the French at the end of the seventeenth century, it is impossible to
ascertain to what extent such notions as these had penetrated the
popular mind. But, looking at the manner in which government had broken
the spirit of the country, I should be inclined to suppose that the
opinions of Bossuet were very acceptable to his own generation. This,
however, is a question rather of curiosity than of importance; for only
a few years later there appeared the first symptoms of that
unprecedented movement, which not merely destroyed the political
institutions of France, but effected a greater and more permanent
revolution in every department of the national intellect. At the death
of Louis XIV., in literature, as well as in politics, in religion, and
in morals, everything was ripe for reaction. The materials still
existing are so ample, that it would be possible to trace with
considerable minuteness the steps of this great process; but it will, I
think, be more agreeable to the general scheme of this Introduction, if
I pass over some of the intermediate links, and confine myself to those
salient instances in which the spirit of the age is most strikingly
portrayed.
There is, indeed, something extraordinary in the change which, in
France, one generation was able to effect in the method of writing
history. The best way, perhaps, to form an idea of this, will be to
compare the works of Voltaire with those of Bossuet; because these
great authors were probably the most able, and were certainly the most
influential, Frenchmen during the period they respectively represented.
The first great improvement which we find in Voltaire, as compared with
Bossuet, is an increased perception of the dignity of the human
intellect. In addition to the circumstances already noticed, we must
remember that the reading of Bossuet lay in a direction which prevented
him from feeling this. He had not studied those branches of knowledge
where great things have been achieved; but he was very conversant with
the writings of the saints and fathers, whose speculations are by no
means calculated to give us a high opinion of the resources of their own
understanding. Thus accustomed to contemplate the workings of the mind
in what is, on the whole, the most puerile literature Europe has ever
produced, the contempt which Bossuet felt for mankind went on
increasing; until it reached that inordinate degree which, in his later
works, is painfully conspicuous. But Voltaire, who paid no attention to
such things as these, passed his long life in the constant accumulation
of real and available knowledge. His mind was essentially modern.
Despising unsupported authority, and heedless of tradition, he devoted
himself to subjects in which the triumph of the human reason is too
apparent to be mistaken. The more his knowledge advanced, the more he
admired those vast powers by which the knowledge had been created. Hence
his admiration for the intellect of man, so far from diminishing, grew
with his growth; and, just in the same proportion, there was
strengthened his love of humanity, and his dislike to the prejudices
which had long obscured its history. That this, in the march of his
mind, was the course it actually followed, will be evident to any one
who considers the different spirit of his works, in reference to the
different periods of life in which they were produced.
The first historical work of Voltaire was a life of Charles XII., in
1728.[887] At this time his knowledge was still scanty, and he was
still influenced by the servile traditions of the preceding generation.
It is not, therefore, wonderful, that he should express the greatest
respect for Charles, who, among the admirers of military fame, will
always preserve a certain reputation; though his only merits are, that
he ravaged many countries and killed many men. But we find little
sympathy with his unfortunate subjects, the accumulations of whose
industry supported the royal armies;[888] nor is there much pity for
those nations who were oppressed by this great robber in the immense
line of his conquests from Sweden to Turkey. Indeed, the admiration of
Voltaire for Charles is unbounded. He calls him the most extraordinary
man the world had ever seen;[889] he declares him to be a prince full of
honour;[890] and while he scarcely blames his infamous murder of
Patkul,[891] he relates with evident emotion how the royal lunatic, at
the head of forty servants, resisted an entire army.[892] In the same
way, he says, that after the battle of Narva, all the attempts of
Charles were unable to prevent medals from being struck at Stockholm in
celebration of that event;[893] although Voltaire well knew that a man
of such extravagant vanity must have been pleased by so durable a
homage, and although it is quite certain that if he had not been
pleased, the medals would never have been struck: for who would venture,
without an object, to offend, in his own capital, one of the most
arbitrary and revengeful of princes?
[887] He says that he wrote it in 1728. _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. xxii. p. 5, but, according to M. Lepan (_Vie de Voltaire_,
p. 382), 'il parut en 1731.' Both statements may be accurate, as
Voltaire frequently kept his works for some time in manuscript.
[888] Sir A. Alison, who certainly cannot be accused of want of respect
for military conquerors, says of Sweden, 'the attempt which
Charles XII. made to engage her in long and arduous wars, so
completely drained the resources of the country, that they did
not recover the loss for half a century.' _Hist. of Europe_, vol.
x. p. 504. See also, on the effects produced by the conscriptions
of Charles XII., _Laing's Sweden_, p. 59; _Koch_, _Tableau des
Révolutions_, vol. ii. p. 63; and above all, a curious passage in
_Duclos_, _Mém. Secrets_, vol. i. p. 448. Several of the soldiers
of Charles XII. who were taken prisoners, were sent into Siberia,
where Bell fell in with them early in the eighteenth century.
_Bell's Travels in Asia_, edit. Edinb. 1788, vol. i. pp. 223-224.
[889] 'Charles XII, l'homme le plus extraordinaire peut-être qui ait
jamais été sur la terre, qui a réuni en lui toutes les grandes
qualités de ses aïeux, et qui n'a eu d'autre défaut ni d'autre
malheur que de les avoir toutes outrées.' _Hist. de Charles XII_,
livre i., in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xxii. p. 30.
[890] 'Plein d'honneur.' _Ibid._ in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xxii. p. 63.
[891] Which Burke, not without justice, compares to the murder of
Monaldeschi by Christina. _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 412. See
some remarks on the murder of Patkul, in _Vattel_, _Droit des
Gens_, vol. i. p. 230; and an account of it, from Swedish
authorities, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. xiii. pp. 879-881. For
Voltaire's version see his _[OE]uvres_, vol. xxii. pp. 136, 137;
which may be contrasted with _Crichton and Wheaton's History of
Scandinavia_, Edinb. 1838, vol. ii. p. 127.
[892] _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xxii. pp. 250-260. It may interest
some persons to hear, that the litter in which this madman 'was
borne from the battle of Pultava' is still preserved at Moscow.
_Kohl's Russia_, p. 220. It was also seen by M. Custine.
_Custine's Russia_, vol. iii. p. 263.
[893] 'Sa modestie ne put empêcher qu'on ne frappât à Stockholm
plusieurs médailles pour perpétuer la mémoire de ces événements.'
_Charles XII_, livre ii., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xxii. p. 70.
So far, it might appear that little had been gained in the method of
writing history.[894] But, even thus early, we find one vast
improvement. In Voltaire's Life of Charles XII., faulty as it is, there
are none of those assumptions of supernatural interference in which
Bossuet delighted, and which were natural to the reign of Louis XIV. The
absence of this marks the first great stage in the French school of
history in the eighteenth century; and we find the same peculiarity in
all the subsequent historians, none of whom recurred to a method, which,
though suitable for the purposes of theologians, is fatal to all
independent inquiries, since it not only prescribes the course the
inquirer is bound to take, but actually sets up a limit beyond which he
is forbidden to proceed.
[894] Even some of its geographical details are said to be inaccurate.
Compare _Villemain_, _Littérature au XVIII^e Siècle_, vol. ii. p.
33, with _Kohl's Russia_, p. 505. However, as M. Villemain says,
this must always be the case, when writers, who only know a
country from maps, attempt to enter into details respecting
military geography. In regard to style, it cannot be too highly
praised; and a well-known critic, Lacratelle, calls it 'le modèle
le plus accompli de narration qui existe dans notre langue.'
_Lacretelle_, _Dix-huitième Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 42. In 1843 it
was still used as a text book in the French royal colleges. See
_Report on Education in France_, in _Journal of Stat. Soc._ vol.
vi. p. 308. Further information respecting this work may be found
in _Longchamp et Wagnière_, _Mém. sur Voltaire_, vol. ii. p. 494;
and in _Mém. de Genlis_, vol. viii. p. 224, vol. x. p. 304.
