STATE OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE IN FRANCE FROM THE END OF THE SIXTEENTH
TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
It may be easily supposed, that those vast movements in the intellect of
France, which I have just traced, could not fail to produce a great
change in the method of writing history. That bold spirit with which men
were beginning to estimate the transactions of their own time, was sure
to influence their opinions respecting those of a former age. In this,
as in every branch of knowledge, the first innovation consisted in
recognizing the necessity of doubting what had hitherto been believed;
and this feeling, when once established, went on increasing, destroying
at each step some of those monstrous absurdities by which, as we have
seen, even the best histories were disfigured. The germs of the reform
may be discerned in the fourteenth century, though the reform itself did
not begin until late in the sixteenth century. During the seventeenth
century, it advanced somewhat slowly; but in the eighteenth century it
received a sudden accession of strength, and, in France in particular,
it was hastened by that fearless and inquisitive spirit which
characterized the age, and which, purging history of innumerable
follies, raised its standard, and conferred on it a dignity hitherto
unknown. The rise of historical scepticism, and the extent to which it
spread, do indeed form such curious features in the annals of the
European intellect, as to make it surprising that no one should have
attempted to examine a movement to which a great department of modern
literature owes its most valuable peculiarities. In the present chapter,
I hope to supply this deficiency so far as France is concerned; and I
shall endeavour to mark the different steps by which the progress was
effected, in order that, by knowing the circumstances most favourable to
the study of history, we may with the greater ease inquire into the
probability of its future improvement.
There is, in reference to this subject, a preliminary consideration well
worthy of notice. This is, that men seem always to have begun to doubt
in matters of religion, before they ventured to do so in matters of
history. It might have been expected that the reproaches, and, in a
superstitious age, the dangers, to which heresy is exposed, would have
intimidated inquirers, and would have induced them to prefer the safer
path of directing their scepticism upon questions of literary
speculation. Such, however, is by no means the course which the human
mind has adopted. In an early stage of society, when the clergy had
universal influence, a belief in the unpardonable criminality of
religious error is so deeply rooted, that it engrosses the attention of
all; it forces every one who thinks, to concentrate upon theology his
reflections and his doubts, and it leaves no leisure for topics which
are conceived to be of inferior importance.[807] Hence, during many
centuries, the subtlest intellects of Europe exhausted their strength on
the rights and dogmas of Christianity; and while upon these matters they
often showed the greatest ability, they, upon other subjects, and
especially upon history, displayed that infantine credulity, of which I
have already given several examples.
[807] See some very just remarks in _Whewell's Philos. of the Induc.
Sciences_, vol. ii. p. 143. In _Neander's Hist. of the Church_,
vol. iv. pp. 41, 128, there are two curious illustrations of the
universal interest which theological discussions once inspired in
Europe; and on the former subservience of philosophy to theology,
compare _Hamilton's Discussions on Philosophy_, p. 197. But no
one has treated this subject so ably as M. Auguste Comte, in his
great work, _Philosophie Positive_. The service which the
metaphysicians rendered to the church by their development of the
doctrine of transubstantiation (_Blánco White's Evidence against
Catholicism_, pp. 256-258) is a striking instance of this
subordination of the intellect to ecclesiastical dogmas.
But when, in the progress of society, its theological element begins to
decay, the ardour with which religious disputes were once conducted
becomes sensibly weakened. The most advanced intellects are the first to
feel the growing indifference, and, therefore, they are also the first
to scrutinize real events with that inquisitive eye which their
predecessors had reserved for religious speculations. This is a great
turning-point in the history of every civilized nation. From this moment
theological heresies become less frequent,[808] and literary heresies
become more common. From this moment the spirit of inquiry and of doubt
fastens itself upon every department of knowledge, and begins that great
career of conquest, in which by every succeeding discovery the power and
dignity of man are increased, while at the same time most of his
opinions are disturbed, and many of them are destroyed: until, in the
march of this vast but noiseless revolution, the stream of tradition is,
as it were, interrupted, the influence of ancient authority is
subverted, and the human mind, waxing in strength, learns to rely upon
its own resources, and to throw off incumbrances by which the freedom of
its movements had long been impaired.
[808] M. Tocqueville says, what I am inclined to think is true, that an
increasing spirit of equality lessens the disposition to form new
religious creeds. _Démocratie en Amérique_, vol. iv. pp. 16, 17.
At all events, it is certain that increasing knowledge has this
effect; for those great men whose turn of mind would formerly
have made them heretics, are now content to confine their
innovations to other fields of thought. If St. Augustin had lived
in the seventeenth century, he would have reformed or created the
physical sciences. If Sir Isaac Newton had lived in the fourth
century, he would have organized a new sect, and have troubled
the church with his originality.
The application of these remarks to the history of France, will enable
us to explain some interesting phenomena in the literature of that
country. During the whole of the Middle Ages, and I may say till the end
of the sixteenth century, France, though fertile in annalists and
chroniclers, had not produced a single historian, because she had not
produced a single man who presumed to doubt what was generally believed.
Indeed, until the publication of Du Haillan's history of the kings of
France, no one had even attempted a critical digest of the materials
which were known to be extant. This work appeared in 1576;[809] and the
author, at the conclusion of his labours, could not disguise the pride
which he felt at having accomplished so great an undertaking. In his
dedication to the king he says, 'I am, sire, the first of all the French
who have written the history of France, and, in a polite language, shown
the grandeur and dignity of our kings; for before there was nothing but
the old rubbish of chronicles which spoke of them.' He adds in the
preface: 'Only I will say, without presumption and boasting, that I have
done a thing which had not been done before, or seen by any of our
nation, and have given to the history of France a dress it never
appeared in before.'[810] Nor were these the idle boasts of an obscure
man. His work went through numerous editions; was translated into Latin,
and was reprinted in foreign countries. He himself was looked upon as
one of the glories of the French nation, and was rewarded by the favour
of the king, who conferred on him the office of secretary of
finance.[811] From his work, we may, therefore, gain some notion of what
was then the received standard of historical literature; and with this
view, it is natural to inquire what the materials were which he chiefly
employed. About sixty years earlier, an Italian named Paulus Emilius had
published a gossiping compilation on the 'Actions of the French.'[812]
This book, which is full of extravagant fables, was taken by Du Haillan
as the basis of his famous history of the kings of France; and from it
he unhesitatingly copies those idle stories which Emilius loved to
relate. This will give us some idea of the credulity of a writer, who
was reckoned by his contemporaries to be, beyond all comparison, the
greatest historian France had produced. But this is not all. Du Haillan,
not content with borrowing from his predecessor everything that was most
incredible, gratifies his passion for the marvellous by some
circumstances of his own invention. He begins his history with a long
account of a council which, he says, was held by the celebrated
Pharamond, in order to determine whether the French should be governed
by a monarchy or by an aristocracy. It is, indeed, doubtful if any such
person as Pharamond ever existed; and it is certain that, if he did
exist, all the materials had long perished from which an opinion could
be formed respecting him.[813] But Du Haillan, regardless of these
little difficulties, gives us the fullest information touching the great
chieftain; and, as if determined to tax to the utmost the credulity of
his readers, mentions, as members of the council of Pharamond, two
persons, Charamond and Quadrek, whose very names are invented by the
historian.[814]
[809] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xix. pp. 315, 316; where it is said, 'l'ouvrage
de Du Haillan est remarquable en ce que c'est le premier corps
d'histoire de France qui ait paru dans notre langue.' See also
_Dacier_, _Rapport sur les Progrès de l'Histoire_, p. 170; and
_Des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. x. p. 185.
[810] _Bayle_, article _Haillan_, note L.
[811] _Mercure François_, in _Bayle_, article _Haillan_, note D.
[812] _De Rebus gestis Francorum_, which appeared about 1516. _Biog.
