{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18569/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18569","id":"gutenberg_18569","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18569","summary":null,"tags":["Banned Books from Anne Haight's list","Category: French Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"Produced by Juliet Sutherland, Lisa Reigel and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n[TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: Greek words in this text have been transliterated\nand placed between +marks+.]\n\n\n\n\nVoltaire's Philosophical Dictionary\n\n\nNew York\n\nCARLTON HOUSE\n\nMANUFACTURED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA\n\n\n\n\n_PREFACE_\n\n\nThis book does not demand continuous reading; but at whatever place one\nopens it, one will find matter for reflection. The most useful books are\nthose of which readers themselves compose half; they extend the thoughts\nof which the germ is presented to them; they correct what seems\ndefective to them, and they fortify by their reflections what seems to\nthem weak.\n\nIt is only really by enlightened people that this book can be read; the\nordinary man is not made for such knowledge; philosophy will never be\nhis lot. Those who say that there are truths which must be hidden from\nthe people, need not be alarmed; the people do not read; they work six\ndays of the week, and on the seventh go to the inn. In a word,\nphilosophical works are made only for philosophers, and every honest man\nmust try to be a philosopher, without pluming himself on being one.\n\nThis alphabet is extracted from the most estimable works which are not\ncommonly within the reach of the many; and if the author does not always\nmention the sources of his information, as being well enough known to\nthe learned, he must not be suspected of wishing to take the credit for\nother people's work, because he himself preserves anonymity, according\nto this word of the Gospel: \"Let not thy left hand know what thy right\nhand doeth.\"\n\n\n\n\n_CONTENTS_\n\n\n PAGE\nPREFACE BY VOLTAIRE 5\n\nADULTERY 11\nADVOCATE 16\nANCIENTS AND MODERNS 17\nANIMALS 21\nANTIQUITY 24\nARTS 27\nASTROLOGY 29\nATHEISM 32\nAUTHORITY 46\nAUTHORS 48\n\nBANISHMENT 50\nBANKRUPTCY 51\nBEAUTY 53\nBISHOP 55\nBOOKS 57\nBOULEVERD 60\nBOURGES 61\nBRAHMINS 62\n\nCHARACTER 65\nCHARLATAN 68\nCIVIL LAWS 73\nCLIMATE 74\nCOMMON SENSE 78\nCONCATENATION OF EVENTS 80\nCONTRADICTIONS 83\nCORN 85\nCROMWELL 88\nCUSTOMS 94\n\nDEMOCRACY 96\nDESTINY 98\nDEVOUT 102\n\nECCLESIASTICAL MINISTRY 103\nEMBLEM 106\nENGLISH THEATRE, ON THE 110\nENVY 112\nEQUALITY 114\nEXPIATION 118\nEXTREME 122\nEZOURVEIDAM 125\n\nFAITH 126\nFALSE MINDS 128\nFATHERLAND 131\nFINAL CAUSES 133\nFRAUD 136\nFREE-WILL 142\nFRENCH 146\nFRIENDSHIP 150\n\nGOD 151\n\nHELVETIA 156\nHISTORY 157\n\nIGNORANCE 163\nIMPIOUS 166\n\nJOAN OF ARC 168\n\nKISSING 173\n\nLANGUAGES 178\nLAWS 184\nLIBERTY 187\nLIBRARY 191\nLIMITS OF THE HUMAN MIND 194\nLOCAL CRIMES 195\nLOVE 197\nLUXURY 200\n\nMAN 203\nMAN IN THE IRON MASK 204\nMARRIAGE 210\nMASTER 211\nMEN OF LETTERS 214\nMETAMORPHOSIS 216\nMILTON, ON THE REPROACH OF PLAGIARISM AGAINST 217\nMOHAMMEDANS 220\nMOUNTAIN 221\n\nNAKEDNESS 222\nNATURAL LAW 224\nNATURE 227\nNECESSARY 231\nNEW NOVELTIES 236\n\nPHILOSOPHER 237\nPOWER, OMNIPOTENCE 240\nPRAYERS 245\nPRECIS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY 247\nPREJUDICES 251\n\nRARE 255\nREASON 257\nRELIGION 259\n\nSECT 267\nSELF-ESTEEM 271\nSOUL 273\nSTATES, GOVERNMENTS 294\nSUPERSTITION 297\n\nTEARS 299\nTHEIST 301\nTOLERANCE 302\nTRUTH 305\nTYRANNY 308\n\nVIRTUE 309\n\nWHY? 313\n\nDECLARATION OF ADMIRERS, QUESTIONERS AND DOUBTERS 315\n\n\n\n\n_ADULTERY_\n\n\nNOTE ON A MAGISTRATE WRITTEN ABOUT 1764\n\nA senior magistrate of a French town had the misfortune to have a wife\nwho was debauched by a priest before her marriage, and who since covered\nherself with disgrace by public scandals: he was so moderate as to leave\nher without noise. This man, about forty years old, vigorous and of\nagreeable appearance, needs a woman; he is too scrupulous to seek to\nseduce another man's wife, he fears intercourse with a public woman or\nwith a widow who would serve him as concubine. In this disquieting and\nsad state, he addresses to his Church a plea of which the following is a\nprecis:\n\nMy wife is criminal, and it is I who am punished. Another woman is\nnecessary as a comfort to my life, to my virtue even; and the sect of\nwhich I am a member refuses her to me; it forbids me to marry an honest\ngirl. The civil laws of to-day, unfortunately founded on canon law,\ndeprive me of the rights of humanity. The Church reduces me to seeking\neither the pleasures it reproves, or the shameful compensations it\ncondemns; it tries to force me to be criminal.\n\nI cast my eyes over all the peoples of the earth; there is not a single\none except the Roman Catholic people among whom divorce and a new\nmarriage are not natural rights.\n\nWhat upheaval of the rule has therefore made among the Catholics a\nvirtue of undergoing adultery, and a duty of lacking a wife when one has\nbeen infamously outraged by one's own?\n\nWhy is a bond that has rotted indissoluble in spite of the great law\nadopted by the code, _quidquid ligatur dissolubile est_? I am allowed a\nseparation _a mensa et thoro_, and I am not allowed divorce. The law\ncan deprive me of my wife, and it leaves me a name called \"sacrament\"!\nWhat a contradiction! what slavery! and under what laws did we receive\nbirth!\n\nWhat is still more strange is that this law of my Church is directly\ncontrary to the words which this Church itself believes to have been\nuttered by Jesus Christ: \"Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it\nbe for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery\" (Matt.\nxix. 9).\n\nI do not examine whether the pontiffs of Rome are in the right to\nviolate at their pleasure the law of him they regard as their master;\nwhether when a state has need of an heir, it is permissible to repudiate\nher who can give it one. I do not inquire if a turbulent woman,\ndemented, homicidal, a poisoner, should not be repudiated equally with\nan adulteress: I limit myself to the sad state which concerns me: God\npermits me to remarry, and the Bishop of Rome does not permit me.\n\nDivorce was a practice among Catholics under all the emperors; it was\nalso in all the dismembered states of the Roman Empire. The kings of\nFrance, those called \"of the first line,\" almost all repudiated their\nwives in order to take new ones. At last came Gregory IX., enemy of the\nemperors and kings, who by a decree made marriage an unshakeable yoke;\nhis decretal became the law of Europe. When the kings wanted to\nrepudiate a wife who was an adulteress according to Jesus Christ's law,\nthey could not succeed; it was necessary to find ridiculous pretexts.\nLouis the younger was obliged, to accomplish his unfortunate divorce\nfrom Eleanor of Guienne, to allege a relationship which did not exist.\nHenry IV., to repudiate Marguerite de Valois, pretexted a still more\nfalse cause, a refusal of consent. One had to lie to obtain a divorce\nlegitimately.\n\nWhat! a king can abdicate his crown, and without the Pope's permission\nhe cannot abdicate his wife! Is it possible that otherwise enlightened\nmen have wallowed so long in this absurd servitude!\n\nThat our priests, that our monks renounce wives, to that I consent; it\nis an outrage against population, it is a misfortune for them, but they\nmerit this misfortune which they have made for themselves. They have\nbeen the victims of the popes who wanted to have in them slaves,\nsoldiers without families and without fatherland, living solely for the\nChurch: but I, magistrate, who serve the state all day, I need a wife in\nthe evening; and the Church has not the right to deprive me of a benefit\nwhich God accords me. The apostles were married, Joseph was married, and\nI want to be. If I, Alsacian, am dependent on a priest who dwells at\nRome, if this priest has the barbarous power to rob me of a wife, let\nhim make a eunuch of me for the singing of _Misereres_ in his chapel.\n\n\nNOTE FOR WOMEN\n\nEquity demands that, having recorded this note in favour of husbands, we\nshould also put before the public the case in favour of wives, presented\nto the junta of Portugal by a Countess of Arcira. This is the substance\nof it:\n\nThe Gospel has forbidden adultery for my husband just as for me; he will\nbe damned as I shall, nothing is better established. When he committed\ntwenty infidelities, when he gave my necklace to one of my rivals, and\nmy ear-rings to another, I did not ask the judges to have him shaved, to\nshut him up among monks and to give me his property. And I, for having\nimitated him once, for having done with the most handsome young man in\nLisbon what he did every day with impunity with the most idiotic\nstrumpets of the court and the town, have to answer at the bar before\nlicentiates each of whom would be at my feet if we were alone together\nin my closet; have to endure at the court the usher cutting off my hair\nwhich is the most beautiful in the world; and being shut up among nuns\nwho have no common sense, deprived of my dowry and my marriage\ncovenants, with all my property given to my coxcomb of a husband to help\nhim seduce other women and to commit fresh adulteries.\n\nI ask if it is just, and if it is not evident that the laws were made by\ncuckolds?\n\nIn answer to my plea I am told that I should be happy not to be stoned\nat the city gate by the canons, the priests of the parish and the whole\npopulace. This was the practice among the first nation of the earth, the\nchosen nation, the cherished nation, the only one which was right when\nall the others were wrong.\n\nTo these barbarities I reply that when the poor adulteress was presented\nby her accusers to the Master of the old and new law, He did not have\nher stoned; that on the contrary He reproached them with their\ninjustice, that he laughed at them by writing on the ground with his\nfinger, that he quoted the old Hebraic proverb--\"He that is without sin\namong you, let him first cast a stone at her\"; that then they all\nretired, the oldest fleeing first, because the older they were the more\nadulteries had they committed.\n\nThe doctors of canon law answer me that this history of the adulteress\nis related only in the Gospel of St. John, that it was not inserted\nthere until later. Leontius, Maldonat, affirm that it is not to be found\nin a single ancient Greek copy; that none of the twenty-three early\ncommentators mentions it. Origen, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom,\nTheophilact, Nonnus, do not recognize it at all. It is not to be found\nin the Syriac Bible, it is not in Ulphilas' version.\n\nThat is what my husband's advocates say, they who would have me not only\nshaved, but also stoned.\n\nBut the advocates who pleaded for me say that Ammonius, author of the\nthird century, recognized this story as true, and that if St. Jerome\nrejects it in some places, he adopts it in others; that, in a word, it\nis authentic to-day. I leave there, and I say to my husband: \"If you are\nwithout sin, shave me, imprison me, take my property; but if you have\ncommitted more sins than I have, it is for me to shave you, to have you\nimprisoned, and to seize your fortune. In justice these things should be\nequal.\"\n\nMy husband answers that he is my superior and my chief, that he is more\nthan an inch taller, that he is shaggy as a bear; that consequently I\nowe him everything, and that he owes me nothing.\n\nBut I ask if Queen Anne of England is not her husband's chief? if her\nhusband the Prince of Denmark, who is her High Admiral, does not owe her\nentire obedience? and if she would not have him condemned by the court\nof peers if the little man's infidelity were in question? It is\ntherefore clear that if the women do not have the men punished, it is\nwhen they are not the stronger.\n\n\n\n\n_ADVOCATE_\n\n\nAn advocate is a man who, not having a sufficient fortune to buy one of\nthose resplendent offices on which the universe has its eyes, studies\nthe laws of Theodosius and Justinian for three years, so that he may\nlearn the usages of Paris, and who finally, being registered, has the\nright to plead causes for money, if he have a strong voice.\n\n\n\n\n_ANCIENTS AND MODERNS_\n\n\nThe great dispute between the ancients and the moderns is not yet\nsettled; it has been on the table since the silver age succeeded the\ngolden age. Mankind has always maintained that the good old times were\nmuch better than the present day. Nestor, in the \"Iliad,\" wishing to\ninsinuate himself as a wise conciliator into the minds of Achilles and\nAgamemnon, starts by saying to them--\"I lived formerly with better men\nthan you; no, I have never seen and I shall never see such great\npersonages as Dryas, Cenaeus, Exadius, Polyphemus equal to the gods,\netc.\"\n\nPosterity has well avenged Achilles for Nestor's poor compliment. Nobody\nknows Dryas any longer; one has hardly heard speak of Exadius, or of\nCenaeus; and as for Polyphemus equal to the gods, he has not too good a\nreputation, unless the possession of a big eye in one's forehead, and\nthe eating of men raw, are to have something of the divine.\n\nLucretius does not hesitate to say that nature has degenerated (lib. II.\nv. 1159). Antiquity is full of eulogies of another more remote\nantiquity. Horace combats this prejudice with as much finesse as force\nin his beautiful Epistle to Augustus (Epist. I. liv. ii.). \"Must our\npoems, then,\" he says, \"be like our wines, of which the oldest are\nalways preferred?\"\n\nThe learned and ingenious Fontenelle expresses himself on this subject\nas follows:\n\n\"The whole question of the pre-eminence between the ancients and the\nmoderns, once it is well understood, is reduced to knowing whether the\ntrees which formerly were in our countryside were bigger than those of\nto-day. In the event that they were, Homer, Plato, Demosthenes cannot\nbe equalled in these latter centuries.\n\n\"Let us throw light on this paradox. If the ancients had more intellect\nthan us, it is that the brains of those times were better ordered,\nformed of firmer or more delicate fibres, filled with more animal\nspirits; but in virtue of what were the brains of those times better\nordered? The trees also would have been bigger and more beautiful; for\nif nature was then younger and more vigorous, the trees, as well as\nmen's brains, would have been conscious of this vigour and this youth.\"\n(\"Digression on the Ancients and the Moderns,\" vol. 4, 1742 edition.)\n\nWith the illustrious academician's permission, that is not at all the\nstate of the question. It is not a matter of knowing whether nature has\nbeen able to produce in our day as great geniuses and as good works as\nthose of Greek and Latin antiquity; but to know whether we have them in\nfact. Without a doubt it is not impossible for there to be as big oaks\nin the forest of Chantilli as in the forest of Dodona; but supposing\nthat the oaks of Dodona had spoken, it would be quite clear that they\nhad a great advantage over ours, which in all probability will never\nspeak.\n\nNature is not bizarre; but it is possible that she gave the Athenians a\ncountry and a sky more suitable than Westphalia and the Limousin for\nforming certain geniuses. Further, it is possible that the government of\nAthens, by seconding the climate, put into Demosthenes' head something\nthat the air of Climart and La Grenouillere and the government of\nCardinal de Richelieu did not put into the heads of Omer Talon and\nJerome Bignon.\n\nThis dispute is therefore a question of fact. Was antiquity more fecund\nin great monuments of all kinds, up to the time of Plutarch, than modern\ncenturies have been from the century of the Medicis up to Louis XIV.\ninclusive?\n\nThe Chinese, more than two hundred years before our era, constructed\nthat great wall which was not able to save them from the invasion of the\nTartars. The Egyptians, three thousand years before, had overloaded the\nearth with their astonishing pyramids, which had a base of about ninety\nthousand square feet. Nobody doubts that, if one wished to undertake\nto-day these useless works, one could easily succeed by a lavish\nexpenditure of money. The great wall of China is a monument to fear; the\npyramids are monuments to vanity and superstition. Both bear witness to\na great patience in the peoples, but to no superior genius. Neither the\nChinese nor the Egyptians would have been able to make even a statue\nsuch as those which our sculptors form to-day.\n\nThe chevalier Temple, who has made it his business to disparage all the\nmoderns, claims that in architecture they have nothing comparable to the\ntemples of Greece and Rome: but, for all that he is English, he must\nagree that the Church of St. Peter is incomparably more beautiful than\nthe Capitol was.\n\nIt is curious with what assurance he maintains that there is nothing new\nin our astronomy, nothing in the knowledge of the human body, unless\nperhaps, he says, the circulation of the blood. Love of his own opinion,\nfounded on his vast self-esteem, makes him forget the discovery of the\nsatellites of Jupiter, of the five moons and the ring of Saturn, of the\nrotation of the sun on its axis, of the calculated position of three\nthousand stars, of the laws given by Kepler and Newton for the heavenly\norbs, of the causes of the precession of the equinoxes, and of a hundred\nother pieces of knowledge of which the ancients did not suspect even the\npossibility.\n\nThe discoveries in anatomy are as great in number. A new universe in\nlittle, discovered by the microscope, was counted for nothing by the\nchevalier Temple; he closed his eyes to the marvels of his\ncontemporaries, and opened them only to admire ancient ignorance.\n\nHe goes so far as to pity us for having nothing left of the magic of the\nIndians, the Chaldeans, the Egyptians; and by this magic he understands\na profound knowledge of nature, whereby they produced miracles: but he\ndoes not cite one miracle, because in fact there never were any. \"What\nhas become,\" he asks, \"of the charms of that music which so often\nenchanted man and beast, the fishes, the birds, the snakes, and changed\ntheir nature?\"\n\nThis enemy of his century really believes the fable of Orpheus, and has\nnot apparently heard either the beautiful music of Italy, or even that\nof France, which in truth does not charm snakes, but does charm the ears\nof connoisseurs.\n\nWhat is still more strange is that, having all his life cultivated\nbelles-lettres, he does not reason better about our good authors than\nabout our philosophers. He looks on Rabelais as a great man. He cites\nthe \"Amours des Gaules\" as one of our best works. He was, however, a\nscholar, a courtier, a man of much wit, an ambassador, a man who had\nreflected profoundly on all he had seen. He possessed great knowledge: a\nprejudice sufficed to spoil all this merit.\n\nThere are beauties in Euripides, and in Sophocles still more; but they\nhave many more defects. One dares say that the beautiful scenes of\nCorneille and the touching tragedies of Racine surpass the tragedies of\nSophocles and Euripides as much as these two Greeks surpass Thespis.\nRacine was quite conscious of his great superiority over Euripides; but\nhe praised the Greek poet in order to humiliate Perrault.\n\nMoliere, in his good pieces, is as superior to the pure but cold\nTerence, and to the droll Aristophanes, as to Dancourt the buffoon.\n\nThere are therefore spheres in which the moderns are far superior to the\nancients, and others, very few in number, in which we are their\ninferiors. It is to this that the whole dispute is reduced.\n\n\n\n\n_ANIMALS_\n\n\nWhat a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are\nmachines bereft of understanding and feeling, which perform their\noperations always in the same way, which learn nothing, perfect nothing,\netc.!\n\nWhat! that bird which makes its nest in a semi-circle when it is\nattaching it to a wall, which builds it in a quarter circle when it is\nin an angle, and in a circle upon a tree; that bird acts always in the\nsame way? That hunting-dog which you have disciplined for three months,\ndoes it not know more at the end of this time than it knew before your\nlessons? Does the canary to which you teach a tune repeat it at once? do\nyou not spend a considerable time in teaching it? have you not seen that\nit has made a mistake and that it corrects itself?\n\nIs it because I speak to you, that you judge that I have feeling,\nmemory, ideas? Well, I do not speak to you; you see me going home\nlooking disconsolate, seeking a paper anxiously, opening the desk where\nI remember having shut it, finding it, reading it joyfully. You judge\nthat I have experienced the feeling of distress and that of pleasure,\nthat I have memory and understanding.\n\nBring the same judgment to bear on this dog which has lost its master,\nwhich has sought him on every road with sorrowful cries, which enters\nthe house agitated, uneasy, which goes down the stairs, up the stairs,\nfrom room to room, which at last finds in his study the master it loves,\nand which shows him its joy by its cries of delight, by its leaps, by\nits caresses.\n\nBarbarians seize this dog, which in friendship surpasses man so\nprodigiously; they nail it on a table, and they dissect it alive in\norder to show the mesenteric veins. You discover in it all the same\norgans of feeling that are in yourself. Answer me, machinist, has nature\narranged all the means of feeling in this animal, so that it may not\nfeel? has it nerves in order to be impassible? Do not suppose this\nimpertinent contradiction in nature.\n\nBut the schoolmasters ask what the soul of animals is? I do not\nunderstand this question. A tree has the faculty of receiving in its\nfibres its sap which circulates, of unfolding the buds of its leaves and\nits fruit; will you ask what the soul of this tree is? it has received\nthese gifts; the animal has received those of feeling, of memory, of a\ncertain number of ideas. Who has bestowed these gifts? who has given\nthese faculties? He who has made the grass of the fields to grow, and\nwho makes the earth gravitate toward the sun.\n\n\"Animals' souls are substantial forms,\" said Aristotle, and after\nAristotle, the Arab school, and after the Arab school, the angelical\nschool, and after the angelical school, the Sorbonne, and after the\nSorbonne, nobody at all.\n\n\"Animals' souls are material,\" cry other philosophers. These have not\nbeen in any better fortune than the others. In vain have they been asked\nwhat a material soul is; they have to admit that it is matter which has\nsensation: but what has given it this sensation? It is a material soul,\nthat is to say that it is matter which gives sensation to matter; they\ncannot issue from this circle.\n\nListen to other brutes reasoning about the brutes; their soul is a\nspiritual soul which dies with the body; but what proof have you of it?\nwhat idea have you of this spiritual soul, which, in truth, has feeling,\nmemory, and its measure of ideas and ingenuity; but which will never be\nable to know what a child of six knows? On what ground do you imagine\nthat this being, which is not body, dies with the body? The greatest\nfools are those who have advanced that this soul is neither body nor\nspirit. There is a fine system. By spirit we can understand only some\nunknown thing which is not body. Thus these gentlemen's system comes\nback to this, that the animals' soul is a substance which is neither\nbody nor something which is not body.\n\nWhence can come so many contradictory errors? From the habit men have\nalways had of examining what a thing is, before knowing if it exists.\nThe clapper, the valve of a bellows, is called in French the \"soul\" of a\nbellows. What is this soul? It is a name that I have given to this valve\nwhich falls, lets air enter, rises again, and thrusts it through a pipe,\nwhen I make the bellows move.\n\nThere is not there a distinct soul in the machine: but what makes\nanimals' bellows move? I have already told you, what makes the stars\nmove. The philosopher who said, \"_Deus est anima brutorum_,\" was right;\nbut he should go further.\n\n\n\n\n_ANTIQUITY_\n\n\nHave you sometimes seen in a village Pierre Aoudri and his wife\nPeronelle wishing to go before their neighbours in the procession? \"Our\ngrandfathers,\" they say, \"were tolling the bells before those who jostle\nus to-day owned even a pig-sty.\"\n\nThe vanity of Pierre Aoudri, his wife and his neighbours, knows nothing\nmore about it. Their minds kindle. The quarrel is important; honour is\nin question. Proofs are necessary. A scholar who sings in the choir,\ndiscovers an old rusty iron pot, marked with an \"A,\" first letter of the\nname of the potter who made the pot. Pierre Aoudri persuades himself\nthat it was his ancestors' helmet. In this way was Caesar descended from\na hero and from the goddess Venus. Such is the history of nations; such\nis, within very small margins, the knowledge of early antiquity.\n\nThe scholars of Armenia _demonstrate_ that the terrestrial paradise was\nin their land. Some profound Swedes _demonstrate_ that it was near Lake\nVener which is visibly a remnant of it. Some Spaniards _demonstrate_\nalso that it was in Castille; while the Japanese, the Chinese, the\nIndians, the Africans, the Americans are not sufficiently unfortunate to\nknow even that there was formerly a terrestrial paradise at the source\nof the Phison, the Gehon, the Tigris and the Euphrates, or, if you\nprefer it, at the source of the Guadalquivir, the Guadiana, the Douro\nand the Ebro; for from Phison one easily makes Phaetis; and from Phaetis\none makes the Baetis which is the Guadalquivir. The Gehon is obviously\nthe Guadiana, which begins with a \"G.\" The Ebro, which is in Catalonia,\nis incontestably the Euphrates, of which the initial letter is \"E.\"\n\nBut a Scotsman appears who _demonstrates_ in his turn that the garden of\nEden was at Edinburgh, which has retained its name; and it is to be\nbelieved that in a few centuries this opinion will make its fortune.\n\nThe whole globe was burned once upon a time, says a man versed in\nancient and modern history; for I read in a newspaper that some\nabsolutely black charcoal has been found in Germany at a depth of a\nhundred feet, between mountains covered with wood. And it is suspected\neven that there were charcoal burners in this place.\n\nPhaeton's adventure makes it clear that everything has boiled right to\nthe bottom of the sea. The sulphur of Mount Vesuvius proves invincibly\nthat the banks of the Rhine, Danube, Ganges, Nile and the great Yellow\nRiver are merely sulphur, nitre and Guiac oil, which only await the\nmoment of the explosion to reduce the earth to ashes, as it has already\nbeen. The sand on which we walk is evident proof that the earth has been\nvitrified, and that our globe is really only a glass ball, just as are\nour ideas.\n\nBut if fire has changed our globe, water has produced still finer\nrevolutions. For you see clearly that the sea, the tides of which mount\nas high as eight feet in our climate, has produced mountains of a height\nof sixteen to seventeen thousand feet. This is so true that some learned\nmen who have never been in Switzerland have found a big ship with all\nits rigging petrified on Mount St. Gothard, or at the bottom of a\nprecipice, one knows not where; but it is quite certain that it was\nthere. Therefore men were originally fish, _quod erat demonstrandum_.\n\nTo descend to a less antique antiquity, let us speak of the times when\nthe greater part of the barbarous nations left their countries, to go to\nseek others which were hardly any better. It is true, if there be\nanything true in ancient history, that there were some Gaulish brigands\nwho went to pillage Rome in the time of Camillus. Other Gaulish brigands\nhad passed, it is said, through Illyria on the way to hire their\nservices as murderers to other murderers, in the direction of Thrace;\nthey exchanged their blood for bread, and later established themselves\nin Galatia. But who were these Gauls? were they Berichons and Angevins?\nThey were without a doubt Gauls whom the Romans called Cisalpines, and\nwhom we call Transalpines, famished mountain-dwellers, neighbours of the\nAlps and the Apennines. The Gauls of the Seine and the Marne did not\nknow at that time that Rome existed, and could not take it into their\nheads to pass Mount Cenis, as Hannibal did later, to go to steal the\nwardrobes of Roman senators who at that time for all furniture had a\nrobe of poor grey stuff, ornamented with a band the colour of ox blood;\ntwo little pummels of ivory, or rather dog's bone, on the arms of a\nwooden chair; and in their kitchens a piece of rancid bacon.\n\nThe Gauls, who were dying of hunger, not finding anything to eat in\nRome, went off therefore to seek their fortune farther away, as was the\npractice of the Romans later, when they ravaged so many countries one\nafter the other; as did the peoples of the North when they destroyed the\nRoman Empire.\n\nAnd, further, what is it which instructs very feebly about these\nemigrations? It is a few lines that the Romans wrote at hazard; because\nfor the Celts, the Velches or the Gauls, these men who it is desired to\nmake pass for eloquent, at that time did not know, they and their bards,\nhow either to read or write.\n\nBut to infer from that that the Gauls or Celts, conquered after by a few\nof Caesar's legions, and by a horde of Bourguignons, and lastly by a\nhorde of Sicamores, under one Clodovic, had previously subjugated the\nwhole world, and given their names and laws to Asia, seems to me to be\nvery strange: the thing is not mathematically impossible, and if it be\n_demonstrated_, I give way; it would be very uncivil to refuse to the\nVelches what one accords to the Tartars.