That Voltaire should have infringed upon this ancient method only
thirteen years after the death of Louis XIV., and that he should have
done this in a popular work, abounding with such dangerous adventures as
are always found to tempt the mind to an opposite course, is a step of
no common merit, and becomes still more worthy of remark, if taken in
connexion with another fact of considerable interest. This is, that the
life of Charles XII. represents the first epoch, not only in the
eighteenth century, but also in the intellect of Voltaire himself.[895]
After it was published, this great man turned awhile from history, and
directed his attention to some of the noblest subjects: to mathematics,
to physics, to jurisprudence, to the discoveries of Newton, and to the
speculations of Locke. In these things he perceived those capabilities
of the human mind, which his own country had formerly witnessed, but of
which during the authority of Louis XIV. the memory had been almost
lost. Then it was that, with extended knowledge and sharpened intellect,
he returned to the great field of history.[896] The manner in which he
now treated his old subject, showed the change that had come over him.
In 1752, appeared his celebrated work on Louis XIV.,[897] the very title
of which is suggestive of the process through which his mind had passed.
His former history was an account of a king; this is an account of an
age. To the production of his youth he gave the title of a _History of
Charles XII._; this he called the _Age of Louis XIV._ Before, he had
detailed the peculiarities of a prince; now, he considered the movements
of a people. Indeed, in the introduction to the work, he announces his
intention to describe, 'not the actions of a single man, but the
character of men.'[898] Nor, in this point of view, is the execution
inferior to the design. While he is contented with giving a summary of
military achievements, on which Bossuet hung with delight, he enters at
great length into those really important matters which, before his time,
found no place in the history of France. He has one chapter on commerce
and internal government;[899] another chapter on finances;[900] another
on the history of science;[901] and three chapters on the progress of
the fine arts.[902] And though Voltaire did not attach much value to
theological disputes, still he knew that they have often played a great
part in the affairs of men; he therefore gives several distinct
chapters to a relation of ecclesiastical matters during the reign of
Louis.[903] It is hardly necessary to observe the immense superiority
which a scheme like this possessed, not only over the narrow views of
Bossuet, but even over his own earlier history. Still it cannot be
denied, that we find in it prejudices from which it was difficult for a
Frenchman, educated in the reign of Louis XIV., to be entirely free. Not
only does Voltaire dwell at needless length upon those amusements and
debaucheries of Louis, with which history can have little concern, but
he displays an evident disposition to favour the king himself, and to
protect his name from the infamy with which it ought to be covered.[904]
[895] It is evident, from Voltaire's correspondence, that he afterwards
became somewhat ashamed of the praises he had bestowed on Charles
XII. In 1735, he writes to De Formont, 'si Charles XII n'avait
pas été excessivement grand, malheureux, et fou, je me serais
bien donné de garde de parler de lui.' _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. lvi. p. 462. In 1758, advancing still further, he says of
Charles, 'voilà, monsieur, ce que les hommes de tous les temps et
de tous les pays appellent un héros; mais c'est le vulgaire de
tous les temps et de tous les pays qui donne ce nom à la soif du
carnage.' _Ibid._ vol. lx. p. 411. In 1759, he writes, that he
was then engaged on the history of Peter the Great: 'mais je
doute que cela soit aussi amusant que la vie de Charles XII; car
ce Pierre n'était qu'un sage extraordinaire, et Charles un fou
extraordinaire, qui se battait, comme Don Quichotte, contre des
moulins à vent.' Vol. lxi. p. 23: see also p. 350. These passages
prove the constant progress Voltaire was making in his conception
of what history ought to be, and what its uses were.
[896] In 1741, he mentions his increasing love of history. _Corresp._ in
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. li. p. 96.
[897] Lord Brougham, in his life of Voltaire, says that it appeared in
1751. _Lives of Men of Letters_, vol. i p. 106. But 1752 is the
date given in _Biog. Univ._ xlix. 478; in _Quérard_, _France
Lit._ vol. x. p. 355; and in _Lepan_, _Vie de Voltaire_, p. 382.
[898] 'On veut essayer de peindre à la postérité, non les actions d'un
seul homme, mais l'esprit des hommes dans le siècle le plus
éclairé qui fut jamais.' _Siècle de Louis XIV_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. xix. p. 213. And in his correspondence respecting
his work on Louis XIV., he carefully makes the same distinction.
See vol. lvi. pp. 453, 488, 489, 500, vol. lvii. pp. 337,
342-344, vol. lix. p. 103.
[899] Chap. xxix., in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xx. pp. 234-267.
[900] Chap. xxx., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 267-291. This chapter is
praised in _Sinclair's History of the Public Revenue_, vol. iii.
appendix, p. 77; an indifferent work, but the best we have on the
important subject to which it refers.
[901] Chap. xxxi., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 291-299; necessarily a
very short chapter, because of the paucity of materials.
[902] Chapters xxxii. to xxxiv., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 299-338.
[903] _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 338-464.
[904] This disposition to favour Louis XIV. is noticed by Condorcet, who
says it was the only early prejudice which Voltaire was unable to
shake off: 'c'est le seul préjugé de sa jeunesse qu'il ait
conservé.' _Condorcet_, _Vie de Voltaire_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. i. p. 286. See also, on this defect, _Grimm et
Diderot_, _Corresp. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 182; _Lemontey_,
_Etablissement Monarchique_, pp. 451, 452; _Mém. de Brissot_,
vol. ii. pp. 88, 89. It is interesting to observe, that
Voltaire's earlier opinions were still more favourable to Louis
XIV. than those which he afterwards expressed in his history. See
a letter which he wrote in 1740 to Lord Harvey, printed in
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. lviii. pp. 57-63.
But the next work of Voltaire showed that this was a mere personal
feeling, and did not affect his general views as to the part which the
acts of princes ought to occupy in history. Four years after the
appearance of the _Age of Louis XIV._, he published his important
treatise on the _Morals, Manners, and Character of Nations_.[905] This
is not only one of the greatest books which appeared during the
eighteenth century, but it still remains the best on the subject to
which it refers. The mere reading it displays is immense;[906] what,
however, is far more admirable, is the skill with which the author
connects the various facts, and makes them illustrate each other,
sometimes by a single remark, sometimes only by the order and position
in which they are placed. Indeed, considered solely as a work of art, it
would be difficult to praise it too highly; while, as a symptom of the
times, it is important to observe, that it contains no traces of that
adulation of royalty which characterized Voltaire in the period of his
youth, and which is found in all the best writers during the power of
Louis XIV. In the whole of this long and important work, the great
historian takes little notice of the intrigues of courts, or of the
changes of ministers, or of the fate of kings; but he endeavours to
discover and develop the different epochs through which Man has
successively passed. 'I wish,' he says, 'to write a history, not of
wars, but of society; and to ascertain how men lived in the interior of
their families, and what were the arts which they commonly
cultivated.'[907] For, he adds, 'my object is the history of the human
mind, and not a mere detail of petty facts; nor am I concerned with the
history of great lords, who made war upon French kings; but I want to
know what were the steps by which men passed from barbarism to
civilization.'[908]
[905] Mr. Burton, in his interesting work, _Life and Correspondence of
Hume_, vol. ii. p. 129, says it was 'first published in 1756;'
and the same date is given by Quérard (_France Littéraire_, vol.
x. p. 359), who is a very accurate bibliographer; so that
Condorcet (_Vie de Voltaire_, p. 199) and Lord Brougham (_Men of
Letters_, vol. i. p. 98) are probably in error in assigning it to
1757. In regard to its title, I translate 'M[oe]urs' as 'morals
and manners;' for M. Tocqueville uses 'm[oe]urs' as equivalent to
the Latin word 'mores.' _Tocqueville_, _Démocratie en Amérique_,
vol. iii. pp. 50, 84.
[906] Superficial writers are so much in the habit of calling Voltaire
superficial, that it may be well to observe, that his accuracy
has been praised, not only by his own countrymen, but by several
English authors of admitted learning. For three remarkable
instances of this, from men whom no one will accuse of leaning
towards his other opinions, see _notes to Charles V._, in
_Robertson's Works_, pp. 431, 432; _Barrington's Observations on
the Statutes_, p. 293; and _Warton's History of English Poetry_,
vol. i. p. xvi. Even Sir W. Jones, in his preface to the _Life of
Nader Shah_, says, that Voltaire is 'the best historian' the
French have produced. _Works of Sir William Jones_, vol. v. p.
