Des
dragons ayant lié la dame de Vezençai à la quenouille de son lit,
lui crachoient dans la bouche quand elle l'ouvroit pour parler ou
pour soupirer.' pp. 891, 892. At p. 917 are other details, far
more horrible, respecting the treatment of women, and which
indignation rather than shame prevents me from transcribing.
Indeed, the shame can only light on the church and the government
under whose united authority such scandalous outrages could be
openly perpetrated, merely for the sake of compelling men to
change their religious opinions.
[439] M. Blanqui (_Hist. de l'Economie Politique_, vol. ii. p. 10) says,
that the revocation of the Edict of Nantes cost France 'cinq cent
mille de ses enfants les plus industrieux,' who carried into
other countries 'les habitudes d'ordre et de travail dont ils
étaient imbus.' See also _Siècle de Louis XIV_, chap. xxxvi., in
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xx. pp. 380, 381. Several of them
emigrated to North America. Compare _Godwin on Population_, pp.
388, 389, with _Benoist_, _l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. v. pp. 973,
974, and _Lyell's Second Visit to the United States_, edit. 1849,
vol. ii. p. 159. See also, on the effects of the Revocation,
_Lettres inédites de Voltaire_, vol. ii. p. 473.
This method of estimating the merits of a sovereign is, indeed, so
rapidly dying away, that I shall not spend any words in refuting it.
But it is connected with a more widely diffused error respecting the
influence of royal patronage upon national literature. This is a
delusion which men of letters have themselves been the first to
propagate. From the language too many of them are in the habit of
employing, we might be led to believe that there is some magical power
in the smiles of a king which stimulates the intellect of the fortunate
individual whose heart they are permitted to gladden. Nor must this be
despised as one of those harmless prejudices that still linger round the
person of the sovereign. It is not only founded on a misconception of
the nature of things, but it is in its practical consequences very
injurious. It is injurious to the independent spirit which literature
should always possess; and it is injurious to princes themselves,
because it strengthens that vanity of which they generally have too
large a share. Indeed, if we consider the position they now occupy in
the most civilized countries, we shall at once see the absurdity of an
opinion which, in the present state of knowledge, is unfit to be held by
educated men.
From the moment that there was finally abandoned the theological fiction
of the divine right of kings, it necessarily followed that the respect
felt for them should suffer a corresponding diminution.[440] The
superstitious reverence with which they were formerly regarded is
extinct, and at the present day we are no longer awed by that divinity
with which their persons were once supposed to be hedged.[441] The
standard, therefore, by which we should measure them is obvious. We
should applaud their conduct in proportion as they contribute towards
the happiness of the nation over which they are intrusted with power;
but we ought to remember that, from the manner in which they are
educated, and from the childish homage always paid to them, their
information must be very inaccurate, and their prejudices very
numerous.[442] On this account, so far from expecting that they should
be judicious patrons of literature, or should in any way head their age,
we ought to be satisfied if they do not obstinately oppose the spirit of
their time, and if they do not attempt to stop the march of society.
For, unless the sovereign, in spite of the intellectual disadvantages of
his position, is a man of very enlarged mind, it must usually happen
that he will reward, not those who are most able, but those who are most
compliant; and that while he refuses his patronage to a profound and
independent thinker, he will grant it to an author who cherishes ancient
prejudices and defends ancient abuses. In this way, the practice of
conferring on men of letters either honorary or pecuniary rewards, is
agreeable, no doubt, to those who receive them; but has a manifest
tendency to weaken the boldness and energy of their sentiments, and
therefore to impair the value of their works. This might be made evident
by publishing a list of those literary pensions which have been granted
by European princes. If this were done, the mischief produced by these
and similar rewards would be clearly seen. After a careful study of the
history of literature, I think myself authorised to say, that for one
instance in which a sovereign has recompensed a man who is before his
age, there are at least twenty instances of his recompensing one who is
behind his age. The result is, that in every country where royal
patronage has been long and generally bestowed, the spirit of
literature, instead of being progressive, has become reactionary. An
alliance has been struck up between those who give and those who
receive. By a system of bounties, there has been artificially engendered
a greedy and necessitous class; who, eager for pensions, and offices,
and titles, have made the pursuit of truth subordinate to the desire of
gain, and have infused into their writings the prejudices of the court
to which they cling. Hence it is, that the marks of favour have become
the badge of servitude. Hence it is, that the acquisition of knowledge,
by far the noblest of all occupations, an occupation which of all others
raises the dignity of man, has been debased to the level of a common
profession, where the chances of success are measured by the number of
rewards, and where the highest honours are in the gift of whoever
happens to be the minister or sovereign of the day.
[440] On the diminished respect for kings, caused by the abandonment of
divine right, see _Spencer's Social Statics_, pp. 423, 424; and
on the influence of the clergy in propagating the old doctrine,
see Allen's learned work on the _Royal Prerogative_, edit. 1849,
p. 156. See also some striking remarks by Locke, in _King's Life
of Locke_, vol ii. p. 90.
[441] 'Qu'est devenu, en effet, le droit divin, cette pensée, autrefois
acceptée par les masses, que les rois étaient les représentants
de Dieu sur la terre, que la racine de leur pouvoir était dans le
ciel? Elle s'est évanouie devant cette autre pensée, qu'aucun
nuage, aucun mysticisme n'obscurcit; devant cette pensée si
naturelle et brillant d'une clarté si nette et si vive, que la
souveraine puissance, sur la terre, appartient au peuple entier,
et non à une fraction, et moins encore à un seul homme.' _Rey_,
_Science Sociale_, vol. iii. p. 308. Compare _Manning on the Law
of Nations_, p. 101; _Laing's Sweden_, p. 408; _Laing's Denmark_,
p. 196; _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 391.
[442] In this, as in all instances, the language of respect long
survives the feeling to which the language owed its origin. Lord
Brougham (_Political Philosophy_, vol. i. p. 42, Lond. 1849)
observes, that 'all their titles are derived from a divine
original--all refer to them as representing the Deity on earth.
They are called "_Grace_," "_Majesty_." They are termed "_The
Lord's anointed_," "_The Vicegerent of God upon earth_;" with
many other names which are either nonsensical or blasphemous, but
which are outdone in absurdity by the kings of the East.' True
enough: but if Lord Brougham had written thus three centuries
ago, he would have had his ears cut off for his pains.
This tendency forms of itself a decisive objection to the views of those
who wish to entrust the executive government with the means of rewarding
literary men. But there is also another objection, in some respects
still more serious. Every nation which is allowed to pursue its course
uncontrolled, will easily satisfy the wants of its own intellect, and
will produce such a literature as is best suited to its actual
condition. And it is evidently for the interest of all classes that the
production shall not be greater than the want; that the supply shall not
exceed the demand. It is, moreover, necessary to the well-being of
society that a healthy proportion should be kept up between the
intellectual classes and the practical classes. It is necessary that
there should be a certain ratio between those who are most inclined to
think, and those who are most inclined to act. If we were all authors,
our material interests would suffer; if we were all men of business, our
mental pleasures would be abridged. In the first case, we should be
famished philosophers; in the other case, we should be wealthy fools.
Now, it is obvious that, according to the commonest principles of human
action the relative numbers of these two classes will be adjusted,
without effort, by the natural, or, as we call it, the spontaneous
movement of society. But if a government takes upon itself to pension
literary men, it disturbs this movement; it troubles the harmony of
things. This is the unavoidable result of that spirit of interference,
or, as it is termed, protection, by which every country has been greatly
injured. If, for instance, a fund were set apart by the state for
rewarding butchers and tailors, it is certain that the number of those
useful men would be needlessly augmented. If another fund is
appropriated for the literary classes, it is as certain that men of
letters will increase more rapidly than the exigencies of the country
require. In both cases, an artificial stimulus will produce an unhealthy
action. Surely, food and clothes are as necessary for the body as
literature is for the mind. Why, then, should we call upon government to
encourage those who write our books, any more than to encourage those
who kill our mutton and mend our garments? The truth is, that the
intellectual march of society is, in this respect, exactly analogous to
its physical march. In some instances a forced supply may, indeed,
create an unnatural want. But this is an artificial state of things,
which indicates a diseased action. In a healthy condition, it is not the
supply which causes the want, but it is the want which gives rise to the
supply. To suppose, therefore, that an increase of authors would
necessarily be followed by a diffusion of knowledge, is as if we were to
suppose that an increase of butchers must be followed by a diffusion of
food. This is not the way in which things are ordered. Men must have
appetite before they will eat; they must have money before they can buy;
they must be inquisitive before they will read. The two great principles
which move the world are, the love of wealth and the love of knowledge.