\n\n\n\n\n_ARTS_\n\nTHAT THE NEWNESS OF THE ARTS IN NO WISE PROVES THE NEWNESS OF THE GLOBE\n\n\nAll the philosophers thought matter eternal but the arts appear new.\nThere is not one, even to the art of making bread, which is not recent.\nThe first Romans ate pap; and these conquerors of so many nations never\nthought of either windmills or watermills. This truth seems at first to\ncontradict the antiquity of the globe such as it is, or supposes\nterrible revolutions in this globe. The inundations of barbarians can\nhardly annihilate arts which have become necessary. I suppose that an\narmy of negroes come among us like locusts, from the mountains of\nCobonas, through the Monomotapa, the Monoemugi, the Nosseguais, the\nMaracates; that they have traversed Abyssinia, Nubia, Egypt, Syria, Asia\nMinor, the whole of our Europe; that they have overthrown everything,\nransacked everything; there will still remain a few bakers, a few\ncobblers, a few tailors, a few carpenters: the necessary arts will\nsurvive; only luxury will be annihilated. It is what was seen at the\nfall of the Roman Empire; the art of writing even became very rare;\nalmost all those which contributed to the comfort of life were reborn\nonly long after. We invent new ones every day.\n\nFrom all this one can at bottom conclude nothing against the antiquity\nof the globe. For, supposing even that an influx of barbarians had made\nus lose entirely all the arts even to the arts of writing and making\nbread; supposing, further, that for ten years past we had no bread,\npens, ink and paper; the land which has been able to subsist for ten\nyears without eating bread and without writing its thoughts, would be\nable to pass a century, and a hundred thousand centuries without these\naids.\n\nIt is quite clear that man and the other animals can exist very well\nwithout bakers, without novelists, and without theologians, witness the\nwhole of America, witness three quarters of our continent.\n\nThe newness of the arts among us does not therefore prove the newness of\nthe globe, as was claimed by Epicurus, one of our predecessors in\nreverie, who supposed that by chance the eternal atoms in declining, had\none day formed our earth. Pomponace said: \"_Se il mondo non e eterno,\nper tutti santi e molto vecchio._\"\n\n\n\n\n_ASTROLOGY_\n\n\nAstrology may rest on better foundations than Magic. For if no one has\nseen either Goblins, or Lemures, or Dives, or Peris, or Demons, or\nCacodemons, the predictions of astrologers have often been seen to\nsucceed. If of two astrologers consulted on the life of a child and on\nthe weather, one says that the child will live to manhood, the other\nnot; if one announces rain, and the other fine weather, it is clear that\none of them will be a prophet.\n\nThe great misfortune of the astrologers is that the sky has changed\nsince the rules of the art were established. The sun, which at the\nequinox was in Aries in the time of the Argonauts, is to-day in Taurus;\nand the astrologers, to the great ill-fortune of their art, to-day\nattribute to one house of the sun what belongs visibly to another.\nHowever, that is not a demonstrative reason against astrology. The\nmasters of the art deceive themselves; but it is not demonstrated that\nthe art cannot exist.\n\nThere is no absurdity in saying: Such and such a child is born in the\nwaxing of the moon, during stormy weather, at the rising of such and\nsuch star; his constitution has been feeble, and his life unhappy and\nshort; which is the ordinary lot of poor constitutions: this child, on\nthe contrary, was born when the moon was full, the sun strong, the\nweather calm, at the rising of such and such star; his constitution has\nbeen good, his life long and happy. If these observations had been\nrepeated, if they had been found accurate, experience would have been\nable after some thousands of years to form an art which it would have\nbeen difficult to doubt: one would have thought, with some likelihood,\nthat men are like trees and vegetables which must be planted and sown\nonly in certain seasons. It would have been of no avail against the\nastrologers to say: My son was born at a fortunate time, and\nnevertheless died in his cradle; the astrologer would have answered: It\noften happens that trees planted in the proper season perish; I answered\nto you for the stars, but I did not answer for the flaw of conformation\nyou communicated to your child. Astrology operates only when no cause\nopposes itself to the good the stars can do.\n\nOne would not have succeeded better in discrediting the astrologer by\nsaying: Of two children who were born in the same minute, one has been\nking, the other has been only churchwarden of his parish; for the\nastrologer could very well have defended himself by pointing out that\nthe peasant made his fortune when he became churchwarden, as the prince\nwhen he became king.\n\nAnd if one alleged that a bandit whom Sixtus V. had hanged was born at\nthe same time as Sixtus V., who from a pig-herd became Pope, the\nastrologers would say one had made a mistake of a few seconds, and that\nit is impossible, according to the rules, for the same star to give the\ntriple crown and the gibbet. It is then only because a host of\nexperiences belied the predictions, that men perceived at last that the\nart was illusory; but before being undeceived, they were long credulous.\n\nOne of the most famous mathematicians in Europe, named Stoffler, who\nflourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and who long worked\nat the reform of the calendar, proposed at the Council of Constance,\nforetold a universal flood for the year 1524. This flood was to arrive\nin the month of February, and nothing is more plausible; for Saturn,\nJupiter and Mars were then in conjunction in the sign of Pisces. All the\npeoples of Europe, Asia and Africa, who heard speak of the prediction,\nwere dismayed. Everyone expected the flood, despite the rainbow. Several\ncontemporary authors record that the inhabitants of the maritime\nprovinces of Germany hastened to sell their lands dirt cheap to those\nwho had most money, and who were not so credulous as they. Everyone\narmed himself with a boat as with an ark. A Toulouse doctor, named\nAuriol, had a great ark made for himself, his family and his friends;\nthe same precautions were taken over a large part of Italy. At last the\nmonth of February arrived, and not a drop of water fell: never was month\nmore dry, and never were the astrologers more embarrassed. Nevertheless\nthey were not discouraged, nor neglected among us; almost all princes\ncontinued to consult them.\n\nI have not the honour of being a prince; but the celebrated Count of\nBoulainvilliers and an Italian, named Colonne, who had much prestige in\nParis, both foretold that I should die infallibly at the age of\nthirty-two. I have been so malicious as to deceive them already by\nnearly thirty years, wherefore I humbly beg their pardon.\n\n\n\n\n_ATHEISM_\n\n\nSECTION I\n\nOF THE COMPARISON SO OFTEN MADE BETWEEN ATHEISM AND IDOLATRY\n\nIt seems to me that in the \"Encyclopedic Dictionary\" the opinion of the\nJesuit Richeome, on atheists and idolaters, has not been refuted as\nstrongly as it might have been; opinion held formerly by St. Thomas, St.\nGregory of Nazianze, St. Cyprian and Tertullian, opinion that Arnobius\nset forth with much force when he said to the pagans: \"Do you not blush\nto reproach us with despising your gods, and is it not much more proper\nto believe in no God at all, than to impute to them infamous\nactions?\"[1] opinion established long before by Plutarch, who says \"that\nhe much prefers people to say there is no Plutarch, than to say--'There\nis an inconstant, choleric, vindictive Plutarch'\";[2] opinion\nstrengthened finally by all the effort of Bayle's dialectic.\n\nHere is the ground of dispute, brought to fairly dazzling light by the\nJesuit Richeome, and rendered still more plausible by the way Bayle has\nturned it to account.[3]\n\n\"There are two porters at the door of a house; they are asked: 'Can one\nspeak to your master?' 'He is not there,' answers one. 'He is there,'\nanswers the other, 'but he is busy making counterfeit money, forged\ncontracts, daggers and poisons, to undo those who have but accomplished\nhis purposes.' The atheist resembles the first of these porters, the\npagan the other. It is clear, therefore, that the pagan offends the\nDeity more gravely than does the atheist.\"\n\nWith Father Richeome's and even Bayle's permission, that is not at all\nthe position of the matter. For the first porter to resemble the\natheists, he must not say--\"My master is not here\": he should say--\"I\nhave no master; him whom you claim to be my master does not exist; my\ncomrade is a fool to tell you that he is busy compounding poisons and\nsharpening daggers to assassinate those who have executed his caprices.\nNo such being exists in the world.\"\n\nRicheome has reasoned, therefore, very badly. And Bayle, in his somewhat\ndiffuse discourses, has forgotten himself so far as to do Richeome the\nhonour of annotating him very malapropos.\n\nPlutarch seems to express himself much better in preferring people who\naffirm there is no Plutarch, to those who claim Plutarch to be an\nunsociable man. In truth, what does it matter to him that people say he\nis not in the world? But it matters much to him that his reputation be\nnot tarnished. It is not thus with the Supreme Being.\n\nPlutarch even does not broach the real object under discussion. It is\nnot a question of knowing who offends more the Supreme Being, whether it\nbe he who denies Him, or he who distorts Him. It is impossible to know\notherwise than by revelation, if God is offended by the empty things men\nsay of Him.\n\nWithout a thought, philosophers fall almost always into the ideas of the\ncommon herd, in supposing God to be jealous of His glory, to be\ncholeric, to love vengeance, and in taking rhetorical figures for real\nideas. The interesting subject for the whole universe, is to know if it\nbe not better, for the good of all mankind, to admit a rewarding and\nrevengeful God, who recompenses good actions hidden, and who punishes\nsecret crimes, than to admit none at all.\n\nBayle exhausts himself in recounting all the infamies imputed by fable\nto the gods of antiquity. His adversaries answer him with commonplaces\nthat signify nothing. The partisans of Bayle and his enemies have\nalmost always fought without making contact. They all agree that Jupiter\nwas an adulterer, Venus a wanton, Mercury a rogue. But, as I see it,\nthat is not what needs consideration. One must distinguish between\nOvid's Metamorphoses and the religion of the ancient Romans. It is quite\ncertain that never among the Romans or even among the Greeks, was there\na temple dedicated to Mercury the rogue, Venus the wanton, Jupiter the\nadulterer.\n\nThe god whom the Romans called _Deus optimus_, very good, very great,\nwas not reputed to encourage Clodius to sleep with Caesar's wife, or\nCaesar to be King Nicomedes' Sodomite.\n\nCicero does not say that Mercury incited Verres to steal Sicily,\nalthough Mercury, in the fable, had stolen Apollo's cows. The real\nreligion of the ancients was that Jupiter, _very good and very just_,\nand the secondary gods, punished the perjurer in the infernal regions.\nLikewise the Romans were long the most religious observers of oaths.\nReligion was very useful, therefore, to the Romans. There was no command\nto believe in Leda's two eggs, in the changing of Inachus' daughter into\na cow, in the love of Apollo for Hyacinthus.\n\nOne must not say therefore that the religion of Numa dishonoured the\nDeity. For a long time, therefore, people have been disputing over a\nchimera; which happens only too often.\n\nThe question is then asked whether a nation of atheists can exist; it\nseems to me that one must distinguish between the nation properly so\ncalled, and a society of philosophers above the nation. It is very true\nthat in every country the populace has need of the greatest curb, and\nthat if Bayle had had only five or six hundred peasants to govern, he\nwould not have failed to announce to them the existence of a God,\nrewarder and revenger. But Bayle would not have spoken of Him to the\nEpicureans who were rich people, fond of rest, cultivating all the\nsocial virtues, and above all friendship, fleeing the embarrassment and\ndanger of public affairs, in fine, leading a comfortable and innocent\nlife. It seems to me that in this way the dispute is finished as regards\nsociety and politics.\n\nFor entirely savage races, it has been said already that one cannot\ncount them among either the atheists or the theists. Asking them their\nbelief would be like asking them if they are for Aristotle or\nDemocritus: they know nothing; they are not atheists any more than they\nare Peripatetics.\n\nIn this case, I shall answer that the wolves live like this, and that an\nassembly of cannibal barbarians such as you suppose them is not a\nsociety; and I shall always ask you if, when you have lent your money to\nsomeone in your society, you want neither your debtor, nor your\nattorney, nor your judge, to believe in God.\n\n\nOF MODERN ATHEISTS. REASONS OF THE WORSHIPPERS OF GOD\n\nWe are intelligent beings: intelligent beings cannot have been formed by\na crude, blind, insensible being: there is certainly some difference\nbetween the ideas of Newton and the dung of a mule. Newton's\nintelligence, therefore, came from another intelligence.\n\nWhen we see a beautiful machine, we say that there is a good engineer,\nand that this engineer has excellent judgment. The world is assuredly an\nadmirable machine; therefore there is in the world an admirable\nintelligence, wherever it may be. This argument is old, and none the\nworse for that.\n\nAll living bodies are composed of levers, of pulleys, which function\naccording to the laws of mechanics; of liquids which the laws of\nhydrostatics cause to circulate perpetually; and when one thinks that\nall these beings have a perception quite unrelated to their\norganization, one is overwhelmed with surprise.\n\nThe movement of the heavenly bodies, that of our little earth round the\nsun, all operate by virtue of the most profound mathematical law. How\nPlato who was not aware of one of these laws, eloquent but visionary\nPlato, who said that the earth was erected on an equilateral triangle,\nand the water on a right-angled triangle; strange Plato, who says there\ncan be only five worlds, because there are only five regular bodies:\nhow, I say, did Plato, who did not know even spherical trigonometry,\nhave nevertheless a genius sufficiently fine, an instinct sufficiently\nhappy, to call God the \"Eternal Geometer,\" to feel the existence of a\ncreative intelligence? Spinoza himself admits it. It is impossible to\nstrive against this truth which surrounds us and which presses on us\nfrom all sides.\n\n\nREASONS OF THE ATHEISTS\n\nNotwithstanding, I have known refractory persons who say that there is\nno creative intelligence at all, and that movement alone has by itself\nformed all that we see and all that we are. They tell you brazenly:\n\n\"The combination of this universe was possible, seeing that the\ncombination exists: therefore it was possible that movement alone\narranged it. Take four of the heavenly bodies only, Mars, Venus, Mercury\nand the Earth: let us think first only of the place where they are,\nsetting aside all the rest, and let us see how many probabilities we\nhave that movement alone put them in their respective places. We have\nonly twenty-four chances in this combination, that is, there are only\ntwenty-four chances against one to bet that these bodies will not be\nwhere they are with reference to each other. Let us add to these four\nglobes that of Jupiter; there will be only a hundred and twenty against\none to bet that Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury and our globe, will not be\nplaced where we see them.\n\n\"Add finally Saturn: there will be only seven hundred and twenty chances\nagainst one, for putting these six big planets in the arrangement they\npreserve among themselves, according to their given distances. It is\ntherefore demonstrated that in seven hundred and twenty throws,\nmovement alone has been able to put these six principal planets in their\norder.\n\n\"Take then all the secondary bodies, all their combinations, all their\nmovements, all the beings that vegetate, that live, that feel, that\nthink, that function in all the globes, you will have but to increase\nthe number of chances; multiply this number in all eternity, up to the\nnumber which our feebleness calls 'infinity,' there will always be a\nunity in favour of the formation of the world, such as it is, by\nmovement alone: therefore it is possible that in all eternity the\nmovement of matter alone has produced the entire universe such as it\nexists. It is even inevitable that in eternity this combination should\noccur. Thus,\" they say, \"not only is it possible for the world to be\nwhat it is by movement alone, but it was impossible for it not to be\nlikewise after an infinity of combinations.\"\n\nANSWER\n\nAll this supposition seems to me prodigiously fantastic, for two\nreasons; first, that in this universe there are intelligent beings, and\nthat you would not know how to prove it possible for movement alone to\nproduce understanding; second, that, from your own avowal, there is\ninfinity against one to bet, that an intelligent creative cause animates\nthe universe. When one is alone face to face with the infinite, one\nfeels very small.\n\nAgain, Spinoza himself admits this intelligence; it is the basis of his\nsystem. You have not read it, and it must be read. Why do you want to go\nfurther than him, and in foolish arrogance plunge your feeble reason in\nan abyss into which Spinoza dared not descend? Do you realize thoroughly\nthe extreme folly of saying that it is a blind cause that arranges that\nthe square of a planet's revolution is always to the square of the\nrevolutions of other planets, as the cube of its distance is to the cube\nof the distances of the others to the common centre? Either the\nheavenly bodies are great geometers, or the Eternal Geometer has\narranged the heavenly bodies.\n\nBut where is the Eternal Geometer? is He in one place or in all places,\nwithout occupying space? I have no idea. Is it of His own substance that\nHe has arranged all things? I have no idea. Is He immense without\nquantity and without quality? I have no idea. All that I know is that\none must worship Him and be just.\n\n\nNEW OBJECTION OF A MODERN ATHEIST[4]\n\nCan one say that the parts of animals conform to their needs: what are\nthese needs? preservation and propagation. Is it astonishing then that,\nof the infinite combinations which chance has produced, there has been\nable to subsist only those that have organs adapted to the nourishment\nand continuation of their species? have not all the others perished of\nnecessity?\n\nANSWER\n\nThis objection, oft-repeated since Lucretius, is sufficiently refuted by\nthe gift of sensation in animals, and by the gift of intelligence in\nman. How should combinations \"which chance has produced,\" produce this\nsensation and this intelligence (as has just been said in the preceding\nparagraph)? Without any doubt the limbs of animals are made for their\nneeds with incomprehensible art, and you are not so bold as to deny it.\nYou say no more about it. You feel that you have nothing to answer to\nthis great argument which nature brings against you. The disposition of\na fly's wing, a snail's organs suffices to bring you to the ground.\n\n\nMAUPERTUIS' OBJECTION\n\nModern natural philosophers have but expanded these so-called arguments,\noften they have pushed them to trifling and indecency. They have found\nGod in the folds of the skin of the rhinoceros: one could, with equal\nreason, deny His existence because of the tortoise's shell.\n\nANSWER\n\nWhat reasoning! The tortoise and the rhinoceros, and all the different\nspecies, are proof equally in their infinite variety of the same cause,\nthe same design, the same aim, which are preservation, generation and\ndeath.\n\nThere is unity in this infinite variety; the shell and the skin bear\nwitness equally. What! deny God because shell does not resemble leather!\nAnd journalists have been prodigal of eulogies about these ineptitudes,\neulogies they have not given to Newton and Locke, both worshippers of\nthe Deity who spoke with full knowledge.\n\n\nMAUPERTUIS' OBJECTION\n\nOf what use are beauty and proportion in the construction of the snake?\nThey may have uses, some say, of which we are ignorant. At least let us\nbe silent then; let us not admire an animal which we know only by the\nharm it does.\n\nANSWER\n\nAnd be you silent too, seeing that you cannot conceive its utility any\nmore than I can; or avow that in reptiles everything is admirably\nproportioned.\n\nSome are venomous, you have been so yourself. Here there is question\nonly of the prodigious art which has formed snakes, quadrupeds, birds,\nfish and bipeds. This art is sufficiently evident. You ask why the snake\ndoes harm? And you, why have you done harm so many times? Why have you\nbeen a persecutor? which is the greatest of all crimes for a\nphilosopher. That is another question, a question of moral and physical\nill. For long has one asked why there are so many snakes and so many\nwicked men worse than snakes. If flies could reason, they would complain\nto God of the existence of spiders; but they would admit what Minerva\nadmitted about Arachne, in the fable, that she arranges her web\nmarvellously.\n\nOne is bound therefore to recognize an ineffable intelligence which even\nSpinoza admitted. One must agree that this intelligence shines in the\nvilest insect as in the stars. And as regards moral and physical ill,\nwhat can one say, what do? console oneself by enjoying physical and\nmoral good, in worshipping the Eternal Being who has made one and\npermitted the other.\n\nOne more word on this subject. Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent\npersons, and superstition is the vice of fools. But rogues! what are\nthey? rogues.\n\n\nSECTION II\n\nLet us say a word on the moral question set in action by Bayle, to know\n\"if a society of atheists could exist?\" Let us mark first of all in this\nmatter what is the enormous contradiction of men in this dispute; those\nwho have risen against Bayle's opinion with the greatest ardour; those\nwho have denied with the greatest insults the possibility of a society\nof atheists, have since maintained with the same intrepidity that\natheism is the religion of the government of China.\n\nAssuredly they are quite mistaken about the Chinese government; they had\nbut to read the edicts of the emperors of this vast country to have\nseen that these edicts are sermons, and that everywhere there is mention\nof the Supreme Being, ruler, revenger, rewarder.\n\nBut at the same time they are not less mistaken on the impossibility of\na society of atheists; and I do not know how Mr. Bayle can have\nforgotten one striking example which was capable of making his cause\nvictorious.\n\nIn what does a society of atheists appear impossible? It is that one\njudges that men who had no check could never live together; that laws\ncan do nothing against secret crimes; that a revengeful God who punishes\nin this world or the other the wicked who have escaped human justice is\nnecessary.\n\nThe laws of Moses, it is true, did not teach a life to come, did not\nthreaten punishments after death, did not teach the first Jews the\nimmortality of the soul; but the Jews, far from being atheists, far from\nbelieving in avoiding divine vengeance, were the most religious of all\nmen. Not only did they believe in the existence of an eternal God, but\nthey believed Him always present among them; they trembled lest they be\npunished in themselves, in their wives, in their children, in their\nposterity, even unto the fourth generation; this curb was very potent.\n\nBut, among the Gentiles, many sects had no curb; the sceptics doubted\neverything: the academicians suspended judgment on everything; the\nEpicureans were persuaded that the Deity could not mix Himself in the\naffairs of men; and at bottom, they admitted no Deity. They were\nconvinced that the soul is not a substance, but a faculty which is born\nand which perishes with the body; consequently they had no yoke other\nthan morality and honour. The Roman senators and knights were veritable\natheists, for the gods did not exist for men who neither feared nor\nhoped anything from them. The Roman senate in the time of Caesar and\nCicero, was therefore really an assembly of atheists.\n\nThat great orator, in his harangue for Cluentius, says to the whole\nsenate in assembly: \"What ill does death do him? we reject all the inept\nfables of the nether regions: of what then has death deprived him? of\nnothing but the consciousness of suffering.\"\n\nDoes not Caesar, the friend of Cataline, wishing to save his friend's\nlife against this same Cicero, object to him that to make a criminal die\nis not to punish him at all, that death _is nothing_, that it is merely\nthe end of our ills, that it is a moment more happy than calamitous? And\ndo not Cicero and the whole senate surrender to these reasons? The\nconquerors and the legislators of the known universe formed visibly\ntherefore a society of men who feared nothing from the gods, who were\nreal atheists.\n\nFurther on Bayle examines whether idolatry is more dangerous than\natheism, if it is a greater crime not to believe in the Deity than to\nhave unworthy opinions thereof: in that he is of Plutarch's opinion; he\nbelieves it is better to have no opinion than to have a bad opinion; but\nwith all deference to Plutarch, it was clearly infinitely better for the\nGreeks to fear Ceres, Neptune and Jupiter, than to fear nothing at all.\nThe sanctity of oaths is clearly necessary, and one should have more\nconfidence in those who believe that a false oath will be punished, than\nin those who think they can make a false oath with impunity. It is\nindubitable that in a civilized town, it is infinitely more useful to\nhave a religion, even a bad one, than to have none at all.\n\nIt looks, therefore, that Bayle should have examined rather which is the\nmore dangerous, fanaticism or atheism. Fanaticism is certainly a\nthousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion,\nwhereas fanaticism does: atheism is not opposed to crime, but fanaticism\ncauses crimes to be committed. Fanatics committed the massacres of St.\nBartholomew. Hobbes passed for an atheist; he led a tranquil and\ninnocent life. The fanatics of his time deluged England, Scotland and\nIreland with blood. Spinoza was not only atheist, but he taught atheism;\nit was not he assuredly who took part in the judicial assassination of\nBarneveldt; it was not he who tore the brothers De Witt in pieces, and\nwho ate them grilled.\n\nThe atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who\nreason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the\norigin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis\nof the eternity of things and of inevitability.\n\nThe ambitious, the sensual, have hardly time for reasoning, and for\nembracing a bad system; they have other things to do than comparing\nLucretius with Socrates. That is how things go among us.\n\nThat was not how things went with the Roman senate which was almost\nentirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say,\nwho believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was\nan assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very\ndangerous, who ruined the republic. Epicureanism existed under the\nemperors: the atheists of the senate had been rebels in the time of\nSylla and Caesar: under Augustus and Tiberius they were atheist slaves.\n\nI would not wish to have to deal with an atheist prince, who would find\nit to his interest to have me ground to powder in a mortar: I should be\nquite sure of being ground to powder. If I were a sovereign, I would not\nwish to have to deal with atheist courtiers, whose interest it would be\nto poison me: I should have to be taking antidotes every day. It is\ntherefore absolutely necessary for princes and for peoples, that the\nidea of a Supreme Being, creator, ruler, rewarder, revenger, shall be\ndeeply engraved in people's minds.\n\nBayle says, in his \"Thoughts on the Comets,\" that there are atheist\npeoples. The Caffres, the Hottentots, the Topinambous, and many other\nsmall nations, have no God: they neither deny nor affirm; they have\nnever heard speak of Him; tell them that there is a God: they will\nbelieve it easily; tell them that everything happens through the nature\nof things; they will believe you equally. To claim that they are\natheists is to make the same imputation as if one said they are\nanti-Cartesian; they are neither for nor against Descartes. They are\nreal children; a child is neither atheist nor deist, he is nothing.\n\nWhat conclusion shall we draw from all this? That atheism is a very\npernicious monster in those who govern; that it is also pernicious in\nthe persons around statesmen, although their lives may be innocent,\nbecause from their cabinets it may pierce right to the statesmen\nthemselves; that if it is not so deadly as fanaticism, it is nearly\nalways fatal to virtue. Let us add especially that there are less\natheists to-day than ever, since philosophers have recognized that there\nis no being vegetating without germ, no germ without a plan, etc., and\nthat wheat comes in no wise from putrefaction.