542; and compare the preface to his _Persian Grammar_, in
_Works_, vol. ii. p. 123.
[907] 'Je voudrais découvrir quelle était alors la société des hommes,
comment on vivait dans l'intérieur des familles, quels arts
étaient cultivés, plutôt que de répéter tant de malheurs et tant
de combats, funestes objets de l'histoire, et lieux communs de la
méchanceté humaine.' _Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, chap. lxxxi., in
_[OE]uvres_, vol. xvi. p. 381.
[908] 'L'objet était l'histoire de l'esprit humain, et non pas le détail
des faits presque toujours défigurés; il ne s'agissait pas de
rechercher, par exemple, de quelle famille était le seigneur de
Puiset, ou le seigneur de Montlheri, qui firent la guerre à des
rois de France; mais de voir par quels degrés on est parvenu de
la rusticité barbare de ces temps à la politesse du nôtre.'
Supplement to _Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, in _[OE]uvres_, vol.
xviii. p. 435. Compare _Fragments sur l'Histoire_, vol. xxvii. p.
214, with two letters in vol. lx. pp. 153, 154, vol. lxv. p. 370.
It was in this way that Voltaire taught historians to concentrate their
attention on matters of real importance, and to neglect those idle
details with which history had formerly been filled. But what proves
this to be a movement arising as much from the spirit of the age as from
the individual author, is, that we find precisely the same tendency in
the works of Montesquieu and Turgot, who were certainly the two most
eminent of the contemporaries of Voltaire; and both of whom followed a
method similar to his, in so far as, omitting descriptions of kings,
courts, and battles, they confined themselves to points which illustrate
the character of mankind, and the general march of civilization. And
such was the popularity of this change in the old routine, that its
influence was felt by other historians of inferior, but still of
considerable, ability. In 1755, Mallet[909] published his interesting,
and, at the time it was written, most valuable work, on the history of
Denmark;[910] in which he professes himself a pupil of the new school.
'For why,' he says, 'should history be only a recital of battles,
sieges, intrigues, and negotiations? And why should it contain merely a
heap of petty facts and dates, rather than a great picture of the
opinions, customs, and even inclinations of a people?'[911] Thus too, in
1765, Mably published the first part of his celebrated work on the
history of France;[912] in the preface to which, he complains that
historians 'have neglected the origin of laws and customs, in favour of
sieges and battles.'[913] In the same spirit, Velly and Villaret, in
their voluminous history of France, express regret that historians
should usually relate what happens to the sovereign, in preference to
what happens to the people, and should omit the manners and
characteristics of a nation, in order to study the acts of a single
man.[914] Duclos, again, announces that his history is not of war, nor
of politics, but of men and manners:[915] while, strange to say, even
the courtly Hénault declares that his object was to describe laws and
manners, which he calls the soul of history, or rather history
itself.[916]
[909] Mallet, though born in Geneva, was a Frenchman in the habits of
his mind: he wrote in French, and is classed among French
historians, in the report presented to Napoleon by the Institut.
_Dacier_, _Rapport sur les Progrès de l'Histoire_, p. 173.
[910] Göthe, in his Autobiography, mentions his obligations to this
work, which, I suspect, exercised considerable influence over the
early associations of his mind: 'Ich hatte die Fabeln der Edda
schon längst aus der Vorrede zu Mallet's Dänischer Geschichte
kennen gelernt, und mich derselben sogleich bemächtigt; sie
gehörten unter diejenigen Mährchen, die ich, von einer
Gesellschaft aufgefordert, am liebsten erzählte.' _Wahrheit u.
Dichtung_, in _Goethe's Werke_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 169. Percy,
a very fair judge, thought highly of Mallet's history, part of
which, indeed, he translated. See a letter from him, in
_Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. vii.
p. 719.
[911] _Mallet's Northern Antiquities_, edit. Blackell, 1847, p. 78.
[912] The first two volumes were published in 1765; the other two in
1790. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi. pp. 9, 12.
[913] _Mably_, _Observ. sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. i. p. ii.; and
compare vol. iii. p. 289: but this latter passage was written
several years later.
[914] 'Bornés à nous apprendre les victoires ou les défaites du
souverain, ils ne nous disent rien ou presque rien des peuples
qu'il a rendus heureux ou malheureux. On ne trouve dans leurs
écrits que longues descriptions de sièges et de batailles; nulle
mention des m[oe]urs et de l'esprit de la nation. Elle y est
presque toujours sacrifiée à un seul homme.' _Histoire de France
par Velly_, Paris, 1770, 4to, vol. i. p. 6; and see, to the same
effect, the _Continuation by Villaret_, vol. v. p. vi.
[915] 'Si l'histoire que j'écris n'est ni militaire, ni politique, ni
économique, du moins dans le sens que je conçois pour ces
différentes parties, on me demandera quelle est donc celle que je
me propose d'écrire. C'est l'histoire des hommes et des
m[oe]urs.' _Duclos_, _Louis XIV et Louis XV_, vol. i. p. xxv.
[916] 'Je voulois connoître nos loix, nos m[oe]urs, et tout ce qui est
l'âme de l'histoire, ou plutôt l'histoire même.' _Hénault_,
_Nouvel Abrégé chronologique de l'Histoire de France_, edit.
Paris, 1775, vol. i. p. i.
Thus it was, that historians began to shift, as it were, the scene of
their labours, and to study subjects connected with those popular
interests, on which the great writers under Louis XIV. disdained to
waste a thought. I need hardly observe, how agreeable such views were
to the general spirit of the eighteenth century, and how well they
harmonized with the temper of men who were striving to lay aside their
former prejudices, and despise what had once been universally admired.
All this was but part of that vast movement, which prepared the way for
the Revolution, by unsettling ancient opinions, by encouraging a certain
mobility and restlessness of mind, and, above all, by the disrespect it
showed for those powerful individuals, hitherto regarded as gods rather
than as men, but who now, for the first time, were neglected by the
greatest and most popular historians, who passed over even their
prominent actions, in order to dwell upon the welfare of nations, and
the interests of the people at large.
To return, however, to what was actually effected by Voltaire, there is
no doubt that, in his case, this tendency of the time was strengthened
by a natural comprehensiveness of mind, which predisposed him to large
views, and made him dissatisfied with that narrow range to which history
had been hitherto confined.[917] Whatever may be thought of the other
qualities of Voltaire, it must be allowed that, in his intellect,
everything was on a great scale.[918] Always prepared for thought, and
always ready to generalize, he was averse to the study of individual
actions, unless they could be made available for the establishment of
some broad and permanent principle. Hence his habit of looking at
history with a view to the stages through which the country had passed,
rather than with a view to the character of the men by whom the country
had been governed. The same tendency appears in his lighter works; and
it has been well observed,[919] that, even in his dramas, he endeavours
to portray, not so much the passions of individuals, as the spirit of
epochs. In _Mahomet_, his subject is a great religion; in _Alzire_, the
conquest of America; in _Brutus_, the formation of the Roman power; in
the _Death of Cæsar_, the rise of the empire upon the ruins of that
power.[920]
[917] In 1763, he writes to D'Argental: 'il y a environ douze batailles
dont je n'ai point parlé, Dieu merci, parceque j'écris l'histoire
de l'esprit humain, et non une gazette.' _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. lxiii. p. 51. See also his letter to Tabareau (_Lettres
inédites de Voltaire_, vol. ii. p. 585): 'Personne ne lit les
détails des combats et des sièges; rien n'est plus ennuyeux que
la droite et la gauche, les bastions et la contrescarpe.'
[918] M. Lamartine characterizes him as 'ce génie non pas le plus haut,
mais le plus vaste de la France.' _Hist. des Girondins_, vol. i.
p. 180.
[919] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xlix. p. 493. His _Orphelin de la Chine_ is
taken from Chinese sources: see _Davis's China_, vol. ii. p. 258.