Univ._ vol. xiii. p. 119. Compare, respecting the author,
_Mézéray_, _Hist. de France_, vol. ii. p. 363, with _Audigier_,
_l'Origine des François_, vol. ii. p. 118, who complains of his
opinion about Clovis, 'quoy qu'il fasse profession de relever la
gloire des François.' Even the superficial Boulainvilliers
(_Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement_, vol. ii. p. 166)
contemptuously notices 'les rétoriciens postérieurs, tels que
Paul Emile.'
[813] Compare _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. i. pp. 176, 177,
with _Montlosier_, _Monarchie Française_, vol. i. pp. 43, 44.
Philippe de Comines, though superior to Sismondi and Montlosier
in point of ability, lived in the middle ages, and therefore had
no idea of doubting, but simply says, 'Pharamond fut esleu roy,
l'an 420, et régna dix ans,' _Mém. de Comines_, livre viii. chap.
xxvii. vol. iii. p. 232. But De Thou, coming a hundred years
after Comines, evidently suspected that it was not all quite
right, and therefore puts it on the authority of others.
'Pharamond, qui _selon nos historiens_ a porté le premier la
couronne des François.' _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. x. p. 530.
See a singular passage on Pharamond in _Mém. de Duplessis
Mornay_, vol. ii. p. 405.
[814] Sorel (_La Bibliothèque Françoise_, Paris, 1667, p. 373) says of
Du Haillan, 'On lui peut reprocher d'avoir donné un commencement
fabuleux à son histoire, qui est entièrement de son invention,
ayant fait tenir un conseil entre Pharamond et ses plus fidelles
conseillers, pour sçavoir si ayant la puissance en main il deuoit
réduire les François au gouvernement aristocratique ou
monarchique, et faisant faire une harangue à chacun d'eux pour
soustenir son opinion. On y voit les noms de Charamond et de
Quadrek, personnages imaginaires.' Sorel, who had a glimmering
notion that this was not exactly the way to write history, adds,
'C'est une chose fort surprenante. On est fort peu asseuré si
Pharamond fut jamais au monde, et quoy qu'on sçache qu'il y ait
esté, c'est une terrible hardiesse d'en raconter des choses qui
n'ont aucun appuy.'
Such was the state of historical literature in France early in the reign
of Henry III. A great change was, however, at hand. The remarkable
intellectual progress made by the French towards the close of the
sixteenth century was, as I have shown, preceded by that scepticism
which appears to be its necessary precursor. The spirit of doubt, which
had begun with religion, was communicated to literature. The impulse was
immediately felt in every department of knowledge, and now it was that
history first emerged from a debasement in which it had for centuries
been sunk. On this subject a mere statement of dates may be of service
to those persons who, from a dislike to general reasoning, would
otherwise deny the connexion which I wish to establish. In 1588 was
published the first sceptical book ever written in the French
language.[815] In 1598, the French government, for the first time,
ventured upon a great public act of religious toleration. In 1604, De
Thou published that celebrated work, which is allowed by all critics to
be the first great history composed by a Frenchman.[816] And at the very
moment when these things were passing, another eminent Frenchman, the
illustrious Sully,[817] was collecting the materials for his historical
work, which, though hardly equal to that of De Thou, comes immediately
after it in ability, in importance, and in reputation. Nor can we fail
to remark, that both these great historians, who left all their
predecessors immeasurably behind them, were the confidential ministers
and intimate friends of Henry IV., the first king of France whose memory
is stained by the imputation of heresy, and the first who dared to
change his religion, not in consequence of any theological arguments,
but on the broad and notorious ground of political expediency.[818]
[815] 'Die erste Regung des skeptischen Geistes finden wir in den
Versuchen des Michael von Montaigne.' _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der
Philos._ vol. ix. p. 443.
[816] The first volume appeared in 1604. See _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque
Historique de la France_, vol. ii. p. 375; and preface to _De
Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. i. p. iv.
[817] Sismondi has scarcely done justice to Sully; but the reader will
find a fuller account of him in _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la
Réforme_, vol. viii. pp. 101-117; and a still better one in
_Blanqui_, _Histoire de l'Economie Politique_, vol. i. pp.
347-361.
[818] According to D'Aubigné, the king, on his conversion, said, 'Je
ferai voir à tout le monde que je n'ai esté persuadé par autre
théologie que la nécessité de l'estat.' _Smedley's Reformed
Religion in France_, vol. ii. p. 362. That Henry felt this is
certain; and that he expressed it to his friends is probable; but
he had a difficult game to play with the Catholic church; and in
one of his edicts we find 'une grande joye de son retour à
l'église, dont il attribuoit la cause à la grâce du
Tout-Puissant, et aux prières de ses fidèles sujets.' _De Thou_,
_Hist. Univ._ vol. xii. pp. 105, 106. Compare, at pp. 468, 469,
the message he sent to the pope.
But it was not merely over such eminent historians as these that the
sceptical spirit displayed its influence. The movement was now becoming
sufficiently active to leave its marks in the writings of far inferior
men. There were two particulars in which the credulity of the earlier
historians was very striking. These consisted in the uncritical manner
in which, by blindly copying their predecessors, they confused the dates
of different events; and in the readiness with which they believed the
most improbable statements, upon imperfect evidence, and often upon no
evidence at all. It is surely a singular proof of that intellectual
progress which I am endeavouring to trace, that, within a very few
years, both these sources of error were removed. In 1597, Serres was
appointed historiographer of France; and, in the same year, he published
his history of that country.[819] In this work, he insists upon the
necessity of carefully recording the date of each event; and the
example, which he first set, has, since his time, been generally
followed.[820] The importance of this change will be willingly
acknowledged by those who are aware of the confusion into which history
has been thrown by the earlier writers having neglected, what now seems,
so obvious a precaution. Scarcely had this innovation been established,
when it was followed, in the same country, by another of still greater
moment. This was the appearance, in 1621, of a history of France, by
Scipio Dupleix; in which, for the first time, the evidence for
historical facts was published with the facts themselves.[821] It is
needless to insist upon the utility of a step which, more than any
other, has taught historians to be industrious in collecting their
authorities, and careful in scrutinizing them.[822] To this may be
added, that Dupleix was also the first Frenchman who ventured to
publish a system of philosophy in his own language.[823] It is true,
that the system itself is intrinsically of little value;[824] but, at
the time it appeared, it was an unprecedented, and, on that account, a
profane attempt, to unfold the mysteries of philosophy in the vulgar
speech; and, in this point of view, supplies evidence of the increasing
diffusion of a spirit bolder and more inquisitive than any formerly
known. It is not, therefore, surprising, that, almost at the same
moment, there should be made, in the same country, the first systematic
attempt at historical scepticism. The system of philosophy by Dupleix
appeared in 1602; and in 1599, La Popelinière published at Paris what he
calls the _History of Histories_, in which he criticizes historians
themselves, and examines their works with that sceptical spirit, to
which his own age was deeply indebted.[825] This able man was also the
author of a _Sketch of the New History of the French_; containing a
formal refutation of that fable, so dear to the early historians,
according to which the monarchy of France was founded by Francus, who
arrived in Gaul after the conclusion of the siege of Troy.[826]
[819] _Marchand_, _Dictionnaire Historique_, vol. ii. pp. 205, 209, La
Haye, 1758, folio. This curious and learned work, which is much
less read than it deserves, contains the only good account of
Serres I have been able to meet with; vol. ii. pp. 197-213.
[820] 'On ne prenoit presque aucun soin de marquer les dates des
événemens dans les ouvrages historiques.... De Serres reconnut ce
défaut; et pour y remédier, il rechercha avec beaucoup de soin
les dates des événemens qu'il avoit à employer, et les marqua
dans son histoire le plus exactement qu'il lui fut possible. Cet
exemple a été imité depuis par la plupart de ceux qui l'ont
suivi; et c'est à lui qu'on est redevable de l'avantage qu'on
tire d'une pratique si nécessaire et si utile.' _Marchand_,
_Dict. Historique_, vol. ii. p. 206.
[821] 'Il est le premier historien qui ait cité en marge ses autorités;
précaution absolument nécessaire quand on n'écrit pas l'histoire
de son temps, à moins qu'on ne s'en tienne aux faits connus.'