\n\nSome geometers who are not philosophers have rejected final causes, but\nreal philosophers admit them; a catechist proclaims God to the children,\nand Newton demonstrates Him to the learned.\n\nIf there are atheists, whom must one blame, if not the mercenary tyrants\nof souls, who, making us revolt against their knaveries, force a few\nweak minds to deny the God whom these monsters dishonour. How many times\nhave the people's leeches brought oppressed citizens to the point of\nrevolting against their king!\n\nMen fattened on our substance cry to us: \"Be persuaded that a she-ass\nhas spoken; believe that a fish has swallowed a man and has given him up\nat the end of three days safe and sound on the shore; have no doubt that\nthe God of the universe ordered one Jewish prophet to eat excrement\n(Ezekiel), and another prophet to buy two whores and to make with them\nsons of whoredom (Hosea). These are the very words that the God of truth\nand purity has been made to utter; believe a hundred things either\nvisibly abominable or mathematically impossible; unless you do, the God\nof pity will burn you, not only during millions of thousands of millions\nof centuries in the fire of hell, but through all eternity, whether you\nhave a body, whether you have not.\"\n\nThese inconceivable absurdities revolt weak and rash minds, as well as\nwise and resolute minds. They say: \"Our masters paint God to us as the\nmost insensate and the most barbarous of all beings; therefore there is\nno God;\" but they should say: therefore our masters attribute to God\ntheir absurdities and their furies, therefore God is the contrary of\nwhat they proclaim, therefore God is as wise and as good as they make\nhim out mad and wicked. It is thus that wise men account for things. But\nif a bigot hears them, he denounces them to a magistrate who is a\nwatchdog of the priests; and this watchdog has them burned over a slow\nfire, in the belief that he is avenging and imitating the divine majesty\nhe outrages.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Arnobius, _Adversus Gentes._, lib. v.\n\n[2] _Of Superstition_, by Plutarch.\n\n[3] See Bayle, _Continuation of Divers Thoughts_, par. 77, art. XIII.\n\n[4] See, for this objection, Maupertuis' Essay on Cosmology, first part.\n\n\n\n\n_AUTHORITY_\n\n\nWretched human beings, whether you wear green robes, turbans, black\nrobes or surplices, cloaks and neckbands, never seek to use authority\nwhere there is question only of reason, or consent to be scoffed at\nthroughout the centuries as the most impertinent of all men, and to\nsuffer public hatred as the most unjust.\n\nA hundred times has one spoken to you of the insolent absurdity with\nwhich you condemned Galileo, and I speak to you for the hundred and\nfirst, and I hope you will keep the anniversary of it for ever; I desire\nthat there be graved on the door of your Holy Office:\n\n\"Here seven cardinals, assisted by minor brethren, had the master of\nthought in Italy thrown into prison at the age of seventy; made him fast\non bread and water because he instructed the human race, and because\nthey were ignorant.\"\n\nThere was pronounced a sentence in favour of Aristotle's categories, and\nthere was decreed learnedly and equitably the penalty of the galleys for\nwhoever should be sufficiently daring as to have an opinion different\nfrom that of the Stagyrite, whose books were formerly burned by two\ncouncils.\n\nFurther on a faculty, which had not great faculties, issued a decree\nagainst innate ideas, and later a decree for innate ideas, without the\nsaid faculty being informed by its beadles what an idea is.\n\nIn the neighbouring schools judicial proceedings were instituted against\nthe circulation of the blood.\n\nAn action was started against inoculation, and parties have been\nsubpoenaed.\n\nAt the Customs of thought twenty-one folio volumes were seized, in which\nit was stated treacherously and wickedly that triangles always have\nthree angles; that a father is older than his son; that Rhea Silvia lost\nher virginity before giving birth to her child, and that flour is not an\noak leaf.\n\nIn another year was judged the action: _Utrum chimera bombinans in vacuo\npossit comedere secundas intentiones_, and was decided in the\naffirmative.\n\nIn consequence, everyone thought themselves far superior to Archimedes,\nEuclid, Cicero, Pliny, and strutted proudly about the University\nquarter.\n\n\n\n\n_AUTHORS_\n\n\nAuthor is a generic name which can, like the name of all other\nprofessions, signify good or bad, worthy of respect or ridicule, useful\nand agreeable, or trash for the wastepaper-basket.\n\n * * * * *\n\nWe think that the author of a good work should refrain from three\nthings--from putting his name, save very modestly, from the epistle\ndedicatory, and from the preface. Others should refrain from a\nfourth--that is, from writing.\n\n * * * * *\n\nPrefaces are another stumbling-block. \"The 'I,'\" said Pascal, \"is\nhateful.\" Speak as little of yourself as possible; for you must know\nthat the reader's self-esteem is as great as yours. He will never\nforgive you for wanting to condemn him to have a good opinion of you. It\nis for your book to speak for you, if it comes to be read by the crowd.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf you want to be an author, if you want to write a book; reflect that\nit must be useful and new, or at least infinitely agreeable.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf an ignoramus, a pamphleteer, presumes to criticize without\ndiscrimination, you can confound him; but make rare mention of him, for\nfear of sullying your writings.\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf you are attacked as regards your style, never reply; it is for your\nwork alone to make answer.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSomeone says you are ill, be content that you are well, without wanting\nto prove to the public that you are in perfect health. And above all\nremember that the public cares precious little whether you are well or\nill.\n\n * * * * *\n\nA hundred authors make compilations in order to have bread, and twenty\npamphleteers make excerpts from these compilations, or apology for them,\nor criticism and satire of them, also with the idea of having bread,\nbecause they have no other trade. All these persons go on Friday to the\npolice lieutenant of Paris to ask permission to sell their rubbish. They\nhave audience immediately after the strumpets who do not look at them\nbecause they know that these are underhand dealings.[5]\n\n * * * * *\n\nReal authors are those who have succeeded in one of the real arts, in\nepic poetry, in tragedy or comedy, in history or philosophy, who have\ntaught men or charmed them. The others of whom we have spoken are, among\nmen of letters, what wasps are among birds.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[5] When Voltaire was writing, it was the police lieutenant of Paris who\nhad, under the chancellor, the inspection of books: since then, a part\nof his department has been taken from him. He has kept only the\ninspection of theatrical plays and works below those on printed sheets.\nThe detail of this part is immense. In Paris one is not permitted to\nprint that one has lost one's dog, unless the police are assured that in\nthe poor beast's description there is no proposition contrary to\nmorality and religion (1819).\n\n\n\n\n_BANISHMENT_\n\n\nBanishment for a period or for life, punishment to which one condemns\ndelinquents, or those one wishes to appear as such.\n\nNot long ago one banished outside the sphere of jurisdiction a petty\nthief, a petty forger, a man guilty of an act of violence. The result\nwas that he became a big robber, a forger on a big scale, and murderer\nwithin the sphere of another jurisdiction. It is as if we threw into our\nneighbours' fields the stones which incommode us in our own.\n\nThose who have written on the rights of men, have been much tormented to\nknow for certain if a man who has been banished from his fatherland\nstill belongs to his fatherland. It is nearly the same thing as asking\nif a gambler who has been driven away from the gaming-table is still one\nof the gamblers.\n\nIf to every man it is permitted by natural right to choose his\nfatherland, he who has lost the right of citizen can, with all the more\nreason, choose for himself a new fatherland; but can he bear arms\nagainst his former fellow-citizens? There are a thousand examples of it.\nHow many French protestants naturalized in Holland, England and Germany\nhave served against France, and against armies containing their own\nkindred and their own brothers! The Greeks who were in the King of\nPersia's armies made war on the Greeks, their former compatriots. One\nhas seen the Swiss in the Dutch service fire on the Swiss in the French\nservice. It is still worse than to fight against those who have banished\nyou; for, after all, it seems less dishonest to draw the sword for\nvengeance than to draw it for money.\n\n\n\n\n_BANKRUPTCY_\n\n\nFew bankruptcies were known in France before the sixteenth century. The\ngreat reason is that there were no bankers. Lombards, Jews lent on\nsecurity at ten per cent: trade was conducted in cash. Exchange,\nremittances to foreign countries were a secret unknown to all judges.\n\nIt is not that many people were not ruined; but that was not called\n_bankruptcy_; one said _discomfiture_; this word is sweeter to the ear.\nOne used the word _rupture_ as did the Boulonnais; but rupture does not\nsound so well.\n\nThe bankruptcies came to us from Italy, _bancorotto, bancarotta,\ngambarotta e la giustizia non impicar_. Every merchant had his bench\n(_banco_) in the place of exchange; and when he had conducted his\nbusiness badly, declared himself _fallito_, and abandoned his property\nto his creditors with the proviso that he retain a good part of it for\nhimself, be free and reputed a very upright man. There was nothing to be\nsaid to him, his bench was broken, _banco rotto, banca rotta_; he could\neven, in certain towns, keep all his property and baulk his creditors,\nprovided he seated himself bare-bottomed on a stone in the presence of\nall the merchants. This was a mild derivation of the old Roman\nproverb--_solvere aut in aere aut in cute_, to pay either with one's\nmoney or one's skin. But this custom no longer exists; creditors have\npreferred their money to a bankrupt's hinder parts.\n\nIn England and in some other countries, one declares oneself bankrupt in\nthe gazettes. The partners and creditors gather together by virtue of\nthis announcement which is read in the coffee-houses, and they come to\nan arrangement as best they can.\n\nAs among the bankruptcies there are frequently fraudulent cases, it has\nbeen necessary to punish them. If they are taken to court they are\neverywhere regarded as theft, and the guilty are condemned to\nignominious penalties.\n\nIt is not true that in France the death penalty was decreed against\nbankrupts without distinction. Simple failures involved no penalty;\nfraudulent bankrupts suffered the penalty of death in the states of\nOrleans, under Charles IX., and in the states of Blois in 1576, but\nthese edicts, renewed by Henry IV., were merely comminatory.\n\nIt is too difficult to prove that a man has dishonoured himself on\npurpose, and has voluntarily ceded all his goods to his creditors in\norder to cheat them. When there has been a doubt, one has been content\nwith putting the unfortunate man in the pillory, or with sending him to\nthe galleys, although ordinarily a banker makes a poor convict.\n\nBankrupts were very favourably treated in the last year of Louis XIV.'s\nreign, and during the Regency. The sad state to which the interior of\nthe kingdom was reduced, the multitude of merchants who could not or\nwould not pay, the quantity of unsold or unsellable effects, the fear of\ninterrupting all commerce, obliged the government in 1715, 1716, 1718,\n1721, 1722, and 1726 to suspend all proceedings against all those who\nwere in a state of insolvency. The discussions of these actions were\nreferred to the judge-consuls; this is a jurisdiction of merchants very\nexpert in these cases, and better constituted for going into these\ncommercial details than the parliaments which have always been more\noccupied with the laws of the kingdom than with finance. As the state\nwas at that time going bankrupt, it would have been too hard to punish\nthe poor middle-class bankrupts.\n\nSince then we have had eminent men, fraudulent bankrupts, but they have\nnot been punished.\n\n\n\n\n_BEAUTY_\n\n\nAsk a toad what beauty is, the _to kalon_? He will answer you that it is\nhis toad wife with two great round eyes issuing from her little head, a\nwide, flat mouth, a yellow belly, a brown back. Interrogate a Guinea\nnegro, for him beauty is a black oily skin, deep-set eyes, a flat nose.\nInterrogate the devil; he will tell you that beauty is a pair of horns,\nfour claws and a tail. Consult, lastly, the philosophers, they will\nanswer you with gibberish: they have to have something conforming to the\narch-type of beauty in essence, to the _to kalon_.\n\nOne day I was at a tragedy near by a philosopher. \"How beautiful that\nis!\" he said.\n\n\"What do you find beautiful there?\" I asked.\n\n\"It is beautiful,\" he answered, \"because the author has reached his\ngoal.\"\n\nThe following day he took some medicine which did him good. \"The\nmedicine has reached its goal,\" I said to him. \"What a beautiful\nmedicine!\" He grasped that one cannot say a medicine is beautiful, and\nthat to give the name of \"beauty\" to something, the thing must cause you\nto admire it and give you pleasure. He agreed that the tragedy had\ninspired these sentiments in him, and that there was the _to kalon_,\nbeauty.\n\nWe journeyed to England: the same piece, perfectly translated, was\nplayed there; it made everybody in the audience yawn. \"Ho, ho!\" he said,\n\"the _to kalon_ is not the same for the English and the French.\" After\nmuch reflection he came to the conclusion that beauty is often very\nrelative, just as what is decent in Japan is indecent in Rome, and what\nis fashionable in Paris, is not fashionable in Pekin; and he saved\nhimself the trouble of composing a long treatise on beauty.\n\nThere are actions which the whole world finds beautiful. Two of Caesar's\nofficers, mortal enemies, send each other a challenge, not as to who\nshall shed the other's blood with tierce and quarte behind a thicket as\nwith us, but as to who shall best defend the Roman camp, which the\nBarbarians are about to attack. One of them, having repulsed the enemy,\nis near succumbing; the other rushes to his aid, saves his life, and\ncompletes the victory.\n\nA friend sacrifices his life for his friend; a son for his father....\nThe Algonquin, the Frenchman, the Chinaman, will all say that that is\nvery _beautiful_, that these actions give them pleasure, that they\nadmire them.\n\nThey will say as much of the great moral maxims, of Zarathustra's--\"In\ndoubt if an action be just, abstain...\"; of Confucius'--\"Forget\ninjuries, never forget kindnesses.\"\n\nThe negro with the round eyes and flat nose, who will not give the name\nof \"beauties\" to the ladies of our courts, will without hesitation give\nit to these actions and these maxims. The wicked man even will recognize\nthe beauty of these virtues which he dare not imitate. The beauty which\nstrikes the senses merely, the imagination, and that which is called\n\"intelligence,\" is often uncertain therefore. The beauty which speaks to\nthe heart is not that. You will find a host of people who will tell you\nthat they have found nothing beautiful in three-quarters of the Iliad;\nbut nobody will deny that Codrus' devotion to his people was very\nbeautiful, supposing it to be true.\n\nThere are many other reasons which determine me not to write a treatise\non beauty.\n\n\n\n\n_BISHOP_\n\n\nSamuel Ornik, native of Basle, was, as you know, a very amiable young\nman who, besides, knew his New Testament by heart in Greek and German.\nWhen he was twenty his parents sent him on a journey. He was charged to\ncarry some books to the coadjutor of Paris, at the time of the Fronde.\nHe arrived at the door of the archbishop's residence; the Swiss told him\nthat Monseigneur saw nobody. \"Comrade,\" said Ornik to him, \"you are very\nrude to your compatriots. The apostles let everyone approach, and Jesus\nChrist desired that people should suffer all the little children to come\nto him. I have nothing to ask of your master; on the contrary, I have\nbrought him something.\"\n\n\"Come inside, then,\" said the Swiss.\n\nHe waits an hour in a first antechamber. As he was very naive, he began\na conversation with a servant, who was very fond of telling all he knew\nof his master. \"He must be mightily rich,\" said Ornik, \"to have this\ncrowd of pages and flunkeys whom I see running about the house.\"\n\n\"I don't know what his income is,\" answered the other, \"but I heard it\nsaid to Joly and the Abbe Charier that he already had two millions of\ndebts.\"\n\n\"But who is that lady coming out of the room?\"\n\n\"That is Madame de Pomereu, one of his mistresses.\"\n\n\"She is really very pretty; but I have not read that the apostles had\nsuch company in their bedrooms in the mornings. Ah! I think the\narchbishop is going to give audience.\"\n\n\"Say--'His Highness, Monseigneur.'\"\n\n\"Willingly.\" Ornik salutes His Highness, presents his books, and is\nreceived with a very gracious smile. The archbishop says four words to\nhim, then climbs into his coach, escorted by fifty horsemen. In\nclimbing, Monseigneur lets a sheath fall. Ornik is quite astonished that\nMonseigneur carries so large an ink-horn in his pocket. \"Don't you see\nthat's his dagger?\" says the chatterbox. \"Everyone carries a dagger when\nhe goes to parliament.\"\n\n\"That's a pleasant way of officiating,\" says Ornik; and he goes away\nvery astonished.\n\nHe traverses France, and enlightens himself from town to town; thence he\npasses into Italy. When he is in the Pope's territory, he meets one of\nthose bishops with a thousand crowns income, walking on foot. Ornik was\nvery polite; he offers him a place in his cambiature. \"You are doubtless\non your way to comfort some sick man, Monseigneur?\"\n\n\"Sir, I am on my way to my master's.\"\n\n\"Your master? that is Jesus Christ, doubtless?\"\n\n\"Sir, it is Cardinal Azolin; I am his almoner. He pays me very poorly;\nbut he has promised to place me in the service of Donna Olimpia, the\nfavourite sister-in-law _di nostro signore_.\"\n\n\"What! you are in the pay of a cardinal? But do you not know that there\nwere no cardinals in the time of Jesus Christ and St. John?\"\n\n\"Is it possible?\" cried the Italian prelate.\n\n\"Nothing is more true; you have read it in the Gospel.\"\n\n\"I have never read it,\" answered the bishop; \"all I know is Our Lady's\noffice.\"\n\n\"I tell you there were neither cardinals nor bishops, and when there\nwere bishops, the priests were their equals almost, according to\nJerome's assertions in several places.\"\n\n\"Holy Virgin,\" said the Italian. \"I knew nothing about it: and the\npopes?\"\n\n\"There were not any popes any more than cardinals.\"\n\nThe good bishop crossed himself; he thought he was with an evil spirit,\nand jumped out of the cambiature.\n\n\n\n\n_BOOKS_\n\n\nYou despise them, books, you whose whole life is plunged in the vanities\nof ambition and in the search for pleasure or in idleness; but think\nthat the whole of the known universe, with the exception of the savage\nraces is governed by books alone. The whole of Africa right to Ethiopia\nand Nigritia obeys the book of the Alcoran, after having staggered under\nthe book of the Gospel. China is ruled by the moral book of Confucius; a\ngreater part of India by the book of the Veidam. Persia was governed for\ncenturies by the books of one of the Zarathustras.\n\nIf you have a law-suit, your goods, your honour, your life even depends\non the interpretation of a book which you never read.\n\n_Robert the Devil_, the _Four Sons of Aymon_, the _Imaginings of Mr.\nOufle_, are books also; but it is with books as with men; the very small\nnumber play a great part, the rest are mingled in the crowd.\n\nWho leads the human race in civilized countries? those who know how to\nread and write. You do not know either Hippocrates, Boerhaave or\nSydenham; but you put your body in the hands of those who have read\nthem. You abandon your soul to those who are paid to read the Bible,\nalthough there are not fifty among them who have read it in its entirety\nwith care.\n\nTo such an extent do books govern the world, that those who command\nto-day in the city of the Scipios and the Catos have desired that the\nbooks of their law should be only for them; it is their sceptre; they\nhave made it a crime of _lese-majeste_ for their subjects to look there\nwithout express permission. In other countries it has been forbidden to\nthink in writing without letters patent.\n\nThere are nations among whom thought is regarded purely as an object of\ncommerce. The operations of the human mind are valued there only at two\nsous the sheet.\n\nIn another country, the liberty of explaining oneself by books is one of\nthe most inviolable prerogatives. Print all that you like under pain of\nboring or of being punished if you abuse too considerably your natural\nright.\n\nBefore the admirable invention of printing, books were rarer and more\nexpensive than precious stones. Almost no books among the barbarian\nnations until Charlemagne, and from him to the French king Charles V.,\nsurnamed \"the wise\"; and from this Charles right to Francois Ier, there\nis an extreme dearth.\n\nThe Arabs alone had books from the eighth century of our era to the\nthirteenth.\n\nChina was filled with them when we did not know how to read or write.\n\nCopyists were much employed in the Roman Empire from the time of the\nScipios up to the inundation of the barbarians.\n\nThe Greeks occupied themselves much in transcribing towards the time of\nAmyntas, Philip and Alexander; they continued this craft especially in\nAlexandria.\n\nThis craft is somewhat ungrateful. The merchants always paid the authors\nand the copyists very badly. It took two years of assiduous labour for a\ncopyist to transcribe the Bible well on vellum. What time and what\ntrouble for copying correctly in Greek and Latin the works of Origen, of\nClement of Alexandria, and of all those other authors called \"fathers.\"\n\nThe poems of Homer were long so little known that Pisistratus was the\nfirst who put them in order, and who had them transcribed in Athens,\nabout five hundred years before the era of which we are making use.\n\nTo-day there are not perhaps a dozen copies of the Veidam and the\nZend-Avesta in the whole of the East.\n\nYou would not have found a single book in the whole of Russia in 1700,\nwith the exception of Missals and a few Bibles in the homes of aged men\ndrunk on brandy.\n\nTo-day people complain of a surfeit: but it is not for readers to\ncomplain; the remedy is easy; nothing forces them to read. It is not any\nthe more for authors to complain. Those who make the crowd must not cry\nthat they are being crushed. Despite the enormous quantity of books, how\nfew people read! and if one read profitably, one would see the\ndeplorable follies to which the common people offer themselves as prey\nevery day.\n\nWhat multiplies books, despite the law of not multiplying beings\nunnecessarily, is that with books one makes others; it is with several\nvolumes already printed that a new history of France or Spain is\nfabricated, without adding anything new. All dictionaries are made with\ndictionaries; almost all new geography books are repetitions of\ngeography books. The Summation of St. Thomas has produced two thousand\nfat volumes of theology; and the same family of little worms that have\ngnawed the mother, gnaw likewise the children.\n\n\n\n\n_BOULEVERD OR BOULEVART_\n\n\nBoulevart, fortification, rampart. Belgrade is the boulevart of the\nOttoman Empire on the Hungarian side. Who would believe that this word\noriginally signified only a game of bowls? The people of Paris played\nbowls on the grass of the rampart; this grass was called the _verd_,\nlike the grass market. _On boulait sur le verd._ From there it comes\nthat the English, whose language is a copy of ours in almost all the\nwords which are not Saxon, have called the game of bowls\n\"bowling-green,\" the _verd_ (green) of the game of bowls. We have taken\nback from them what we had lent them. Following their example, we gave\nthe name of _boulingrins_, without knowing the strength of the word, to\nthe grass-plots we introduced into our gardens.\n\nI once heard two good dames who were going for a walk on the\n_Bouleverd_, and not on the _Boulevart_. People laughed at them, and\nwrongly. But in all matters custom carries the day; and everyone who is\nright against custom is hissed or condemned.\n\n\n\n\n_BOURGES_\n\n\nOur questions barely turn on geography; but let us be permitted to mark\nin two words our astonishment about the town of Bourges. The\n\"Dictionnaire de Trevoux\" claims that \"it is one of the most ancient\ntowns of Europe, that it was the seat of the empire of the Gauls, and\ngave kings to the Celts.\"\n\nI do not wish to combat the ancientness of any town or any family. But\nwas there ever an empire of the Gauls? Did the Celts have kings? This\nmania for antiquity is a malady from which one will not be healed so\nsoon. The Gauls, Germany, Scandinavia have nothing that is antique save\nthe land, the trees and the animals. If you want antiquities, go toward\nAsia, and even then it is very small beer. Man is ancient and monuments\nnew, that is what we have in view in more than one article.\n\nIf it were a real benefit to be born in a stone or wooden enclosure more\nancient than another, it would be very reasonable to make the foundation\nof one's town date back to the time of the war of the giants; but since\nthere is not the least advantage in this vanity, one must break away\nfrom it. That is all I had to say about Bourges.\n\n\n\n\n_BRAHMINS_\n\n\nIs it not probable that the Brahmins were the first legislators of the\nearth, the first philosophers, the first theologians?\n\nDo not the few monuments of ancient history which remain to us form a\ngreat presumption in their favour, since the first Greek philosophers\nwent to them to learn mathematics, and since the most ancient\ncuriosities collected by the emperors of China are all Indian?\n\nWe will speak elsewhere of the \"Shasta\"; it is the first book of\ntheology of the Brahmins, written about fifteen hundred years before\ntheir \"Veidam,\" and anterior to all the other books.\n\nTheir annals make no mention of any war undertaken by them at any time.\nThe words for _arms_, to _kill_, to _maim_, are not to be found either\nin the fragments of the \"Shasta\" which we have, or in the \"Ezourveidam,\"\nor in the \"Cormoveidam.\" I can at least give the assurance that I did\nnot see them in these last two collections: and what is still more\nsingular is that the \"Shasta\" which speaks of a conspiracy in heaven,\nmakes no mention of any war in the great peninsula enclosed between the\nIndus and the Ganges.\n\nThe Hebrews, who were known so late, never name the Brahmins; they had\nno knowledge of India until after the conquests of Alexander, and their\nsettling in Egypt, of which they had said so much evil. The name of\nIndia is to be found only in the Book of Esther, and in that of Job\nwhich was not Hebrew. One remarks a singular contrast between the sacred\nbooks of the Hebrews, and those of the Indians. The Indian books\nannounce only peace and gentleness; they forbid the killing of animals:\nthe Hebrew books speak only of killing, of the massacre of men and\nbeasts; everything is slaughtered in the name of the Lord; it is quite\nanother order of things.\n\nIt is incontestably from the Brahmins that we hold the idea of the fall\nof the celestial beings in revolt against the Sovereign of nature; and\nit is from there probably that the Greeks drew the fable of the Titans.\nIt is there also that the Jews at last took the idea of the revolt of\nLucifer, in the first century of our era.\n\nHow could these Indians suppose a revolt in heaven without having seen\none on earth? Such a jump from human nature to divine nature is barely\nconceivable. Usually one goes from known to unknown.\n\nOne does not imagine a war of giants until one has seen some men more\nrobust than the others tyrannize over their fellows. The first Brahmins\nmust either have experienced violent discords, or at least have seen\nthem in heaven.\n\nIt is a very astonishing phenomenon for a society of men who have never\nmade war to have invented a species of war made in the imaginary spaces,\nor in a globe distant from ours, or in what is called the \"firmament,\"\nthe \"empyrean.\" But it must be carefully observed that in this revolt of\ncelestial beings against their Sovereign no blows were struck, no\ncelestial blood flowed, no mountains hurled at the head, no angels cut\nin two, as in Milton's sublime and grotesque poem.\n\nAccording to the \"Shasta,\" it is only a formal disobedience to the\norders of the Most High, a cabal which God punishes by relegating the\nrebellious angels to a vast place of shadows called \"Ondera\" during the\nperiod of an entire mononthour. A mononthour is four hundred and\ntwenty-six millions of our years. But God deigned to pardon the guilty\nafter five thousand years, and their ondera was only a purgatory.