[920] The surprising versatility of Voltaire's mind is shown by the
fact, unparalleled in literature, that he was equally great as a
dramatic writer and as an historian. Mr. Forster, in his
admirable _Life of Goldsmith_, 1854, says (vol. i. p. 119),
'Gray's high opinion of Voltaire's tragedies is shared by one of
our greatest authorities on such a matter now living, Sir Edward
Bulwer Lytton, whom I have often heard maintain the marked
superiority of Voltaire over all his countrymen in the knowledge
of dramatic art, and the power of producing theatrical effects.'
Compare _Correspondence of Gray and Mason_, edit. Mitford, 1855,
p. 44.
By this determination to look upon the course of events as a great and
connected whole, Voltaire was led to several results, which have been
complacently adopted by many authors, who, even while using them, revile
him from whom they were taken. He was the first historian who, rejecting
the ordinary method of investigation, endeavoured, by large general
views, to explain the origin of feudality; and, by indicating some of
the causes of its decline in the fourteenth century,[921] he laid the
foundation for a philosophic estimate of that important
institution.[922] He was the author of a profound remark, afterwards
adopted by Constant, to the effect, that licentious religious
ceremonies have no connexion with licentious national morals.[923]
Another observation of his, which has been only partly used by writers
on ecclesiastical history, is pregnant with instruction. He says, that
one of the reasons why the bishops of Rome acquired an authority so
superior to that of the eastern patriarchs, was the greater subtlety of
the Greek mind. Nearly all the heresies proceeded from the east; and,
with the exception of Honorius I., not a single pope adopted a system
condemned by the church. This gave to the papal power an unity and
consolidation, which the patriarchal power was unable to reach; and thus
the Holy See owes part of its authority to the early dulness of the
European fancy.[924]
[921] _Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, chap. lxxxv., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xvi.
p. 412, and elsewhere.
[922] During the eighteenth century, and, I may say, until the
publication in 1818 of Hallam's Middle Ages, there was in the
English language no comprehensive account of the feudal system;
unless, perhaps, we except that given by Robertson, who in this,
as in many other matters of history, was a pupil of Voltaire. Not
only Dalrymple, and writers of his kind, but even Blackstone,
took so narrow a view of this great institution, that they were
unable to connect it with the general state of society to which
it belonged. Some of our historians gravely traced it back to
Moses, in whose laws they found the origin of allodial lands. See
a charming passage in _Barry's History of the Orkney Islands_, p.
219. On the spirit of feudality, there are some remarks well
worth reading in _Comtés Philos. Posit._ vol. v. pp. 393-413.
[923] Constant, in his work on Roman polytheism, says, 'des rites
indécens peuvent être pratiqués par un peuple religieux avec une
grande pureté de c[oe]ur. Mais quand l'incrédulité atteint ces
peuples, ces rites sont pour lui la cause et le prétexte de la
plus révoltante corruption.' This passage is quoted by Mr.
Milman, who calls it 'extremely profound and just.' _Milman's
History of Christianity_, 1840, vol. i. p. 28. And so it
is--extremely profound and just. But it happens that precisely
the same remark was made by Voltaire, just about the time that
Constant was born. Speaking of the worship of Priapus, he says
(_Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, chap. cxliii. in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. xvii. p. 341), 'nos idées de bienséance nous
portent à croire qu'un cérémonie qui nous paraît si infâme n'a
été inventée que par la débauche; mais il n'est guère croyable
que la dépravation des m[oe]urs ait jamais chez aucun peuple
établi des cérémonies religieuses. Il est probable, au contraire,
que cette coutume fut d'abord introduite dans les temps de
simplicité, et qu'on ne pensa d'abord qu'à honorer la Divinité
dans le symbole de la vie qu'elle nous a donnée. Une telle
cérémonie a dû inspirer la licence à la jeunesse, et paraître
ridicule aux esprits sages, dans les temps plus raffinés, plus
corrompus, et plus éclairés.' Compare the remarks on the
indecency of the Spartan customs, in _Thirlwall's Hist. of
Greece_, vol. i. pp. 326, 327.
[924] _Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, chaps. xiv. and xxxi., in _[OE]uvres_,
vol. xv. pp. 391, 514. Neander observes, that in the Greek church
there were more heresies than in the Latin church, because the
Greeks thought more; but he has failed to perceive how this
favoured the authority of the popes. _Neander's History of the
Church_, vol. ii. pp. 198, 199, vol. iii. pp. 191, 492, vol. iv.
p. 90, vol. vi. p. 293, vol. viii. p. 257.
It would be impossible to relate all the original remarks of Voltaire,
which, when he made them, were attacked as dangerous paradoxes, and are
now valued as sober truths. He was the first historian who recommended
universal freedom of trade; and, although he expresses himself with
great caution,[925] still the mere announcement of the idea in a popular
history forms an epoch in the progress of the French mind. He is the
originator of that important distinction between the increase of
population and the increase of food, to which political economy has been
greatly indebted;[926] a principle adopted several years later by
Townsend, and then used by Malthus as the basis of his celebrated
work.[927] He has, moreover, the merit of being the first who dispelled
the childish admiration with which the Middle Ages had been hitherto
regarded, and which they owed to those dull and learned writers, who, in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, were the principal
investigators of the early history of Europe. These industrious
compilers had collected extensive materials, which Voltaire turned to
good account, and by their aid overthrew the conclusions at which the
authors had themselves arrived. In his works, the Middle Ages are, for
the first time, represented as what they really were,--a period of
ignorance, ferocity, and licentiousness; a period when injuries were
unredressed, crime unpunished, and superstition unrebuked. It may be
said, with some show of justice, that Voltaire, in the picture he drew,
fell into the opposite extreme, and did not sufficiently recognize the
merit of those truly great men, who, at long intervals, stood here and
there, like solitary beacons, whose light only made the surrounding
darkness more visible. Still, after every allowance for that
exaggeration which a reaction of opinions always causes, it is certain
that his view of the Middle Ages is not only far more accurate than that
of any preceding writer, but conveys a much juster idea of the time than
can be found in those subsequent compilations which we owe to the
industry of modern antiquaries; a simple and plodding race, who admire
the past because they are ignorant of the present, and who, spending
their lives amid the dust of forgotten manuscripts, think themselves
able, with the resources of their little learning, to speculate on the
affairs of men, to trace the history of different periods, and even to
assign to each the praise it ought to receive.
[925] In his account of the trade of Archangel, he says, 'les Anglais
obtinrent le privilége d'y commercer sans payer aucun droit; et
c'est ainsi que toutes les nations devraient peut-être négocier
ensemble.' _Hist. de Russie_, part i. chap. i., in _[OE]uvres_,
vol. xxiii. p. 35. Remarkable words to have been written by a
Frenchman, born at the end of the seventeenth century; and yet
they have, so far as I am aware, escaped the attention of all the
historians of political economy. Indeed, on this, as on most
matters, sufficient justice has not been done to Voltaire, whose
opinions were more accurate than those of Quesnay and his
followers. However, Mr. M'Culloch, in noticing one of the
economical errors of Voltaire, honestly admits that his 'opinions
on such subjects are, for the most part, very correct.'
_M'Culloch's Principles of Political Economy_, p. 530. For proof
of his sympathy with Turgot's efforts to establish free trade,
compare _Lettres inédites de Voltaire_, vol. ii. pp. 367, 403,
423, with _Longchamp_, _Mém. sur Voltaire_, vol. i. pp. 376, 378.
[926] 'The idea of the different ratios by which population and food
increase, was originally thrown out by Voltaire; and was picked
up and expanded into many a goodly volume by our English
political economists in the present century.' _Laing's Notes_,
second series, p. 42.