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xix. p. 95. And the _Biog. Univ._
vol. xii. p. 277, says, 'On doit lui faire honneur d'avoir cité
en marge les auteurs dont il s'est servi; précaution
indispensable, que l'on connaissait peu avant lui, et que les
historiens modernes négligent trop aujourd'hui.' Bassompierre,
who had a quarrel with Dupleix, has given some curious details
respecting him and his History; but they are, of course, not to
be relied on. _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. iii. pp. 356, 357.
Patin speaks favourably of his history of Henry IV. _Lettres de
Patin_, vol. i. p. 17: but compare _Sully_, _[OE]conomies
Royales_, vol. ix. pp. 121, 249.
[822] The ancients, as is well known, rarely took this trouble. _Mure's
Hist. of Greek Literature_, vol. iv. pp. 197, 306, 307. But what
is much more curious is, that, even in scientific works, there
was an equal looseness; and Cuvier says, that, in the sixteenth
century, 'on se bornait à dire, d'une manière générale, Aristote
a dit telle chose, sans indiquer ni le passage ni le livre dans
lequel la citation se trouvait.' _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_,
part ii. p. 63; and at p. 88, 'suivant l'usage de son temps,
Gessner n'indique pas avec précision les endroits d'où il a tiré
ses citations:' see also p. 214.
[823] 'Le premier ouvrage de philosophie publié dans cette langue.'
_Biog. Univ._ vol. xii. p. 277.
[824] So it seemed to me, when I turned over its leaves a few years ago.
However, Patin says, 'sa philosophie françoise n'est pas
mauvaise.' _Lettres de Patin_, vol. iii. p. 357. On the dialectic
powers of Dupleix, see a favourable judgment in _Hamilton's
Discuss. on Philos._ p. 119.
[825] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxv. p. 402. Sorel (_Bibliothèque Françoise_,
p. 165), who is evidently displeased at the unprecedented
boldness of La Popelinière, says, 'il dit ses sentimens en bref
des historiens de toutes les nations, et de plusieurs langues, et
particulièrement des historiens françois, dont il parle avec
beaucoup d'asseurance.'
[826] 'Il réfute l'opinion, alors fort accréditée, de l'arrivée dans les
Gaules de Francus et des Troyens.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxv. p.
402. Compare _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique de la France_,
vol. ii. p. 39. Patin says that De Thou was much indebted to him:
'M. de Thou a pris hardiment de la Popelinière.' _Lettres de
Patin_, vol. i. p. 222. There is a notice of Popelinière, in
connexion with Richer, in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. v. p. 349.
It would be useless to collect all the instances in which this advancing
spirit of scepticism now began to purge history of its falsehoods. I
will only mention two or three more of those which have occurred in my
reading. In 1614, De Rubis published at Lyons a work on the European
monarchies; in which he not only attacks the long-established belief
respecting the descent from Francus, but boldly asserts, that the Franks
owe their name to their ancient liberties.[827] In 1620, Gomberville, in
a dissertation on history, refutes many of those idle stories respecting
the antiquity of the French, which had been universally received until
his time.[828] And, in 1630, Berthault published at Paris the 'French
Floras,' in which he completely upsets the old method; since he lays it
down as a fundamental principle, that the origin of the French must only
be sought for in those countries where they were found by the
Romans.[829]
[827] 'Il réfute les fables qu'on avançoit sur l'origine des François,
appuyées sur le témoignage au faux Bérose. Il dit que leur nom
vient de leur ancienne franchise.' _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque
Historique_, vol. ii. p. 750.
[828] Compare _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque Françoise_, p. 298, with _Du
Fresnoy_, _Méthode pour étudier l'Histoire_, vol. x. p. 4, Parie,
1772. There is an account of Gomberville in _Les Historiettes de
Tallemant des Réaux_, vol. viii. pp. 15-19; a singularly curious
book, which is, for the seventeenth century, what Brantome is for
the sixteenth. I ought to have mentioned earlier the inimitable
ridicule with which Rabelais treats the habit historians had of
tracing the genealogies of their heroes back to Noah. _[OE]uvres
de Rabelais_, vol. i. pp. 1-3, and vol. ii. pp. 10-17: see also,
at vol. v. pp. 171, 172, his defence of the antiquity of Chinon.
[829] 'L'auteur croit qu'il ne faut pas la chercher ailleurs que dans le
pays où ils out été connus des Romains, c'est-à-dire entre l'Elbe
et le Rhin,' _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique_, vol. ii. p.
56. This work of Berthault's was, for many years, a text-book in
the French colleges. _Biog. Univ._ vol. iv. p. 347.
All these, and similar productions, were, however, entirely eclipsed by
Mezeray's History of France; the first volume of which was published in
1643, and the last in 1651.[830] It is, perhaps, hardly fair to his
predecessors, to call him the first general historian of France;[831]
but there can be no doubt that his work is greatly superior to any that
had yet been seen. The style of Mezeray is admirably clear and vigorous,
rising, at times, to considerable eloquence. Besides this, he has two
other merits much more important. These are, an indisposition to believe
strange things, merely because they have hitherto been believed; and an
inclination to take the side of the people, rather than that of their
rulers.[832] Of these principles, the first was too common among the
ablest Frenchmen of that time to excite much attention.[833] But the
other principle enabled Mezeray to advance an important step before all
his contemporaries. He was the first Frenchman who, in a great
historical work, threw off that superstitious reverence for royalty
which had long troubled the minds of his countrymen, and which, indeed,
continued to haunt them for another century. As a necessary consequence,
he was also the first who saw that a history, to be of real value, must
be a history, not only of kings, but of nations. A steady perception of
this principle led him to incorporate into his book matters which,
before his time, no one cared to study. He communicates all the
information he could collect respecting the taxes which the people had
paid; the sufferings they had undergone from the gripping hands of their
governors; their manners, their comforts, even the state of the towns
which they inhabited; in a word, what affected the interests of the
French people, as well as what affected the interests of the French
monarchy.[834] These were the subjects which Mezeray preferred to
insignificant details respecting the pomp of courts and the lives of
kings. These were the large and comprehensive matters on which he loved
to dwell, and on which he expatiated; not, indeed, with so much fulness
as we could desire, but still with a spirit and an accuracy which
entitles him to the honour of being the greatest historian France
produced before the eighteenth century.
[830] The first volume in 1643; the second in 1646; and the last in
1651. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxviii. p. 510.
[831] 'The French have now their first general historian, Mezeray.'
_Hallam's Literature of Europe_, vol. iii. p. 228; and see
_Stephen's Lectures on the History of France_, 1851, vol. i. p.
10.
[832] Bayle says, that Mezeray is, 'de tous les historiens celui qui
favorise le plus les peuples contre la cour.' _Le Long_,
_Bibliothèque Historique_, vol. iii. p. lxxxvi.
[833] Though it did not prevent him from believing that sudden tempests,
and unusual appearances in the heavens, were aberrations, due to
supernatural interference, and, as such, were the prognosticators
of political change. _Mézéray_, _Hist. de France_, vol. i. pp.
202, 228, 238, 241, 317, 792, vol. ii. pp. 485, 573, 1120, vol.
iii. pp. 31, 167, 894; instructive passages, as proving that,
even in powerful minds, the scientific and secular method was
still feeble.
[834] What he did on these subjects is most remarkable, considering that
some of the best materials were unknown, and in manuscript, and
that even De Thou gives scarcely any information respecting them;
so that Mezeray had no model. See, among other passages which
have struck me in the first volume, pp. 145-147, 204, 353, 356,
362-365, 530, 531, 581, 812, 946, 1039. Compare his indignant
expressions at vol. ii. p. 721.