These two principles respectively represent and govern the two most
important classes into which every civilized country is divided. What a
government gives to one of these classes, it must take from the other.
What it gives to literature, it must take from wealth. This can never be
done to any great extent, without entailing the most ruinous
consequences. For, the natural proportions of society being destroyed,
society itself will be thrown into confusion. While men of letters are
protected, men of industry will be depressed. The lower classes can
count for little in the eyes of those to whom literature is the first
consideration. The idea of the liberty of the people will be
discouraged; their persons will be oppressed; their labour will be
taxed. The arts necessary to life will be despised, in order that those
which embellish life may be favoured. The many will be ruined, that the
few may be pleased. While every thing is splendid above, all will be
rotten below. Fine pictures, noble palaces, touching dramas--these may
for a time be produced in profusion, but it will be at the cost of the
heart and strength of the nation. Even the class for whom the sacrifice
has been made, will soon decay. Poets may continue to sing the praises
of the prince who has bought them with his gold. It is, however, certain
that men who begin by losing their independence, will end by losing
their energy. Their intellect must be robust indeed, if it does not
wither in the sickly atmosphere of a court. Their attention being
concentrated on their master, they insensibly contract those habits of
servility which are suited to their position; and, as the range of their
sympathies is diminished, the use and action of their genius become
impaired. To them submission is a custom, and servitude a pleasure. In
their hands, literature soon loses its boldness, tradition is appealed
to as the ground of truth, and the spirit of inquiry is extinguished.
Then it is, that there comes one of those sad moments in which, no
outlet being left for public opinion, the minds of men are unable to
find a vent; their discontents, having no voice, slowly rankle into a
deadly hatred; their passions accumulate in silence, until at length,
losing all patience, they are goaded into one of those terrible
revolutions, by which they humble the pride of their rulers, and carry
retribution even into the heart of the palace.
The truth of this picture is well known to those who have studied the
history of Louis XIV., and the connection between it and the French
Revolution. That prince adopted, during his long reign, the mischievous
practice of rewarding literary men with large sums of money, and of
conferring on them numerous marks of personal favour. As this was done
for more than half a century; and as the wealth which he thus
unscrupulously employed was of course taken from his other subjects, we
can find no better illustration of the results which such patronage is
likely to produce. He, indeed, has the merit of organizing into a system
that protection of literature which some are so anxious to restore. What
the effect of this was upon the general interests of knowledge, we shall
presently see. But its effect upon authors themselves should be
particularly attended to by those men of letters who, with little regard
to their own dignity, are constantly reproaching the English government
for neglecting the profession of which they themselves are members. In
no age have literary men been awarded with such profuseness as in the
reign of Louis XIV.; and in no age have they been so mean-spirited, so
servile, so utterly unfit to fulfil their great vocation as the apostles
of knowledge and the missionaries of truth. The history of the most
celebrated authors of that time proves that, notwithstanding their
acquirements, and the power of their minds, they were unable to resist
the surrounding corruption. To gain the favour of the king, they
sacrificed that independent spirit which should have been dearer to them
than life. They gave away the inheritance of genius; they sold their
birthright for a mess of pottage. What happened then, would under the
same circumstances happen now. A few eminent thinkers may be able for a
certain time to resist the pressure of their age. But, looking at
mankind generally, society can have no hold on any class except through
the medium of their interests. It behoves, therefore, every people to
take heed, that the interests of literary men are on their side rather
than on the side of their rulers. For, literature is the representative
of intellect, which is progressive; government is the representative of
order, which is stationary. As long as these two great powers are
separate, they will correct and react upon each other, and the people
may hold the balance. If, however, these powers coalesce, if the
government can corrupt the intellect, and if the intellect will yield to
the government, the inevitable result must be, despotism in politics,
and servility in literature. This was the history of France under Louis
XIV.: and this, we may rest assured, will be the history of every
country that shall be tempted to follow so attractive but so fatal an
example.
The reputation of Louis XIV. originated in the gratitude of men of
letters; but it is now supported by a popular notion that the celebrated
literature of his age is mainly to be ascribed to his fostering care.
If, however, we examine this opinion, we shall find that, like many of
the traditions of which history is full, it is entirely devoid of truth.
We shall find two leading circumstances, which will prove that the
literary splendour of his reign was not the result of his efforts, but
was the work of that great generation which preceded him; and that the
intellect of France, so far from being benefited by his munificence, was
hampered by his protection.
I. The first circumstance is, that the immense impulse which, during the
administrations of Richelieu and of Mazarin, had been given to the
highest branches of knowledge, was suddenly stopped. In 1661 Louis XIV.
assumed the government;[443] and from that moment until his death, in
1715, the history of France, so far as great discoveries are concerned,
is a blank in the annals of Europe. If, putting aside all preconceived
notions respecting the supposed glory of that age, we examine the matter
fairly, it will be seen that in every department there was a manifest
dearth of original thinkers. There was much that was elegant, much that
was attractive. The senses of men were soothed and flattered by the
creations of art, by paintings, by palaces, by poems; but scarcely any
thing of moment was added to the sum of human knowledge. If we take the
mathematics, and those mixed sciences to which they are applicable, it
will be universally admitted that their most successful cultivators in
France during the seventeenth century were Descartes, Pascal, Fermat,
Gassendi, and Mersenne. But, so far from Louis XIV. having any share in
the honour due to them, these eminent men were engaged in their
investigations while the king was still in his cradle, and completed
them before he assumed the government, and therefore before his system
of protection came into play. Descartes died in 1650,[444] when the king
was twelve years old. Pascal, whose name, like that of Descartes, is
commonly associated with the age of Louis XIV., had gained an European
reputation while Louis, occupied in the nursery with his toys, was not
aware that any such man existed. His treatise on conic sections was
written in 1639;[445] his decisive experiments on the weight of air were
made in 1648;[446] and his researches on the cycloid, the last great
inquiry he ever undertook, were in 1658,[447] when Louis, still under
the tutelage of Mazarin, had no sort of authority. Fermat was one of the
most profound thinkers of the seventeenth century, particularly as a
geometrician, in which respect he was second only to Descartes.[448] The
most important steps he took are those concerning the geometry of
infinites, applied to the ordinates and tangents of curves; which,
however, he completed in or before 1636.[449] As to Gassendi and
Mersenne, it is enough to say that Gassendi died in 1655,[450] six years
before Louis was at the head of affairs; while Mersenne died in
1648,[451] when the great king was ten years old.
[443] 'La première période du gouvernement de Louis XIV commence donc en
1661.' _Capefigue's Louis XIV._, vol. i. p. 4.
[444] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xi. p. 157.
[445] In _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxiii. p. 50, he is said to have composed
it 'à l'âge de seize ans;' and at p. 46, to have been born
in 1623.
[446] _Leslie's Natural Philosophy_, p. 201; _Bordas Demoulin_, _Le
Cartésianisme_, vol. i. p. 310. Sir John Herschel (_Disc. on Nat.
Philos._ pp. 229, 230) calls this 'one of the first, if not the
very first,' crucial instance recorded in physics; and he thinks
that it 'tended, more powerfully than any thing which had
previously been done in science, to confirm in the minds of men
that disposition to experimental verification which had scarcely
yet taken full and secure root.' In this point of view, the
addition it actually made to knowledge is the smallest part of
its merit.
[447] Montucla (_Hist. des Mathématiques_, vol. ii. p. 61) says, 'vers
1658;' and at p. 65, 'il se mit, vers le commencement de 1658, à
considérer plus profondément les propriétés de cette courbe.'
[448] Montucla (_Hist. des Mathémat._ vol. ii. p. 136) enthusiastically
declares that 'si Descartes eût manqué à l'esprit humain, Fermat
l'eût remplacé en géométrie.' Simson, the celebrated restorer of
Greek geometry, said that Fermat was the only modern who
understood porisms. See _Trail's Account of Simson_, 1812, 4to.
pp. 18, 41. On the connexion between his views and the subsequent
discovery of the differential calculus, see _Brewster's Life of
Newton_, vol. ii. pp. 7, 8; and compare _Comte_, _Philosophie
Positive_, vol. i. pp. 228, 229, 726, 727.