[927] It is often said that Malthus was indebted to Townsend's writings
for his views on population; but this obligation has been too
strongly stated, as, indeed, is always the case when charges of
plagiarism are brought against great works. Still, Townsend is to
be considered as the precursor of Malthus; and if the reader is
interested in tracing the paternity of ideas, he will find some
interesting economical remarks in _Townsend's Journey through
Spain_, vol. i. pp. 379, 383, vol. ii. pp. 85, 337, 387-393;
which must be compared with _M'Culloch's Literature of Political
Economy_, pp. 259, 281-3. Voltaire having preceded these authors,
has, of course, fallen into errors which they avoided; but
nothing can be better than the way in which he opposes the
ignorant belief of his own time, that every thing should be done
to increase population. 'Le point principal n'est pas d'avoir du
superflu en hommes, mais de rendre ce que nous en avons le moins
malheureux qu'il est possible,' is the summing-up of his able
remarks, in _Dict. Philos._, article _Population_, sect. 2, in
_[OE]uvres_, vol. xli. p. 466. Godwin, in his notice of the
history of these opinions, is evidently ignorant of what was done
by Voltaire. _Sinclair's Corresp._ vol. i. p. 396.
With such writers as these, Voltaire was always at war; and no one has
done so much to lessen the influence they once exercised over even the
highest branches of knowledge. There was also another class of
dictators, whose authority this great man was equally successful in
reducing, namely, the old class of classical scholars and commentators,
who, from the middle of the fourteenth till early in the eighteenth
century, were the chief dispensers of fame, and were respected as being
by far the most distinguished men Europe had ever produced. The first
great assaults made upon them were late in the seventeenth century, when
two controversies sprung up, of which I shall hereafter give an
account,--one in France, and one in England,--by both of which their
power was considerably damaged. But their two most formidable opponents
were, undoubtedly, Locke and Voltaire. The immense services rendered by
Locke in lessening the reputation of the old classical school, will be
examined in another part of this work; at present we are only concerned
with the steps taken by Voltaire.
The authority wielded by the great classical scholars rested not only on
their abilities, which are undeniable, but also on the supposed dignity
of their pursuits. It was generally believed that ancient history
possessed some inherent superiority over modern history; and this being
taken for granted, the inference naturally followed, that the
cultivators of the one were more praiseworthy than the cultivators of
the other; and that a Frenchman, for instance, who should write the
history of some Greek republic, displayed a nobler turn of mind than if
he had written the history of his own country. This singular prejudice
had for centuries been a traditional notion; which men accepted, because
they had received it from their fathers, and which it would have been
almost an impiety to dispute. The result was, that the few really able
writers on history devoted themselves chiefly to that of the ancients;
or, if they published an account of modern times, they handled their
theme, not according to modern ideas, but according to ideas gathered
from their more favourite pursuit. This confusion of the standard of
one age with the standard of another, caused a double evil. Historians,
by adopting this plan, injured the originality of their own minds; and,
what was far worse, they set a bad example to the literature of their
country. For every great nation has a mode of expression, and of
thought, peculiar to itself, and with which its sympathies are
intimately connected. To introduce any foreign model, however admirable
it may be, is to violate this connexion, and to impair the value of
literature by limiting the scope of its action. By such a course, the
taste may possibly be refined, but the vigour will certainly be
weakened. Indeed, the refinement of the taste may well be doubted, when
we see what has taken place in our country, where our great scholars
have corrupted the English language by a jargon so uncouth, that a plain
man can hardly discern the real lack of ideas which their barbarous and
mottled dialect strives to hide.[928] At all events, it is certain, that
every people worthy of being called a nation, possess in their own
language ample resources for expressing the highest ideas they are able
to form; and although, in matters of science, it may be convenient to
coin such words as are more easily understood in foreign countries, it
is a grave offence to depart on other subjects from the vernacular
speech; and it is a still graver one, to introduce notions and
standards for action, suited perhaps to former times, but which the
march of society has left far behind, and with which we have no real
sympathy, though they may excite that sickly and artificial interest
which the classical prejudices of early education still contrive to
create.
[928] With the single exception of Porson, not one of the great English
scholars has shown an appreciation of the beauties of his native
language; and many of them, such as Parr (in all his works) and
Bentley (in his mad edition of Milton), have done every thing in
their power to corrupt it. And there can be little doubt, that
the principal reason why well-educated women write and converse
in a purer style than well-educated men, is because they have not
formed their taste according to those ancient classical
standards, which, admirable as they are in themselves, should
never be introduced into a state of society unfitted for them. To
this may be added, that Cobbett, the most racy and idiomatic of
all our writers, and Erskine, by far the greatest of our forensic
orators, knew little or nothing of any ancient language; and the
same observation applies to Shakespeare. On the supposed
connexion between the improvement of taste and the study of
classical models, there are some remarks worth attending to in
_Rey's Théorie et Pratique de la Science Sociale_, vol. i.
pp. 98-101.
It was against these evils that Voltaire entered the field. The wit and
the ridicule with which he attacked the dreaming scholars of his own
time, can only be appreciated by those who have studied his works. Not,
as some have supposed, that he used these weapons as a substitute for
argument, still less that he fell into the error of making ridicule a
test for truth. No one could reason more closely than Voltaire, when
reasoning suited his purpose. But he had to deal with men impervious to
argument; men whose inordinate reverence for antiquity had only left
them two ideas, namely, that every thing old is right, and that every
thing new is wrong. To argue against these opinions would be idle
indeed; the only other resource was, to make them ridiculous, and weaken
their influence, by holding up their authors to contempt. This was one
of the tasks Voltaire set himself to perform; and he did it well.[929]
He, therefore, used ridicule, not as the test of truth, but as the
scourge of folly. And with such effect was the punishment administered,
that not only did the pedants and theologians of his own time wince
under the lash, but even their successors feel their ears tingle when
they read his biting words; and they revenge themselves by reviling the
memory of that great writer, whose works are as a thorn in their side,
and whose very name they hold in undisguised abhorrence.
[929] 'We can best judge, from the Jesuitical rage with which he was
persecuted, how admirably he had delineated the weaknesses and
presumption of the interpreters of the ancients, who shone in the
schools and academies, and had acquired great reputation by their
various and copiously exhibited learning.' _Schlosser's
Eighteenth Century_, vol. i. p. 120. At p. 270, M. Schlosser
says, 'And it was only a man of Voltaire's wit and talents, who
could throw the light of an entirely new criticism upon the
darkness of those grabbing and collecting pedants.'
These two classes have, indeed, reasons enough for the hatred with
which they still regard the greatest Frenchman of the eighteenth
century. For, Voltaire did more than any other man to sap the foundation
of ecclesiastical power, and to destroy the supremacy of classical
studies. This is not the place for discussing the theological opinions
which he attacked; but of the state of classical opinions an idea may be
formed, by considering some of those circumstances which were recorded
by the ancients respecting their history, and which, until the
appearance of Voltaire, were implicitly believed by modern scholars, and
through them by the people at large.
It was believed that, in ancient times, Mars ravished a virgin, and that
the offspring of the intrigue were no other than Romulus and Remus, both
of whom it was intended to put to death; but they were fortunately saved
by the attentions of a she-wolf and a woodpecker; the wolf giving them
suck, and the woodpecker protecting them from insects. It was, moreover,
believed that Romulus and Remus, when grown up to man's estate,
determined to build a city, and that, being joined by the descendants of
the Trojan warriors, they succeeded in erecting Rome. It was believed
that both brothers came to an untimely end; Remus being murdered, and
Romulus being taken up to heaven by his father, who descended for that
purpose in the midst of a tempest. The great scholars then proceeded to
relate the succession of several other kings; the most remarkable of
whom was Numa, whose only communications with his wife were carried on
in a sacred grove. Another of the sovereigns of Rome was Tullus
Hostilius, who, having offended the clergy, perished from the effects of
their anger; his death being caused by lightning, and preceded by
pestilence. Then again, there was one Servius Tullius, who was also a
king, and whose greatness was prognosticated by the appearance of flames
round his head as he was sleeping in his cradle. After this, it was but
a slight matter that the ordinary laws of mortality should be suspended;
we were, therefore, assured that those ignorant barbarians, the early
Romans, passed two hundred and forty-five years under the government of
only seven kings, all of whom were elected in the prime of life, one of
whom was expelled the city, and three of whom were put to death.
These are a few of the idle stories in which the great scholars took
intense delight, and which, during many centuries, were supposed to form
a necessary part of the annals of the Latin empire. Indeed, so universal
was the credulity, that, until they were destroyed by Voltaire, there
were only four writers who had ventured openly to attack them.