\n\nHe made \"Mhurd\" of them, men, and placed them in our globe on condition\nthat they should not eat animals, and that they should not copulate with\nthe males of their new species, under pain of returning to ondera.\n\nThose are the principal articles of the Brahmins' faith, which have\nlasted without interruption from immemorial times right to our day: it\nseems strange to us that among them it should be as grave a sin to eat a\nchicken as to commit sodomy.\n\nThis is only a small part of the ancient cosmogony of the Brahmins.\nTheir rites, their pagodas, prove that among them everything was\nallegorical; they still represent virtue beneath the emblem of a woman\nwho has ten arms, and who combats ten mortal sins represented by\nmonsters. Our missionaries have not failed to take this image of virtue\nfor that of the devil, and to assure us that the devil is worshipped in\nIndia. We have never been among these people but to enrich ourselves and\nto calumniate them.\n\nReally we have forgotten a very essential thing in this little article\non the Brahmins; it is that their sacred books are filled with\ncontradictions. But the people do not know of them, and the doctors have\nsolutions ready, figurative meanings, allegories, symbols, express\ndeclarations of Birma, Brahma and Vitsnou, which should close the mouths\nof all who reason.\n\n\n\n\n_CHARACTER_\n\n\nFrom the Greek word _impression_, _engraving_.\n\nIt is what nature has graved in us.\n\nCan one change one's character? Yes, if one changes one's body. It is\npossible for a man born blunderer, unbending and violent, being stricken\nwith apoplexy in his old age, to become a foolish, tearful child, timid\nand peaceable. His body is no longer the same. But as long as his\nnerves, his blood and his marrow are in the same state, his nature will\nnot change any more than a wolf's and a marten's instinct.\n\nThe character is composed of our ideas and our feelings: well, it is\nsubstantiated that we give ourselves neither feelings nor ideas;\ntherefore our character does not depend on us.\n\nIf it depended on us, there is nobody who would not be perfect.\n\nWe cannot give ourselves tastes, talents; why should we give ourselves\nqualities?\n\nIf one does not reflect, one thinks oneself master of everything; when\none reflects thereon, one sees that one is master of nothing.\n\nShould you wish to change a man's character completely, purge him with\ndiluents every day until you have killed him. Charles XII., in his\nsuppurative fever on the road to Bender, was no longer the same man. One\nprevailed upon him as upon a child.\n\nIf I have a crooked nose and two cat's eyes, I can hide them with a\nmask. Can I do more with the character which nature has given me?\n\nA man born violent, hasty, presented himself before Francois I., King of\nFrance, to complain of an injustice; the prince's countenance, the\nrespectful bearing of the courtiers, the very place where he is, make a\npowerful impression on this man; mechanically he lowers his eyes, his\nrough voice softens, he presents his petition humbly, one would believe\nhim born as gentle as are (at that moment at least) the courtiers,\namongst whom he is even disconcerted; but Francois I. understands\nphysiognomy, he easily discovers in the lowered eyes, burning\nnevertheless with sombre fire, in the strained facial muscles, in the\ncompressed lips, that this man is not so gentle as he is forced to\nappear. This man follows him to Pavia, is taken with him, led to the\nsame prison in Madrid: Francois I.'s majesty no longer makes the same\nimpression on him; he grows familiar with the object of his respect. One\nday when pulling off the king's boots, and pulling them off badly, the\nking, embittered by his misfortune, gets angry; my man sends the king\nabout his business, and throws his boots out of the window.\n\nSixtus V. was born petulant, stubborn, haughty, impetuous, vindictive,\narrogant; this character seemed softened during the trials of his\nnovitiate. He begins to enjoy a certain credit in his order; he flies\ninto a passion with a guard, and batters him with his fist: he is\ninquisitor at Venice; he performs his duties with insolence: behold him\ncardinal, he is possessed _dalla rabbia papale_: this fury triumphs over\nhis nature; he buries his person and his character in obscurity; he apes\nthe humble and the dying man; he is elected Pope; this moment gives back\nto the spring, which politics have bent, all its long curbed elasticity;\nhe is the haughtiest and most despotic of sovereigns.\n\n _Naturam expella furca, tamen usque recurret._\n\n (Hor. L. I., ep. x).\n\n Drive away nature, it returns at the gallop.\n\n (DESTOUCHES, _Glorieux_, Act 3, Sc. 5.)\n\nReligion, morality put a brake on a nature's strength; they cannot\ndestroy it. The drunkard in a cloister, reduced to a half-setier of\ncider at each meal, will no longer get drunk, but he will always like\nwine.\n\nAge enfeebles character; it is a tree that produces only degenerate\nfruit, but the fruit is always of the same nature; it is knotted and\ncovered with moss, it becomes worm-eaten, but it is always oak or pear\ntree. If one could change one's character, one would give oneself one,\none would be master of nature. Can one give oneself anything? do we not\nreceive everything? Try to animate an indolent man with a continued\nactivity; to freeze with apathy the boiling soul of an impetuous fellow,\nto inspire someone who has neither ear nor taste with a taste for music\nand poetry, you will no more succeed than if you undertook to give sight\nto a man born blind. We perfect, we soften, we conceal what nature has\nput in us, but we do not put in ourselves anything at all.\n\nOne says to a farmer: \"You have too many fish in this pond, they will\nnot prosper; there are too many cattle in your meadows, grass lacks,\nthey will grow thin.\" It happens after this exhortation that the pikes\neat half my man's carp, and the wolves the half of his sheep; the rest\ngrow fat. Will he congratulate himself on his economy? This countryman,\nit is you; one of your passions has devoured the others, and you think\nyou have triumphed over yourself. Do not nearly all of us resemble that\nold general of ninety who, having met some young officers who were\ndebauching themselves with some girls, says to them angrily: \"Gentlemen,\nis that the example I give you?\"\n\n\n\n\n_CHARLATAN_\n\n\nThe article entitled \"Charlatan\" in the \"Encyclopedic Dictionary\" is\nfilled with useful truths agreeably presented. The Chevalier de Jaucourt\nhas there presented the charlatanry of medicine.\n\nWe will take the liberty of adding here a few reflections. The abode of\nthe doctors is in the large towns; there are barely any doctors in the\ncountry. It is in the great towns that the rich invalids are;\ndebauchery, the excesses of the table, the passions, are the cause of\ntheir maladies. Dumoulin, not the lawyer, the doctor, who was as good a\npractician as the other, said as he was dying, that he left two great\ndoctors behind him, diet and river water.\n\nIn 1728, in the time of Law, the most famous charlatan of the first\nspecies, another, Villars by name, confided to some friends that his\nuncle who had lived nearly a hundred years, and who died only by\naccident, had left him the secret of a water which could easily prolong\nlife to a hundred and fifty years, provided a man was temperate. When he\nsaw a funeral pass, he shrugged his shoulders in pity; if the defunct,\nhe observed, had drunk my water, he would not be where he is. His\nfriends to whom he gave generously of the water, and who observed the\nprescribed regime in some degree, thrived on it and praised it. He then\nsold the bottle for six francs; the sale was prodigious. It was water\nfrom the Seine with a little nitre. Those who took it and who subjected\nthemselves to a certain amount of regime, above all those who were born\nwith a good constitution, recovered perfect health in a few days. He\nsaid to the others: \"It is your fault if you are not entirely cured:\ncorrect these two vices and you will live at least a hundred and fifty\nyears.\" Some of them reformed; this good charlatan's fortune increased\nlike his reputation. The Abbe de Pons, the enthusiast, put him far above\nthe Marechal de Villars: \"The Marechal kills men,\" he said to him, \"but\nyou make them live.\"\n\nPeople learned at last that Villars Water was only river water; they\nwould have no more of it; and went to other charlatans.\n\nIt is certain that he had done good, and that the only reproach one\ncould make against him was that he had sold Seine water a little too\ndear. He led men to temperance by which fact he was superior to the\napothecary Arnoult, who stuffed Europe with his sachets against\napoplexy, without recommending any virtue.\n\nI knew in London a doctor named Brown, who practised in Barbados. He had\na sugar refinery and negroes; he was robbed of a considerable sum; he\nassembled his negroes: \"My lads,\" he said to them, \"the great serpent\nappeared to me during the night, he told me that the thief would at this\nmoment have a parrot's feather on the end of his nose.\" The guilty man\npromptly put his hand to his nose. \"It is you who robbed me,\" said the\nmaster; \"the great serpent has just told me so.\" And he regained his\nmoney. One can hardly condemn such a charlatanry; but one must be\ndealing with negroes.\n\nScipio Africanus, this great Scipio very different otherwise from Dr.\nBrown, willingly made his soldiers believe that he was inspired by the\ngods. This great charlatanry was long the custom. Can one blame Scipio\nto have availed himself of it? he was the man who perhaps did most\nhonour to the Roman Republic; but why did the gods inspire him not to\nrender his accounts?\n\nNuma did better; it was necessary to police some brigands and a senate\nwhich was the most difficult section of these brigands to govern. If he\nhad proposed his laws to the assembled tribes, the assassins of his\npredecessor would have made a thousand difficulties. He addressed\nhimself to the goddess Egeria, who gave him some pandects from Jupiter;\nhe was obeyed without contradiction, and he reigned happily. His\ninstructions were good, his charlatanry did good; but if some secret\nenemy had discovered the imposture, if he had said: \"Exterminate an\nimpostor who prostitutes the name of the gods in order to deceive men,\"\nNuma ran the risk of being sent to heaven with Romulus.\n\nIt is probable that Numa took his measures very carefully, and that he\ndeceived the Romans for their benefit, with a dexterity suitable to the\ntime, the place, the intelligence of the early Romans.\n\nMahomet was twenty times on the point of failing, but he succeeded at\nlast with the Arabs of Medina; and people believed that he was the\nintimate friend of the Archangel Gabriel. If to-day someone came to\nConstantinople to announce that he was the favourite of the Archangel\nRaphael, far superior to Gabriel in dignity, and that it was in him\nalone people should believe, he would be impaled in the public place. It\nis for charlatans to choose their time well.\n\nWas there not a little charlatanry in Socrates with his familiar demon,\nand Apollo's precise declaration which proclaimed him the wisest of all\nmen? How can Rollin, in his history, reason from this oracle? How is it\nthat he does not let the young idea know that it was pure charlatanry?\nSocrates chose his time badly. A hundred years earlier, maybe, he would\nhave governed Athens.\n\nAll leaders of sects in philosophy have been somewhat charlatans: but\nthe greatest of all have been those who have aspired to domination.\nCromwell was the most terrible of all our charlatans. He appeared at\nprecisely the only time he could succeed: under Elizabeth he would have\nbeen hanged; under Charles II. he would have been merely ridiculous. He\ncame happily at a time when people were disgusted with kings; and his\nson, at a time when people were weary of a protector.\n\n\nOF CHARLATANRY IN SCIENCE AND LITERATURE\n\nThe sciences can barely be without charlatanry. People wish to have\ntheir opinions accepted; the quibbling doctor wishes to eclipse the\nangelic doctor; the recondite doctor wishes to reign alone. Each builds\nhis system of physics, metaphysics, scholastic theology; it is a\ncompetition in turning one's merchandise to account. You have agents who\nextol it, fools who believe you, protectors who support you.\n\nIs there a greater charlatanry than that of substituting words for\nthings, and of wanting others to believe what you do not believe\nyourself?\n\nOne establishes whirlwinds of subtle matter, ramous, globulous,\nstriated, channelled; the other elements of matter which are not matter\nat all, and a pre-established harmony which makes the clock of the body\nsound the hour, when the clock of the soul shows it with its hand. These\nchimeras find partisans for a few years. When this rubbish has passed\nout of fashion, new fanatics appear on the itinerant theatre; they\nbanish germs from the world, they say that the sea produced the\nmountains, and that men were once fish.\n\nHow much charlatanry has been put into history, either by astonishing\nthe reader with prodigies, by titillating human malignity with satire,\nor by flattering the families of tyrants with infamous eulogy?\n\nThe wretched species that writes for a living is charlatan in another\nway. A poor man who has no trade, who has had the misfortune to go to\ncollege, and who thinks he knows how to write, goes to pay his court to\na bookseller, and asks him for work. The bookseller knows that the\nmajority of most people who live in houses want to have little\nlibraries, that they need abridgments and new titles; he orders from the\nwriter an abridgment of the \"History by Rapin-Thoyras,\" an abridgment of\nthe \"History of the Church,\" a \"Collection of Witty Sayings\" drawn from\nthe \"Menagiana,\" a \"Dictionary of Great Men,\" where an unknown pedant\nis placed beside Cicero, and a _sonettiero_ of Italy near Virgil.\n\nAnother bookseller orders novels, or translations of novels. \"If you\nhave no imagination,\" he says to the workman, \"you will take a few of\nthe adventures in 'Cyrus,' in 'Gusman d'Alfarache,' in the 'Secret\nMemoirs of a Gentleman of Quality,' or 'Of a Lady of Quality'; and from\nthe total you will prepare a volume of four hundred pages at twenty sous\nthe sheet.\"\n\nAnother bookseller gives the gazettes and almanacs for ten years past to\na man of genius. \"You will make me an extract of all that, and you will\nbring it me back in three months under the name of 'Faithful History of\nthe Times,' by the Chevalier de Trois Etoiles, Lieutenant of the Navy,\nemployed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.\"\n\nOf this kind of book there are about fifty thousand in Europe; and it\nall passes just like the secret of whitening the skin, of darkening the\nhair, and the universal panacea.\n\n\n\n\n_CIVIL LAWS_\n\n\nEXTRACT FROM SOME NOTES FOUND AMONG A LAWYER'S PAPERS, WHICH MAYBE MERIT\nEXAMINATION.\n\nLet the punishments of criminals be useful. A hanged man is good for\nnothing, and a man condemned to public works still serves the country,\nand is a living lesson.\n\n * * * * *\n\nLet all laws be clear, uniform and precise: to interpret laws is almost\nalways to corrupt them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nLet nothing be infamous save vice.\n\n * * * * *\n\nLet taxes be always proportional.\n\n * * * * *\n\nLet the law never be contradictory to custom: for if the custom be good,\nthe law is worthless.\n\n\n\n\n_CLIMATE_\n\n\nClimate influences religion as regards customs and ceremonies. A\nlegislator will not have had difficulty in making the Indians bathe in\nthe Ganges at certain seasons of the moon; it is a great pleasure for\nthem. He would have been stoned if he had proposed the same bath to the\npeoples who dwell on the banks of the Dwina near Archangel. Forbid pig\nto an Arab who would have leprosy if he ate of this flesh which is very\nbad and disgusting in his country, he will obey you joyfully. Issue the\nsame veto to a Westphalian and he will be tempted to fight you.\n\nAbstinence from wine is a good religious precept in Arabia where orange\nwater, lemon water, lime water are necessary to health. Mohammed would\nnot have forbidden wine in Switzerland perhaps, especially before going\nto battle.\n\nThere are customs of pure fantasy. Why did the priests of Egypt imagine\ncircumcision? it is not for health. Cambyses who treated them as they\ndeserved, they and their bull Apis, Cambyses' courtiers, Cambyses'\nsoldiers, had not had their prepuces lopped, and were very well. Climate\ndoes nothing to a priest's genitals. One offered one's prepuce to Isis,\nprobably as one presented everywhere the first fruits of the earth. It\nwas offering the first fruits of life.\n\nReligions have always rolled on two pivots; observance and creed:\nobservance depends largely on climate; creed not at all. One could as\neasily make a dogma accepted on the equator as the polar circle. It\nwould later be rejected equally at Batavia and in the Orkneys, while it\nwould be maintained _unguibus et rostro_ at Salamanca. That depends in\nno way on the soil and the atmosphere, but solely on opinion, that\nfickle queen of the world.\n\nCertain libations of wine will be precept in a vine-growing country, and\nit will not occur to a legislator's mind to institute in Norway sacred\nmysteries which cannot be performed without wine.\n\nIt will be expressly ordered to burn incense in the parvis of a temple\nwhere beasts are slaughtered in the Deity's honour, and for the priests'\nsupper. This butcher's shop called \"temple\" would be a place of\nabominable infection if it were not continually purified: and without\nthe assistance of aromatics, the religion of the ancients would have\ncaused the plague. Even the interior of the temple was decked with\nfestoons of flowers in order to make the air sweeter.\n\nNo cow will be sacrificed in the burning land of the Indian peninsula;\nbecause this animal which furnishes necessary milk is very rare in an\narid country, its flesh is dry, tough, contains very little nourishment,\nand the Brahmins would live very badly. On the contrary, the cow will\nbecome sacred, in view of its rarity and utility.\n\nOne will only enter barefoot the temple of Jupiter Ammon where the heat\nis excessive: one must be well shod to perform one's devotions in\nCopenhagen.\n\nIt is not so with dogma. People have believed in polytheism in all\nclimates; and it is as easy for a Crimean Tartar as for an inhabitant of\nMecca to recognize a single God, incommunicable, non-begetting,\nnon-begotten. It is through its dogma still more than through its rites\nthat a religion is spread from one climate to another. The dogma of the\nunity of God soon passed from Medina to the Caucasus; then the climate\ncedes to opinion.\n\nThe Arabs said to the Turks: \"We had ourselves circumcised in Arabia\nwithout really knowing why; it was an old fashion of the priests of\nEgypt to offer to Oshireth or Osiris a little part of what they held\nmost precious. We had adopted this custom three thousand years before we\nbecame Mohammedans. You will be circumcised like us; like us you will be\nobliged to sleep with one of your wives every Friday, and to give each\nyear two and a half per cent of your income to the poor. We drink only\nwater and sherbet; all intoxicating liquor is forbidden us; in Arabia it\nis pernicious. You will embrace this regime although you love wine\npassionately, and although it may even be often necessary for you to go\non the banks of the Phasis and Araxes. Lastly, if you want to go to\nHeaven, and be well placed there, you will take the road to Mecca.\"\n\nThe inhabitants of the north of the Caucasus submit to these laws, and\nembrace throughout the country a religion which was not made for them.\n\nIn Egypt the symbolic worship of animals succeeded the dogmas of Thaut.\nThe gods of the Romans later shared Egypt with the dogs, the cats and\nthe crocodiles. To the Roman religion succeeded Christianity; it was\nentirely driven out by Mohammedanism, which perhaps will cede its place\nto a new religion.\n\nIn all these vicissitudes climate has counted for nothing: government\nhas done everything. We are considering here second causes only, without\nraising profane eyes to the Providence which directs them. The Christian\nreligion, born in Syria, having received its principal development in\nAlexandria, inhabits to-day the lands where Teutate, Irminsul, Frida,\nOdin were worshipped.\n\nThere are peoples whose religion has been made by neither climate nor\ngovernment. What cause detached the north of Germany, Denmark,\nthree-quarters of Switzerland, Holland, England, Scotland, Ireland, from\nthe Roman communion? Poverty. Indulgences and deliverance from purgatory\nwere sold too dear to souls whose bodies had at that time very little\nmoney. The prelates, the monks devoured a province's whole revenue.\nPeople took a cheaper religion. At last, after twenty civil wars,\npeople believed that the Pope's religion was very good for great lords,\nand the reformed religion for citizens. Time will show whether the Greek\nreligion or the Turkish religion will prevail by the AEgean Sea and the\nPont-Euxine.\n\n\n\n\n_COMMON SENSE_\n\n\nThere are sometimes in common expressions an image of what passes in the\ndepths of all men's hearts. Among the Romans _sensus communis_ signified\nnot only common sense, but humanity, sensibility. As we are not as good\nas the Romans, this word signifies among us only half of what it\nsignified among them. It means only good sense, plain reason, reason set\nin operation, a first notion of ordinary things, a state midway between\nstupidity and intelligence. \"This man has no common sense\" is a great\ninsult. \"A common-sense man\" is an insult likewise; it means that he is\nnot entirely stupid, and that he lacks what is called wit and\nunderstanding. But whence comes this expression _common sense_, unless\nit be from the senses? Men, when they invented this word, avowed that\nnothing entered the soul save through the senses; otherwise, would they\nhave used the word _sense_ to signify common reasoning?\n\nPeople say sometimes--\"Common sense is very rare.\" What does this phrase\nsignify? that in many men reason set in operation is stopped in its\nprogress by prejudices, that such and such man who judges very sanely in\none matter, will always be vastly deceived in another. This Arab, who\nwill be a good calculator, a learned chemist, an exact astronomer, will\nbelieve nevertheless that Mohammed put half the moon in his sleeve.\n\nWhy will he go beyond common sense in the three sciences of which I\nspeak, and why will he be beneath common sense when there is question of\nthis half moon? Because in the first cases he has seen with his eyes,\nhe has perfected his intelligence; and in the second, he has seen with\nother people's eyes, he has closed his own, he has perverted the common\nsense which is in him.\n\nHow has this strange mental alienation been able to operate? How can the\nideas which move with so regular and so firm a step in the brain on a\ngreat number of subjects limp so wretchedly on another a thousand times\nmore palpable and easy to comprehend? This man always has inside him the\nsame principles of intelligence; he must have some organ vitiated then,\njust as it happens sometimes that the finest _gourmet_ may have a\ndepraved taste as regards a particular kind of food.\n\nHow is the organ of this Arab, who sees half the moon in Mohammed's\nsleeve, vitiated? It is through fear. He has been told that if he did\nnot believe in this sleeve, his soul, immediately after his death, when\npassing over the pointed bridge, would fall for ever into the abyss. He\nhas been told even worse things: If ever you have doubts about this\nsleeve, one dervish will treat you as impious; another will prove to you\nthat you are an insensate fool who, having all possible motives for\nbelieving, have not wished to subordinate your superb reason to the\nevidence; a third will report you to the little divan of a little\nprovince, and you will be legally impaled.\n\nAll this terrifies the good Arab, his wife, his sister, all his little\nfamily into a state of panic. They have good sense about everything\nelse, but on this article their imagination is wounded, as was the\nimagination of Pascal, who continually saw a precipice beside his\narmchair. But does our Arab believe in fact in Mohammed's sleeve? No. He\nmakes efforts to believe; he says it is impossible, but that it is true;\nhe believes what he does not believe. On the subject of this sleeve he\nforms in his head a chaos of ideas which he is afraid to disentangle;\nand this veritably is not to have common sense.\n\n\n\n\n_CONCATENATION OF EVENTS_\n\n\nThe present is delivered, it is said, of the future. Events are linked\nto each other by an invincible fatality: it is Destiny which, in Homer,\nis above even Jupiter. This master of gods and men declares roundly that\nhe cannot stop his son Sarpedon dying in his appointed time. Sarpedon\nwas born at the moment when he had to be born, and could not be born at\nanother moment; he could not die otherwise than before Troy; he could\nnot be buried elsewhere than in Lycia; had at the appointed time to\nproduce vegetables which had to be changed into the substance of a few\nLycians; his heirs had to establish a new order in his states; this new\norder had to exert an influence over the neighbouring kingdoms; from it\nresulted a new arrangement of war and peace with the neighbours of the\nneighbours of Lycia: thus, step by step, the destiny of the whole world\nhas been dependent on Sarpedon's death, which depended on Helen being\ncarried off; and this carrying off was necessarily linked to Hecuba's\nmarriage, which by tracing back to other events was linked to the origin\nof things.\n\nIf only one of these facts had been arranged differently, another\nuniverse would have resulted: but it was not possible for the present\nuniverse not to exist; therefore it was not possible for Jupiter to save\nhis son's life, for all that he was Jupiter.\n\nThis system of necessity and fatality has been invented in our time by\nLeibnitz, according to what people say, under the name of\n_self-sufficient reason_; it is, however, very ancient: that there is no\neffect without a cause and that often the smallest cause produces the\ngreatest effects, does not date from to-day.\n\nLord Bolingbroke avows that the little quarrels of Madame Marlborough\nand Madame Masham gave birth to his chance of making Queen Anne's\nprivate treaty with Louis XIV.; this treaty led to the Peace of Utrecht;\nthis Peace of Utrecht established Philip V. on the throne of Spain.\nPhilip V. took Naples and Sicily from the house of Austria; the Spanish\nprince who is to-day King of Naples clearly owes his kingdom to my lady\nMasham: and he would not have had it, he would not perhaps even have\nbeen born, if the Duchess of Marlborough had been more complaisant\ntowards the Queen of England. His existence at Naples depended on one\nfoolishness more or less at the court of London.\n\nExamine the position of all the peoples of the universe; they are\nestablished like this on a sequence of facts which appear to be\nconnected with nothing and which are connected with everything.\nEverything is cog, pulley, cord, spring, in this vast machine.\n\nIt is likewise in the physical sphere. A wind which blows from the\ndepths of Africa and the austral seas, brings a portion of the African\natmosphere, which falls in rain in the valleys of the Alps; these rains\nfertilize our lands; our north wind in its turn sends our vapours among\nthe negroes; we do good to Guinea, and Guinea does good to us. The chain\nstretches from one end of the universe to the other.\n\nBut it seems to me that a strange abuse is made of the truth of this\nprinciple. From it some people conclude that there is not a sole minute\natom whose movement has not exerted its influence in the present\narrangement of the world; that there is not a single minute accident,\namong either men or animals, which is not an essential link in the great\nchain of fate.\n\nLet us understand each other: every effect clearly has its cause, going\nback from cause to cause in the abyss of eternity; but every cause has\nnot its effect going forward to the end of the centuries. All events are\nproduced by each other, I admit; if the past is delivered of the\npresent, the present is delivered of the future; everything has father,\nbut everything has not always children. Here it is precisely as with a\ngenealogical tree; each house goes back, as we say, to Adam; but in the\nfamily there are many persons who have died without leaving issue.\n\nThere is a genealogical tree of the events of this world. It is\nincontestable that the inhabitants of Gaul and Spain are descended from\nGomer, and the Russians from Magog, his younger brother: one finds this\ngenealogy in so many fat books! On this basis one cannot deny that the\nGreat Turk, who is also descended from Magog, was not bound to be well\nbeaten in 1769 by Catherine II., Empress of Russia. This adventure is\nclearly connected with other great adventures. But that Magog spat to\nright or left, near Mount Caucasus, and that he made two circles in a\nwell or three, that he slept on the left side or on the right; I do not\nsee that that has had much influence on present affairs.