[449] See extracts from two letters written by Fermat to Roberval, in
1636, in _Montucla_, _Hist. des Mathématiques_, vol. ii. pp. 136,
137; respecting which there is no notice in the meagre article on
Fermat, in _Hutton's Mathematical Dictionary_, vol. i. p. 510,
4to. 1815. It is a disgrace to English mathematicians that this
unsatisfactory work of Hutton's should still remain the best they
have produced on the history of their own science. The same
disregard of dates is shown in the hasty remarks on Fermat by
Playfair. See _Playfair's Dissertation on the Progress of
Mathematical Science_, _Encyclop. Brit._ vol. i. p. 440, 7th
edition.
[450] _Hutton's Mathemat. Dict._ vol. i. p. 572.
[451] _Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 46.
These were the men who flourished in France just before the system of
Louis XIV. came into operation. Shortly after their death the patronage
of the king began to tell upon the national intellect; and during the
next fifty years no addition of importance was made to either branch of
the mathematics, or, with the single exception of acoustics,[452] to any
of the sciences to which the mathematics are applied.[453] The further
the seventeenth century advanced, the more evident did the decline
become, and the more clearly can we trace the connexion between the
waning powers of the French, and that protective spirit which enfeebled
the energies it wished to strengthen. Louis had heard that astronomy is
a noble study; he was therefore anxious, by encouraging its cultivation
in France, to add to the glories of his own name.[454] With this view,
he rewarded its professors with unexampled profusion; he built the
splendid Observatory of Paris; he invited to his court the most eminent
foreign astronomers, Cassini from Italy, Römer from Denmark, Huygens
from Holland. But, as to native ability, France did not produce a single
man who made even one of those various discoveries which mark the epochs
of astronomical science. In other countries vast progress was made; and
Newton in particular, by his immense generalizations, reformed nearly
every branch of physics, and remodelled astronomy by carrying the laws
of gravitation to the extremity of the solar system. On the other hand,
France had fallen into such a torpor, that these wonderful discoveries,
which changed the face of knowledge, were entirely neglected, there
being no instance of any French astronomer adopting them until 1732,
that is, forty-five years after they had been published by their
immortal author.[455] Even in matters of detail, the most valuable
improvement made by French astronomers during the power of Louis XIV.
was not original. They laid claim to the invention of the micrometer; an
admirable resource, which, as they supposed, was first contrived by
Picard and Auzout.[456] The truth, however, is, that here again they
were anticipated by the activity of a freer and less protected people;
since the micrometer was invented by Gascoigne in or just before 1639,
when the English monarch, so far from having leisure to patronize
science, was about to embark in that struggle which, ten years later,
cost him his crown and his life.[457]
[452] Of which Sauveur may be considered the creator. Compare _Eloge de
Sauveur_, in _[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_, Paris, 1766, vol. v. p.
435, with _Whewell's Hist. of the Induc. Sciences_, vol. ii. p.
334; _Comte_, _Philos. Pos._ vol. ii. pp. 627, 628.
[453] In the report presented to Napoleon by the French Institute, it is
said of the reign of Louis XIV., 'les sciences exactes et les
sciences physiques peu cultivées en France dans un siècle qui
paroissoit ne trouver de charmes que dans la littérature.'
_Dacier_, _Rapport Historique_, p. 24. Or, as Lacretelle
expresses it (_Dix-huitième Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 10), 'La France,
après avoir fourni Descartes et Pascal, eut pendant quelque temps
à envier aux nations étrangères la gloire de produire des génies
créateurs dans les sciences.'
[454] A writer late in the seventeenth century says, with some
simplicity, 'the present king of France is reputed an encourager
of choice and able men, in all faculties, who can attribute to
his greatness.' _Aubrey's Letters_, vol. ii. p. 624.
[455] The _Principia_ of Newton appeared in 1687; and Maupertuis, in
1732, 'was the first astronomer of France who undertook a
critical defence of the theory of gravitation.' _Grant's Hist. of
Physical Astronomy_, pp. 31, 43. In 1738, Voltaire writes, 'La
France est jusqu'à présent le seul pays où les théories de Newton
en physique, et de Boerhaave en médecine, soient combattues. Nous
n'avons pas encore de bons éléments de physique; nous avons pour
toute astronomie le livre de Bion, qui n'est qu'un ramas informe
de quelques mémoires de l'académie.' _Correspond._ in _[OE]uvres
de Voltaire_, vol. xlvii. p. 340. On the tardy reception of
Newton's discoveries in France, compare _Eloge de Lacaille_, in
_[OE]uvres de Bailly_, Paris, 1790, vol. i. pp. 175, 176. All
this is the more remarkable, because several of the conclusions
at which Newton had arrived were divulged before they were
embodied in the _Principia_; and it appears from _Brewster's Life
of Newton_ (vol. i. pp. 25, 26, 290), that his speculations
concerning gravity began in 1666, or perhaps in the autumn of
1665.
[456] 'L'abbé Picard fut en société avec Auzout, l'inventeur du
micromètre.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxiv. p. 253. See also _Préface
de l'Hist. de l'Acad. des Sciences_, in _[OE]uvres de
Fontenelle_, Paris, 1766, vol. x. p. 20.
[457] The best account I have seen of the invention of the micrometer,
is in Mr. Grant's recent work, _History of Physical Astronomy_,
pp. 428, 450-453, where it is proved that Gascoigne invented it
in 1639, or possibly a year or two earlier. Compare _Humboldt's
Cosmos_, vol. iii. p. 52; who also ascribes it to Gascoigne, but
erroneously dates it in 1640. Montucla (_Hist. des Mathémat._
vol. ii. pp. 570, 571) admits the priority of Gascoigne; but
underrates his merit, being apparently unacquainted with the
evidence which Mr. Grant subsequently adduced.
The absence in France, during this period, not only of great
discoveries, but also of mere practical ingenuity, is certainly very
striking. In investigations requiring minute accuracy, the necessary
tools, if at all complicated, were made by foreigners, the native
workmen being too unskilled to construct them; and Dr. Lister, who was a
very competent judge,[458] and who was in Paris at the end of the
seventeenth century, supplies evidence that the best mathematical
instruments sold in that city were made, not by a Frenchman, but by
Butterfield, an Englishman residing there.[459] Nor did they succeed
better in matters of immediate and obvious utility. The improvements
effected in manufactures were few and insignificant, and were
calculated, not for the comfort of the people, but for the luxury of the
idle classes.[460] What was really valuable was neglected; no great
invention was made; and by the end of the reign of Louis XIV. scarcely
anything had been done in machinery, or in those other contrivances
which, by economising national labour, increase national wealth.[461]
[458] For a short account of this able man, see _Lankester's Mem. of
Ray_, p. 17.
[459] Notwithstanding the strong prejudice then existing against
Englishmen, Butterfield was employed by 'the king and all the
princes.' _Lister's Account of Paris at the close of the
Seventeenth Century, edited by Dr. Henning_, p. 85. Fontenelle
mentions 'M. Hubin,' as one of the most celebrated makers in
Paris in 1687 (_Eloge d'Amoltons_, in _[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_,
Paris, 1766, vol. v. p. 113); but has forgotten to state that he
too was an Englishman. 'Lutetiæ sedem posuerat ante aliquod
tempus _Anglus quidam nomine Hubinus_, vir ingeniosus, atque
hujusmodi machinationum peritus opifex et industrius. Hominem
adii,' &c. _Huetii Commentarius de Rebus ad eum pertinentibus_,
p. 346. Thus, again, in regard to time-keepers, the vast
superiority of the English makers, late in the reign of Louis
XIV., was equally incontestable. Compare _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxiv.
pp. 242, 243, with _Brewster's Life of Newton_, vol. ii. p. 262;
and as to the middle of the reign of Louis XIV., see _Eloge de
Sebastien_, in _[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_, vol. vi. pp. 332, 333.
[460] 'Les manufactures étaient plutôt dirigées vers le brillant que
vers l'utile. On s'efforça, par un arrêt du mois de mars 1700,
d'extirper, ou du moins de réduire beaucoup les fabriques de bas
au métier. Malgré cette fausse direction, les objets d'un luxe
très-recherché faisaient des progrès bien lents. En 1687, après
la mort de Colbert, la cour soldait encore l'industrie des
barbares, et faisait fabriquer et broder ses plus beaux habits à
Constantinople.' _Lemontey_, _Etablissement de Louis XIV_, p.