This was, in many respects, the most important change which had yet been
effected in the manner of writing history. If the plan begun by Mezeray
had been completed by his successors, we should possess materials, the
absence of which no modern researches can possibly compensate. Some
things, indeed, we should, in that case, have lost. We should know less
than we now know of courts and of camps. We should have heard less of
the peerless beauty of French queens, and of the dignified presence of
French kings. We might even have missed some of the links of that
evidence by which the genealogies of princes and nobles are ascertained,
and the study of which delights the curiosity of antiquaries and
heralds. But, on the other hand, we should have been able to examine the
state of the French people during the latter half of the seventeenth
century; while, as things now stand, our knowledge of them, in that most
important period, is inferior in accuracy and in extent to the knowledge
we possess of some of the most barbarous tribes of the earth.[835] If
the example of Mezeray had been followed, with such additional resources
as the progress of affairs would have supplied, we should not only have
the means of minutely tracing the growth of a great and civilised
nation, but we should have materials that would suggest or verify those
original principles, the discovery of which constitutes the real use of
history.
[835] Those who have studied the French memoirs of the seventeenth
century, know how little can be found in them respecting the
condition of the people; while the fullest private
correspondence, such as the letters of Sévigné and De Maintenon,
are equally unsatisfactory. The greater part of the evidence now
extant has been collected by M. Monteil, in his valuable work,
_Histoire des divers Etats_: but whoever will put all this
together must admit, that we are better informed as to the
condition of many savage tribes than we are concerning the lower
classes of France during the reign of Louis XIV.
But this was not to be. Unhappily for the interests of knowledge, the
march of French civilization was, at this period, suddenly checked. Soon
after the middle of the seventeenth century, that lamentable change took
place in France, which gave a new turn to the destinies of the nation.
The reaction which the spirit of inquiry underwent, and the social and
intellectual circumstances which, by bringing the Fronde to a premature
close, prepared the way for Louis XIV., have been described in a former
part of this volume, where I have attempted to indicate the general
effects of the disastrous movement. It now remains for me to point out
how this retrogressive tendency opposed obstacles to the improvement of
historical literature, and prevented authors, not only from relating
with honesty what was passing around them, but also from understanding
events which had occurred before their time.
The most superficial students of French literature must be struck by the
dearth of historians during that long period in which Louis XIV. held
the reins of government.[836] To this, the personal peculiarities of the
king greatly contributed. His education had been shamefully neglected;
and as he never had the energy to repair its deficiencies, he all his
life remained ignorant of many things with which even princes are
usually familiar.[837] Of the course of past events he knew literally
nothing, and he took no interest in any history except the history of
his own exploits. Among a free people, this indifference on the part of
the sovereign could never have produced injurious results; indeed, as we
have already seen, the absence of royal patronage is, in a highly
civilized country, the most favourable condition of literature. But at
the accession of Louis XIV. the liberties of the French were still too
young, and the habits of independent thought too recent, to enable them
to bear up against that combination of the crown and the church, which
was directed against them. The French, becoming every day more servile,
at length sunk so low, that, by the end of the seventeenth century, they
seemed to have lost even the wish of resistance. The king, meeting no
opposition, endeavoured to exercise over the intellect of the country an
authority equal to that with which he conducted its government.[838] In
all the great questions of religion and of politics, the spirit of
inquiry was stifled, and no man was allowed to express an opinion
unfavourable to the existing state of things. As the king was willing to
endow literature, he naturally thought that he had a right to its
services. Authors, who were fed by his hand, were not to raise their
voices against his policy. They received his wages, and they were bound
to do the bidding of him who paid them. When Louis assumed the
government, Mezeray was still living; though I need hardly say that his
great work was published before this system of protection and patronage
came into play. The treatment to which he, the great historian of
France, was now subjected, was a specimen of the new arrangement. He
received from the crown a pension of four thousand francs; but when he,
in 1668, published an abridgment of his History,[839] it was intimated
to him that some remarks upon the tendency of taxation were likely to
cause offence in high quarters. As, however, it was soon found that
Mezeray was too honest and too fearless to retract what he had written,
it was determined to have recourse to intimidation, and half of his
pension was taken from him.[840] But as this did not produce a proper
effect, another order was issued, which deprived him of the remaining
half; and thus early, in this bad reign, there was set an example of
punishing a man for writing with honesty upon a subject in which, of all
others, honesty is the first essential.[841]
[836] This is noticed in _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxvii.
pp. 181, 182; also in _Villemain_, _Littérature Française_, vol.
ii. pp. 29, 30. Compare _D'Argenson_, _Réflexions sur les
Historiens François_, in _Mémoires de l'Académie des
Inscriptions_, vol. xxviii. p. 627, with _Boulainvilliers_,
_Ancien Gouvernement de la France_, vol. i. p. 174.
[837] 'Le jeune Louis XIV n'avait reçu aucune éducation intellectuelle.'
_Capefigue's Richelieu, Mazarin et la Fronde_, vol. ii. p. 245.
On the education of Louis XIV., which was as shamefully neglected
as that of our George III., see _Lettres inédites de Maintenon_,
vol. ii. p. 369; _Duclos_, _Mém. Secrets_, vol. i. pp. 167, 168;
_Mém. de Brienne_, vol. i. pp. 391-393.
[838] On his political maxims, see _Lemontey_, _Etablissement de
Louis XIV_, pp. 325-327, 407, 408. The eloquent remarks made by
M. Ranke upon an Italian despotism, are admirably applicable to
his whole system: 'Sonderbare Gestalt menschlichen Dinge! Die
Kräfte des Landes bringen den Hof hervor, der Mittelpunkt des
Hofes ist der Fürst, das letzte Product des gesammten Lebens ist
zuletzt das Selbstgefühl des Fürsten.' _Die Päpste_, vol. ii. p.
266.
[839] His _Abrégé Chronologique_ was published in 1668, in three volumes
quarto. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxviii. p. 510. Le Long (_Bibliothèque
Historique_, vol. iii. p. lxxxv.) says, that it was only allowed
to be published in consequence of a 'privilège' which Mezeray had
formerly obtained. But there seems to have been some difficulty,
of which these writers are not aware: for Patin, in a letter
dated Paris, 23 December 1664, speaks of it as being then in the
press: 'on imprime ici en _grand-in-quarto_ un Abrégé de
l'Histoire de France, par M. Mezeray.' _Lettres de Patin_, vol.
iii. p. 503: compare p. 665. It long remained an established
school-book: see D'Argenson's Essay, in _Mém. de l'Académie_,
vol. xxviii. p. 635; and _Works of Sir William Temple_, vol. iii.
p. 70.
[840] _Barrière_, _Essai sur les M[oe]urs du Dix-septième Siècle_,
prefixed to _Mém. de Brienne_, vol. i. pp. 129, 130, where
reference is made to his original correspondence with Colbert.
This treatment of Mezeray is noticed, but imperfectly, in
_Boulainvilliers_, _Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement_, vol. i. p.
196; in _Lemontey_, _Etablissement de Louis XIV_, p. 331; and in
_Palissot_, _Mém. pour l'Hist. de Lit._ vol. ii. p. 161.
[841] In 1685 was published at Paris what was called an improved edition
of Mezeray's History; that is, an edition from which the honest
remarks were expunged. See _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique_,
vol. ii. p. 53, vol. iv. p. 381; and _Brunet_, _Manuel du
Libraire_, vol. iii. p. 383, Paris, 1843. Hampden, who knew
Mezeray, has recorded an interesting interview he had with him in
Paris, when the great historian lamented the loss of the
liberties of France. See _Calamy's Life of Himself_, vol. i. pp.
392, 393.
Such conduct as this showed what historians were to expect from the
government of Louis XIV. Several years later, the king took another
opportunity of displaying the same spirit. Fénelon had been appointed
preceptor to the grandson of Louis, whose early vices his firmness and
judgment did much to repress.[842] But a single circumstance was thought
sufficient to outweigh the immense service which Fénelon thus rendered
to the royal family, and, if his pupil had come to the throne, would
have rendered prospectively to the whole of France. His celebrated
romance, _Telemachus_, was published in 1699, as it appears, without his
consent.[843] The king suspected that, under the guise of a fiction,
Fénelon intended to reflect on the conduct of government. It was in vain
that the author denied so dangerous an imputation. The indignation of
the king was not to be appeased. He banished Fénelon from the court; and
would never again admit to his presence a man whom he suspected of even
insinuating a criticism upon the measures adopted by the administration
of the country.[844]
[842] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxvi. pp. 240, 241.