Cluverius, Perizonius, Pouilly, and Beaufort were the names of these
bold innovators; but by none of them was any impression made on the
public mind. The works of Cluverius and Perizonius, being composed in
Latin, were addressed entirely to a class of readers who, infatuated
with a love of antiquity, would listen to nothing that diminished the
reputation of its history. Pouilly and Beaufort wrote in French; both of
them, and especially Beaufort, were men of considerable ability; but
their powers were not versatile enough to enable them to extirpate
prejudices which were so strongly protected, and which had been fostered
by the education of many successive generations.
The service, therefore, rendered by Voltaire in purging history of these
foolish conceits, is, not that he was the first by whom they were
attacked, but that he was the first to attack them with success; and
this because he was also the first who mingled ridicule with argument,
thus not only assailing the system, but also weakening the authority of
those by whom the system was supported. His irony, his wit, his pungent
and telling sarcasms, produced more effect than the gravest arguments
could have done; and there can be no doubt that he was fully justified
in using those great resources with which nature had endowed him, since
by their aid he advanced the interests of truth, and relieved men from
some of their most inveterate prejudices.
It is not, however, to be supposed that ridicule was the only means
employed by Voltaire in effecting this important object. So far from
that, I can say with confidence, after a careful comparison of both
writers, that the most decisive arguments advanced by Niebuhr against
the early history of Rome, had all been anticipated by Voltaire; in
whose works they may be found, by whoever will take the trouble of
reading what this great man has written, instead of ignorantly railing
against him. Without entering into needless detail, it is enough to
mention that, amidst a great variety of very ingenious and very learned
discussion, Niebuhr has put forward several views with which later
critics have been dissatisfied; but that there are three, and only
three, principles which are fundamental to his history, and which it is
impossible to refute. These are:--I. That, on account of the inevitable
intermixture of fable essential to a rude people, no nation can possess
trustworthy details respecting its own origin. II. That even such early
documents as the Romans might have possessed, had been destroyed before
they were incorporated into a regular history. III. That ceremonies
established in honour of certain events alleged to have taken place in
former times, were a proof, not that the events had happened, but that
they were believed to have happened. The whole fabric of the early
history of Rome at once fell to pieces, as soon as these three
principles were applied to it. What, however, is most remarkable, is,
that not only are all three laid down by Voltaire, but their bearing
upon Roman history is distinctly shown. He says that no nation is
acquainted with its own origin; so that all primitive history is
necessarily an invention.[930] He remarks, that since even such
historical works as the Romans once possessed, were all destroyed when
their city was burned, no confidence can be placed in the accounts
which, at a much later period, are given by Livy and other
compilers.[931] And, as innumerable scholars busied themselves in
collecting evidence respecting ceremonies instituted in celebration of
certain events, and then appealed to the evidence in order to prove the
events, Voltaire makes a reflection which now seems very obvious, but
which these learned men had entirely overlooked. He notices, that their
labour is bootless, because the date of the evidence is, with extremely
few exceptions, much later than the date of the event to which it
refers. In such cases, the existence of a festival, or of a monument,
proves, indeed, the belief which men entertain, but by no means proves
the reality of the occurrence concerning which the belief is held.[932]
This simple, but important maxim, is, even in our own days, constantly
lost sight of, while before the eighteenth century it was universally
neglected. Hence it was that historians were able to accumulate fables
which were believed without examination;[933] it being altogether
forgotten, that fables, as Voltaire says, begin to be current in one
generation, are established in the second, become respectable in the
third, while in the fourth generation temples are raised in honour of
them.[934]
[930] 'C'est l'imagination seule qui a écrit les premières histoires.
Non seulement chaque peuple inventa son origine, mais il inventa
aussi l'origine du monde entier.' _Dict. Philos._ article
_Histoire_, sec. 2, in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xl. p. 195. See also his
article on Chronology, vol. xxxviii. p. 77, for the application
of this to the history of Rome, where he says, 'Tite Live n'a
garde de dire en quelle année Romulus commença son prétendu
règne.' And at vol. xxxvi. p. 86, 'tous les peuples se sont
attribués des origines imaginaires; et aucun n'a touché à la
véritable.'
[931] 'Qu'on fasse attention que la république romaine a été cinq cents
ans sans historiens; que Tite Live lui-même déplore la perte des
autres monuments qui périrent presque tous dans l'incendie de
Rome,' &c. _Dict. Philos._ in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xl. p. 202. At p.
188, 'ce peuple, si récent en comparaison des nations asiatiques,
a été cinq cents années sans historiens. Ainsi, il n'est pas
surprenant que Romulus ait été le fils de Mars, qu'une louve ait
été sa nourrice, qu'il ait marché avec mille hommes de son
village de Rome contre vingt-cinq mille combattants du village
des Sabins.'
[932] 'Par quel excès de démence, par quel opiniâtreté absurde, tant de
compilateurs ont-ils voulu prouver dans tant de volumes énormes,
qu'une fête publique établie en mémoire d'un événement était une
démonstration de la vérité de cet événement?' _Essai sur les
M[oe]urs_, in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xv. p. 109. See also the same
remark applied to monuments, in chap. cxcvii., _[OE]uvres_, vol.
xviii. pp. 412-414; and again, in vol. xl. pp. 203, 204.
[933] 'La plupart des histoires out été crues sans examen, et cette
créance est un préjugé. Fabius Pictor raconte que, plusieurs
siècles avant lui, une vestale de la ville d'Albe, allant puiser
de l'eau dans sa cruche, fut violée, qu'elle accoucha de Romulus
et de Rémus, qu'ils furent nourris par une louve, etc. Le peuple
romain crut cette fable; il n'examina point si dans ce temps-là
il y avait des vestales dans le Latium, s'il était vraisemblable
que la fille d'un roi sortît de son couvent avec sa cruche, s'il
était probable qu'une louve allaitât deux enfants au lieu de les
manger; le préjugé s'établit.' _Dict. Philos._ article
_Préjugés_, in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xli. pp. 488, 489.
[934] 'Les amateurs du merveilleux disaient: Il faut bien que ces faits
soient vrais, puisque tant de monuments en sont la preuve. Et
nous disions: Il faut bien qu'ils soient faux, puisque le
vulgaire les a crus. Une fable a quelque cours dans une
génération; elle s'établit dans la seconde; elle devient
respectable dans la troisième; la quatrième lui élève des
temples.' _Fragments sur l'Histoire_, article i. in _[OE]uvres_,
vol. xxvii. pp. 158, 159.
I have been the more particular in stating the immense obligations
history is under to Voltaire, because in England there exists against
him a prejudice, which nothing but ignorance, or something worse than
ignorance, can excuse;[935] and because, taking him on the whole, he is
probably the greatest historian Europe has yet produced. In reference,
however, to the mental habits of the eighteenth century, it is important
to show, that in the same period similar comprehensiveness was being
displayed by other French historians; so that in this case, as in all
others, we shall find that a large share of what is effected, even by
the most eminent men, is due to the character of the age in which they
live.
[935] In this case, as in many others, ignorance has been fortified by
bigotry; for, as Lord Campbell truly says of Voltaire, 'since the
French Revolution, an indiscriminate abuse of this author has
been in England the test of orthodoxy and loyalty.' _Campbell's
Chief Justices_, vol. ii. p. 335. Indeed, so extensively has the
public mind been prejudiced against this great man, that, until a
very few years ago, when Lord Brougham published a life of him,
there was no book in the English language containing even a
tolerable account of one of the most influential writers France
has produced. This work of Lord Brougham's, though a middling
performance, is at least an honest one, and, as it harmonizes
with the general spirit of our time, it has probably had
considerable weight. In it he says of Voltaire, 'nor can any one
since the days of Luther be named, to whom the spirit of free
inquiry, nay, the emancipation of the human mind from spiritual
tyranny, owes a more lasting debt of gratitude.' _Brougham's Life
of Voltaire_, p. 132. It is certain, that the better the history
of the eighteenth century is understood, the more the reputation
of Voltaire will increase; as was clearly foreseen by a
celebrated writer nearly a generation ago. In 1831, Lerminier
wrote these remarkable, and, as the result has proved, prophetic
words: 'Il est temps de revenir à des sentimens plus respectueux
pour la mémoire de Voltaire.... Voltaire a fait pour la France ce
que Leibnitz a fait pour l'Allemagne; pendant trois-quarts de
siècle il a représenté son pays, puissant à la manière de Luther
et de Napoléon; il est destiné à survivre à bien des gloires, et
je plains ceux qui se sont oubliés jusqu'à laisser tomber des
paroles dédaigneuses sur le génie de cet homme.' _Lerminier_,
_Philosophie du Droit_, vol. i. p. 199. Compare the glowing
eulogy in _Longchamp et Wagnière_, _Mémoires sur Voltaire_, vol.
ii. pp. 388, 389, with the remarks of Saint-Lambert, in _Mém.
d'Epinay_, vol. i. p. 263.