364. Lacretelle (_Dix-huitième Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 5) says, that
during the last thirty years of the reign of Louis XIV. 'les
manufactures tombaient.'
[461] Cuvier (_Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxvii. p. 199) thus describes the
condition of France only seven years after the death of Louis
XIV.: 'Nos forges étaient alors presque dans l'enfance; et nous
ne faisions point d'acier: tout celui qu'exigeaient les
différents métiers nous venait de l'étranger.... Nous ne
faisions point non plus alors de fer-blanc, et il ne nous venait
que de l'Allemagne.'
While such was the state, not only of mathematical and astronomical
science, but also of mechanical and inventive arts, corresponding
symptoms of declining power were seen in other departments. In
physiology, in anatomy and in medicine, we look in vain for any men
equal to those by whom France had once been honoured. The greatest
discovery of this kind ever made by a Frenchman, was that of the
receptacle of the chyle; a discovery which, in the opinion of a high
authority, is not inferior to that of the circulation of the blood by
Harvey.[462] This important step in our knowledge is constantly assigned
to the age of Louis XIV., as if it were one of the results of his
gracious bounty; but it would be difficult to tell what Louis had to do
with it, since the discovery was made by Pecquet in 1647,[463] when the
great king was nine years old. After Pecquet, the most eminent of the
French anatomists in the seventeenth century was Riolan; and his name we
also find among the illustrious men who adorned the reign of Louis XIV.
But the principal works of Riolan were written before Louis XIV. was
born; his last work was published in 1652; and he himself died in
1657.[464] Then there came a pause, and, during three generations, the
French did nothing for these great subjects: they wrote no work upon
them which is now read, they made no discoveries, and they seemed to
have lost all heart, until that revival of knowledge, which, as we shall
presently see, took place in France about the middle of the eighteenth
century. In the practical parts of medicine, in its speculative parts,
and in the arts connected with surgery, the same law prevails. The
French, in these, as in other matters, had formerly produced men of
great eminence, who had won for themselves an European reputation, and
whose works are still remembered. Thus, only to mention two or three
instances, they had a long line of illustrious physicians, among whom
Fernel and Joubert were the earliest;[465] they had, in surgery,
Ambroise Paré, who not only introduced important practical
improvements,[466] but who has the still rarer merit of being one of the
founders of comparative osteology;[467] and they had Baillou, who late
in the sixteenth and early in the seventeenth century, advanced
pathology, by connecting it with the study of morbid anatomy.[468] Under
Louis XIV. all this was changed. Under him, surgery was neglected,
though in other countries its progress was rapid.[469] The English, by
the middle of the seventeenth century, had taken considerable steps in
medicine: its therapeutical branch being reformed chiefly by Sydenham,
its physiological branch by Glisson.[470] But the age of Louis XIV.
cannot boast of a single medical writer who can be compared to these;
not even one whose name is now known as having made any specific
addition to our knowledge. In Paris, the practice of medicine was
notoriously inferior to that in the capitals of Germany, Italy, and
England; while in the French provinces, the ignorance, even of the best
physicians, was scandalous.[471] Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say
that, during the whole of this long period, the French in these matters
effected comparatively nothing; they made no contributions to clinical
literature,[472] and scarcely any to therapeutics, to pathology, to
physiology, or to anatomy.[473]
[462] 'Certainement la découverte de Pecquet ne brille pas moins dans
l'histoire de notre art que la vérité démontrée pour la première
fois par Harvey.' _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. iv. p.
208.
[463] Henle (_Anatomie Générale_, vol. ii. p. 106) says, that the
discovery was made in 1649; but the historians of medicine assign
it to 1647. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. iv. pp. 207,
405; _Renouard_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 173.
[464] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxviii. pp. 123, 124.
[465] Some of the great steps taken by Joubert are concisely stated in
_Broussais_, _Examen des Doctrines Médicales_, vol. i. pp. 293,
294, vol. iii. p. 361. Compare _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la
Médecine_, vol. iii. p. 210. Fernel, though enthusiastically
praised by Patin, was probably hardly equal to Joubert. _Lettres
de Patin_, vol. iii. pp. 59, 199, 648. At p. 106, Patin calls
Fernel 'le premier médecin de son temps, et peut-être le plus
grand qui sera jamais.'
[466] See a summary of them in _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol.
iii. pp. 405, 406, vol. vii. pp. 14, 15. Sir Benjamin Brodie
(_Lectures on Surgery_, p. 21) says, 'Few greater benefits have
been conferred on mankind than that for which we are indebted to
Ambrose Parey--the application of a ligature to a bleeding
artery.'
[467] 'C'était là une vue très-ingénieuse et très-juste qu'Ambroise Paré
donnait pour la première fois. C'était un commencement
d'ostéologie comparée.' _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_, part. ii.
p. 42. To this I may add, that he is the first French writer on
medical jurisprudence. See _Paris and Fonblanque's Medical
Jurisprudence_, 1823, vol. i. p. xviii.
[468] 'L'un des premiers auteurs à qui l'on doit des observations
cadavériques sur les maladies, est le fameux Baillou.'
_Broussais_, _Examen des Doctrines Médicales_, vol. ii. p. 218.
See also vol. iii. p. 362; and _Renouard_, _Hist. de la
Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 89. The value of his services is
recognized in a recent able work, _Phillips on Scrofula_, 1846,
p. 16.
[469] 'The most celebrated surgeon of the sixteenth century was Ambroise
Paré.... From the time of Paré until the commencement of the
eighteenth century, surgery was but little cultivated in France.
Mauriceau, Saviard, and Belloste, were the only French surgeons
of note who could be contrasted with so many eminent men of other
nations. During the eighteenth century, France produced two
surgeons of extraordinary genius; these are Petit and Desault.'
_Bowman's Surgery_, in _Encyclop. of Medical Sciences_, 1847,
4to. pp. 829, 830.
[470] It is unnecessary to adduce evidence respecting the services
rendered by Sydenham, as they are universally admitted; but what,
perhaps, is less generally known, is, that Glisson anticipated
those important views concerning irritability, which were
afterwards developed by Haller and Gorter. Compare _Renouard_,
_Hist. de le Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 192; _Elliotson's Human
Physiol_. p. 471; _Bordas Demoulin_, _Cartésianisme_, vol. i. p.
170; In _Wagner's Physiol._ 1841, p. 655, the theory is too
exclusively ascribed to Haller.
[471] Of this we have numerous complaints from foreigners who visited
France. I will quote the testimony of one celebrated man. In
1699, Addison writes from Blois: 'I made use of one of the
physicians of this place, who are as cheap as our English
farriers, and generally as ignorant.' _Aikin's Life of Addison_,
vol. i. p. 74.
[472] Indeed, France was the last great country in Europe in which a
chair of clinical medicine was established. See _Renouard_,
_Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 312; and _Bouillaud_,
_Philos. Médicale_, p. 114.
[473] M. Bouillaud, in his account of the state of medicine in the
seventeenth century, does not mention a single Frenchman during
this period. See _Bouillaud_, _Philosophie Médicale_, pp. 13 seq.
During many years of the power of Louis XIV., the French Academy
only possessed one anatomist; and of him, few students of
physiology have ever heard: 'M. du Verney fut assez long-temps le
seul anatomiste de l'académie, et ce ne fut qu'en 1684 qu'on lui
joignit M. Mery.' _Eloge de Du Verney_, in _[OE]uvres de
Fontenelle_, vol. vi. p. 392.
In what are called the natural sciences, we also find the French now
brought to a stand. In zoology, they had formerly possessed remarkable
men, among whom Belon and Rondelet were the most conspicuous:[474] but,
under Louis XIV., they did not produce one original observer in this
great field of inquiry.[475] In chemistry, again, Rey had, in the reign
of Louis XIII., struck out views of such vast importance, that he
anticipated some of those generalizations which formed the glory of the
French intellect in the eighteenth century.[476] During the corrupt and
frivolous age of Louis XIV., all this was forgotten; the labours of Rey
were neglected; and so complete was the indifference, that even the
celebrated experiments of Boyle remained unknown in France for more than
forty years after they were published.[477]
[474] _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_, part ii. pp. 64-73, 76-80.