\n\nOne must think that everything is not complete in nature, as Newton has\ndemonstrated, and that every movement is not communicated step by step\nuntil it makes a circuit of the world, as he has demonstrated still\nfurther. Throw into water a body of like density, you calculate easily\nthat after a short time the movement of this body, and the movement it\nhas communicated to the water, are destroyed; the movement disappears\nand is effaced; therefore the movement that Magog might produce by\nspitting in a well cannot influence what is passing to-day in Moldavia\nand Wallachia; therefore present events are not the children of all past\nevents: they have their direct lines; but a thousand little collateral\nlines do not serve them at all. Once more, every being has a father, but\nevery being has not children.\n\n\n\n\n_CONTRADICTIONS_\n\n\nIf some literary society wishes to undertake the dictionary of\ncontradictions, I subscribe for twenty folio volumes.\n\nThe world can exist only by contradictions: what is needed to abolish\nthem? to assemble the states of the human race. But from the manner in\nwhich men are made, it would be a fresh contradiction if they were to\nagree. Assemble all the rabbits of the universe, there will not be two\ndifferent opinions among them.\n\nI know only two kinds of immutable beings on the earth, mathematicians\nand animals; they are led by two invariable rules, demonstration and\ninstinct: and even the mathematicians have had some disputes, but the\nanimals have never varied.\n\nThe contrasts, the light and shade in which public men are represented\nin history, are not contradictions, they are faithful portraits of human\nnature.\n\nEvery day people condemn and admire Alexander the murderer of Clitus,\nbut the avenger of Greece, the conqueror of the Persians, and the\nfounder of Alexandria;\n\nCaesar the debauchee, who robs the public treasury of Rome to reduce his\ncountry to dependence; but whose clemency equals his valour, and whose\nintelligence equals his courage;\n\nMohammed, impostor, brigand; but the sole religious legislator who had\ncourage, and who founded a great empire;\n\nCromwell the enthusiast, a rogue in his fanaticism even, judicial\nassassin of his king, but as profound politician as brave warrior.\n\nA thousand contrasts frequently crowd together, and these contrasts are\nin nature; they are no more astonishing than a fine day followed by\nstorm.\n\nMen are equally mad everywhere; they have made the laws little by\nlittle, as gaps are repaired in a wall. Here eldest sons have taken all\nthey could from younger sons, there younger sons share equally.\nSometimes the Church has commanded the duel, sometimes she has\nanathematized it. The partisans and the enemies of Aristotle have each\nbeen excommunicated in their turn, as have those who wore long hair and\nthose who wore short. In this world we have perfect law only to rule a\nspecies of madness called gaming. The rules of gaming are the only ones\nwhich admit neither exception, relaxation, variety nor tyranny. A man\nwho has been a lackey, if he play at lansquenet with kings, is paid\nwithout difficulty if he win; everywhere else the law is a sword with\nwhich the stronger cut the weaker in pieces.\n\nNevertheless, this world exists as if everything were well ordered; the\nirregularity is of our nature; our political world is like our globe, a\nmisshapen thing which always preserves itself. It would be mad to wish\nthat the mountains, the seas, the rivers, were traced in beautiful\nregular forms; it would be still more mad to ask perfect wisdom of men;\nit would be wishing to give wings to dogs or horns to eagles.\n\n\n\n\n_CORN_\n\n\nThe Gauls had corn in Caesar's time: one is curious to know where they\nand the Teutons found it to sow. People answer you that the Tyrians had\nbrought it into Spain, the Spaniards into Gaul, the Gauls into Germany.\nAnd where did the Tyrians get this corn? Among the Greeks probably, from\nwhom they received it in exchange for their alphabet.\n\nWho had made this present to the Greeks? It was formerly Ceres without a\ndoubt; and when one has gone back to Ceres one can hardly go farther.\nCeres must have come down on purpose from the sky to give us wheat, rye,\nbarley, etc.\n\nBut as the credit of Ceres who gave the corn to the Greeks, and that of\nIsheth or Isis who bestowed it on the Egyptians, is very much fallen in\nthese days, we remain in uncertainty as to the origin of corn.\n\nSanchoniathon affirms that Dagon or Dagan, one of the grandsons of\nThaut, had the control of corn in Phoenicia. Well, his Thaut is of\nabout the same time as our Jared. From this it results that corn is very\nold, and that it is of the same antiquity as grass. Perhaps this Dagon\nwas the first man to make bread, but that is not demonstrated.\n\nStrange thing! we know positively that it is to Noah that we are under\nan obligation for wine, and we do not know to whom we owe bread. And,\nstill more strange thing, we are so ungrateful to Noah, that we have\nmore than two thousand songs in honour of Bacchus, and we chant barely\none in honour of Noah our benefactor.\n\nA Jew has assured me that corn came by itself in Mesopotamia, like the\napples, wild pears, chestnuts, medlars in the West. I want to believe\nit until I am sure of the contrary; for corn must certainly grow\nsomewhere. It has become the ordinary and indispensable food in the good\nclimates, and throughout the North.\n\nSome great philosophers whose talents we esteem and whose systems we do\nnot follow (Buffon) have claimed on page 195 of the \"Natural History of\nthe Dog,\" that mankind has made corn; that our fathers by virtue of\nsowing lolium and gramina changed them into wheat. As these philosophers\nare not of our opinion about shells, they will permit us not to be of\ntheirs about corn. We do not believe that one has ever made tulips grow\nfrom jasmin. We find that the germ of corn is quite different from that\nof lolium, and we do not believe in any transmutation. When somebody\nshows it to us we will retract.\n\nCorn assuredly is not the food of the greater part of the world. Maize,\ntapioca, feed the whole of America. We have entire provinces where the\npeasants eat nothing but chestnut bread, more nourishing and of better\nflavour than that of rye and barley which so many people eat, and which\nis much better than the ration bread which is given to the soldier. The\nwhole of southern Africa does not know of bread. The immense archipelago\nof the Indies, Siam, Laos, Pegu, Cochin China, Tonkin, a part of China,\nJapan, the coast of Malabar and Coromandel, the banks of the Ganges\nfurnish a rice, the cultivation of which is much easier than that of\nwheat, and which causes it to be neglected. Corn is absolutely unknown\nfor the space of fifteen hundred leagues on the coasts of the Glacial\nSea. This food, to which we are accustomed, is among us so precious that\nthe fear of seeing a dearth of it alone causes riots among the most\nsubjugated peoples. The corn trade is everywhere one of the great\nobjects of government; it is a part of our being, and yet this essential\ncommodity is sometimes squandered ridiculously. The powder merchants use\nthe best flour for covering the heads of our young men and women. But\nover three-quarters of the earth bread is not eaten at all. People\nmaintain that the Ethiopians mocked at the Egyptians who lived on\nbread. But since it is our chief food, corn has become one of the great\nobjects of trade and politics. So much has been written on this subject,\nthat if a husbandman sowed as much corn as the weight of the volumes we\nhave about this commodity, he might hope for the amplest harvest, and\nbecome richer than those who in their gilded and lacquered drawing-rooms\nignore his exceeding labour and wretchedness.\n\n\n\n\n_CROMWELL_\n\n\nSECTION I\n\nCromwell is painted as a man who was an impostor all his life. I have\ndifficulty in believing it. I think that first of all he was an\nenthusiast, and that later he made even his fanaticism serve his\ngreatness. A novice who is fervent at the age of twenty often becomes a\nskilful rogue at forty. In the great game of human life one begins by\nbeing a dupe, and one finishes by being a rogue. A statesman takes as\nalmoner a monk steeped in the pettinesses of his monastery, devout,\ncredulous, clumsy, quite new to the world: the monk learns, forms\nhimself, intrigues, and supplants his master.\n\nCromwell did not know at first whether he would be an ecclesiastic or a\nsoldier. He was both. In 1622 he served a campaign in the army of\nFrederick Henry, Prince of Orange, a great man, brother of two great\nmen; and when he returned to England, he went into the service of Bishop\nWilliams, and was his grace's theologian, while his grace passed as his\nwife's lover. His principles were those of the Puritans; thus he had to\nhate a bishop with all his heart, and not have a liking for kings. He\nwas driven from Bishop Williams' house because he was a Puritan; and\nthere is the origin of his fortune. The English Parliament declared\nitself against the throne and against the episcopacy; some of his\nfriends in this parliament procured the nomination of a village for him.\nOnly at this time did he begin to exist, and he was more than forty\nbefore he had ever made himself talked of. In vain was he conversant\nwith Holy Writ, in vain did he argue about the rights of priests and\ndeacons, and preach a few poor sermons and libels, he was ignored. I\nhave seen one of his sermons which is very insipid, and which bears\nsufficient resemblance to the predications of the quakers; assuredly\nthere is to be found there no trace of that persuasive eloquence with\nwhich later he carried the parliaments away. The reason is that in fact\nhe was much more suited to public affairs than to the Church. It was\nabove all in his tone and in his air that his eloquence consisted; a\ngesture of that hand that had won so many battles and killed so many\nroyalists, was more persuasive than the periods of Cicero. It must be\navowed that it was his incomparable bravery which made him known, and\nwhich led him by degrees to the pinnacle of greatness.\n\nHe began by launching out as a volunteer who wished to make his fortune,\nin the town of Hull, besieged by the king. There he did many fine and\nhappy actions, for which he received a gratification of about six\nthousand francs from the parliament. This present made by the parliament\nto an adventurer made it clear that the rebel party must prevail. The\nking was not in a position to give to his general officers what the\nparliament gave to volunteers. With money and fanaticism one is bound in\nthe long run to be master of everything. Cromwell was made colonel. Then\nhis great talents for war developed to the point that when the\nparliament created the Count of Manchester general of its armies, it\nmade Cromwell lieutenant-general, without his having passed through the\nother ranks. Never did man appear more worthy of commanding; never were\nmore activity and prudence, more boldness and more resource seen than in\nCromwell. He is wounded at the battle of York; and while the first\ndressing is being put on his wound, he learns that his general,\nManchester, is retiring, and that the battle is lost. He hastens to\nManchester's side; he finds him fleeing with some officers; he takes him\nby the arm, and says to him with an air of confidence and grandeur: \"You\nare mistaken, my lord; it is not on this side that the enemy is.\" He\nleads him back near the battlefield, rallies during the night more than\ntwelve thousand men, speaks to them in the name of God, quotes Moses,\nGideon and Joshua, at daybreak recommences the battle against the\nvictorious royal army, and defeats it completely. Such a man had to\nperish or be master. Nearly all the officers of his army were\nenthusiasts who carried the New Testament at their saddle-bow: in the\narmy as in the parliament men spoke only of making Babylon fall, of\nestablishing the religion in Jerusalem, of shattering the colossus.\nAmong so many madmen Cromwell ceased to be mad, and thought that it was\nbetter to govern them than to be governed by them. The habit of\npreaching as though he were inspired remained to him. Picture a fakir\nwho has put an iron belt round his waist as a penitence, and who then\ntakes off his belt to beat the other fakirs' ears: there you have\nCromwell. He becomes as intriguing as he was intrepid; he associates\nhimself with all the colonels of the army, and thus forms among the\ntroops a republic which forces the commander-in-chief to resign. Another\ncommander-in-chief is nominated, he disgusts him. He governs the army,\nand by it he governs the parliament; he puts this parliament in the\nnecessity of making him commander-in-chief at last. All this was a great\ndeal; but what is essential is that he wins all the battles he engages\nin in England, Scotland and Ireland; and he wins them, not in watching\nthe fighting and in taking care of himself, but always by charging the\nenemy, rallying his troops, rushing everywhere, often wounded, killing\nmany royalist officers with his own hand, like a desperate and\ninfuriated grenadier.\n\nAmid this frightful war Cromwell made love; he went, his Bible under his\narm, to sleep with the wife of his major-general, Lambert. She loved the\nCount of Holland, who was serving in the king's army. Cromwell took him\nprisoner in a battle, and enjoyed the pleasure of having his rival's\nhead cut off. His maxim was to shed the blood of every important enemy,\neither on the field of battle, or by the executioner's hand. He always\nincreased his power, by always daring to abuse it; the profundity of his\nplans took away nothing from his ferocious impetuosity. He goes into the\nHouse of Parliament and, taking his watch, which he threw on the ground\nand which he shattered to atoms: \"I will break you,\" he said, \"like this\nwatch.\" He returns there some time after, drives all the members out one\nafter the other, making them defile before him. Each is obliged, as he\npasses, to make him a deep bow: one of them passes with his hat on his\nhead; Cromwell takes his hat from him and throws it on the ground:\n\"Learn to respect me,\" he says.\n\nWhen he had outraged all kings by having his own legitimate king's head\ncut off, and when he started to reign himself, he sent his portrait to a\ncrowned head; it was to Christine, Queen of Sweden. Marvell, a famous\nEnglish poet, who wrote very good Latin verse, accompanied this portrait\nwith six verses where he made Cromwell himself speak. Cromwell corrected\nthe last two as follows:\n\n _At tibi submittit frontem reverentior umbra,\n Non sunt hi vultus regibus usque truces._\n\nThis queen was the first to recognize him as soon as he was protector of\nthe three kingdoms. Almost all the sovereigns of Europe sent their\nambassadors _to their brother_ Cromwell, to this bishop's servant, who\nhad just caused a sovereign, their own kin, to perish at the hand of the\nexecutioner. They vied with each in soliciting his alliance. Cardinal\nMazarin, to please him, drove out of France the two sons of Charles I.,\nthe two grandsons of Henry IV., the two first cousins of Louis XIV.\nFrance conquered Dunkirk for him, and sent him the keys. After his\ndeath, Louis XIV. and all his court wore mourning, excepting\nMademoiselle, who had the courage to come to the company in a coloured\nhabit, and alone maintained the honour of her race.\n\nNever was a king more absolute than he was. He said that he had\npreferred governing under the name of _protector_ rather than under that\nof _king_, because the English knew the point to which a King of\nEngland's prerogative extended, and did not know to what point a\nprotector's might go. That was to understand men, who are governed by\nopinion, and whose opinion depends on a name. He had conceived a\nprofound scorn for the religion which had served to his fortune. There\nis a certain anecdote preserved in the house of St. John, which proves\nsufficiently the little account which Cromwell made of the instrument\nwhich had produced such great effects in his hands. He was drinking one\nday with Ireton, Fleetwood and St. John, great-grandfather of the\ncelebrated Lord Bolingbroke; they wished to uncork a bottle, and the\ncorkscrew fell under the table; they all looked for it and did not find\nit. Meanwhile a deputation from the Presbyterian churches was waiting in\nthe antechamber, and an usher came to announce them. \"Tell them,\" said\nCromwell, \"that I have retired, _and that I am seeking the Lord_.\" It\nwas the expression which the fanatics used when they were saying their\nprayers. When he had thus dismissed the band of ministers, he said these\nvery words to his confidants: \"Those puppies think that we are seeking\nthe Lord, and we are only seeking the corkscrew.\"\n\nThere is barely an example in Europe of any man who, come from so low,\nraised himself so high. But what was absolutely essential to him with\nall his talents? Fortune. He had this fortune; but was he happy? He\nlived poorly and anxiously until he was forty-three; from that time he\nbathed himself in blood, passed his life in turmoil, and died before his\ntime at the age of fifty-seven. Let us compare this life with that of\nNewton, who lived eighty-four years, always tranquil, always honoured,\nalways the light of all thinking beings, seeing increase each day his\nrenown, his reputation, his fortune, without ever having either care or\nremorse; and let us judge which of the two had the better part.\n\n\nSECTION II\n\nOliver Cromwell was regarded with admiration by the Puritans and\nindependents of England; he is still their hero; but Richard Cromwell,\nhis son, is my man.\n\nThe first is a fanatic who would be hissed to-day in the House of\nCommons, if he uttered there one single one of the unintelligible\nabsurdities which he gave out with so much confidence before other\nfanatics who listened to him open-mouthed and wide-eyed, in the name of\nthe Lord. If he said that one must seek the Lord, and fight the Lord's\nbattles; if he introduced the Jewish jargon into the parliament of\nEngland, to the eternal shame of the human intelligence, he would be\nnearer to being led to Bedlam than to being chosen to command armies.\n\nHe was brave without a doubt; so are wolves; there are even monkeys as\nfierce as tigers. From being a fanatic he became an adroit politician,\nthat is to say that from a wolf he became fox, climbed by imposture from\nthe first steps where the infuriated enthusiasm of the times had placed\nhim, right to the pinnacle of greatness; and the impostor walked on the\nheads of the prostrated fanatics. He reigned, but he lived in the\nhorrors of anxiety. He knew neither serene days nor tranquil nights. The\nconsolations of friendship and society never approached him; he died\nbefore his time, more worthy, without a doubt, of execution than the\nking whom he had conducted from a window of his own palace to the\nscaffold.\n\nRichard Cromwell, on the contrary, born with a gentle, wise spirit,\nrefused to keep his father's crown at the price of the blood of two or\nthree rebels whom he could sacrifice to his ambition. He preferred to be\nreduced to private life rather than be an omnipotent assassin. He left\nthe protectorate without regret to live as a citizen. Free and tranquil\nin the country, he enjoyed health there, and there did he possess his\nsoul in peace for eighty-six years, loved by his neighbours, to whom he\nwas arbiter and father.\n\nReaders, give your verdict. If you had to choose between the destiny of\nthe father and that of the son, which would you take?\n\n\n\n\n_CUSTOMS_\n\nCONTEMPTIBLE CUSTOMS DO NOT ALWAYS SUPPOSE A CONTEMPTIBLE NATION\n\n\nThere are cases where one must not judge a nation by its customs and\npopular superstitions. I suppose that Caesar, having conquered Egypt,\nwanting to make trade flourish in the Roman Empire, has sent an embassy\nto China, by the port of Arsinoe, the Red Sea, and the Indian Ocean. The\nEmperor Yventi, first of his name, was then reigning; the annals of\nChina represent him as a very wise and learned prince. After receiving\nCaesar's ambassadors with all the Chinese politeness, he informs himself\nsecretly through his interpreters of the customs, science and religion\nof this Roman people, as celebrated in the West as the Chinese people is\nin the East. He learns first of all that this people's pontiffs have\narranged their year in so absurd a fashion that the sun has already the\nheavenly signs of spring when the Romans are celebrating the first\nfestivals of winter.\n\nHe learns that this nation supports at great cost a college of priests\nwho know exactly the time when one should set sail and when one should\ngive battle, by inspecting an ox's liver, or by the way in which the\nchickens eat barley. This sacred science was brought formerly to the\nRomans by a little god named Tages, who emerged from the earth in\nTuscany. These peoples worship one supreme God whom they always call the\nvery great and very good God. Nevertheless, they have built a temple to\na courtesan named Flora; and almost all the good women of Rome have in\ntheir homes little household gods four or five inches high. One of\nthese little divinities is the goddess of the breasts; the other the\ngoddess of the buttocks. There is a household god who is called the god\nPet. The emperor Yventi starts laughing: the tribunals of Nankin think\nfirst of all with him that the Roman ambassadors are madmen or impostors\nwho have taken the title of envoys of the Roman Republic; but as the\nemperor is as just as he is polite, he has private talks with the\nambassadors. He learns that the Roman pontiffs have been very ignorant,\nbut that Caesar is now reforming the calendar; they admit to him that the\ncollege of augurs was established in early barbarous times; that this\nridiculous institution, become dear to a people long uncivilized, has\nbeen allowed to subsist; that all honest people laugh at the augurs;\nthat Caesar has never consulted them; that according to a very great man\nnamed Cato, never has an augur been able to speak to his comrade without\nlaughter; and that finally Cicero, the greatest orator and the best\nphilosopher in Rome, has just written against the augurs a little work\nentitled \"Of Divination,\" in which he commits to eternal ridicule all\nthe soothsayers, all the predictions, and all the sorcery of which the\nworld is infatuated. The emperor of China is curious to read Cicero's\nbook, the interpreters translate it; he admires the book and the Roman\nRepublic.\n\n\n\n\n_DEMOCRACY_\n\n\nOrdinarily there is no comparison between the crimes of the great who\nare always ambitious, and the crimes of the people who always want, and\ncan want only liberty and equality. These two sentiments, Liberty and\nEquality, do not lead direct to calumny, rapine, assassination,\npoisoning, the devastation of one's neighbours' lands, etc.; but\nambitious might and the mania for power plunge into all these crimes\nwhatever be the time, whatever be the place.\n\nPopular government is in itself, therefore, less iniquitous, less\nabominable than despotic power.\n\nThe great vice of democracy is certainly not tyranny and cruelty: there\nhave been mountain-dwelling republicans, savage, ferocious; but it is\nnot the republican spirit that made them so, it is nature.\n\nThe real vice of a civilized republic is in the Turkish fable of the\ndragon with many heads and the dragon with many tails. The many heads\nhurt each other, and the many tails obey a single head which wants to\ndevour everything.\n\nDemocracy seems suitable only to a very little country, and further it\nmust be happily situated. Small though it be, it will make many\nmistakes, because it will be composed of men. Discord will reign there\nas in a monastery; but there will be no St. Bartholomew, no Irish\nmassacres, no Sicilian vespers, no inquisition, no condemnation to the\ngalleys for having taken some water from the sea without paying for it,\nunless one supposes this republic composed of devils in a corner of\nhell.\n\nOne questions every day whether a republican government is preferable to\na king's government? The dispute ends always by agreeing that to govern\nmen is very difficult. The Jews had God Himself for master; see what has\nhappened to them on that account: nearly always have they been beaten\nand slaves, and to-day do you not find that they cut a pretty figure?\n\n\n\n\n_DESTINY_\n\n\nOf all the books of the Occident which have come down to us, the most\nancient is Homer; it is there that one finds the customs of profane\nantiquity, of the gross heroes, of the gross gods, made in the image of\nmen; but it is there that among the reveries and inconsequences, one\nfinds too the seeds of philosophy, and above all the idea of the destiny\nwhich is master of the gods, as the gods are masters of the world.\n\nWhen the magnanimous Hector wishes absolutely to fight the magnanimous\nAchilles, and with this object starts fleeing with all his might, and\nthree times makes the circuit of the city before fighting, in order to\nhave more vigour; when Homer compares fleet-of-foot Achilles, who\npursues him, to a man who sleeps; when Madame Dacier goes into ecstasies\nof admiration over the art and mighty sense of this passage, then\nJupiter wants to save great Hector who has made so many sacrifices to\nhim, and he consults the fates; he weighs the destinies of Hector and\nAchilles in the balance (Iliad, liv. xxii.): he finds that the Trojan\nmust absolutely be killed by the Greek; he cannot oppose it; and from\nthis moment, Apollo, Hector's guardian genius, is forced to abandon him.\nIt is not that Homer is not often prodigal, and particularly in this\nplace, of quite contrary ideas, following the privilege of antiquity;\nbut he is the first in whom one finds the notion of destiny. This\nnotion, therefore, was very much in vogue in his time.\n\nThe Pharisees, among the little Jewish people, did not adopt destiny\nuntil several centuries later; for these Pharisees themselves, who were\nthe first literates among the Jews, were very new fangled. In\nAlexandria they mixed a part of the dogmas of the Stoics with the old\nJewish ideas. St. Jerome claims even that their sect is not much\nanterior to the Christian era.\n\nThe philosophers never had need either of Homer or the Pharisees to\npersuade themselves that everything happens through immutable laws, that\neverything is arranged, that everything is a necessary effect. This is\nhow they argued.\n\nEither the world exists by its own nature, by its physical laws, or a\nsupreme being has formed it according to his supreme laws: in both\ncases, these laws are immutable; in both cases everything is necessary;\nheavy bodies tend towards the centre of the earth, without being able to\ntend to pause in the air. Pear-trees can never bear pineapples. A\nspaniel's instinct cannot be an ostrich's instinct; everything is\narranged, in gear, limited.\n\nMan can have only a certain number of teeth, hair and ideas; there comes\na time when he necessarily loses his teeth, hair and ideas.\n\nIt would be a contradiction that what was yesterday was not, that what\nis to-day is not; it is also a contradiction that what must be cannot\nbe.\n\nIf you could disturb the destiny of a fly, there would be no reason that\ncould stop your making the destiny of all the other flies, of all the\nother animals, of all men, of all nature; you would find yourself in the\nend more powerful than God.\n\nImbeciles say: \"My doctor has extricated my aunt from a mortal malady;\nhe has made my aunt live ten years longer than she ought to have lived.\"\nOthers who affect knowledge, say: \"The prudent man makes his own\ndestiny.\"\n\nBut often the prudent, far from making their destinies, succumb to them;\nit is destiny which makes them prudent.\n\nProfound students of politics affirm that, if Cromwell, Ludlow, Ireton\nand a dozen other parliamentarians had been assassinated a week before\nCharles I.'s head was cut off, this king might have lived longer and\ndied in his bed; they are right; they can add further that if the whole\nof England had been swallowed up in the sea, this monarch would not\nhave perished on a scaffold near Whitehall; but things were arranged so\nthat Charles had to have his neck severed.\n\nCardinal d'Ossat was doubtless more prudent than a madman in Bedlam; but\nis it not clear that the organs of d'Ossat the sage were made otherwise\nthan those of the scatter-brain? just as a fox's organs are different\nfrom a stork's and a lark's.\n\nYour doctor saved your aunt; but assuredly he did not in that contradict\nnature's order; he followed it. It is clear that your aunt could not\nstop herself being born in such and such town, that she could not stop\nherself having a certain malady at a particular time, that the doctor\ncould not be elsewhere than in the town where he was, that your aunt had\nto call him, that he had to prescribe for her the drugs which cured her,\nor which one thinks cured her, when nature was the only doctor.\n\nA peasant thinks that it has hailed on his field by chance; but the\nphilosopher knows that there is no chance, and that it was impossible,\nin the constitution of this world, for it not to hail on that day in\nthat place.\n\nThere are persons who, frightened by this truth, admit half of it as\ndebtors who offer half to their creditors, and ask respite for the rest.\n\"There are,\" they say, \"some events which are necessary, and others\nwhich are not.\" It would be very comic that one part of the world was\narranged, and that the other were not; that a part of what happens had\nto happen, and that another part of what happens did not have to happen.\nIf one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that\nof destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason\nbadly, others not to reason at all, others to persecute those who\nreason.