The vast labours of Voltaire towards reforming the old method of writing
history, were greatly aided by those important works which Montesquieu
put forward during the same period. In 1734,[936] this remarkable man
published what may be truly called the first book in which there can be
found any information concerning the real history of Rome; because it is
also the first in which the affairs of the ancient world are treated in
a large and comprehensive spirit.[937] Fourteen years later, there
appeared, by the same author, the _Spirit of Laws_; a more famous
production, but, as it seems to me, not a greater one. The immense merit
of the _Spirit of Laws_ is, indeed, incontestable, and cannot be
affected by the captious attempts made to diminish it by those minute
critics, who seem to think that when they detect the occasional errors
of a great man, they in some degree reduce him to their own level. It is
not such petty cavilling which can destroy an European reputation; and
the noble work of Montesquieu will long survive all attacks of this
kind, because its large and suggestive generalizations would retain
their value even if the particular facts of which the illustrations
consist were all unfounded.[938] Still, I am inclined to believe, that
in point of original thought it is barely equal to his earlier work,
though it is unquestionably the fruit of much greater reading. Without,
however, instituting a comparison between them, our present object is
merely to consider the contributions they jointly contain towards a
right understanding of history, and the way in which those contributions
are connected with the general spirit of the eighteenth century.
[936] _Vie de Montesquieu_, p. xiv., prefixed to his works.
[937] Before Montesquieu, the only two great thinkers who had really
studied Roman history were Macchiavelli and Vico: but
Macchiavelli did not attempt any thing approaching the
generalizations of Montesquieu, and he suffered, moreover, from
the serious deficiency of being too much occupied with the
practical utility of his subject. Vico, whose genius was perhaps
even more vast than that of Montesquieu, can hardly be considered
his rival; for, though his _Scienza Nova_ contains the most
profound views on ancient history, they are rather glimpses of
truth, than a systematic investigation of any one period.
[938] Which M. Guizot (_Civilisation en France_, vol. iv. p. 36), in
his remarks on the _Esprit des Lois_, does not take sufficiently
into consideration. A juster appreciation of Montesquieu will be
found in _Cousin_, _Hist. de la Philosophie_, part ii. vol. i. p.
182; and in _Comte_, _Philosophie Positive_, vol. iv. pp.
243-252, 261. Compare _Charles Comte_, _Traité de Législation_,
vol. i. p. 125, with _Meyer_, _Esprit des Institutions
Judiciaires_, vol. i. p. lxi., respecting the vast innovations he
introduced.
In this point of view, there are, in the works of Montesquieu, two
leading peculiarities. The first is, the complete rejection of those
personal anecdotes, and those trivial details respecting individuals,
which belong to biography, but with which, as Montesquieu clearly saw,
history has no concern. The other peculiarity is, the very remarkable
attempt which he first made to effect an union between the history of
man and those sciences which deal with the external world. As these are
the two great characteristics of the method adopted by Montesquieu, it
will be necessary to give some account of them, before we can understand
the place he really occupies, as one of the founders of the philosophy
of history.
We have already seen that Voltaire had strongly insisted on the
necessity of reforming history, by paying more attention to the history
of the people, and less attention to that of their political and
military rulers. We have also seen, that this great improvement was so
agreeable to the spirit of the time, that it was generally and quickly
adopted, and thus became an indication of those democratic tendencies,
of which it was in reality a result. It is not, therefore, surprising
that Montesquieu should have taken the same course, even before the
movement had been clearly declared; since he, like most great thinkers,
was a representative of the intellectual condition, and a satisfier of
the intellectual wants, of the age in which he lived.
But, what constitutes the peculiarity of Montesquieu in this matter, is,
that with him a contempt for those details respecting courts, ministers,
and princes, in which ordinary compilers take great delight, was
accompanied by an equal contempt for other details which are really
interesting, because they concern the mental habits of the few truly
eminent men who, from time to time, have appeared on the stage of public
life. This was because Montesquieu perceived that, though these things
are very interesting, they are also very unimportant. He knew, what no
historian before him had even suspected, that in the great march of
human affairs, individual peculiarities count for nothing; and that,
therefore, the historian has no business with them, but should leave
them to the biographer, to whose province they properly belong. The
consequence is, that not only does he treat the most powerful princes
with such disregard as to relate the reigns of six emperors in two
lines,[939] but he constantly enforces the necessity, even in the case
of eminent men, of subordinating their special influence to the more
general influence of the surrounding society. Thus, many writers had
ascribed the ruin of the Roman Republic to the ambition of Cæsar and
Pompey, and particularly to the deep schemes of Cæsar. This, Montesquieu
totally denies. According to his view of history, no great alteration
can be effected, except by virtue of a long train of antecedents, where
alone we are to seek the cause of what to a superficial eye is the work
of individuals. The republic, therefore, was overthrown, not by Cæsar
and Pompey, but by that state of things which made the success of Cæsar
and Pompey possible.[940] It is thus that the events which ordinary
historians relate are utterly valueless. Such events, instead of being
causes, are merely the occasions on which the real causes act.[941] They
may be called the accidents of history; and they must be treated as
subservient to those vast and comprehensive conditions, by which alone
the rise and fall of nations are ultimately governed.[942]
[939] He says of the emperor Maximin, 'il fut tué avec son fils par ses
soldats. Les deux premiers Gordiens périrent en Afrique. Maxime,
Balbin, et le troisième Gordien furent massacrés.' _Grandeur et
Décadence des Romains_, chap. xvi., in _[OE]uvres de
Montesquieu_, p. 167.
[940] _Ibid._ chap. xi., in _[OE]uvres de Montesquieu_, pp. 149-153.
Compare a similar remark, respecting Charles XII., in _Esprit des
Lois_, livre x. chap. xiii. _[OE]uvres_, p. 260.
[941] On the difference between cause and occasion, see _Grandeur et
Décad._ chap. i. p. 126.
[942] 'Il y a des causes générales, soit morales, soit physiques, qui
agissent dans chaque monarchie, l'élèvent, la maintiennent, ou la
précipitent; tous les accidents sont soumis à ces causes; et si
le hasard d'une bataille, c'est-à-dire une cause particulière, a
ruiné un état, il y avoit une cause générale qui faisoit que cet
état devoit périr par une seule bataille. En un mot, l'allure
principale entraîne avec elle tous les accidente particuliers.'
_Grand. et Décad. des Romains_, chap. xviii. p. 172.
This, then, was the first great merit of Montesquieu, that he effected a
complete separation between biography and history, and taught historians
to study, not the pecularities of individual character, but the general
aspect of the society in which the peculiarities appeared. If this
remarkable man had accomplished nothing further, he would have rendered
an incalculable service to history, by pointing out how one of its most
fertile sources of error might be safely removed. And although,
unhappily, we have not yet reaped the full benefit of his example, this
is because his successors have really had the capacity of rising to so
high a generalization: it is, however, certain, that since his time, an
approximation towards such elevated views may be noticed, even among
those inferior writers who, for want of sufficient grasp, are unable to
adopt them to their full extent.