[475] After Belon, nothing was done in France for the natural history of
animals until 1734, when there appeared the first volume of
Reaumur's great work. See _Swainson on the Study of Nat. Hist._
pp. 24, 43.
[476] On this remarkable man, who was the first philosophic chemist
Europe produced, and who, so early as 1630, anticipated some of
the generalizations made a hundred and fifty years later by
Lavoisier, see _Liebig's Letters on Chemistry_, pp. 46, 47;
_Thomson's Hist. of Chemistry_, vol. ii. pp. 95, 96; _Humboldt's
Cosmos_, vol. ii. p. 729; _Cuvier_, _Progrès des Sciences_,
vol. i. p. 30.
[477] Cuvier (_Progrès des Sciences_, vol. i. p. 30) says of Rey, 'son
écrit était tombé dans l'oubli le plus profond;' and, in another
work, the same great authority writes (_Hist. des Sciences_, part
ii. p. 333): 'Il y avait plus de quarante ans que Becker avait
présenté sa nouvelle théorie, développée par Stahl; il y avait
encore plus long-temps que les expériences de Boyle sur la chimie
pneumatique avaient été publiées, et cependant, rien de tout cela
n'entrait encore dans l'enseignement général de la chimie, du
moins en France.'
Connected with zoology, and, to a philosophic mind, inseparable from it,
is botany: which, occupying a middle place between the animal and
mineral world, indicates their relation to each other, and at different
points touches the confines of both. It also throws great light on the
functions of nutrition,[478] and on the laws of development; while, from
the marked analogy between animals and vegetables, we have every reason
to hope that its further progress, assisted by that of electricity, will
prepare the way for a comprehensive theory of life, to which the
resources of our knowledge are still unequal, but towards which the
movements of modern science are manifestly tending. On these grounds,
far more than for the sake of practical advantages, botany will always
attract the attention of thinking men; who, neglecting views of
immediate utility, look to large and ultimate results, and only value
particular facts in so far as they facilitate the discovery of general
truths. The first step in this noble study was taken towards the middle
of the sixteenth century, when authors, instead of copying what previous
writers had said, began to observe nature for themselves.[479] The next
step was, to add experiment to observation: but it required another
hundred years before this could be done with accuracy; because the
microscope, which is essential to such inquiries, was only invented
about 1620, and the labour of a whole generation was needed to make it
available for minute investigations.[480] So soon, however, as this
resource was sufficiently matured to be applied to plants, the march of
botany became rapid, at least as far as details are concerned; for it
was not until the eighteenth century that the facts were actually
generalized. But, in the preliminary work of accumulating the facts,
great energy was shown; and, for reasons stated in an earlier part of
the Introduction, this, like other studies relating to the external
world, advanced with peculiar speed during the reign of Charles II. The
tracheæ of plants were discovered by Henshaw in 1661;[481] and their
cellular tissue by Hooke in 1667.[482] These were considerable
approaches towards establishing the analogy between plants and animals;
and, within a few years, Grew effected still more of the same kind. He
made such minute and extensive dissections, as to raise the anatomy of
vegetables to a separate study, and prove that their organization is
scarcely less complicated than that possessed by animals.[483] His first
work was written in 1670;[484] and, in 1676, another Englishman,
Millington, ascertained the existence of a distinction of sexes;[485]
thus supplying further evidence of the harmony between the animal and
vegetable kingdoms, and of the unity of idea which regulates their
composition.
[478] The highest present generalizations of the laws of nutrition are
those by M. Chevreul; which are thus summed up by MM. Robin et
Verdeil, in their admirable work, _Chimie Anatomique_, vol. i. p.
203, Paris, 1853: 'En passant des plantes aux animaux, nous
voyons que plus l'organisation de ces derniers est compliquée,
plus les aliments dont ils se nourrissent sont complexes et
analogues par leurs principes immédiats aux principes des organes
qu'ils doivent entretenir.
'En définitive, on voit que les végétaux se nourrissent d'eau,
d'acide carbonique, d'autres gaz et de matières organiques à
l'état d'engrais, ou en d'autres termes altérées, c'est-à-dire
ramenées à l'état de principes plus simples, plus solubles. Au
contraire, les animaux plus élevés dans l'échelle organique ont
besoin de matières bien plus complexes quant aux principes
immédiats qui les composent, et plus variées dans leurs
propriétés.'
[479] Brunfels in 1530, and Fuchs in 1542, were the two first writers
who observed the vegetable kingdom for themselves, instead of
copying what the ancients had said. Compare _Whewell's Hist. of
the Sciences_, vol. iii. pp. 305, 306, with _Pulteney's Hist. of
Botany_, vol. i. p. 38.
[480] The microscope was exhibited in London, by Drebbel, about 1620;
and this appears to be the earliest unquestionable notice of its
use, though some writers assert that it was invented at the
beginning of the seventeenth century, or even in 1590. Compare
the different statements, in _Pouillet_, _Elémens de Physique_,
vol. ii. p. 357; _Humboldt's Cosmos_, vol. ii. pp. 699, 700;
_Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. iv. p. 337; _Winckler_,
_Gesch. der Botanik_, p. 136; _Quekett's Treatise on the
Microscope_, 1848, p. 2; _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_, part ii.
p. 470; _Hallam's Lit. of Europe_, vol. iii. p. 202; _Leslie's
Nat. Philos._ p. 52. On the subsequent improvement of the
microscope during the seventeenth century, see _Brewster's Life
of Newton_, vol. i. pp. 29, 242, 243.
[481] See _Balfour's Botany_, p. 15. In Pulteney's _Progress of Botany
in England_, this beautiful discovery is, if I rightly remember,
not even alluded to; but it appears, from a letter written in
1672, that it was then becoming generally known, and had been
confirmed by Grew and Malpighi. _Ray's Correspond._ edit. 1848,
p. 98. Compare _Richard_, _Eléments de Botanique_, p. 46; where,
however, M. Richard erroneously supposes that Grew did not know
of the tracheæ till 1682.
[482] Compare _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_, part ii. p. 471, with
_Thomson's Vegetable Chemistry_, p. 950.
[483] Dr. Thomson (_Vegetable Chemistry_, p. 950) says: 'But the person
to whom we are indebted for the first attempt to ascertain the
structure of plants by dissection and microscopical observations,
was Dr. Nathaniel Grew.' The character of Grew's inquiries, as
'viewing the internal, as well as external parts of plants,' is
also noticed in _Ray's Correspond._ p. 188; and M. Winckler
(_Gesch. der Botanik_, p. 382) ascribes to him and Malpighi the
'neuen Aufschwung' taken by vegetable physiology late in the
seventeenth century. See also, on Grew, _Lindley's Botany_, vol.
i. p. 93; and _Third Report of Brit. Assoc._ p. 27.
[484] The first book of his Anatomy of Plants was laid before the Royal
Society in 1670, and printed in 1671. _Hallam's Lit. of Europe_,
vol. iii. p. 580; and _Thomson's Hist. of the Royal Society_, p.
44.
[485] 'The presence of sexual organs in plants was first shown in 1676,
by Sir Thomas Millington; and it was afterwards confirmed by
Grew, Malpighi, and Ray.' _Balfour's Botany_, p. 236. See also
_Pulteney's Progress of Botany_, vol. i. pp. 336, 337; and
_Lindley's Botany_, vol. ii. p. 217: and, as to Ray, who was
rather slow in admitting the discovery, see _Lankester's Mem. of
Ray_, p. 100. Before this, the sexual system of vegetables had
been empirically known to several of the ancients, but never
raised to a scientific truth. Compare _Richard_, _Eléments de
Botanique_, pp. 353, 427, 428, with _Matter_, _Hist. de l'Ecole
d'Alexandrie_, vol. ii. p. 9.