\n\nSome say to you: \"Do not believe in fatalism; for then everything\nappearing inevitable, you will work at nothing, you will wallow in\nindifference, you will love neither riches, nor honours, nor glory; you\nwill not want to acquire anything, you will believe yourself without\nmerit as without power; no talent will be cultivated, everything will\nperish through apathy.\"\n\nBe not afraid, gentlemen, we shall ever have passions and prejudices,\nsince it is our destiny to be subjected to prejudices and passions: we\nshall know that it no more depends on us to have much merit and great\ntalent, than to have a good head of hair and beautiful hands: we shall\nbe convinced that we must not be vain about anything, and yet we shall\nalways have vanity.\n\nI necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the\npassion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the\ntoys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and\nto make it public in spite of you.\n\nThe owl, which feeds on mice in its ruins, said to the nightingale:\n\"Finish singing under your beautiful shady trees, come into my hole,\nthat I may eat you\"; and the nightingale answered: \"I was born to sing\nhere, and to laugh at you.\"\n\nYou ask me what will become of liberty? I do not understand you. I do\nnot know what this liberty is of which you speak; so long have you been\ndisputing about its nature, that assuredly you are not acquainted with\nit. If you wish, or rather, if you are able to examine peaceably with me\nwhat it is, pass to the letter L.\n\n\n\n\n_DEVOUT_\n\n\nThe word \"devout\" signifies \"devoted\"; and in the strict sense of the\nterm this qualification should belong only to monks and nuns who make\nvows. But as in the Gospel there is no more mention of vows than of\ndevout persons, this title does not in fact belong to anyone. Everyone\nshould be equally righteous. A man who styles himself devout resembles a\ncommoner who styles himself a marquis; he arrogates to himself a quality\nhe does not possess. He thinks himself more worthy than his neighbour.\nOne can forgive such foolishness in women; their frailty and their\nfrivolity render them excusable; the poor creatures pass from a lover to\na director in good faith: but one cannot pardon the rogues who direct\nthem, who abuse their ignorance, who establish the throne of their pride\non the credulity of the sex. They resolve themselves into a little\nmystic seraglio composed of seven or eight aged beauties, subdued by the\nweight of their lack of occupation, and almost always do these persons\npay tribute to their new masters. No young woman without a lover, no\naged devout woman without a director. Oh! the Orientals are wiser than\nwe are! Never does a pasha say: \"We supped yesterday with the Aga of the\nJanissaries who is my sister's lover, and the vicar of the mosque who is\nmy wife's director.\"\n\n\n\n\n_THE ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTRY_\n\n\nThe institution of religion exists only to keep mankind in order, and to\nmake men merit the goodness of God by their virtue. Everything in a\nreligion which does not tend towards this goal must be considered\nforeign or dangerous.\n\nInstruction, exhortation, menaces of pains to come, promises of immortal\nbeatitude, prayers, counsels, spiritual help are the only means\necclesiastics may use to try to make men virtuous here below, and happy\nfor eternity.\n\nAll other means are repugnant to the liberty of the reason, to the\nnature of the soul, to the inalterable rights of the conscience, to the\nessence of religion and of the ecclesiastical ministry, to all the\nrights of the sovereign.\n\nVirtue supposes liberty, as the carrying of a burden supposes active\nforce. Under coercion no virtue, and without virtue no religion. Make a\nslave of me, I shall be no better for it.\n\nThe sovereign even has no right to use coercion to lead men to religion,\nwhich supposes essentially choice and liberty. My thought is subordinate\nto authority no more than is sickness or health.\n\nIn order to disentangle all the contradictions with which books on canon\nlaw have been filled, and to fix our ideas on the ecclesiastical\nministry, let us investigate amid a thousand equivocations what the\nChurch is.\n\nThe Church is the assembly of all the faithful summoned on certain days\nto pray in common, and at all times to do good actions.\n\nThe priests are persons established under the authority of the sovereign\nto direct these prayers and all religious worship.\n\nA numerous Church could not exist without ecclesiastics; but these\necclesiastics are not the Church.\n\nIt is no less evident that if the ecclesiastics, who are part of civil\nsociety, had acquired rights which might trouble or destroy society,\nthese rights ought to be suppressed.\n\nIt is still more evident that, if God has attached to the Church\nprerogatives or rights, neither these rights nor these prerogatives\nshould belong exclusively either to the chief of the Church or to the\necclesiastics, because they are not the Church, just as the magistrates\nare not the sovereign in either a democratic state or in a monarchy.\n\nFinally, it is quite evident that it is our souls which are under the\nclergy's care, solely for spiritual things.\n\nOur soul acts internally; internal acts are thought, volition,\ninclinations, acquiescence in certain truths. All these acts are above\nall coercion, and are within the ecclesiastical minister's sphere only\nin so far as he must instruct and never command.\n\nThis soul acts also externally. External actions are under the civil\nlaw. Here coercion may have a place; temporal or corporal pains maintain\nthe law by punishing those who infringe it.\n\nObedience to ecclesiastical order must consequently always be free and\nvoluntary: no other should be possible. Submission, on the other hand,\nto civil order may be coerced and compulsory.\n\nFor the same reason, ecclesiastical punishments, always spiritual, do\nnot reach here below any but those who are convinced inwardly of their\nfault. Civil pains, on the contrary, accompanied by a physical ill, have\ntheir physical effects, whether or no the guilty recognize their\njustice.\n\nFrom this it results obviously that the authority of the clergy is and\ncan be spiritual only; that it should not have any temporal power; that\nno coercive force is proper to its ministry, which would be destroyed by\nit.\n\nIt follows from this further that the sovereign, careful not to suffer\nany partition of his authority, must permit no enterprise which puts\nthe members of society in external and civil dependence on an\necclesiastical body.\n\nSuch are the incontestable principles of real canon law, of which the\nrules and decisions should be judged at all times by the eternal and\nimmutable truths which are founded on natural law and the necessary\norder of society.\n\n\n\n\n_EMBLEM_\n\n\nIn antiquity everything is symbol or emblem. In Chaldea it starts by\nputting a ram, two kids, a bull in the sky, to mark the productions of\nthe earth in the spring. Fire is the symbol of the Deity in Persia; the\ncelestial dog warns the Egyptians of the Nile floods; the serpent which\nhides its tail in its head, becomes the image of eternity. The whole of\nnature is represented and disguised.\n\nIn India again you find many of those old statues, uncouth and\nfrightful, of which we have already spoken, representing virtue provided\nwith ten great arms with which to combat vice, and which our poor\nmissionaries have taken for the picture of the devil.\n\nPut all these symbols of antiquity before the eyes of a man of the\nsoundest sense, who has never heard speak of them, he will not\nunderstand anything: it is a language to be learned.\n\nThe old theological poets were in the necessity of giving God eyes,\nhands, feet; of announcing Him in the form of a man. St. Clement of\nAlexandria records some verses of Xenophanes the Colophonian (Stromates\nliv. v.), from which one sees that it is not merely from to-day that men\nhave made God in their own image. Orpheus of Thrace, the first\ntheologian of the Greeks, long before Homer, expresses himself\nsimilarly, according to the same Clement of Alexandria.\n\nEverything being symbol and emblem, the philosophers, and especially\nthose who had travelled in India, employed this method; their precepts\nwere emblems and enigmas.\n\n_Do not stir the fire with a sword_, that is, do not irritate angry\nmen.\n\n_Do not hide the light under the bushel._--Do not hide the truth from\nmen.\n\n_Abstain from beans._--Flee frequently public assemblies in which one\ngave one's suffrage with black or white beans.\n\n_Do not have swallows in your house._--That it may not be filled with\nchatterers.\n\n_In the tempest worship the echo._--In times of public trouble retire to\nthe country.\n\n_Do not write on the snow._--Do not teach feeble and sluggish minds.\n\n_Do not eat either your heart or your brain._--Do not give yourself up\nto either grief or to too difficult enterprises, etc.\n\nSuch are the maxims of Pythagoras, the sense of which is not hard to\nunderstand.\n\nThe most beautiful of all the emblems is that of God, whom Timaeus of\nLocres represents by this idea: _A circle the centre of which is\neverywhere and the circumference nowhere._ Plato adopted this emblem;\nPascal had inserted it among the material which he intended using, and\nwhich has been called his \"Thoughts.\"\n\nIn metaphysics, in moral philosophy, the ancients have said everything.\nWe coincide with them, or we repeat them. All modern books of this kind\nare only repetitions.\n\nIt is above all among the Indians, the Egyptians, the Syrians, that\nthese emblems, which to us appear most strange, were consecrated. It is\nthere that the two organs of generation, the two symbols of life, were\ncarried in procession with the greatest respect. We laugh at it, we dare\ntreat these peoples as barbarous idiots, because they innocently thanked\nGod for having given them existence. What would they have said if they\nhad seen us enter our temples with the instrument of destruction at our\nside?\n\nAt Thebes the sins of the people were represented by a goat. On the\ncoast of Phoenicia a naked woman, with a fish's tail, was the emblem\nof nature.\n\nOne must not be astonished, therefore, if this use of symbols reached\nthe Hebrews when they had formed a body of people near the Syrian\ndesert.\n\nOne of the most beautiful emblems of the Judaic books is this passage of\nEcclesiastes: \"... when the grinders cease because they are few, and\nthose that look out of the windows be darkened, when the almond-tree\nshall flourish and the grasshopper shall be a burden: or ever the silver\ncord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken\nat the fountain....\"\n\nThat signifies that the old men lose their teeth, that their sight is\ndim, that their hair whitens like the flower of the almond-tree, that\ntheir feet swell like the grasshopper, that they are no more fit for\nengendering children, and that then they must prepare for the great\njourney.\n\nThe \"Song of Songs\" is (as one knows) a continual emblem of the marriage\nof Jesus Christ with the Church. It is an emblem from beginning to end.\nEspecially does the ingenious Dom Calmet demonstrate that the palm-tree\nto which the well-beloved goes is the cross to which our Lord Jesus\nChrist was condemned. But it must be avowed that a pure and healthy\nmoral philosophy is still preferable to these allegories.\n\nOne sees in this people's books a crowd of typical emblems which revolt\nus to-day and which exercise our incredulity and our mockery, but which\nappeared ordinary and simple to the Asiatic peoples.\n\nIn Ezekiel are images which appear to us as licentious and revolting: in\nthose times they were merely natural. There are thirty examples in the\n\"Song of Songs,\" model of the most chaste union. Remark carefully that\nthese expressions, these images are always quite serious, and that in no\nbook of this distant antiquity will you find the least mockery on the\ngreat subject of generation. When lust is condemned it is in definite\nterms; but never to excite to passion, nor to make the smallest\npleasantry. This far-distant antiquity did not have its Martial, its\nCatullus, or its Petronius.\n\nIt results from all the Jewish prophets and from all the Jewish books,\nas from all the books which instruct us in the usages of the Chaldeans,\nthe Persians, the Phoenicians, the Syrians, the Indians, the\nEgyptians; it results, I say, that their customs were not ours, that\nthis ancient world in no way resembled our world. Go from Gibraltar to\nMequinez merely, the manners are no longer the same; no longer does one\nfind the same ideas; two leagues of sea have changed everything.\n\n\n\n\n_ON THE ENGLISH THEATRE_\n\n\nI have cast my eyes on an edition of Shakespeare issued by Master Samuel\nJohnson. I saw there that foreigners who are astonished that in the\nplays of the great Shakespeare a Roman senator plays the buffoon, and\nthat a king appears on the stage drunk, are treated as little-minded. I\ndo not desire to suspect Master Johnson of being a sorry jester, and of\nbeing too fond of wine; but I find it somewhat extraordinary that he\ncounts buffoonery and drunkenness among the beauties of the tragic\nstage: and no less singular is the reason he gives, that the poet\ndisdains accidental distinctions of circumstance and country, like a\npainter who, content with having painted the figure, neglects the\ndrapery. The comparison would be more just if he were speaking of a\npainter who in a noble subject should introduce ridiculous grotesques,\nshould paint Alexander the Great mounted on an ass in the battle of\nArbela, and Darius' wife drinking at an inn with rapscallions.\n\nBut there is one thing more extraordinary than all, that is that\nShakespeare is a genius. The Italians, the French, the men of letters of\nall other countries, who have not spent some time in England, take him\nonly for a clown, for a joker far inferior to Harlequin, for the most\ncontemptible buffoon who has ever amused the populace. Nevertheless, it\nis in this same man that one finds pieces which exalt the imagination\nand which stir the heart to its depths. It is Truth, it is Nature\nherself who speaks her own language with no admixture of artifice. It is\nof the sublime, and the author has in no wise sought it.\n\nWhat can one conclude from this contrast of grandeur and sordidness, of\nsublime reason and uncouth folly, in short from all the contrasts that\nwe see in Shakespeare? That he would have been a perfect poet had he\nlived in the time of Addison.\n\nThe famous Addison, who flourished under Queen Anne, is perhaps of all\nEnglish writers the one who best knew how to guide genius with taste. He\nhad a correct style, an imagination discreet in expression, elegance,\nstrength and simplicity in his verse and in his prose. A friend of\npropriety and orderliness, he wanted tragedy to be written with dignity,\nand it is thus that his \"Cato\" is composed.\n\nFrom the very first act the verses are worthy of Virgil, and the\nsentiments worthy of Cato. There is no theatre in Europe where the scene\nof Juba and Syphax was not applauded as a masterpiece of skill, of\nwell-developed characters, of fine contrasts, and of pure and noble\ndiction. Literary Europe, which knows the translations of this piece,\napplauded even to the philosophic traits with which the role of Cato is\nfilled.\n\nThe piece had the great success which its beauty of detail merited, and\nwhich was assured to it by the troubles in England to which this tragedy\nwas in more than one place a striking allusion. But the appositeness of\nthese allusions having passed, the verse being only beautiful, the\nmaxims being only noble and just, and the piece being cold, people no\nlonger felt anything more than the coldness. Nothing is more beautiful\nthan Virgil's second canto; recite it on the stage, it will bore: on the\nstage one must have passion, live dialogue, action. People soon returned\nto Shakespeare's uncouth but captivating aberrations.\n\n\n\n\n_ENVY_\n\n\nOne knows well enough what antiquity has said of this shameful passion,\nand what the moderns have repeated. Hesiod is the first classic author\nwho speaks of it.\n\n\"The potter is envious of the potter, the artisan of the artisan, the\npoor man even of the poor man, the musician of the musician (or if one\nwould give another sense to the word _Aoidos_) the poet of the poet.\"\n\nLong before Hesiod, Job had said: \"Envy slayeth the silly one\" (Job.\nchap. v. verse 2).\n\nI think that Mandeville, author of the \"Fable of the Bees,\" was the\nfirst to try to prove that envy is a very good thing, a very useful\npassion. His first reason is that envy is as natural to man as hunger\nand thirst; that it can be found in children, as well as in horses and\ndogs. Do you want your children to hate each other, kiss one more than\nthe other; the secret is infallible.\n\nHe maintains that the first thing that two young women meeting each\nother do is to cast about for what is ridiculous in each other, and the\nsecond to flatter each other.\n\nHe believes that without envy the arts would be indifferently\ncultivated, and that Raphael would not have been a great painter if he\nhad not been jealous of Michael Angelo.\n\nMandeville has taken emulation for envy, maybe; maybe, also, emulation\nis only envy kept within the bounds of decency.\n\nMichael Angelo might say to Raphael: \"Your envy has only led you to work\nstill better than me; you have not decried me, you have not intrigued\nagainst me with the Pope, you have not tried to have me excommunicated\nfor having put cripples and one-eyed men in paradise, and succulent\ncardinals with beautiful women naked as your hand in hell, in my picture\nof the last judgment. Your envy is very praiseworthy; you are a fine\nenvious fellow; let us be good friends.\"\n\nBut if the envious man is a wretch without talent, jealous of merit as\nbeggars are of the rich; if, pressed by the indigence as by the\nturpitude of his character he writes you some \"News from Parnassus,\"\nsome \"Letters of Madame la Comtesse,\" some \"Annees Litteraires,\" this\nanimal displays an envy that is good for nothing, and for which\nMandeville could never make an apology.\n\nOne asks why the ancients thought that the eye of the envious man\nbewitched those who looked at it. It is the envious, rather, who are\nbewitched.\n\nDescartes says: \"That envy impels the yellow bile which comes from the\nlower part of the liver, and the black bile which comes from the spleen,\nwhich is diffused from the heart through the arteries, etc.\" But as no\nkind of bile is formed in the spleen, Descartes, by speaking thus, does\nnot seem to merit too much that his natural philosophy should be envied.\n\nA certain Voet or Voetius, a theological scamp, who accused Descartes of\natheism, was very ill with the black bile; but he knew still less than\nDescartes how his detestable bile was diffused in his blood.\n\nMadame Pernelle is right: \"The envious will die, but envy never.\"\n(Tartufe, Act v, Scene iii.)\n\nBut it is good proverb which says that \"it is better to be envious than\nto have pity.\" Let us be envious, therefore, as hard as we can.\n\n\n\n\n_EQUALITY_\n\n\nSECTION I\n\nIt is clear that men, enjoying the faculties connected with their\nnature, are equal; they are equal when they perform animal functions,\nand when they exercise their understanding. The King of China, the Great\nMogul, the Padisha of Turkey, cannot say to the least of men: \"I forbid\nyou to digest, to go to the privy and to think.\" All the animals of each\nspecies are equal among themselves. Animals by nature have over us the\nadvantage of independence. If a bull which is wooing a heifer is driven\naway with the blows of the horns by a stronger bull, it goes in search\nof another mistress in another field, and lives free. A cock, beaten by\na cock, consoles itself in another poultry-house. It is not so with us.\nA little vizier exiles a bostangi to Lemnos: the vizier Azem exiles the\nlittle vizier to Tenedos: the padisha exiles the little vizier Azem to\nRhodes: the Janissaries put the padisha in prison, and elect another who\nwill exile good Mussulmans as he chooses; people will still be very\nobliged to him if he limits his sacred authority to this little\nexercise.\n\nIf this world were what it seems it should be, if man could find\neverywhere in it an easy subsistence, and a climate suitable to his\nnature, it is clear that it would be impossible for one man to enslave\nanother. If this globe were covered with wholesome fruits; if the air,\nwhich should contribute to our life, gave us no diseases and a premature\ndeath; if man had no need of lodging and bed other than those of the\nbuck and the deer; then the Gengis-kans and the Tamerlans would have no\nservants other than their children, who would be folk honourable enough\nto help them in their old age.\n\nIn the natural state enjoyed by all untamed quadrupeds, birds and\nreptiles, man would be as happy as they; domination would then be a\nchimera, an absurdity of which no one would think; for why seek servants\nwhen you have no need of their service?\n\nIf it came into the head of some individual of tyrannous mind and brawny\narm to enslave a neighbour less strong than he, the thing would be\nimpossible; the oppressed would be on the Danube before the oppressor\nhad taken his measures on the Volga.\n\nAll men would then be necessarily equal, if they were without needs; the\npoverty connected with our species subordinates one man to another; it\nis not the inequality which is the real misfortune, it is the\ndependence. It matters very little that So-and-so calls himself \"His\nHighness,\" and So-and-so \"His Holiness\"; but to serve the one or the\nother is hard.\n\nA big family has cultivated fruitful soil; two little families near by\nhave thankless and rebellious fields; the two poor families have to\nserve the opulent family, or slaughter it: there is no difficulty in\nthat. One of the two indigent families offers its arms to the rich\nfamily in order to have bread; the other goes to attack it and is\nbeaten. The serving family is the origin of the servants and the\nworkmen; the beaten family is the origin of the slaves.\n\nIn our unhappy world it is impossible for men living in society not to\nbe divided into two classes, the one the rich that commands, the other\nthe poor that serves; and these two are subdivided into a thousand, and\nthese thousand still have different gradations.\n\nWhen the prizes are drawn you come to us: \"I am a man like you,\" you\nsay. \"I have two hands and two feet, as much pride as you, nay more, a\nmind as disordered, at least, as inconsequent, as contradictory as\nyours. I am a citizen of San Marino, or of Ragusa, or Vaugirard: give\nme my share of the land. In our known hemisphere there are about fifty\nthousand million arpents to cultivate, some passable, some sterile. We\nare only about a thousand million featherless bipeds in this continent;\nthat makes fifty arpents apiece: be just; give me my fifty arpents.\"\n\n\"Go and take them in the land of the Cafres,\" we answer, \"or the\nHottentots, or the Samoyedes; come to an amicable arrangement with them;\nhere all the shares are taken. If among us you want to eat, be clothed,\nlodged, warmed, work for us as your father did; serve us or amuse us,\nand you will be paid; otherwise you will be obliged to ask charity,\nwhich would be too degrading to your sublime nature, and would stop your\nbeing really the equal of kings, and even of country parsons, according\nto the pretensions of your noble pride.\"\n\n\nSECTION II\n\nAll the poor are not unhappy. The majority were born in that state, and\ncontinual work stops their feeling their position too keenly; but when\nthey feel it, then one sees wars, like that of the popular party against\nthe senate party in Rome, like those of the peasants in Germany, England\nand France. All these wars finish sooner or later with the subjection of\nthe people, because the powerful have money, and money is master of\neverything in a state: I say in a state; for it is not the same between\nnations. The nation which makes the best use of the sword will always\nsubjugate the nation which has more gold and less courage.\n\nAll men are born with a sufficiently violent liking for domination,\nwealth and pleasure, and with much taste for idleness; consequently, all\nmen want their money and the wives or daughters of others, to be their\nmaster, to subject them to all their caprices, and to do nothing, or at\nleast to do only very agreeable things. You see clearly that with these\nfine inclinations it is as impossible for men to be equal as it is\nimpossible for two predicants or two professors of theology not to be\njealous of each other.\n\nThe human race, such as it is, cannot subsist unless there is an\ninfinity of useful men who possess nothing at all; for it is certain\nthat a man who is well off will not leave his own land to come to till\nyours; and if you have need of a pair of shoes, it is not the Secretary\nto the Privy Council who will make them for you. Equality, therefore, is\nat once the most natural thing and the most fantastic.\n\nAs men go to excess in everything when they can, this inequality has\nbeen exaggerated. It has been maintained in many countries that it was\nnot permissible for a citizen to leave the country where chance has\ncaused him to be born; the sense of this law is visibly: \"This land is\nso bad and so badly governed, that we forbid any individual to leave it,\nfor fear that everyone will leave it.\" Do better: make all your subjects\nwant to live in your country, and foreigners to come to it.\n\nAll men have the right in the bottom of their hearts to think themselves\nentirely equal to other men: it does not follow from that that the\ncardinal's cook should order his master to prepare him his dinner; but\nthe cook can say: \"I am a man like my master; like him I was born\ncrying; like me he will die with the same pangs and the same ceremonies.\nBoth of us perform the same animal functions. If the Turks take\npossession of Rome, and if then I am cardinal and my master cook, I\nshall take him into my service.\" This discourse is reasonable and just;\nbut while waiting for the Great Turk to take possession of Rome, the\ncook must do his duty, or else all human society is perverted.\n\nAs regards a man who is neither a cardinal's cook, nor endowed with any\nother employment in the state; as regards a private person who is\nconnected with nothing, but who is vexed at being received everywhere\nwith an air of being patronized or scorned, who sees quite clearly that\nmany _monsignors_ have no more knowledge, wit or virtue than he, and who\nat times is bored at waiting in their antechambers, what should he\ndecide to do? Why, to take himself off.\n\n\n\n\n_EXPIATION_\n\n\nMaybe the most beautiful institution of antiquity is that solemn\nceremony which repressed crimes by warning that they must be punished,\nand which calmed the despair of the guilty by making them atone for\ntheir transgressions by penitences. Remorse must necessarily have\npreceded the expiations; for the maladies are older than the medicine,\nand all needs have existed before relief.\n\nIt was, therefore, before all the creeds, a natural religion, which\ntroubled man's heart when in his ignorance or in his hastiness he had\ncommitted an inhuman action. A friend killed his friend in a quarrel, a\nbrother killed his brother, a jealous and frantic lover even killed her\nwithout whom he could not live. The head of a nation condemned a\nvirtuous man, a useful citizen. These are men in despair, if they have\nsensibility. Their conscience harries them; nothing is more true; and it\nis the height of unhappiness. Only two choices remain, either\nreparation, or a settling in crime. All sensitive souls choose the\nfirst, monsters choose the second.\n\nAs soon as religions were established, there were expiations; the\nceremonies accompanying them were ridiculous: for what connection\nbetween the water of the Ganges and a murder? how could a man repair a\nhomicide by bathing himself? We have already remarked this excess of\naberration and absurdity, of imagining that he who washes his body\nwashes his soul, and wipes away the stains of bad actions.\n\nThe water of the Nile had later the same virtue as the water of the\nGanges: to these purifications other ceremonies were added: I avow that\nthey were still more impertinent. The Egyptians took two goats, and drew\nlots for which of the two should be thrown below, charged with the sins\nof the guilty. The name of \"Hazazel,\" the expiator, was given to this\ngoat. What connection, I ask you, between a goat and a man's crime?\n\nIt is true that since, God permitted this ceremony to be sanctified\namong the Jews our fathers, who took so many Egyptian rites; but\ndoubtless it was the repentance, and not the goat, which purified the\nJewish souls.\n\nJason, having killed Absyrthe his step-brother, comes, it is said, with\nMedea, more guilty than he, to have himself absolved by Circe, queen and\npriestess of Aea, who ever after passed for a great magician. Circe\nabsolves them with a sucking-pig and salt cakes. That may make a fairly\ngood dish, but can barely either pay for Absyrthe's blood or render\nJason and Medea more honourable people, unless they avow a sincere\nrepentance while eating their sucking-pig.\n\nOrestes' expiation (he had avenged his father by murdering his mother)\nwas to go to steal a statue from the Tartars of Crimea. The statue must\nhave been very badly made, and there was nothing to gain on such an\neffect. Since then we have done better, we have invented the mysteries;\nthe guilty might there receive their absolution by undergoing painful\nordeals, and by swearing that they would lead a new life. It is from\nthis oath that the new members were called among all nations by a name\nwhich corresponds to initiates, _qui ineunt vitam novam_, who began a\nnew career, who entered into the path of virtue.