[843] 'Par l'infidélité d'un domestique chargé de transcrire le
manuscrit.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 289; and see _Peignot_,
_Dict. des Livres condamnés_, vol. i. pp. 134, 135. It was
suppressed in France, and appeared in Holland in the same year,
1699. _Lettres de Sévigné_, vol. vi. pp. 434, 435 note.
[844] 'Louis XIV prit le Télémaque pour une personnalité.... Comme il
(Fénelon) avait déplu au roi, il mourut dans l'exil.'
_Lerminier_, _Philos. du Droit_, vol. ii. pp. 219, 220; and see
_Siècle de Louis XIV_, chap. xxxii., in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. xx. p. 307.
If the king could, on mere suspicion, thus treat a great writer, who had
the rank of an archbishop and the reputation of a saint, it was not
likely that he would deal more tenderly with inferior men. In 1681, the
Abbé Primi, an Italian, then residing at Paris, was induced to write a
history of Louis XIV. The king, delighted with the idea of perpetuating
his own fame, conferred several rewards upon the author: and
arrangements were made that the work should be composed in Italian, and
immediately translated into French. But when the history appeared, there
were found in it some circumstances which it was thought ought not to
have been disclosed. On this account, Louis caused the book to be
suppressed, the papers of the author to be seized, and the author
himself to be thrown into the Bastille.[845]
[845] These circumstances are related in a letter from Lord Preston,
dated Paris, 22 July 1682, and printed in _Dalrymple's Memoirs_,
pp. 141, 142, appendix to vol. i. The account given by M. Peignot
(_Livres condamnés_, vol. ii. pp. 52, 53) is incomplete, he being
evidently ignorant of the existence of Lord Preston's letter.
Those, indeed, were dangerous times for independent men; times when no
writer on politics or religion was safe, unless he followed the fashion
of the day, and defended the opinions of the court and the church. The
king, who had an insatiable thirst for what he called glory,[846]
laboured to degrade contemporary historians into mere chroniclers of his
own achievements. He ordered Racine and Boileau to write an account of
his reign; he settled a pension upon them, and he promised to supply
them with the necessary materials.[847] But even Racine and Boileau,
poets though they were, knew that they would fail in satisfying his
morbid vanity; they, therefore, received the pension, but omitted to
compose the work for which the pension was conferred. So notorious was
the unwillingness of able men to meddle with history, that it was
thought advisable to beat up literary recruits from foreign countries.
The case of the Abbé Primi has just been mentioned; he was an Italian,
and only one year later a similar offer was made to an Englishman. In
1683, Burnet visited France, and was given to understand that he might
receive a pension, and that he might even enjoy the honour of conversing
with Louis himself, provided he would write a history of the royal
affairs; such history, it was carefully added, being on the 'side' of
the French king.[848]
[846] An able writer has well called him 'glorieux plutôt
qu'appréciateur de la vraie gloire.' _Flassan_, _Histoire de la
Diplomatie Française_, vol. iv. p. 399.
[847] In 1677, Madame de Sévigné writes from Paris respecting the king:
'Vous savez bien qu'il a donné deux mille écus de pension à
Racine et à Despréaux, en leur commandant de travailler à son
histoire, dont il aura soin de donner des Mémoires.' _Lettres de
Sévigné_, vol. iii. p. 362. Compare _Eloge de Valincourt_, in
_[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_, vol. vi. p. 383; and _Hughes's
Letters_, edit. 1773, vol. ii. pp. 74, 75.
[848] Burnet relates this with delightful simplicity: 'Others more
probably thought that the king, hearing I was a writer of
history, had a mind to engage me to write on his side. I was told
a pension would be offered me. But I made no steps towards it;
for though I was offered an audience of the king, I excused it,
since I could not have the honour to be presented to that king by
the minister of England.' _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. ii. p. 385.
Under such circumstances as these, it is no wonder that history, so far
as its great essentials are concerned, should have rapidly declined
during the power of Louis XIV. It became, as some think, more elegant;
but it certainly became more feeble. The language in which it was
composed was worked with great care, the periods neatly arranged, the
epithets soft and harmonious. For that was a polite and obsequious age,
full of reverence, of duty, and of admiration. In history, as it was
then written, every king was a hero, and every bishop was a saint. All
unpleasant truths were suppressed; nothing harsh or unkind was to be
told. These docile and submissive sentiments being expressed in an easy
and flowing style, gave to history that air of refinement, that gentle,
unobtrusive gait, which made it popular with the classes that it
flattered. But even so, while its form was polished, its life was
extinct. All its independence was gone, all its honesty, all its
boldness. The noblest and the most difficult department of knowledge,
the study of the movements of the human race, was abandoned to every
timid and creeping intellect that cared to cultivate it. There was
Boulainvilliers, and Daniel, and Maimburg, and Varillas, and Vertot, and
numerous others, who in the reign of Louis XIV. were believed to be
historians; but whose histories have scarcely any merit, except that of
enabling us to appreciate the period in which such productions were
admired, and the system of which they were the representatives.
To give a complete view of the decline of historical literature in
France, from the time of Mezeray until early in the eighteenth century,
would require a summary of every history which was written; for all of
them were pervaded by the same spirit. But, as this would occupy much
too large a space, it will probably be thought sufficient if I confine
myself to such illustrations as will bring the tendency of the age most
clearly before the reader; and for this purpose, I will notice the works
of two historians I have not yet mentioned; one of whom was celebrated
as an antiquary, the other as a theologian. Both possessed considerable
learning, and one was a man of undoubted genius; their works are,
therefore, worth attention, as symptoms of the state of the French
intellect late in the seventeenth century. The name of the antiquary was
Audigier; the name of the theologian was Bossuet: and from them we may
learn something respecting the way in which, during the reign of Louis
XIV., it was usual to contemplate the transactions of past ages.
The celebrated work of Audigier, on the Origin of the French, was
published at Paris in 1676.[849] It would be unjust to deny that the
author was a man of great and careful reading. But his credulity, his
prejudices, his reverence for antiquity, and his dutiful admiration for
everything established by the church and the court, warped his judgment
to an extent which, in our time, seems incredible; and, as there are
probably few persons in England who have read his once famous book, I
will give an outline of its leading views.
[849] During many years it enjoyed great reputation; and there is no
history written in that period respecting which Le Long gives so
many details. See his _Bibliothèque Historique de la France_,
vol. ii. pp. 13, 14. Compare _La Bibliothèque de Leber_, vol. ii.
p. 110, Paris, 1839.
In this great history we are told, that 3464 years after the creation of
the world, and 590 years before the birth of Christ, was the exact
period at which Sigovese, nephew to the king of the Celts, was first
sent into Germany.[850] Those who accompanied him were necessarily
travellers; and as, in the German language, _wandeln_ means _to go_, we
have here the origin of the Vandals.[851] But the antiquity of the
Vandals is far surpassed by that of the French. Jupiter, Pluto, and
Neptune, who are sometimes supposed to be gods, were in reality kings of
Gaul.[852] And, if we look back a little further, it becomes certain
that Gallus, the founder of Gaul, was no other than Noah himself; for in
those days the same man frequently had two names.[853] As to the
subsequent history of the French, it was fully equal to the dignity of
their origin. Alexander the Great, even in all the pride of his
victories, never dared to attack the Scythians, who were a colony sent
from France.[854] It is from these great occupiers of France that there
have proceeded all the gods of Europe, all the fine arts, and all the
sciences.[855] The English themselves are merely a colony of the French,
as must be evident to whoever considers the similarity of the words
Angles and Anjou;[856] and to this fortunate descent the natives of the
British islands are indebted for such bravery and politeness as they
still possess.[857] Several other points are cleared up by this great
critic with equal faculty. The Salian Franks were so called from the
rapidity of their flight;[858] the Bretons were evidently Saxons;[859]
and even the Scotch, about whose independence so much has been said,
were vassals to the kings of France.[860] Indeed, it is impossible to
exaggerate the dignity of the crown of France; it is difficult even to
conceive its splendour. Some have supposed that the emperors are
superior to the kings of France, but this is the mistake of ignorant
men; for an emperor means a mere military ruler, while the title of king
includes all the functions of supreme power.[861] To put the question,
therefore, on its real footing, the great king Louis XIV. is an emperor,
as have been all his predecessors, the illustrious rulers of France, for
fifteen centuries.[862] And it is an undoubted fact, that Antichrist,
about whom so much anxiety is felt, will never be allowed to appear in
the world until the French empire has been destroyed. This, says
Audigier, it would be idle to deny; for it is asserted by many of the
saints, and it is distinctly foreshadowed by St. Paul, in his second
epistle to the Thessalonians.[863]
[850] _Audigier_, _L'Origine des François_, Paris, 1676, vol. i. p. 5.