This is what was effected in England during the reign of Charles II.;
and we now ask what was done in France, during the same period, under
the munificent patronage of Louis XIV. The answer is, nothing; no
discovery, no idea, which forms an epoch in this important department of
natural science. The son of the celebrated Sir Thomas Brown visited
Paris in the hope of making some additions to his knowledge of botany,
which he thought he could not fail to do in a country where science was
held in such honour, its professors so caressed by the court, and its
researches so bountifully encouraged. To his surprise, he, in 1665,
found in that great city no one capable of teaching his favourite
pursuit, and even the public lectures on it miserably meagre and
unsatisfactory.[486] Neither then, nor at a much later period, did the
French possess a good popular treatise on botany: still less did they
make any improvement in it. Indeed, so completely was the philosophy of
the subject misunderstood, that Tournefort, the only French botanist of
repute in the reign of Louis, actually rejected that discovery of the
sexes of plants, which had been made before he began to write, and which
afterwards became the corner-stone of the Linnæan system.[487] This
showed his incapacity for those large views respecting the unity of the
organic world, which alone give to botany a scientific value; and we
find, accordingly, that he did nothing for the physiology of plants, and
that his only merit was as a collector and classifier of them.[488] And
even in his classification he was guided, not by a comprehensive
comparison of their various parts, but by considerations drawn from the
mere appearance of the flower:[489] thus depriving botany of its real
grandeur, degrading it into an arrangement of beautiful objects, and
supplying another instance of the way in which the Frenchmen of that
generation impoverished what they sought to enrich, and dwarfed every
topic, until they suited the intellect and pleased the eye of that
ignorant and luxurious court, to whose favour they looked for reward,
and whose applause it was the business of their life to gain.
[486] In July 1665 he writes from Paris to his father, 'The lecture of
plants here is only the naming of them, their degrees in heat and
cold, and sometimes their use in physick; scarce a word more than
may be seen in every herball.' _Browne's Works_, vol. i. p. 108.
[487] Cuvier mentioning the inferiority of Tournefort's views to those
of his predecessors, gives as an instance, 'puisqu'il a rejeté
les sexes des plantes.' _Hist. des Sciences_, part ii. p. 496.
Hence he held that the farina was ex-crementitious. _Pulteney's
Progress of Botany_, vol. i. p. 340.
[488] This is admitted even by his eulogist Duvau. _Biog. Univ._
vol. xlvi. p. 363.
[489] On the method of Tournefort, which was that of a corrollist,
compare _Richard_, _Eléments de Botanique_, p. 547; _Jussieu's
Botany_, edit. Wilson, 1849, p. 516; _Ray's Correspond._ pp. 381,
382; _Lankester's Mem. of Ray_, p. 49; _Winckler_, _Gesch. der
Botanik_, p. 142. Cuvier (_Hist. des Sciences_, part ii. p. 496),
with quiet irony, says of it, 'vous voyez, messieurs, que cette
méthode a le mérite d'une grande clarté; qu'elle est fondée sur
la forme de la fleur, et par conséquent sur des considérations
agréables à saisir.... Ce qui en fit le succès, c'est que
Tournefort joignit à son ouvrage une figure de fleur et de fruit
appartenant à chacun de ses genres.' Even in this, he appears to
have been careless, and is said to have described 'a great many
plants he never examined nor saw.' _Letter from Dr. Sherard_, in
_Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. i.
p. 356.
The truth is, that in these, as in all matters of real importance, in
questions requiring independent thought, and in questions of practical
utility, the age of Louis XIV. was an age of decay: it was an age of
misery, of intolerance, and oppression; it was an age of bondage, of
ignominy, of incompetence. This would long since have been universally
admitted, if those who have written the history of that period had taken
the trouble to study subjects without which no history can be
understood; or, I should rather say, without which no history can exist.
If this had been done, the reputation of Louis XIV. would at once have
shrunk to its natural size. Even at the risk of exposing myself to the
charge of unduly estimating my own labours, I cannot avoid saying, that
the facts which I have just pointed out have never before been
collected, but have remained isolated in the text-books and repertories
of the sciences to which they belong. Yet without them it is impossible
to study the age of Louis XIV. It is impossible to estimate the
character of any period except by tracing its development; in other
words, by measuring the extent of its knowledge. Therefore it is, that
to write the history of a country without regard to its intellectual
progress, is as if an astronomer should compose a planetary system
without regard to the sun, by whose light alone the planets can be seen,
and by whose attraction they are held in their course, and compelled to
run in the path of their appointed orbits. For the great luminary, even
as it shines in the heaven, is not a more noble or a more powerful
object than is the intellect of man in this nether world. It is to the
human intellect, and to that alone, that every country owes its
knowledge. And what is it but the progress and diffusion of knowledge
which has given us our arts, our sciences, our manufactures, our laws,
our opinions, our manners, our comforts, our luxuries, our civilization;
in short, everything that raises us above the savages, who by their
ignorance are degraded to the level of the brutes with which they herd?
Surely, then, the time has now arrived when they who undertake to write
the history of a great nation should occupy themselves with those
matters by which alone the destiny of men is regulated, and should
abandon the petty and insignificant details by which we have too long
been wearied; details respecting the lives of kings, the intrigues of
ministers, the vices and the gossip of courts.
It is precisely these higher considerations which furnish the key to the
history of the reign of Louis XIV. In that time, as in all others, the
misery of the people and the degradation of the country followed the
decline of the national intellect; while this last was, in its turn, the
result of the protective spirit--that mischievous spirit which weakens
whatever it touches. If in the long course and compass of history there
is one thing more clear than another, it is, that whenever a government
undertakes to protect intellectual pursuits, it will almost always
protect them in the wrong place, and reward the wrong men. Nor is it
surprising that this should be the case. What can kings and ministers
know about those immense branches of knowledge, to cultivate which with
success is often the business of an entire life? How can they,
constantly occupied with their lofty pursuits, have leisure for such
inferior matters? Is it to be supposed that such acquirements will be
found among statesmen, who are always engaged in the most weighty
concerns; sometimes writing despatches, sometimes making speeches,
sometimes organising a party in the parliament, sometimes baffling an
intrigue in the privy-chamber? Or if the sovereign should graciously
bestow his patronage according to his own judgment, are we to expect
that mere philosophy and science should be familiar to high and mighty
princes, who have their own peculiar and arduous studies, and who have
to learn the mysteries of heraldry, the nature and dignities of rank,
the comparative value of the different orders, decorations, and titles,
the laws of precedence, the prerogatives of noble birth, the names and
powers of ribbons, stars, and garters, the various modes of conferring
an honour or installing into an office, the adjustment of ceremonies,
the subtleties of etiquette, and all those other courtly accomplishments
necessary to the exalted functions which they perform?
The mere statement of such questions proves the absurdity of the
principle which they involve. For, unless we believe that kings are
omniscient as well as immaculate, it is evident that in the bestowal of
rewards they must be guided either by personal caprice or by the
testimony of competent judges. And since no one is a competent judge of
scientific excellence unless he is himself scientific, we are driven to
this monstrous alternative, that the rewards of intellectual labour must
be conferred injudiciously, or else that they must be given according to
the verdict of that very class by whom they are received. In the first
case, the reward will be ridiculous; in the latter case, it will be
disgraceful. In the former case, weak men will be benefited by wealth
which is taken from industry to be lavished on idleness. But in the
latter case, those men of real genius, those great and illustrious
thinkers, who are the masters and teachers of the human race, are to be
tricked out with trumpery titles; and after scrambling in miserable
rivalry for the sordid favours of a court, they are then to be turned
into beggars of the state, who not only clamour for their share of the
spoil, but even regulate the proportions into which the shares are to be
divided.
Under such a system, the natural results are, first, the impoverishment
and servility of genius: then the decay of knowledge; then the decline
of the country. Three times in the history of the world has this
experiment been tried. In the ages of Augustus, of Leo X., and of Louis
XIV., the same method was adopted, and the same result ensued. In each
of these ages, there was much apparent splendour, immediately succeeded
by sudden ruin. In each instance, the brilliancy survived the
independence; and in each instance, the national spirit sank under that
pernicious alliance between government and literature, by virtue of
which the political classes become very powerful, and the intellectual
classes very weak, simply because they who dispense the patronage will,
of course, receive the homage; and if, on the one hand, government is
always ready to reward literature, so on the other hand, will literature
be always ready to succumb to government.
Of these three ages, that of Louis XIV. was incomparably the worst; and
nothing but the amazing energy of the French people could have enabled
them to rally, as they afterwards did, from the effects of so enfeebling
a system. But though they rallied, the effort cost them dear. The
struggle, as we shall presently see, lasted two generations, and was
only ended by that frightful Revolution which formed its natural climax.
What the real history of that struggle was, I shall endeavour to
ascertain towards the conclusion of this volume. Without, however,
anticipating the course of affairs, we will now proceed to what I have
already mentioned as the second great characteristic of the reign of
Louis XIV.