\n\nThe Christian catechumens were called _initiates_ only when they were\nbaptised.\n\nIt is undoubted that in these mysteries one was washed of one's faults\nonly by the oath to be virtuous; that is so true that the hierophant in\nall the Greek mysteries, in sending away the assembly, pronounced these\ntwo Egyptian words--\"_Koth_, _ompheth_, watch, be pure\"; which is a\nproof at once that the mysteries came originally from Egypt, and that\nthey were invented only to make men better.\n\nThe sages in all times did what they could, therefore, to inspire\nvirtue, and not to reduce human frailty to despair; but also there are\ncrimes so horrible that no mystery accorded expiation for them. Nero,\nfor all that he was emperor, could not get himself initiated into the\nmysteries of Ceres. Constantine, on the Report of Zosimus, could not\nobtain pardon for his crimes: he was stained with the blood of his wife,\nhis son and all his kindred. It was in the interest of the human race\nthat such great transgressions should remain without expiation, in order\nthat absolution should not invite their committal, and that universal\nhorror might sometimes stop the villains.\n\nThe Roman Catholics have expiations which are called \"penitences.\"\n\nBy the laws of the barbarians who destroyed the Roman Empire, crimes\nwere expiated with money. That was called _compounding_, _componat cum\ndecem, viginti, triginta solidis_. It cost two hundred sous of that time\nto kill a priest, and four hundred for killing a bishop; so that a\nbishop was worth precisely two priests.\n\nHaving thus compounded with men, one compounded with God, when\nconfession was generally established. Finally, Pope John XXII., who made\nmoney out of everything, prepared a tariff of sins.\n\nThe absolution of an incest, four turonenses for a layman; _ab incestu\npro laico in foro conscientiae turonenses quatuor_. For the man and the\nwoman who have committed incest, eighteen turonenses four ducats and\nnine carlins. That is not just; if one person pays only four turonenses,\nthe two owed only eight turonenses.\n\nSodomy and bestiality are put at the same rate, with the inhibitory\nclause to title XLIII: that amounts to ninety turonenses twelve ducats\nand six carlins: _cum inhibitione turonenses 90, ducatos 12, carlinos\n6_, _etc._\n\nIt is very difficult to believe that Leo X. was so imprudent as to have\nthis impost printed in 1514, as is asserted; but it must be considered\nthat no spark appeared at that time of the conflagration which reformers\nkindled later, that the court of Rome slumbered on the people's\ncredulity, and neglected to cover its exactions with the lightest veil.\nThe public sale of indulgences, which followed soon after, makes it\nclear that this court took no precaution to hide the turpitudes to which\nso many nations were accustomed. As soon as complaints against the\nChurch's abuses burst forth, the court did what it could to suppress the\nbook; but it could not succeed.\n\nIf I dare give my opinion of this impost, I think that the various\neditions are not reliable; the prices are not at all proportionate:\nthese prices do not agree with those which are alleged by d'Aubigne,\ngrandfather of Madame de Maintenon, in the \"Confession de Sanci\"; he\nrates virginity at six _gros_, and incest with his mother and sister at\nfive _gros_; this account is ridiculous. I think that there was in fact\na tariff established in the datary's office, for those who came to Rome\nto be absolved, or to bargain for dispensations; but that the enemies of\nRome added much to it in order to render it more odious.\n\nWhat is quite certain is that these imposts were never authorized by any\ncouncil; that it was an enormous abuse invented by avarice, and\nrespected by those whose interest it was not to abolish it. The buyers\nand the sellers were equally satisfied: thus, barely anybody protested,\nuntil the troubles of the reformation. It must be admitted that an exact\nnote of all these imposts would be of great service to the history of\nthe human mind.\n\n\n\n\n_EXTREME_\n\n\nWe shall try to extract from this word _extreme_ a notion which may be\nuseful.\n\nOne disputes every day if, in war, luck or leadership produces\nsuccesses.\n\nIf, in disease, nature acts more than medicine for curing or killing.\n\nIf, in jurisprudence, it is not very advantageous to come to terms when\none is in the right, and to plead when one is in the wrong.\n\nIf literature contributes to the glory of a nation or to its decadence.\n\nIf one should or should not make the people superstitious.\n\nIf there is anything true in metaphysics, history and moral philosophy.\n\nIf taste is arbitrary, and if there is in fact good taste and bad taste,\netc., etc.\n\nTo decide all these questions right away, take an example of what is the\nmost extreme in each; compare the two opposed extremes, and you will at\nonce discover which is true.\n\nYou wish to know if leadership can infallibly determine the success of\nthe war; look at the most extreme case, the most opposed situations, in\nwhich leadership alone will infallibly triumph. The enemy's army is\nforced to pass through a deep mountain gorge; your general knows it: he\nmakes a forced march, he takes possession of the heights, he holds the\nenemy shut in a pass; they must either die or surrender. In this extreme\ncase, luck cannot have any part in the victory. It is therefore\ndemonstrated that skill can determine the success of a campaign; from\nthat alone is it proved that war is an art.\n\nNow imagine an advantageous but less decisive position; success is not\nso certain, but it is always very probable. You arrive thus, step by\nstep, to a perfect equality between the two armies. What will decide\nthen? luck, that is to say an unforeseen event, a general officer killed\nwhen he is on his way to execute an important order, a corps which is\nshaken by a false rumour, a panic and a thousand other cases which\ncannot be remedied by prudence; but it still remains certain that there\nis an art, a generalship.\n\nAs much must be said of medicine, of this art of operating on the head\nand the hand, to restore life to a man who is about to lose it.\n\nThe first man who at the right moment bled and purged a sufferer from an\napoplectic fit; the first man who thought of plunging a knife into the\nbladder in order to extract a stone, and of closing the wound again; the\nfirst man who knew how to stop gangrene in a part of the body, were\nwithout a doubt almost divine persons, and did not resemble Moliere's\ndoctors.\n\nDescend from this obvious example to experiments that are less striking\nand more equivocal; you see fevers, ills of all kinds which are cured,\nwithout it being well proved if it be nature or the doctor who has cured\nthem; you see diseases of which the result cannot be guessed; twenty\ndoctors are deceived; the one that has the most intelligence, the surest\neye, guesses the character of the malady. There is therefore an art; and\nthe superior man knows the finenesses of it. Thus did La Peyronie guess\nthat a man of the court had swallowed a pointed bone which had caused an\nulcer, and put him in danger of death; thus did Boerhaave guess the\ncause of the malady as unknown as cruel of a count of Vassenaar. There\nis therefore really an art of medicine; but in all arts there are men\nlike Virgil and Maevius.\n\nIn jurisprudence, take a clear case, in which the law speaks clearly; a\nbill of exchange properly prepared and accepted; the acceptor must be\ncondemned to pay it in every country. There is therefore a useful\njurisprudence, although in a thousand cases judgments are arbitrary, to\nthe misfortune of the human race, because the laws are badly made.\n\nDo you desire to know if literature does good to a nation; compare the\ntwo extremes, Cicero and an uncouth ignoramus. See if it is Pliny or\nAttila who caused the fall of Rome.\n\nOne asks if one should encourage superstition in the people; see above\nall what is most extreme in this disastrous matter, St. Bartholomew, the\nmassacres in Ireland, the crusades; the question is soon answered.\n\nIs there any truth in metaphysics? Seize first of all the points that\nare most astonishing and the most true; something exists for all\neternity. An eternal Being exists by Himself; this Being cannot be\neither wicked or inconsequent. One must surrender to these truths;\nalmost all the rest is given over to dispute, and the justest mind\nunravels the truth while the others are seeking in the shadows.\n\nIt is with all things as with colours; the weakest eyes distinguish\nblack from white; the better, more practised eyes, discern shades that\nresemble each other.\n\n\n\n\n_EZOURVEIDAM_\n\n\nWhat is this \"Ezourveidam\" which is in the King of France's library? It\nis an ancient commentary which an ancient Brahmin composed once upon a\ntime, before the epoch of Alexander, on the ancient \"Veidam,\" which was\nitself much less ancient than the book of the \"Shasta.\"\n\nLet us respect, I tell you, all these ancient Indians. They invented the\ngame of chess, and the Greeks went among them to learn geometry.\n\nThis \"Ezourveidam\" was lastly translated by a Brahmin, correspondent of\nthe unfortunate French India Company. It was brought to me on Mount\nKrapack, where I have long been observing the snows; and I sent it to\nthe great Library of Paris, where it is better placed than in my home.\n\nThose who wish to consult it will see that after many revolutions\nproduced by the Eternal, it pleased the Eternal to form a man who was\ncalled _Adimo_, and a woman whose name corresponds to that of life.\n\nIs this Indian anecdote taken from the Jewish books? have the Jews\ncopied it from the Indians? or can one say that both wrote it\noriginally, and that fine minds meet?\n\nThe Jews were not permitted to think that their writers had drawn\nanything from the Brahmins, for they had never heard tell of them. We\nare not permitted to think about Adam otherwise than the Jews.\nConsequently I hold my tongue, and I do not think at all.\n\n\n\n\n_FAITH_\n\n\n_We have long pondered whether or no we should print this article, which\nwe found in an old book. Our respect for St. Peter's see restrained us.\nBut some pious men having convinced us that Pope Alexander VI. had\nnothing in common with St. Peter, we at last decided to bring this\nlittle piece into the light, without scruple._\n\nOne day Prince Pico della Mirandola met Pope Alexander VI. at the house\nof the courtesan Emilia, while Lucretia, the holy father's daughter, was\nin child-bed, and one did not know in Rome if the child was the Pope's,\nor his son's the Duke of Valentinois, or Lucretia's husband's, Alphonse\nof Aragon, who passed for impotent. The conversation was at first very\nsprightly. Cardinal Bembo records a part of it.\n\n\"Little Pic,\" said the Pope, \"who do you think is my grandson's father?\"\n\n\"Your son-in-law, I think,\" answered Pic.\n\n\"Eh! how can you believe such folly?\"\n\n\"I believe it through faith.\"\n\n\"But do you not know quite well that a man who is impotent does not make\nchildren?\"\n\n\"Faith consists,\" returned Pic, \"in believing things because they are\nimpossible; and, further, the honour of your house demands that\nLucretia's son shall not pass as the fruit of an incest. You make me\nbelieve more incomprehensible mysteries. Have I not to be convinced that\na serpent spoke, that since then all men have been damned, that Balaam's\nshe-ass also spoke very eloquently, and that the walls of Jericho fell\nat the sound of trumpets?\" Pic forthwith ran through a litany of all\nthe admirable things he believed.\n\nAlexander fell on his sofa by dint of laughing.\n\n\"I believe all that like you,\" he said, \"for I know well that only by\nfaith can I be saved, and that I shall not be saved by my works.\"\n\n\"Ah! Holy Father,\" said Pic, \"you have need of neither works nor faith;\nthat is good for poor profane people like us; but you who are vice-god\ncan believe and do all you want to. You have the keys of heaven; and\nwithout a doubt St. Peter will not close the door in your face. But for\nmyself, I avow I should need potent protection if, being only a poor\nprince, I had slept with my daughter, and if I had used the stiletto and\nthe cantarella as often as your Holiness.\"\n\nAlexander could take a jest. \"Let us talk seriously,\" he said to Prince\ndella Mirandola. \"Tell me what merit one can have in telling God that\none is persuaded of things of which in fact one cannot be persuaded?\nWhat pleasure can that give God? Between ourselves, saying that one\nbelieves what is impossible to believe is lying.\"\n\nPico della Mirandola made a great sign of the cross. \"Eh! paternal God,\"\nhe cried, \"may your Holiness pardon me, you are not a Christian.\"\n\n\"No, by my faith,\" said the Pope.\n\n\"I thought as much,\" said Pico della Mirandola.\n\n\n\n\n_FALSE MINDS_\n\n\nWe have blind men, one-eyed men, squint-eyed men, men with long sight,\nshort sight, clear sight, dim sight, weak sight. All that is a faithful\nenough image of our understanding; but we are barely acquainted with\nfalse sight. There are hardly men who always take a cock for a horse, or\na chamber-pot for a house. Why do we often come across minds otherwise\njust enough, which are absolutely false on important things? Why does\nthis same Siamese who will never let himself be cheated when there is\nquestion of counting him three rupees, firmly believe in the\nmetamorphoses of Sammonocodom? By what strange singularity do sensible\nmen resemble Don Quixote who thought he saw giants where other men saw\nonly windmills? Still, Don Quixote was more excusable than the Siamese\nwho believes that Sammonocodom came several times on earth, and than the\nTurk who is persuaded that Mahomet put half the moon in his sleeve; for\nDon Quixote, struck with the idea that he must fight giants, can figure\nto himself that a giant must have a body as big as a mill; but from what\nsupposition can a sensible man set off to persuade himself that the half\nof the moon has gone into a sleeve, and that a Sammonocodom has come\ndown from heaven to play at shuttlecock, cut down a forest, and perform\nfeats of legerdemain?\n\nThe greatest geniuses can have false judgment about a principle they\nhave accepted without examination. Newton had very false judgment when\nhe commentated the Apocalypse.\n\nAll that certain tyrants of the souls desire is that the men they teach\nshall have false judgment. A fakir rears a child who gives much promise;\nhe spends five or six years in driving into his head that the god Fo\nappeared to men as a white elephant, and he persuades the child that he\nwill be whipped after his death for five hundred thousand years if he\ndoes not believe these metamorphoses. He adds that at the end of the\nworld the enemy of the god Fo will come to fight against this divinity.\n\nThe child studies and becomes a prodigy; he argues on his master's\nlessons; he finds that Fo has only been able to change himself into a\nwhite elephant, because that is the most beautiful of animals. \"The\nkings of Siam and Pegu,\" he says, \"have made war for a white elephant;\ncertainly if Fo had not been hidden in that elephant, these kings would\nnot have been so senseless as to fight simply for the possession of an\nanimal.\n\n\"The enemy of Fo will come to defy him at the end of the world;\ncertainly this enemy will be a rhinoceros, for the rhinoceros fights the\nelephant.\" It is thus that in mature age the fakir's learned pupil\nreasons, and he becomes one of the lights of India; the more subtle his\nmind, the more false is it, and he forms later minds as false as his.\n\nOne shows all these fanatics a little geometry, and they learn it easily\nenough; but strange to relate, their minds are not straightened for\nthat; they perceive the truths of geometry; but they do not learn to\nweigh probabilities; they have got into a habit; they will reason\ncrookedly all their lives, and I am sorry for them.\n\nThere are unfortunately many ways of having a false mind:\n\n1. By not examining if the principle is true, even when one deduces\naccurate consequences therefrom; and this way is common.\n\n2. By drawing false consequences from a principle recognized as true.\nFor example, a servant is asked if his master is in his room, by persons\nhe suspects of wanting his life: if he were foolish enough to tell them\nthe truth on the pretext that one must not lie, it is clear he would be\ndrawing an absurd consequence from a very true principle.\n\nA judge who would condemn a man who has killed his assassin, because\nhomicide is forbidden, would be as iniquitous as he was poor reasoner.\n\nSimilar cases are subdivided in a thousand different gradations. The\ngood mind, the just mind, is that which distinguishes them; whence comes\nthat one has seen so many iniquitous judgments, not because the judges'\nhearts were bad, but because they were not sufficiently enlightened.\n\n\n\n\n_FATHERLAND_\n\n\nA young journeyman pastrycook who had been to college, and who still\nknew a few of Cicero's phrases, boasted one day of loving his\nfatherland. \"What do you mean by your fatherland?\" a neighbour asked\nhim. \"Is it your oven? is it the village where you were born and which\nyou have never seen since? is it the street where dwelled your father\nand mother who have been ruined and have reduced you to baking little\npies for a living? is it the town-hall where you will never be police\nsuperintendent's clerk? is it the church of Our Lady where you have not\nbeen able to become a choir-boy, while an absurd man is archbishop and\nduke with an income of twenty thousand golden louis?\"\n\nThe journeyman pastrycook did not know what to answer. A thinker who was\nlistening to this conversation, concluded that in a fatherland of some\nextent there were often many thousand men who had no fatherland.\n\nYou, pleasure loving Parisian, who have never made any great journey\nsave that to Dieppe to eat fresh fish; who know nothing but your\nvarnished town house, your pretty country house, and your box at that\nOpera where the rest of Europe persists in feeling bored; who speak your\nown language agreeably enough because you know no other, you love all\nthat, and you love further the girls you keep, the champagne which comes\nto you from Rheims, the dividends which the Hotel-de-Ville pays you\nevery six months, and you say you love your fatherland!\n\nIn all conscience, does a financier cordially love his fatherland?\n\nThe officer and the soldier who will pillage their winter quarters, if\none lets them, have they a very warm love for the peasants they ruin?\n\nWhere was the fatherland of the scarred Duc de Guise, was it in Nancy,\nParis, Madrid, Rome?\n\nWhat fatherland have you, Cardinals de La Balue, Duprat, Lorraine,\nMazarin?\n\nWhere was the fatherland of Attila and of a hundred heroes of this type?\n\nI would like someone to tell me which was Abraham's fatherland.\n\nThe first man to write that the fatherland is wherever one feels\ncomfortable was, I believe, Euripides in his \"Phaeton.\" But the first\nman who left his birthplace to seek his comfort elsewhere had said it\nbefore him.\n\nWhere then is the fatherland? Is it not a good field, whose owner,\nlodged in a well-kept house, can say: \"This field that I till, this\nhouse that I have built, are mine; I live there protected by laws which\nno tyrant can infringe. When those who, like me, possess fields and\nhouses, meet in their common interest, I have my voice in the assembly;\nI am a part of everything, a part of the community, a part of the\ndominion; there is my fatherland.\"?\n\nWell now, is it better for your fatherland to be a monarchy or a\nrepublic? For four thousand years has this question been debated. Ask\nthe rich for an answer, they all prefer aristocracy; question the\npeople, they want democracy: only kings prefer royalty. How then is it\nthat nearly the whole world is governed by monarchs? Ask the rats who\nproposed to hang a bell round the cat's neck. But in truth, the real\nreason is, as has been said, that men are very rarely worthy of\ngoverning themselves.\n\nIt is sad that often in order to be a good patriot one is the enemy of\nthe rest of mankind. To be a good patriot is to wish that one's city may\nbe enriched by trade, and be powerful by arms. It is clear that one\ncountry cannot gain without another loses, and that it cannot conquer\nwithout making misery. Such then is the human state that to wish for\none's country's greatness is to wish harm to one's neighbours. He who\nshould wish that his fatherland might never be greater, smaller, richer,\npoorer, would be the citizen of the world.\n\n\n\n\n_FINAL CAUSES_\n\n\nIf a clock is not made to tell the hour, I will then admit that final\ncauses are chimeras; and I shall consider it quite right for people to\ncall me \"_cause-finalier_,\" that is--an imbecile.\n\nAll the pieces of the machine of this world seem, however, made for each\nother. A few philosophers affect to mock at the final causes rejected by\nEpicurus and Lucretius. It is, it seems to me, at Epicurus and Lucretius\nrather that they should mock. They tell you that the eye is not made for\nseeing, but that man has availed himself of it for this purpose when he\nperceived that eyes could be so used. According to them, the mouth is\nnot made for speaking, for eating, the stomach for digesting, the heart\nfor receiving the blood from the veins and for dispatching it through\nthe arteries, the feet for walking, the ears for hearing. These persons\navow nevertheless that tailors make them coats to clothe them, and\nmasons houses to lodge them, and they dare deny to nature, to the great\nBeing, to the universal Intelligence, what they accord to the least of\ntheir workmen.\n\nOf course one must not make an abuse of final causes; we have remarked\nthat in vain Mr. Prieur, in \"The Spectacle of Nature,\" maintains that\nthe tides are given to the ocean so that vessels may enter port more\neasily, and to stop the water of the sea from putrefying. In vain would\nhe say that legs are made to be booted, and the nose to wear spectacles.\n\nIn order that one may be certain of the true end for which a cause\nfunctions, it is essential that that effect shall exist at all times\nand in all places. There were not ships at all times and on all the\nseas; hence one cannot say that the ocean was made for the ships. One\nfeels how ridiculous it would be to maintain that nature had worked from\nall time in order to adjust herself to the inventions of our arbitrary\narts, which appeared so late; but it is quite evident that if noses were\nnot made for spectacles, they were for smelling, and that there have\nbeen noses ever since there have been men. Similarly, hands not having\nbeen given on behalf of glove-makers, they are visibly destined for all\nthe purposes which the metacarpal bones and the phalanges and the\ncircular muscle of the wrist may procure for us.\n\nCicero, who doubted everything, did not, however, doubt final causes.\n\nIt seems especially difficult for the organs of generation not to be\ndestined to perpetuate the species. This mechanism is very admirable,\nbut the sensation which nature has joined to this mechanism is still\nmore admirable. Epicurus had to avow that pleasure is divine; and that\nthis pleasure is a final cause, by which are ceaselessly produced\nsentient beings who have not been able to give themselves sensation.\n\nThis Epicurus was a great man for his time; he saw what Descartes\ndenied, what Gassendi affirmed, what Newton demonstrated, that there is\nno movement without space. He conceived the necessity of atoms to serve\nas constituent parts of invariable species. Those are exceedingly\nphilosophical ideas. Nothing was especially more worthy of respect than\nthe moral system of the true Epicureans; it consisted in the removal to\na distance of public matters incompatible with wisdom, and in\nfriendship, without which life is a burden. But as regards the rest of\nEpicurus' physics, they do not appear any more admissible than\nDescartes' channelled matter. It is, it seems to me, to stop one's eyes\nand understanding to maintain that there is no design in nature; and if\nthere is design, there is an intelligent cause, there exists a God.\n\nPeople present to us as objections the irregularities of the globe, the\nvolcanoes, the plains of shifting sands, a few small mountains destroyed\nand others formed by earthquakes, etc. But from the fact that the naves\nof the wheels of your coach have caught fire, does it ensue that your\ncoach was not made expressly to carry you from one place to another?\n\nThe chains of mountains which crown the two hemispheres, and more than\nsix hundred rivers which flow right to the sea from the feet of these\nrocks; all the streams which come down from these same reservoirs, and\nwhich swell the rivers, after fertilizing the country; the thousands of\nfountains which start from the same source, and which water animal and\nvegetable kind; all these things seem no more the effect of a fortuitous\ncause and of a declension of atoms, than the retina which receives the\nrays of light, the crystalline lens which refracts them, the incus, the\nmalleus, the stapes, the tympanic membrane of the ear, which receives\nthe sounds, the paths of the blood in our veins, the systole and\ndiastole of the heart, this pendulum of the machine which makes life.\n\n\n\n\n_FRAUD_\n\n\nBambabef the fakir one day met one of the disciples of Confutzee, whom\nwe call \"Confucius,\" and this disciple was named \"Ouang,\" and Bambabef\nmaintained that the people had need of being deceived, and Ouang claimed\nthat one should never deceive anybody; and here is the summary of their\ndispute:\n\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nWe must imitate the Supreme Being who does not show us things as they\nare; he makes us see the sun in a diameter of two or three feet,\nalthough this star is a million times bigger than the earth; he makes us\nsee the moon and the stars set on the same blue background, whereas they\nare at different depths. He requires that a square tower shall appear\nround to us from a distance; he requires that fire shall seem hot to us,\nalthough it is neither hot nor cold; in fine, he surrounds us with\nerrors suited to our nature.\n\nOUANG:\n\nWhat you name error is not one at all. The sun, placed as it is at\nmillions of millions of lis[6] beyond our globe, is not the sun we see.\nWe perceive in reality, and we can perceive, only the sun which is\ndepicted in our retina at a determined angle. Our eyes have not been\ngiven us for appreciating sizes and distances, we need other aids and\nother operations to appreciate them.\n\n * * * * *\n\nBambabef seemed very astonished at this proposition. Ouang, who was very\npatient, explained to him the theory of optics; and Bambabef, who had a\nquick understanding, surrendered to the demonstrations of Confutzee's\ndisciple, then he resumed the argument.\n\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nIf God does not deceive us through the medium of our senses, as I\nbelieved, avow at least that doctors always deceive children for their\ngood; they tell them that they are giving them sugar, and in fact they\nare giving them rhubarb. I, a fakir, may then deceive the people who are\nas ignorant as the children.\n\nOUANG:\n\nI have two sons; I have never deceived them; when they have been ill I\nhave told them that there was a very bitter medicine, and that they must\nhave the courage to take it; \"it would harm you if it were sweet.\" I\nhave never allowed their masters and teachers to make them afraid of\nspirits, ghosts, goblins, sorcerers; by this means I have made brave,\nwise young citizens of them.\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nThe people are not born so happily as your family.\n\nOUANG:\n\nAll men are alike, or nearly so; they are born with the same\ndispositions. One must not corrupt men's natures.\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nWe teach them errors, I admit, but it is for their good. We make them\nbelieve that if they do not buy the nails we have blessed, if they do\nnot expiate their sins by giving us money, they will become, in another\nlife, post-horses, dogs or lizards. That intimidates them, and they\nbecome honest people.\n\nOUANG:\n\nDo you not see that you are perverting these poor people? There are\namong them many more than you think who reason, who laugh at your\nmiracles, at your superstitions, who see quite well that they will not\nbe changed into either lizards or post-horses. What is the consequence?\nThey have enough sense to see that you are telling them impertinences,\nand they have not enough to raise themselves toward a religion that is\npure and free from superstition, such as ours. Their passions make them\nbelieve that there is no religion at all, because the only one that is\ntaught them is ridiculous; you become guilty of all the vices in which\nthey are plunged.\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nNot at all, for we do not teach them anything but good morality.\n\nOUANG:\n\nYou would have yourselves stoned by the people if you taught them impure\nmorality. Men are so made that they want to do evil, but that they do\nnot want it preached to them. All that is necessary is that you should\nnot mix a wise moral system with absurd fables, because you weaken\nthrough your impostures, which you can do without, the morality that you\nare forced to teach.