See also p. 45, where he congratulates himself on being the first
to clear up the history of Sigovese.
[851] _Audigier_, vol. i. p. 7. Other antiquaries have adopted the same
preposterous etymology. See a note in _Kemble's Saxons in
England_, vol. i. p. 41.
[852] 'Or le plus ancien Jupiter, le plus ancien Neptune, et le plus
ancien Pluton, sont ceux de Gaule; ils la divisèrent les premiers
en Celtique, Aquitaine et Belgique, et obtinrent chacun une de
ces parties en partage. Jupiter, qu'on fait régner au ciel, eut
la Celtique.... Neptune, qu'on fait régner sur les eaux, et sur
les mers, eut l'Aquitaine, qui n'est appelée de la sorte qu'à
cause de l'abondance de ses eaux, et de la situation sur
l'océan.' _Audigier_, _L'Origine des François_, vol. i. pp. 223,
224.
[853] See his argument, vol. i. pp. 216, 217, beginning, 'le nom de Noé,
que portèrent les Galates, est Gallus;' and compare vol. ii. p.
109, where he expresses surprise that so little should have been
done by previous writers towards establishing this obvious origin
of the French.
[854] _Audigier_, vol. i. pp. 196, 197, 255, 256.
[855] 'Voilà donc les anciennes divinitez d'Europe, originaires de
Gaule, aussi bien que les beaux arts et les hautes sciences.'
_Audigier_, vol. i. p. 234.
[856] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. 73, 74. He sums up, 'c'en est assez pour
relever l'Anjou, à qui cette gloire appartient légitimement.'
[857] Vol. i. pp. 265, 266.
[858] Vol. i. p. 149.
[859] Vol. ii. pp. 179, 180.
[860] Vol. ii. p. 269.
[861] Vol. ii. p. 124.
[862] Vol. ii. pp. 451-454.
[863] 'A quoy nous pourrions joindre un autre monument fort authentique,
c'est le résultat de certains pères, et de certains docteurs de
l'église, qui tiennent que l'Ante-christ ne viendra point au
monde qu'après la dissection, c'est-à-dire après la dissipation
de nostre empire. Leur fondement est dans la seconde épistre de
saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens.' _Audigier_, vol. ii. p. 462.
Strange as all this appears, there was nothing in it to revolt the
enlightened age of Louis XIV. Indeed, the French, dazzled by the
brilliancy of their prince, must have felt great interest in learning
how superior he was to all other potentates, and how he had not only
been preceded by a long line of emperors, but was in fact an emperor
himself. They must have been struck with awe at the information
communicated by Audigier respecting the arrival of Antichrist, and the
connexion between that important event and the fate of the French
monarchy. They must have listened with pious wonder to the illustration
of these matters from the writings of the fathers, and from the epistle
to the Thessalonians. All this they would easily receive; because to
worship the king, and venerate the church, were the two cardinal maxims
of that age. To obey, and to believe, were the fundamental ideas of a
period, in which the fine arts did for a time flourish,--in which the
perception of beauty, though too fastidious, was undoubtedly keen,--in
which taste and the imagination, in its lower departments, were
zealously cultivated,--but in which, on the other hand, originality and
independence of thought were extinguished, the greatest and the largest
topics were forbidden to be discussed, the sciences were almost
deserted, reforms and innovations were hated, new opinions were
despised, and their authors punished, until at length, the exuberance of
genius being tamed into sterility, the national intellect was reduced to
that dull and monotonous level which characterizes the last twenty years
of the reign of Louis XIV.
In no instance can we find a better example of this reactionary
movement, than in the case of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux. The success, and
indeed the mere existence, of his work on Universal History, becomes,
from this point of view, highly instructive. Considered by itself, the
book is a painful exhibition of a great genius cramped by a
superstitious age. But considered in reference to the time in which it
appeared, it is invaluable as a symptom of the French intellect; since
it proves, that towards the end of the seventeenth century, one of the
most eminent men, in one of the first countries of Europe, could
willingly submit to a prostration of judgment, and could display a blind
credulity, of which, in our day, even the feeblest minds would be
ashamed; and that this, so far from causing scandal, or bringing a
rebuke on the head of the author, was received with universal and
unqualified applause. Bossuet was a great orator, a consummate
dialectician, and an accomplished master of those vague sublimities by
which most men are easily affected. All these qualities he, a few years
later, employed in the production of what is probably the most
formidable work ever directed against Protestantism.[864] But when he,
leaving these matters, entered the vast field of history, he could
think of no better way of treating his new subject, than by following
the arbitrary rules peculiar to his own profession.[865] His work is an
audacious attempt to degrade history to a mere handmaid of
theology.[866] As if, on such matters, doubt were synonymous with crime,
he, without the slightest hesitation, takes everything for granted which
the church had been accustomed to believe. This enables him to speak
with perfect confidence respecting events which are lost in the remotest
antiquity. He knows the exact number of years which have elapsed since
the moment when Cain murdered his brother; when the deluge overwhelmed
the world; and when Abraham was summoned to his mission.[867] The dates
of these, and similar occurrences, he fixes with a precision, which
might almost make us believe that they had taken place in his own time,
if not under his own eyes.[868] It is true, that the Hebrew books on
which he willingly relied, supply no evidence of the slightest value
concerning the chronology even of their own people; while the
information they contain respecting other countries is notoriously
meagre and unsatisfactory.[869] But so narrow were the views of Bossuet
upon history, that with all this he, in his own opinion, had no concern.
The text of the Vulgate declared, that these things had happened at a
particular time; and a number of holy men, calling themselves the
council of the church, had, in the middle of the sixteenth century,
pronounced the Vulgate to be authentic, and had taken upon themselves to
place it above all other versions.[870] This theological opinion was
accepted by Bossuet as an historical law; and thus the decision of a
handful of cardinals and bishops, in a superstitious and uncritical age,
is the sole authority for that early chronology, the precision of which
is, to an uninformed reader, a matter of great admiration.[871]
[864] This is the opinion of Mr. Hallam respecting Bossuet's History of
the Variations of Protestant Churches. _Const. Hist._ vol. i. p.
486: compare _Lerminier_, _Philos. du Droit_, vol. ii. p. 86.
Attempts have been made by Protestant theologians to retort
against the Catholics the arguments of Bossuet, on the ground
that religious variations are a necessary consequence of the
honest pursuit of religious truth. See _Blanco White's Evidence
against Catholicism_, pp. 109-112; and his _Letters from Spain_,
_by Doblado_, p. 127. With this I fully agree; but it would be
easy to show that the argument is fatal to all ecclesiastical
systems with strictly defined creeds, and, therefore, strikes as
heavily against the Protestant churches as against the Catholic.
Beausobre, in his acute and learned work on Manichæism, seems to
have felt this; and he makes the dangerous admission, 'que si
l'argument de M. de Meaux vaut quelque chose contre la
Réformation, il a la même force contre le Christianisme.' _Hist.
de Manichée_, vol. i. p. 526. On Bossuet as a controversialist,
see _Stäudlin_, _Geschichte der theologischen Wissenschaften_,
vol. ii. pp. 43-45; and for a contemporary opinion of his great
work, see a characteristic passage in _Lettres de Sévigné_,
vol. v. p. 409.