II. The second intellectual characteristic of the reign of Louis XIV.
is, in importance, hardly inferior to the first. We have already seen
that the national intellect, stunted by the protection of the court, was
so diverted from the noblest branches of knowledge, that in none of them
did it produce anything worthy of being recorded. As a natural
consequence, the minds of men, driven from the higher departments, took
refuge in the lower, and concentrated themselves upon those inferior
subjects, where the discovery of truth is not the main object, but where
beauty of form and expression are the things chiefly pursued. Thus, the
first consequence of the patronage of Louis XIV. was, to diminish the
field for genius, and to sacrifice science to art. The second
consequence was, that, even in art itself, there was soon seen a marked
decay. For a short time, the stimulus produced its effect; but was
followed by that collapse which is its natural result. So essentially
vicious is the whole system of patronage and reward, that after the
death of those writers and artists, whose works form the only redeeming
point in the reign of Louis, there was found no one capable of even
imitating their excellences. The poets, dramatists, painters, musicians,
sculptors, architects, were, with hardly an exception, not only born,
but educated under that freer policy, which existed before his time.
When they began their labours, they benefited by a munificence which
encouraged the activity of their genius. But in a few years, that
generation having died off, the hollowness of the whole system was
clearly exposed. More than a quarter of a century before the death of
Louis XIV., most of these eminent men had ceased to live; and then it
was seen to how miserable a plight the country was reduced under the
boasted patronage of the great king. At the moment when Louis XIV. died,
there was scarcely a writer or an artist in France who enjoyed an
European reputation. This is a circumstance well worth our notice. If we
compare the different classes of literature, we shall find that sacred
oratory, being the least influenced by the king, was able the longest to
bear up against his system. Massillon belongs partly to the subsequent
reign; but even of the other great divines, Bossuet and Bourdaloue both
lived to 1704,[490] Mascaron to 1703,[491] and Flechier to 1710.[492]
As, however, the king, particularly in his latter years, was very
fearful of meddling with the church, it is in profane matters that we
can best trace the workings of his policy, because it is there that his
interference was most active. With a view to this, the simplest plan
will be, to look, in the first place, into the history of the fine arts;
and after ascertaining who the greatest artists were, observe the year
in which they died, remembering that the government of Louis XIV. began
in 1661, and ended in 1715.
[490] _Biog. Univ._ vol. v. pp. 236, 358.
[491] _Ibid._ xxvii. p. 351.
[492] _Ibid._ xv. p. 35.
If, now, we examine this period of fifty-four years, we shall be struck
by the remarkable fact, that everything which is celebrated was effected
in the first half of it; while more than twenty years before its close,
the most eminent masters all died without leaving any successors. The
six greatest painters in the reign of Louis XIV. were Poussin, Lesueur,
Claude Lorraine, Le Brun, and the two Mignards. Of these, Le Brun died
in 1690;[493] the elder Mignard in 1668;[494] the younger in 1695;[495]
Claude Lorraine in 1682;[496] Lesueur in 1655;[497] and Poussin, perhaps
the most distinguished of all the French school, died in 1665.[498] The
two greatest architects were, Claude Perrault and Francis Mansart; but
Perrault died in 1688;[499] Mansart in 1666;[500] and Blondel, the next
in fame, died in 1686.[501] The greatest of all the sculptors was Puget,
who died in 1694.[502] Lulli, the founder of French music, died in
1687.[503] Quinault, the greatest poet of French music, died in
1688.[504] Under these eminent men, the fine arts, in the reign of
Louis XIV., reached their zenith; and during the last thirty years of
his life, their decline was portentously rapid. This was the case, not
only in architecture and music, but even in painting, which, being more
subservient than they are to personal vanity, is more likely to flourish
under a rich and despotic government. The genius, however, of painters
fell so low, that long before the death of Louis XIV., France ceased to
possess one of any merit; and when his successor came to the throne,
this beautiful art was, in that great country, almost extinct.[505]
[493] _Ibid._ xxiii. p. 496.
[494] _Ibid._ xxix. p. 17.
[495] _Ibid._ xxix. p. 19.
[496] 'His best pictures were painted from about 1640 to 1660; he died
in 1682.' _Wornum's Epochs of Painting_, Lond. 1847. p. 399.
Voltaire (_Siècle de Louis XIV_, in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xix. p.
205) says that he died in 1678.
[497] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxiv. p. 327; _Works of Sir Joshua Reynolds_,
vol. ii. pp. 454, 455.
[498] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxv. p. 579. Poussin was Barry's 'favourite'
painter. _Letter from Barry_, in _Burke's Correspond._ vol. i. p.
88. Compare _Otter's Life of Clarke_, vol. ii. p. 55. Sir Joshua
Reynolds (_Works_, vol. i. pp. 97, 351, 376) appears to have
preferred him to any of the French school; and in the report
presented to Napoleon by the Institute, he is the only French
painter mentioned by the side of the Greek and Italian artists.
_Dacier_, _Rapport Historique_, p. 23.
[499] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxiii. p. 411; _Siècle de Louis XIV_, in
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xix. p. 158.
[500] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi. p. 503.
[501] _Ibid._ vol. iv. p. 593.
[502] _Ibid._ vol. xxxvi. p. 300. Respecting him, see _Lady Morgan's
France_, vol. ii. pp. 30, 31.
[503] M. Capefigue (_Louis XIV_, vol. ii. p. 79) says, 'Lulli mourut en
1689;' but 1687 is the date assigned in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxv.
p. 425; in _Chalmer's Biog. Dict._ vol. xx. p. 483; in _Rose's
Biog. Dict._ vol. ix. p. 350; and in _Monteil_, _Divers Etats_,
vol. vii p. 63. In _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xix. p. 200, he
is called 'le père de la vraie musique en France.' He was admired
by Louis XIV. _Lettres de Sévigné_, vol. ii. pp. 162, 163.
[504] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxvi. p. 42. Voltaire (_[OE]uvres_, vol. xix.
p. 162) says, 'personne n'a jamais égalé Quinault;' and Mr.
Hallam (_Lit. of Europe_, vol. iii. p. 507), 'the unrivalled poet
of French music.' See also _Lettres de Dudeffand à Walpole_, vol.
ii. p. 432.
[505] When Louis XV. ascended the throne, painting in France was in the
lowest state of degradation. _Lady Morgan's France_, vol. ii. p.
31. Lacretelle (_Dix-huitième Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 11) says 'Les
beaux arts dégénérèrent plus sensiblement que les lettres pendant
la seconde partie du siècle de Louis XIV.... Il est certain que
les vingt-cinq dernières années du règne de Louis XIV n'offrirent
que des productions très-inférieures,' &c. Thus too Barrington
(_Observations on the Statutes_, p. 377), 'It is very remarkable
that the French school hath not produced any very capital
painters since the expensive establishment by Louis XIV. of the
academies at Rome and Paris.'
These are startling facts; not matters of opinion, which may be
disputed, but stubborn dates, supported by irrefragable testimony. And
if we examine in the same manner the literature of the age of Louis
XIV., we shall arrive at similar conclusions. If we ascertain the dates
of those masterpieces which adorn his reign, we shall find that during
the last five-and-twenty years of his life, when his patronage had been
the longest in operation, it was entirely barren of results; in other
words, that when the French had been most habituated to his protection,
they were least able to effect great things. Louis XIV. died in 1715.
Racine produced _Phedre_ in 1677; _Andromaque_ in 1667; _Athelie_ in
1691.[506] Molière published the _Misanthrope_ in 1666; _Tartuffe_ in
1667; the _Avare_ in 1668.[507] The _Lutrin_ of Boileau was written in
1674; his best Satires in 1666.[508] The last Fables of La Fontaine
appeared in 1678, and his last Tales in 1671.[509] The _Inquiry
respecting Truth_, by Malebranche, was published in 1674;[510] the
_Caractères_ of La Bruyère in 1687;[511] the Maximes of Rochefoucauld in
1665.[512] The _Provincial Letters_ of Pascal were written 1656, and he
himself died in 1662.[513] As to Corneille, his great Tragedies were
composed, some while Louis was still a boy, and the others before the
king was born.[514] Such were the dates of the masterpieces of the age
of Louis XIV. The authors of these immortal works all ceased to write,
and nearly all ceased to live, before the close of the seventeenth
century; and we may fairly ask the admirers of Louis XIV. who those men
were that succeeded them. Where have their names been registered? Where
are their works to be found? Who is there that now reads the books of
those obscure hirelings, who for so many years thronged the court of the
great king? Who has heard anything of Campistron, La Chapelle, Genest,
Ducerceau, Dancourt, Danchet, Vergier, Catrou, Chaulieu, Legendre,
Valincour, Lamotte, and the other ignoble compilers, who long remained
the brightest ornaments of France? Was this, then, the consequence of
the royal bounty? Was this the fruit of the royal patronage? If the
system of reward and protection is really advantageous to literature and
to art, how is it that it should have produced the meanest results when
it had been the longest in operation? If the favour of kings is, as
their flatterers tell us, of such importance, how comes it that the more
the favour was displayed, the more the effects were contemptible?