In addition to this, Montesquieu made another great advance in the
method of treating history. He was the first who, in an inquiry into the
relations between the social conditions of a country and its
jurisprudence, called in the aid of physical knowledge, in order to
ascertain how the character of any given civilization is modified by the
action of the external world. In his work on the _Spirit of Laws_, he
studies the way in which both the civil and political legislation of a
people are naturally connected with their climate, soil, and food.[943]
It is true, that in this vast enterprise he almost entirely failed; but
this was because meteorology, chemistry, and physiology, were still too
backward to admit of such an undertaking. This, however, affects the
value only of his conclusions, not of his method; and here, as
elsewhere, we see the great thinker tracing the outline of a plan,
which, in the then state of knowledge, it was impossible to fill up, and
the completion of which he was obliged to leave to the riper experience
and more powerful resources of a later age. Thus to anticipate the march
of the human intellect, and, as it were, forestal its subsequent
acquisitions, is the peculiar prerogative of minds of the highest order;
and it is this which gives to the writings of Montesquieu a certain
fragmentary and provisional appearance, which was the necessary
consequence of a profoundly speculative genius dealing with materials
that were intractable, simply because science had not yet reduced them
to order by generalizing the laws of their phenomena. Hence it is, that
many of the inferences drawn by Montesquieu are untenable; such, for
instance, as those regarding the effect of diet in stimulating
population by increasing the fecundity of women,[944] and the effect of
climate in altering the proportion between the births of the sexes.[945]
In other cases, an increased acquaintance with barbarous nations has
sufficed to correct his conclusions, particularly those concerning the
effect which he supposed climate to produce on individual character; for
we have now the most decisive evidence, that he was wrong in
asserting[946] that hot climates make people unchaste and cowardly,
while cold climates make them virtuous and brave.
[943] _De l'Esprit des Lois_, books xiv. to xviii. inclusive; in
_[OE]uvres_, pp. 300-336.
[944] _Ibid._ livre xxiii. chap. xiii. p. 395. Compare _Burdach_,
_Traité de Physiologie_, vol. ii. p. 116.
[945] _Ibid._ livre xvi. chap. iv., and livre xxiii. chap. xii.
pp. 317, 395.
[946] _Ibid._ livre xiv. chap. ii., livre xvii. chap. ii., and
elsewhere.
These, indeed, are comparatively trifling objections, because, in all
the highest branches of knowledge, the main difficulty is, not to
discover facts, but to discover the true method according to which the
laws of the facts may be ascertained.[947] In this, Montesquieu
performed a double service, since he not only enriched history, but also
strengthened its foundation. He enriched history by incorporating with
it physical inquiries; and he strengthened history by separating it from
biography, and thus freeing it from details which are always
unimportant, and often unauthentic. And although he committed the error
of studying the influence of nature over men considered as
individuals,[948] rather than over men considered as an aggregate
society, this arose principally from the fact that, in his time, the
resources necessary for the more complicated study had not yet been
created. Those resources, as I have shown, are political economy and
statistics; political economy supplying the means of connecting the laws
of physical agents with the laws of the inequality of wealth, and,
therefore, with a great variety of social disturbances; while statistics
enable us to verify those laws in their widest extent, and to prove how
completely the volition of individual men is controlled by their
antecedents, and by the circumstances in which they are placed. It was,
therefore, not only natural, but inevitable, that Montesquieu should
fail in his magnificent attempt to unite the laws of the human mind with
the laws of external nature. He failed, partly because the sciences of
external nature were too backward, and partly because those other
branches of knowledge which connect nature with men were still unformed.
For, as to political economy, it had no existence as a science until the
publication of the _Wealth of Nations_ in 1776, twenty-one years after
the death of Montesquieu. As to statistics, their philosophy is a still
more recent creation, since it is only during the last thirty years
that they have been systematically applied to social phenomena; the
earlier statisticians being merely a body of industrious collectors,
groping in the dark, bringing together facts of every kind without
selection or method, and whose labours were consequently unavailable for
those important purposes to which they have been successfully applied
during the present generation.
[947] On the supreme importance of method, see my defence of Bichat in
the next chapter.
[948] How completely futile this was, as regards results, is evident
from the fact, that a hundred years after he wrote, we, with all
our increased knowledge, can affirm nothing positively respecting
the direct action of climate, food, and soil, in modifying
individual character; though it has, I trust, appeared in the
second chapter of this Introduction, that something can be
ascertained respecting their indirect action, that is, their
action on individual minds through the medium of social and
economical organisation.
Only two years after the publication of the _Spirit of Laws_, Turgot
delivered those celebrated lectures, of which it has been said, that in
them he created the philosophy of history.[949] This praise is somewhat
exaggerated; for in the most important matters relating to the
philosophy of his subject, he takes the same view as Montesquieu; and
Montesquieu, besides preceding him in point of time, was his superior
certainly in learning, perhaps in genius. Still, the merit of Turgot is
immense; and he belongs to that extremely small class of men who have
looked at history comprehensively, and have recognized the almost
boundless knowledge needed for its investigation. In this respect, his
method is identical with that of Montesquieu, since both of these great
men excluded from their scheme the personal details which ordinary
historians accumulate, and concentrated their attention upon those large
general causes, by the operation of which the destinies of nations are
permanently affected. Turgot clearly perceived, that, notwithstanding
the variety of events produced by the play of human passions, there is
amid this apparent confusion a principle of order, and a regularity of
march, not to be mistaken by those whose grasp is firm enough to seize
the history of man as a complete and single whole.[950] It is true that
Turgot, subsequently engaged in political life, never possessed
sufficient leisure to fill up the splendid outline of what he so
successfully sketched: but though in the execution of his plan he fell
short of Montesquieu, still the analogy between the two men is obvious,
as also is their relation to the age in which they lived. They, as well
as Voltaire, were the unconscious advocates of the democratic movement,
inasmuch as they discountenanced the homage which historians had
formerly paid to individuals, and rescued history from being a mere
recital of the deeds of political and ecclesiastical rulers. At the same
time, Turgot, by the captivating prospects which he held out of future
progress,[951] and by the picture which he drew of the capacity of
society to improve itself, increased the impatience which his countrymen
were beginning to feel against that despotic government, in whose
presence amelioration seemed to be hopeless. These, and similar
speculations, which now for the first time appeared in French
literature, stimulated the activity of the intellectual classes, cheered
them under the persecutions to which they were exposed, and emboldened
them to the arduous enterprise of leading on the people to attack the
institutions of their native land. Thus it was, that in France every
thing tended to the same result. Every thing indicated the approach of
some sharp and terrible struggle, in which the spirit of the present
should war with the spirit of the past; and in which it should be
finally settled, whether the people of France could free themselves from
the chains in which they had long been held, or whether, missing their
aim, they were doomed to sink still lower in that ignominious vassalage,
which makes even the most splendid periods of their political history a
warning and a lesson to the civilized world.
[949] 'Il a créé en 1750 la philosophie de l'histoire dans ses deux
discours prononcés en Sorbonne.' _Cousin_, _Hist. de la
Philosophie_, I. série, vol. i. p. 147. There is a short notice
of these striking productions in _Condorcet_, _Vie de Turgot_,
pp. 11-16.
[950] Nothing can be better than his summary of this vast conception:
'Tous les ages sont enchaînés par une suite de causes et d'effets
qui lient l'état du monde à tous ceux qui l'ont précédé.' _Second
Discours en Sorbonne_, in _[OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. ii. p. 52.
Every thing Turgot wrote on history is a development of this
pregnant sentence. That he understood the necessity of an
historian being acquainted with physical science, and with the
laws of the configuration of the earth, climate, soil, and the
like, is evident in his fragment, _La Géographie Politique_, in
_[OE]uvres_, vol. ii. pp. 166-208. It is no slight proof of his
political sagacity, that in 1750 he distinctly foretold the
freedom of the American colonies. Compare _[OE]uvres de Turgot_,
vol. ii. p. 66, with _Mém. sur Turgot_, vol. i. p. 139.
[951] A confidence which is apparent in his economical as well as in his
historical works. In 1811, Sir James Mackintosh writes, that
Turgot 'had more comprehensive views of the progress of society
than any man since Bacon:' _Mem. of Mackintosh_, vol. ii. p. 133;
and see a similar remark by Dugald Stewart, in his _Philos. of
the Mind_, vol. i. p. 246.