[865] His method is fairly stated by _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxv. p. 427.
[866] See, on this attempt of Bossuet's, some good remarks in
_Stäudlin_, _Geschichte der theologischen Wissenschaften_, vol.
ii. p. 198: 'Kirche und Christenthum sind für diesen Bischoff der
Mittelpunct der ganzen Geschichte. Aus diesem Gesichtspuncte
betrachtet er nicht nur die Patriarchen und Propheten, das
Judenthum und die alten Weissagungen, sondern auch die Reiche der
Welt.'
[867] _Bossuet_, _Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle_, pp. 10, 11, 16,
17; see also, at p. 90, a curious specimen of his chronological
calculations.
[868] He says, that if the ordinarily received dates of the Pentateuch
and the Prophets are not true, then the miracles must fall, and
the writings themselves are not inspired. _Hist. Univ._ p. 360.
It would be hard to find, even in the works of Bossuet a more
rash assertion than this.
[869] Indeed the Jews have no consecutive chronology before
Solomon. See _Bunsen's Egypt_, vol. i. pp. viii. xxv. 170, 178,
185, vol. ii. p. 399.
[870] Doing this, as they did everything else, on account, not of
reason, but of dogma; for, as a learned writer says, 'l'Église a
bien distingué certains livres en apocryphes et en orthodoxes;
elle s'est prononcée d'une manière formelle sur le choix des
ouvrages canoniques; néanmoins sa critique n'a jamais été fondée
sur un examen raisonné, mais seulement sur la question de savoir
si tel ou tel écrit était d'accord avec les dogmes qu'elle
enseignait.' _Maury_, _Légendes Pieuses_, p. 224.
[871] Theologians have always been remarkable for the exactness of their
knowledge on subjects respecting which nothing is known; but none
of them have surpassed the learned Dr. Stukeley. In 1730, this
eminent divine writes: 'But according to the calculations I have
made of this matter, I find God Almighty ordered Noah to get the
creatures into the ark on Sunday the 12th of October, the very
day of the autumnal equinox that year; and on this present day,
on the Sunday se'nnight following (the 19th of October), that
terrible catastrophe began, the moon being past her third
quarter.' _Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_,
vol. ii. p. 792.
In the same way, because Bossuet had been taught that the Jews are the
chosen people of God, he, under the title of Universal History, almost
confines his attention to them, and treats this obstinate and ignorant
race as if they formed the pivot upon which the affairs of the universe
had been made to turn.[872] His idea of an universal history excludes
those nations who were the first to reach civilization, and to some of
whom the Hebrews owed the scanty knowledge which they subsequently
acquired.[873] He says little of the Persians, and less of the
Egyptians; nor does he even mention that far greater people between the
Indus and the Ganges, whose philosophy formed one of the elements of the
school of Alexandria, whose subtle speculations anticipated all the
efforts of European metaphysics, and whose sublime inquiries, conducted
in their own exquisite language, date from a period when the Jews,
stained with every variety of crime, were a plundering and vagabond
tribe, wandering on the face of the earth, raising their hand against
every man and every man raising his hand against them.
[872] 'Premièrement, ces empires ont pour la plupart une liaison
nécessaire avec l'histoire du peuple de Dieu. Dieu s'est servi
des Assyriens et des Babyloniens pour châtier ce peuple; des
Perses pour le rétablir; d'Alexandre et de ses premiers
successeurs pour le protéger; d'Antiochus l'Illustre et de ses
successeurs pour l'exercer; des Romains pour soutenir sa liberté
contre les rois de Syrie, que ne songeaient qu'à le détruire.'
_Bossuet_, _Hist. Univ._ p. 382. Well may M. Lerminier say
(_Philos. du Droit_, vol. ii. p. 87), that Bossuet 'a sacrifié
toutes les nations au peuple juif.'
[873] On the extraordinary and prolonged ignorance of the Jews, even to
the time of the Apostles, see _Mackay's Progress of the
Intellect_, vol. i. pp. 13 seq.; a work of profound learning.
When he enters the more modern period, he allows himself to be governed
by the same theological prejudices. So contracted is his view, that he
considers the whole history of the church as the history of providential
interference; and he takes no notice of the manner in which, contrary to
the original scheme, it has been affected by foreign events.[874] Thus,
for example, the most important fact relating to the early changes in
Christianity, is the extent to which its doctrines have been influenced
by the African form of the Platonic philosophy.[875] But this, Bossuet
never mentions; nor does he even hint that any such thing had occurred.
It suited his views to look upon the church as a perpetual miracle, and
he therefore omits the most important event in its early history.[876]
To descend a little later: every one acquainted with the progress of
civilization will allow, that no small share of it is due to those
gleams of light, which, in the midst of surrounding darkness, shot from
the great centres of Cordova and Bagdad. These, however, were the work
of Mohammedanism; and as Bossuet had been taught that Mohammedanism is a
pestilential heresy, he could not bring himself to believe that
Christian nations had derived anything from so corrupt a source. The
consequence is, that he says nothing of that great religion, the noise
of which has filled the world;[877] and having occasion to mention its
founder, he treats him with scorn, as an impudent impostor, whose
pretensions it is hardly fitting to notice.[878] The great apostle, who
diffused among millions of idolaters the sublime verity of one God, is
spoken of by Bossuet with supreme contempt; because Bossuet, with the
true spirit of his profession, could see nothing to admire in those
whose opinions differed from his own.[879] But when he has occasion to
mention some obscure member of that class to which he himself belonged,
then it is that he scatters his praises with boundless profusion. In his
scheme of universal history, Mohammed is not worthy to play a part. He
is passed by; but the truly great man, the man to whom the human race is
really indebted, is--Martin, bishop of Tours. He it is, says Bossuet,
whose unrivalled actions filled the universe with his fame, both during
his lifetime and after his death.[880] It is true, that not one educated
man in fifty has ever heard the name of Martin, bishop of Tours. But
Martin performed miracles, and the church had made him a saint; his
claims, therefore, to the attention of historians must be far superior
to the claims of one who, like Mohammed, was without these advantages.
Thus it is that, in the opinion of the only eminent writer on history
during the power of Louis XIV., the greatest man Asia has ever produced,
and one of the greatest the world has ever seen, is considered in every
way inferior to a mean and ignorant monk, whose most important
achievement was the erection of a monastery, and who spent the best part
of his life in useless solitude, trembling before the superstitious
fancies of his weak and ignoble nature.[881]
[874] The original scheme of Christianity, as stated by its Great Author
(_Matthew_ x. 6, and xv. 24), was merely to convert the Jews; and
if the doctrines of Christ had never extended beyond that
ignorant people, they could not have received those modifications
which philosophy imposed upon them. The whole of this subject is
admirably discussed in _Mackay's Progress of the Intellect in
Religious Development_, vol. ii. pp. 382 seq.; and on the
'universalism,' first clearly announced 'by the Hellenist
Stephen,' see p. 484. Neander makes a noticeable attempt to evade
the difficulty caused by the changes in Christianity from
'various outward causes:' see his _History of the Church_,
vol. iii. p. 125.
[875] Neander (_Hist. of the Church_, vol. ii. p. 42) even thinks that
Cerinthus whose views are remarkable as being the point where
Gnosticism and Judaism touch each other, borrowed his system from
Alexandria. But this, though not unlikely, seems only to rest on
the authority of Theodoret. On the influence of the Platonism of
Alexandria in developing the idea of the Logos, see _Neander_,
vol. ii. pp. 304, 306-314. Compare _Sharpe's Hist. of Egypt_,
vol. ii. pp. 152 seq.
[876] And having to mention Clemens Alexandrinus, who was more deeply
versed in the philosophy of Alexandria than were any of the other
fathers, Bossuet merely says, p. 98, 'à peu près dans le même
temps, le saint prêtre Clément Alexandrin déterra les antiquités
du paganisme pour le confondre.'