[506] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxvi. pp. 499, 502; _Hallam's Lit._ vol. iii.
p. 493.
[507] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxix. pp. 306, 308.
[508] _Rose's Biog. Dict._ vol. iv. p. 376; and _Biog. Univ._ vol. v.
pp. 7, 8, where it is said that 'ses meilleures satires' were
those published in 1666.
[509] _Ibid._ vol. xxiii. p. 127.
[510] _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. x. p. 322.
[511] _Biog. Univ._ vol. vi. p. 175.
[512] _Brunet_, _Manuel du Libraire_, vol. iv. p. 105, Paris 1843; and
note in _Lettres de Patin_, vol. i. p. 421.
[513] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxiii. pp. 64, 71; _Palissot_, _Mém. pour
l'Hist. de Lit._ vol. ii. pp. 239, 241.
[514] _Polyeucte_, which is probably his greatest work, appeared in
1640; _Médée_ in 1635; _The Cid_ in 1636; _Horace and Cinna_ both
in 1639. _Biog. Univ._ vol. ix. pp. 609-613.
Nor was this almost inconceivable penury compensated by superiority in
any other department. The simple fact is that Louis XIV. survived the
entire intellect of the French nation, except that small part of it
which grew up in opposition to his principles, and afterwards shook the
throne of his successor.[515] Several years before his death, and when
his protective system had been in full force for nearly half a century,
there was not to be found in the whole of France a statesman who could
develop the resources of the country, or a general who could defend it
against its enemies. Both in the civil service and in the military
service, every thing had fallen into disorder. At home there was nothing
but confusion; abroad there was nothing but disaster. The spirit of
France succumbed, and was laid prostrate. The men of letters, pensioned
and decorated by the court, had degenerated into a fawning and
hypocritical race, who, to meet the wishes of their masters, opposed all
improvement, and exerted themselves in support of every old abuse. The
end of all this was, a corruption, a servility, and a loss of power more
complete than has ever been witnessed in any of the great countries of
Europe. There was no popular liberty; there were no great men; there was
no science; there was no literature; there were no arts. Within, there
was a discontented people, a rapacious government, and a beggared
exchequer. Without, there were foreign armies, which pressed upon all
the frontiers, and which nothing but their mutual jealousies, and a
change in the English cabinet, prevented from dismembering the monarchy
of France.[516]
[515] Voltaire (_Siècle de Louis XIV_, in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp.
319-322) reluctantly confesses the decline of the French
intellect in the latter part of the reign of Louis; and Flassan
(_Diplomat. Franç._ vol. iv. p. 400) calls it 'remarquable.' See
also _Barante_, _Littérature Française_, p. 28; _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxvi. p. 217.
[516] Oppressed by defeats abroad, and by famine and misery at home,
Louis was laid at the mercy of his enemies; and 'was only saved by
a party revolution in the English ministry.' _Arnold's Lectures
on Modern History_, p. 137. Compare _Fragments sur l'Histoire_,
article xxiii. in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xxvii. p. 345,
with _De Tocqueville_, _Règne de Louis XV_, vol. i. p. 86.
Such was the forlorn position of that noble country towards the close of
the reign of Louis XIV.[517] The misfortunes which embittered the
declining years of the king were, indeed, so serious, that they could
not fail to excite our sympathy, if we did not know that they were the
result of his own turbulent ambition, of his insufferable arrogance,
but, above all, of a grasping and restless vanity, which, making him
eager to concentrate on his single person all the glory of France, gave
rise to that insidious policy, which, with gifts, with honours, and with
honied words, began by gaining the admiration of the intellectual
classes, then made them courtly and time-serving, and ended by
destroying all their boldness, stifling every effort of original
thought, and thus postponing for an indefinite period the progress of
national civilization.
[517] For evidence of the depression and, indeed, utter exhaustion of
France during the latter years of Louis XIV., compare _Duclos_,
_Mémoires_, vol. i. pp. 11-18, with _Marmontel_, _Hist. de la
Régence_, Paris, 1826, pp. 79-97. The _Lettres inédites de Madame
de Maintenon_ (vol. i. pp. 263, 284, 358, 389, 393, 408, 414,
422, 426, 447, 457, 463, vol. ii. pp. 19, 23, 33, 46, 56, and
numerous other passages) fully confirm this, and, moreover, prove
that in Paris, early in the eighteenth century, the resources,
even of the wealthy classes, were beginning to fail; while both
public and private credit were so shaken, that it was hardly
possible to obtain money on any terms. In 1710, she, the wife of
Louis XIV., complains of her inability to borrow 500 livres:
'Tout mon crédit échoue souvent auprès de M. Desmaretz pour une
somme de cinq cents livres.' _Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 33. In 1709, she
writes (vol. i. p. 447): 'Le jeu devient insipide, parce qu'il
n'y a presque plus d'argent.' See also vol. ii. p. 112; and in
February 1711 (p. 151): 'Ce n'est pas l'abondance mais l'avarice
qui fait jouer nos courtisans; on met le tout pour le tout pour
avoir quelque argent, et les tables de lansquenet ont plus l'air
d'un triste commerce que d'un divertissement.'
In regard to the people generally, the French writers supply us
with little information, because in that age they were too much
occupied with their great king and their showy literature, to pay
attention to mere popular interests. But I have collected from
other sources some information which I will now put together, and
which I recommend to the notice of the next French author who
undertakes to compose a history of Louis XIV.
Locke, who was travelling in France in 1676 and 1677, writes in
his journal, 'The rent of land in France fallen one-half in these
few years, by reason of the poverty of the people.' _King's Life
of Locke_, vol. i. p. 139. About the same time, Sir William
Temple says (_Works_, vol. ii. p. 268), 'The French peasantry are
wholly dispirited by labour and want.' In 1691, another observer,
proceeding from Calais, writes, 'From hence, travelling to Paris,
there was opportunity enough to observe what a prodigious state
of poverty the ambition and absoluteness of a tyrant can reduce
an opulent and fertile country to. There were visible all the
marks and signs of a growing misfortune; all the dismal
indications of an overwhelming calamity. The fields were
uncultivated, the villages unpeopled, the houses dropping to
decay.' _Burton's Diary_, note by Rutt, vol. iv. p. 79. In a
tract published in 1689, the author says (_Somers Tracts_, vol.
x. p. 264), 'I have known in France poor people sell their beds,
and lie upon straw; sell their pots, kettles, and all their
necessary household goods, to content the unmerciful collectors
of the king's taxes.' Dr. Lister, who visited Paris in 1698,
says, 'Such is the vast multitude of poor wretches in all parts
of this city, that whether a person is in a carriage or on foot,
in the street, or even in a shop, he is alike unable to transact
business, on account of the importunities of mendicants.'
_Lister's Account of Paris_, p. 46. Compare a _Letter from
Prior_, in _Ellis's Letters of Literary Men_, p. 213. In 1708,
Addison, who, from personal observation, was well acquainted with
France, writes: 'We think here as you do in the country, that
France is on her last legs.' _Aikin's Life of Addison_, vol. i.
p. 233. Finally, in 1718--that is, three years after the death of
Louis--Lady Mary Montagu gives the following account of the
result of his reign, in a letter to Lady Rich, dated Paris, 10th
October, 1718: 'I think nothing so terrible as objects of misery,
except one had the god-like attribute of being able to redress
them; and all the country villages of France show nothing else.
While the post-horses are changed, the whole town comes out to
beg, with such miserable starved faces, and thin, tattered
clothes, they need no other eloquence to persuade one of the
wretchedness of their condition.' _Works of Lady Mary Wortley
Montague_, vol. iii. p. 74, edit. 1803.