[877] About the time that Bossuet wrote, a very learned writer
calculated that the area of the countries which professed
Mohammedanism, exceeded, by one fifth, those where Christianity
was believed. See _Brerewood's Inquiries touching the Diversity
of Languages and Religions_, Lond. 1674, pp. 144, 145. The
estimate of Southey (_Vindiciæ Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ_, London, 1826,
p. 48), is very vague; but it is much easier to judge of the
extent of Mohammedan countries than of the extent of their
population. On this latter point we have the most conflicting
statements. In the nineteenth century, there are, according to
Sharon Turner (_Hist. of England_, vol. iii. p. 485, edit. 1839),
eighty million Mohammedans; according to Dr. Elliotson (_Human
Physiology_, p. 1055, edit. 1840), more than a hundred and
twenty-two million; while, according to Mr. Wilkin (note in _Sir
Thomas Browne's Works_, vol. ii. p. 37, edit. 1835), there are a
hundred and eighty-eight million.
[878] 'Le faux prophète donna ses victoires pour toute marque de sa
mission.' _Bossuet_, p. 125.
[879] The greatest Mohammedan writers have always expressed ideas
regarding the Deity more lofty than those possessed by the
majority of Christians. The Koran contains noble passages on the
oneness of God; and for the views of their ordinary theologians,
I may refer to an interesting Mohammedan sermon, in _Transactions
of the Bombay Society_, vol. i. pp. 146-158. See also, in vol.
iii. pp. 398-448, an Essay by Vans Kennedy; and compare a
remarkable passage, considering the quarter from which it comes,
in _Autobiography of the Emperor Jehangueir_, p. 44. Those who
are so thoughtless as to believe that Mohammed was a hypocrite,
had better study the admirable remarks of M. Comte (_Philos.
Pos._ vol. v. pp. 76, 77), who truly says, 'qu'un homme vraiment
supérieur n'a jamais pu exercer aucune grande action sur ses
semblables sans être d'abord lui-même intimement convaincu.'
[880] 'Saint Martin fut fait évêque de Tours, et remplit tout l'univers
du bruit de sa sainteté et de ses miracles, durant sa vie, et
après sa mort.' _Bossuet_, _Hist. Univ._ p. 111.
[881] The Benedictines have written the life of Martin in their _Hist.
Lit. de la France_, vol. i. part ii. pp. 413-417, Paris, 1733,
4to. They say that he erected the first monastery in Gaul:
'Martin, toujours passionné pour la solitude, érigea un monastère
qui fut le premier que l'on eût encore vû dans les Gaules,' p.
414. At p. 415, they make the unnecessary admission, that the
saint 'n'avoit point étudié les sciences profanes.' I may add,
that the miracles of Martin are related by Fleury, who evidently
believes that they were really performed. _Fleury_, _Hist.
Ecclésiastique_, livre xvi. no. 31, vol. iv. pp. 215-217, Paris,
1758, 12mo. Neander, having the advantage of living a hundred
years later than Fleury, is content to say, 'the veneration of
his period denominated him a worker of miracles.' _Hist. of the
Church_, vol. iv. p. 494. There is a characteristic anecdote of
him, from Sulpitius Severus, in _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. i.
p. 123.
Such was the narrow spirit with which the great facts of history were
contemplated by a writer, who, when he was confined to his own
department, displayed the most towering genius. This contracted view was
the inevitable consequence of his attempt to explain the complicated
movements of the human race by principles which he had generalized from
his own inferior studies.[882] Nor need any one be offended, that, from
a scientific point of view, I assign to the pursuits of Bossuet a rank
lower than that in which they are sometimes placed. It is certain that
religious dogmas do, in many cases, influence the affairs of men. But it
is equally certain, that as civilization advances, such influence
decreases, and that even when the power of those dogmas was at its
height, there were many other motives by which the actions of mankind
were also governed. And since the study of history is the study of the
aggregate of these motives, it is evident that history must be superior
to theology; just as the whole is superior to a part. A neglect of this
simple consideration has, with a few eminent exceptions, led all
ecclesiastical authors into serious errors. It has induced in them a
disposition to disregard the immense variety of external events, and to
suppose that the course of affairs is regulated by some principles which
theology alone can detect. This, indeed, is only the result of a general
law of the mind, by which those who have any favourite profession, are
apt to exaggerate its capacity; to explain events by its maxims, and as
it were, to refract through its medium the occurrences of life.[883]
Among theologians, however, such prejudices are more dangerous than in
any other profession, because among them alone are they fortified by
that bold assumption of supernatural authority on which many of the
clergy willingly rely.
[882] At pp. 479, 480, Bossuet gives a sort of summary of his historical
principles; and if they are true, history is evidently impossible
to be written. On this account, though fully recognizing the
genius of Bossuet, I cannot agree with the remarks made upon him
by M. Comte, _Philos. Pos._ vol. iv. p. 280, vol. vi. pp. 316,
317.
[883] And then, as M. Charles Comte well says, they call this prejudice
their moral sense, or their moral instinct. _Comte_, _Traité de
Législation_, vol. i. p. 116.
These professional prejudices, when supported by theological dogmas, in
a reign like that of Louis XIV.,[884] are sufficient to account for the
peculiarities which mark the historical work of Bossuet. Besides this,
in his case, the general tendency was aggravated by personal
characteristics. His mind was remarkable for a haughtiness, which we
find constantly breaking out into a general contempt for mankind.[885]
At the same time his amazing eloquence, and the effects which it never
failed to produce, seemed to justify the overweening confidence that he
felt in his own powers. There is, indeed, in some of his greatest
efforts, so much of the fire and majesty of genius, that we are reminded
of those lofty and burning words with which the prophets of antiquity
thrilled their hearers. Bossuet, thus standing, as he supposed, on an
eminence which raised him above the ordinary weaknesses of men, loved to
taunt them with their follies, and to deride every aspiration of their
genius. Every thing like intellectual boldness seemed to gall his own
superiority.[886] It was this boundless arrogance with which he was
filled, which gives to his works some of their most marked
peculiarities. It was this, that made him strain every nerve to abase
and vilify those prodigious resources of the human understanding, which
are often despised by men who are ignorant of them; but which in reality
are so great, that no one has yet arisen able to scan them in the whole
of their gigantic dimensions. It was this same contempt for the human
intellect, that made him deny its capacity to work out for itself the
epochs through which it has passed; and, consequently, made him recur to
the dogma of supernatural interference. It was this, again, that, in
those magnificent orations which are among the greatest wonders of
modern art, caused him to exhaust the language of eulogy, not upon
intellectual eminence, but upon mere military achievements, upon great
conquerors, those pests and destroyers of men, who pass their lives in
discovering new ways of slaying their enemies, and in devising new means
of aggravating the miseries of the world. And, to descend still lower,
it was this same contempt for the dearest interests of mankind, which
made him look with reverence upon a king, who considered all those
interests as nothing; but who had the merit of enslaving the mind of
France, and of increasing the power of that body of men, among whom
Bossuet himself was the most distinguished.
[884] The connection between the opinions of Bossuet and the despotism
of Louis XIV. is touched on by Montlosier, who, however, has
probably laid too much stress on the influence which the civil
law exercised over both. _Montlosier_, _Monarchie Française_,
vol. ii. p. 90.
[885] He belonged to a class of historians, described by a celebrated
writer in a single sentence: 'dans leurs écrits l'auteur paraît
souvent grand, mais l'humanité est toujours petite.'
_Tocqueville_, _Démocratie_, vol. iv. p. 139.
[886] Hardly any one acquainted with the writings and the history of
Bossuet will require evidence of his singular arrogance. But the
reader may consult _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Franç._ vol. xxvi. p.
247; and on his treatment of Fénelon, which was the most shameful
transaction of his life, compare _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iv. p.
384, with _Capefigue's Louis XIV_, vol. ii. p. 58; where there is
printed one of the many epigrams to which the conduct of Bossuet
gave rise.