\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nWhat! you believe that one can teach the people truth without\nstrengthening it with fables?\n\nOUANG:\n\nI firmly believe it. Our literati are of the same stuff as our tailors,\nour weavers and our husbandmen. They worship a God creator, rewarder,\navenger. They do not sully their worship, either by absurd systems, or\nby extravagant ceremonies; and there are far less crimes among the\nliterati than among the people. Why not deign to instruct our workmen as\nwe instruct our literati?\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nYou would be very foolish; it is as if you wanted them to have the same\ncourtesy, to be lawyers; that is neither possible nor proper. There must\nbe white bread for the masters, and brown bread for the servants.\n\nOUANG:\n\nI admit that all men should not have the same learning; but there are\nsome things necessary to all. It is necessary that all men should be\njust; and the surest way of inspiring all men with justice is to inspire\nin them religion without superstition.\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nIt is a fine project, but it is impracticable. Do you think that men\nwill be satisfied to believe in a God who punishes and rewards? You have\ntold me that it often happens that the most shrewd among the people\nrevolt against my fables; they will revolt in the same way against\ntruth. They will say: \"Who will assure me that God punishes and\nrewards? where is the proof of it? what is your mission? what miracle\nhave you performed that I may believe you?\" They will laugh at you much\nmore than at me.\n\nOUANG:\n\nThat is where you are mistaken. You imagine that people will shake off\nthe yoke of an honest, probable idea that is useful to everyone, of an\nidea in accordance with human reason, because people reject things that\nare dishonest, absurd, useless, dangerous, that make good sense shudder.\n\nThe people are very disposed to believe their magistrates: when their\nmagistrates propose to them only a reasonable belief, they embrace it\nwillingly. There is no need of prodigies for believing in a just God,\nwho reads in man's heart; this idea is too natural, too necessary, to be\ncombated. It is not necessary to say precisely how God will punish and\nreward; it suffices that people believe in His justice. I assure you I\nhave seen entire towns which have had barely any other dogma, and that\nit is in those towns that I have seen most virtue.\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nTake care; in those towns you will find philosophers who will deny you\nboth your pains and your recompenses.\n\nOUANG:\n\nYou will admit to me that these philosophers will deny your inventions\nstill more strongly; so you gain nothing from that. Though there are\nphilosophers who do not agree with my principles, there are honest\npeople none the less; none the less do they cultivate the virtue of\nthem, which must be embraced by love, and not by fear. But, further, I\nmaintain that no philosopher would ever be assured that Providence did\nnot reserve pains for the wicked and rewards for the good. For if they\nask me who told me that God punishes? I shall ask them who has told them\nthat God does not punish. In fine, I maintain that these philosophers,\nfar from contradicting me, will help me. Would you like to be a\nphilosopher?\n\nBAMBABEF:\n\nWillingly; but do not tell the fakirs.\n\nOUANG:\n\nLet us think above all that, if a philosopher wishes to be useful to\nhuman society, he must announce a God.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[6] A li is 124 paces.\n\n\n\n\n_FREE-WILL_\n\n\nEver since men have reasoned, the philosophers have obscured this\nmatter: but the theologians have rendered it unintelligible by absurd\nsubtleties about grace. Locke is perhaps the first man to find a thread\nin this labyrinth; for he is the first who, without having the arrogance\nof trusting in setting out from a general principle, examined human\nnature by analysis. For three thousand years people have disputed\nwhether or no the will is free. In the \"Essay on the Human\nUnderstanding,\" chapter on \"Power,\" Locke shows first of all that the\nquestion is absurd, and that liberty can no more belong to the will than\ncan colour and movement.\n\nWhat is the meaning of this phrase \"to be free\"? it means \"to be able,\"\nor assuredly it has no sense. For the will \"to be able\" is as ridiculous\nat bottom as to say that the will is yellow or blue, round or square. To\nwill is to wish, and to be free is to be able. Let us note step by step\nthe chain of what passes in us, without obfuscating our minds by any\nterms of the schools or any antecedent principle.\n\nIt is proposed to you that you mount a horse, you must absolutely make a\nchoice, for it is quite clear that you either will go or that you will\nnot go. There is no middle way. It is therefore of absolute necessity\nthat you wish yes or no. Up to there it is demonstrated that the will is\nnot free. You wish to mount the horse; why? The reason, an ignoramus\nwill say, is because I wish it. This answer is idiotic, nothing happens\nor can happen without a reason, a cause; there is one therefore for your\nwish. What is it? the agreeable idea of going on horseback which\npresents itself in your brain, the dominant idea, the determinant idea.\nBut, you will say, can I not resist an idea which dominates me? No, for\nwhat would be the cause of your resistance? None. By your will you can\nobey only an idea which will dominate you more.\n\nNow you receive all your ideas; therefore you receive your wish, you\nwish therefore necessarily. The word \"liberty\" does not therefore belong\nin any way to your will.\n\nYou ask me how thought and wish are formed in us. I answer you that I\nhave not the remotest idea. I do not know how ideas are made any more\nthan how the world was made. All that is given to us is to grope for\nwhat passes in our incomprehensible machine.\n\nThe will, therefore, is not a faculty that one can call free. A free\nwill is an expression absolutely void of sense, and what the scholastics\nhave called will of indifference, that is to say willing without cause,\nis a chimera unworthy of being combated.\n\nWhere will be liberty then? in the power to do what one wills. I wish to\nleave my study, the door is open, I am free to leave it.\n\nBut, say you, if the door is closed, and I wish to stay at home, I stay\nthere freely. Let us be explicit. You exercise then the power that you\nhave of staying; you have this power, but you have not that of going\nout.\n\nThe liberty about which so many volumes have been written is, therefore,\nreduced to its accurate terms, only the power of acting.\n\nIn what sense then must one utter the phrase--\"Man is free\"? in the same\nsense that one utters the words, health, strength, happiness. Man is not\nalways strong, always healthy, always happy.\n\nA great passion, a great obstacle, deprive him of his liberty, his power\nof action.\n\nThe word \"liberty,\" \"free-will,\" is therefore an abstract word, a\ngeneral word, like beauty, goodness, justice. These terms do not state\nthat all men are always beautiful, good and just; similarly, they are\nnot always free.\n\nLet us go further: this liberty being only the power of acting, what is\nthis power? It is the effect of the constitution and present state of\nour organs. Leibnitz wishes to resolve a geometrical problem, he has an\napoplectic fit, he certainly has not liberty to resolve his problem. Is\na vigorous young man, madly in love, who holds his willing mistress in\nhis arms, free to tame his passion? undoubtedly not. He has the power of\nenjoying, and has not the power of refraining. Locke was therefore very\nright to call liberty \"power.\" When is it that this young man can\nrefrain despite the violence of his passion? when a stronger idea\ndetermines in a contrary sense the activity of his body and his soul.\n\nBut what! the other animals will have the same liberty, then, the same\npower? Why not? They have senses, memory, feeling, perceptions, as we\nhave. They act with spontaneity as we act. They must have also, as we\nhave, the power of acting by virtue of their perceptions, by virtue of\nthe play of their organs.\n\nSomeone cries: \"If it be so, everything is only machine, everything in\nthe universe is subjected to eternal laws.\" Well! would you have\neverything at the pleasure of a million blind caprices? Either\neverything is the sequence of the necessity of the nature of things, or\neverything is the effect of the eternal order of an absolute master; in\nboth cases we are only wheels in the machine of the world.\n\nIt is a vain witticism, a commonplace to say that without the pretended\nliberty of the will, all pains and rewards are useless. Reason, and you\nwill come to a quite contrary conclusion.\n\nIf a brigand is executed, his accomplice who sees him expire has the\nliberty of not being frightened at the punishment; if his will is\ndetermined by itself, he will go from the foot of the scaffold to\nassassinate on the broad highway; if his organs, stricken with horror,\nmake him experience an unconquerable terror, he will stop robbing. His\ncompanion's punishment becomes useful to him and an insurance for\nsociety only so long as his will is not free.\n\nLiberty then is only and can be only the power to do what one will. That\nis what philosophy teaches us. But if one considers liberty in the\ntheological sense, it is a matter so sublime that profane eyes dare not\nraise themselves to it.[7]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[7] See \"Liberty.\"\n\n\n\n\n_FRENCH_\n\n\nThe French language did not begin to have any form until towards the\ntenth century; it was born from the ruins of Latin and Celtic, mixed\nwith a few Germanic words. This language was first of all the _romanum\nrusticum_, rustic Roman, and the Germanic language was the court\nlanguage up to the time of Charles the Bald; Germanic remained the sole\nlanguage of Germany after the great epoch of the partition of 843.\nRustic Roman, the Romance language, prevailed in Western France; the\npeople of the country of Vaud, of the Valais, of the Engadine valley,\nand of a few other cantons, still retain to-day manifest vestiges of\nthis idiom.\n\nAt the end of the tenth century French was formed; people wrote in\nFrench at the beginning of the eleventh; but this French still retained\nmore of Rustic Roman than the French of to-day. The romance of\nPhilomena, written in the tenth century in rustic Roman, is not in a\ntongue very different from that of the Norman laws. One still remarks\nCeltic, Latin and German derivations. The words signifying the parts of\nthe human body, or things of daily use, and which have nothing in common\nwith Latin or German, are in old Gaulish or Celtic, such as _tete_,\n_jambe_, _sabre_, _pointe_, _aller_, _parler_, _ecouter_, _regarder_,\n_aboyer_, _crier_, _coutume_, _ensemble_, and many others of this kind.\nMost of the terms of war were Frank or German: _Marche_, _halte_,\n_marechal_, _bivouac_, _reitre_, _lansquenet_. All the rest is Latin;\nand all the Latin words were abridged, according to the custom and\ngenius of the nations of the north; thus from _palatium_, palais; from\n_lupus_, loup; from _Auguste_, aout; from _Junius_, juin; from _unctus_,\noint; from _purpura_, pourpre; from _pretium_, prix, etc. Hardly were\nthere left any vestiges of the Greek tongue, which had been so long\nspoken at Marseilles.\n\nIn the twelfth century there began to be introduced into the language\nsome of the terms of Aristotle's philosophy; and towards the sixteenth\ncentury one expressed by Greek terms all the parts of the human body,\ntheir diseases, their remedies; whence the words _cardiaque_,\n_cephalique_, _podagre_, _apoplectique_, _asthmatique_, _iliaque_,\n_empyeme_, and so many others. Although the language then enriched\nitself from the Greek, and although since Charles VIII. it had drawn\nmuch aid from Italian already perfected, the French language had not yet\ntaken regular consistence. Francois Ier abolished the ancient custom of\npleading, judging, contracting in Latin; custom which bore witness to\nthe barbarism of a language which one did not dare use in public\ndocuments, a pernicious custom for citizens whose lot was regulated in a\nlanguage they did not understand. One was obliged then to cultivate\nFrench; but the language was neither noble nor regular. The syntax was\nleft to caprice. The genius for conversation being turned to\npleasantries, the language became very fertile in burlesque and naive\nexpressions, and very sterile in noble and harmonious terms: from this\nit comes that in rhyming dictionaries one finds twenty terms suitable\nfor comic poetry, for one for more exalted use; and it is, further, a\nreason why Marot never succeeded in a serious style, and why Amyot could\nrender Plutarch's elegance only with naivete.\n\nFrench acquired vigour beneath the pen of Montaigne; but it still had\nneither nobility nor harmony. Ronsard spoiled the language by bringing\ninto French poetry the Greek compounds which the doctors and\nphilosophers used. Malherbe repaired Ronsard's mischief somewhat. The\nlanguage became more noble and more harmonious with the establishment of\nthe Academie Francaise, and acquired finally, in the reign of Louis\nXIV., the perfection whereby it might be carried into all forms of\ncomposition.\n\nThe genius of this language is order and clarity; for each language has\nits genius, and this genius consists in the facility which the language\ngives for expressing oneself more or less happily, for using or\nrejecting the familiar twists of other languages. French having no\ndeclensions, and being always subject to the article, cannot adopt Greek\nand Latin inversions; it obliges words to arrange themselves in the\nnatural order of ideas. Only in one way can one say \"_Plancus a pris\nsoin des affaires de Cesar._\" That is the only arrangement one can give\nto these words. Express this phrase in Latin--_Res Caesaris Plancus\ndiligenter curavit_: one can arrange these words in a hundred and twenty\nways, without injuring the sense and without troubling the language. The\nauxiliary verbs which eke out and enervate the phrases in modern\nlanguages, still render the French tongue little suited to the concise\nlapidary style. The auxiliary verbs, its pronouns, its articles, its\nlack of declinable participles, and finally its uniform gait, are\ninjurious to the great enthusiasm of poetry, in which it has less\nresources than Italian and English; but this constraint and this bondage\nrender it more suitable for tragedy and comedy than any language in\nEurope. The natural order in which one is obliged to express one's\nthoughts and construct one's phrases, diffuses in this language a\nsweetness and easiness that is pleasing to all peoples; and the genius\nof the nation mingling with the genius of the language has produced more\nagreeably written books than can be seen among any other people.\n\nThe pleasure and liberty of society having been long known only in\nFrance, the language has received therefrom a delicacy of expression and\na finesse full of simplicity barely to be found elsewhere. This finesse\nhas sometimes been exaggerated, but people of taste have always known\nhow to reduce it within just limits.\n\nMany persons have thought that the French language has become\nimpoverished since the time of Amyot and Montaigne: one does indeed\nfind in many authors expressions which are no longer admissible; but\nthey are for the most part familiar expressions for which equivalents\nhave been substituted. The language has been enriched with a quantity of\nnoble and energetic expressions; and without speaking here of the\neloquence of things, it has acquired the eloquence of words. It is in\nthe reign of Louis XIV., as has been said, that this eloquence had its\ngreatest splendour, and that the language was fixed. Whatever changes\ntime and caprice prepare for it, the good authors of the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries will always serve as models.\n\n\n\n\n_FRIENDSHIP_\n\n\nFriendship is the marriage of the soul; and this marriage is subject to\ndivorce. It is a tacit contract between two sensitive and virtuous\npersons. I say \"sensitive,\" because a monk, a recluse can be not wicked\nand live without knowing what friendship is. I say \"virtuous,\" because\nthe wicked have only accomplices; voluptuaries have companions in\ndebauch, self-seekers have partners, politicians get partisans; the\ngenerality of idle men have attachments; princes have courtiers;\nvirtuous men alone have friends. Cethegus was the accomplice of\nCatilina, and Maecenas the courtier of Octavius; but Cicero was the\nfriend of Atticus.\n\n\n\n\n_GOD_\n\n\nDuring the reign of Arcadius, Logomacos, lecturer in theology of\nConstantinople, went to Scythia and halted at the foot of the Caucasus,\nin the fertile plains of Zephirim, on the frontier of Colchis. That good\nold man Dondindac was in his great lower hall, between his sheepfold and\nhis vast barn; he was kneeling with his wife, his five sons and five\ndaughters, his kindred and his servants, and after a light meal they\nwere all singing God's praises. \"What do you there, idolator?\" said\nLogomacos to him.\n\n\"I am not an idolator,\" answered Dondindac.\n\n\"You must be an idolator,\" said Logomacos, \"seeing that you are not\nGreek. Tell me, what was that you were singing in your barbarous\nScythian jargon?\"\n\n\"All tongues are equal in the ears of God,\" answered the Scythian. \"We\nwere singing His praises.\"\n\n\"That's very extraordinary,\" returned the theologian. \"A Scythian family\nwho pray God without having been taught by us!\" He soon engaged\nDondindac the Scythian in conversation, for he knew a little Scythian,\nand the other a little Greek. The following conversation was found in a\nmanuscript preserved in the library of Constantinople.\n\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nLet us see if you know your catechism. Why do you pray God?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nBecause it is right to worship the Supreme Being from whom we hold\neverything.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nNot bad for a barbarian! And what do you ask of Him?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nI thank Him for the benefits I enjoy, and even for the ills with which\nHe tries me; but I take good care not to ask Him for anything; He knows\nbetter than us what we need, and besides, I am afraid to ask Him for\ngood weather when my neighbour is asking for rain.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nAh! I thought he was going to say something silly. Let us start again\nfarther back. Barbarian, who has told you there is a God?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nThe whole of nature.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nThat does not suffice. What idea have you of God?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nThe idea of my creator, of my master, who will reward me if I do good,\nand who will punish me if I do ill.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nTrash, nonsense all that! Let us come to essentials. Is God infinite\n_secundum quid_, or in essence?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nI don't understand you.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nBrutish fool! Is God in one place, beyond all places, or in all places?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nI have no idea ... just as you please.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nDolt! Is it possible for what has been not to have been, and can a stick\nnot have two ends? Does He see the future as future or as present? how\ndoes He draw the being out of non-existence, and how annihilate the\nbeing?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nI have never examined these things.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nWhat a blockhead! Come, one must humble oneself, see things in\nproportion. Tell me, my friend, do you think that matter can be eternal?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nWhat does it matter to me whether it exists from all eternity or not? I\ndo not exist from all eternity. God is always my master; He has given me\nthe notion of justice, I must follow it; I do not want to be a\nphilosopher, I want to be a man.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nThese blockheads are troublesome. Let us go step by step. What is God?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nMy sovereign, my judge, my father.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nThat's not what I'm asking you. What is His nature?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nTo be potent and good.\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nBut, is He corporeal or spiritual?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nHow should I know?\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nWhat! you don't know what a spirit is?\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nNot in the least: of what use would it be to me? should I be more just?\nshould I be a better husband, a better father, a better master, a better\ncitizen?\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nIt is absolutely essential you should learn what a spirit is. It is, it\nis, it is ... I will tell you another time.\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nI'm very much afraid that you may tell me less what it is than what it\nis not. Allow me to put a question to you in my turn. I once saw one of\nyour temples; why do you depict God with a long beard?\n\nLOGOMACOS:\n\nThat's a very difficult question which needs preliminary instruction.\n\nDONDINDAC:\n\nBefore receiving your instruction, I must tell you what happened to me\none day. I had just built a closet at the end of my garden; I heard a\nmole arguing with a cockchafer. \"That's a very fine building,\" said the\nmole. \"It must have been a very powerful mole who did that piece of\nwork.\"\n\n\"You're joking,\" said the cockchafer. \"It was a cockchafer bubbling over\nwith genius who is the architect of this building.\" From that time I\nresolved never to argue.\n\n\n\n\n_HELVETIA_\n\n\nHappy Helvetia! to what charter do you owe your liberty? to your\ncourage, to your resolution, to your mountains.\n\n\"But I am your emperor.\"\n\n\"But I do not want you any longer.\"\n\n\"But your fathers were my father's slaves.\"\n\n\"It is for that very reason that their children do not wish to serve\nyou.\"\n\n\"But I had the right belonging to my rank.\"\n\n\"And we have the right of nature.\"\n\nWhy is liberty so rare?\n\nBecause it is the chiefest good.\n\n\n\n\n_HISTORY_\n\n\nDEFINITION\n\nHistory is the recital of facts given as true, in contradistinction to\nthe fable, which is the recital of facts given as false.\n\nThere is the history of opinions which is hardly anything but a\ncollection of human errors.\n\nThe history of the arts can be the most useful of all when it joins to\nthe knowledge of the invention and the progress of the arts the\ndescription of their mechanism.\n\nNatural history, improperly called _history_, is an essential part of\nnatural philosophy. The history of events has been divided into sacred\nhistory and profane history; sacred history is a series of divine and\nmiraculous operations whereby it pleased God once on a time to lead the\nJewish nation, and to-day to exercise our faith.\n\n\nFIRST FOUNDATIONS OF HISTORY\n\nThe first foundations of all history are the recitals of the fathers to\nthe children, transmitted afterward from one generation to another; at\ntheir origin they are at the very most probable, when they do not shock\ncommon sense, and they lose one degree of probability in each\ngeneration. With time the fable grows and the truth grows less; from\nthis it comes that all the origins of peoples are absurd. Thus the\nEgyptians had been governed by the gods for many centuries; then they\nhad been governed by demi-gods; finally they had had kings for eleven\nthousand three hundred and forty years; and in that space of time the\nsun had changed four times from east to west.\n\nThe Phoenicians of Alexander's time claimed to have been established\nin their country for thirty thousand years; and these thirty thousand\nyears were filled with as many prodigies as the Egyptian chronology. I\navow that physically it is very possible that Phoenicia has existed\nnot merely thirty thousand years, but thirty thousand milliards of\ncenturies, and that it experienced like the rest of the world thirty\nmillion revolutions. But we have no knowledge of it.\n\nOne knows what a ridiculously marvellous state of affairs ruled in the\nancient history of the Greeks.\n\nThe Romans, for all that they were serious, did not any the less envelop\nthe history of their early centuries in fables. This nation, so recent\ncompared with the Asiatic peoples, was five hundred years without\nhistorians. It is not surprising, therefore, that Romulus was the son of\nMars, that a she-wolf was his foster mother, that he marched with a\nthousand men of his village of Rome against twenty-five thousand\ncombatants of the village of the Sabines: that later he became a god;\nthat Tarquin, the ancient, cut a stone with a razor, and that a vestal\ndrew a ship to land with her girdle, etc.\n\nThe early annals of all our modern nations are no less fabulous; the\nprodigious and improbable things must sometimes be reported, but as\nproofs of human credulity: they enter the history of opinions and\nfoolishnesses; but the field is too vast.\n\n\nOF RECORDS\n\nIn order to know with a little certainty something of ancient history,\nthere is only one means, it is to see if any incontestable records\nremain. We have only three in writing: the first is the collection of\nastronomical observations made for nineteen hundred consecutive years at\nBabylon, sent by Alexander to Greece. This series of observations, which\ngoes back to two thousand two hundred and thirty-four years before our\nera, proves invincibly that the Babylonians existed as a body of people\nseveral centuries before; for the arts are only the work of time, and\nmen's natural laziness leaves them for some thousands of years without\nother knowledge and without other talents than those of feeding\nthemselves, of defending themselves against the injuries of the air, and\nof slaughtering each other. Let us judge by the Germans and by the\nEnglish in Caesar's time, by the Tartars to-day, by the two-thirds of\nAfrica, and by all the peoples we have found in America, excepting in\nsome respects the kingdoms of Peru and of Mexico, and the republic of\nTlascala. Let us remember that in the whole of this new world nobody\nknew how to read or write.\n\nThe second record is the central eclipse of the sun, calculated in China\ntwo thousand one hundred and fifty-five years before our era, and\nrecognized true by our astronomers. Of the Chinese the same thing must\nbe said as of the peoples of Babylon; they already comprised a vast\ncivilized empire without a doubt. But what puts the Chinese above all\nthe peoples of the earth is that neither their laws, nor their customs,\nnor the language spoken among them by their lettered mandarins has\nchanged for about four thousand years. Nevertheless, this nation and the\nnation of India, the most ancient of all those that exist to-day, which\npossess the vastest and the most beautiful country, which invented\nalmost all the arts before we had learned any of them, have always been\nomitted right to our days in all so-called universal histories. And when\na Spaniard and a Frenchman took a census of the nations, neither one nor\nthe other failed to call his country the first monarchy in the world,\nand his king the greatest king in the world, flattering himself that his\nking would give him a pension as soon as he had read his book.\n\nThe third record, very inferior to the two others, exists in the Arundel\nmarbles: the chronicle of Athens is graved there two hundred and\nsixty-three years before our era; but it goes back only to Cecrops,\nthirteen hundred and nineteen years beyond the time when it was\nengraved. In the history of antiquity those are the sole incontestable\nepochs that we have.\n\nLet us give serious attention to these marbles brought back from Greece\nby Lord Arundel. Their chronicle begins fifteen hundred and eighty-two\nyears before our era. That is to-day (1771) an antiquity of 3,353 years,\nand you do not see there a single fact touching on the miraculous, on\nthe prodigious. It is the same with the Olympiads; it is not there that\none should say _Graecia mendax_, lying Greece. The Greeks knew very well\nhow to distinguish between history and fable, between real facts and the\ntales of Herodotus: just as in their serious affairs their orators\nborrowed nothing from the speeches of the sophists or from the images of\nthe poets.\n\nThe date of the taking of Troy is specified in these marbles; but no\nmention is made of Apollo's arrows, or of the sacrifice of Iphigenia, or\nof the ridiculous combats of the gods. The date of the inventions of\nTriptolemy and Ceres is found there; but Ceres is not called _goddess_.\nMention is made of a poem on the abduction of Prosperine; it is not said\nthat she is the daughter of Jupiter and a goddess, and that she is wife\nof the god of the infernal regions.\n\nHercules is initiated into the mysteries of Eleusis; but not a word on\nhis twelve labours, nor on his passage into Africa in his cup, nor on\nhis divinity, nor on the big fish by which he was swallowed, and which\nkept him in its belly three days and three nights, according to\nLycophron.\n\nAmong us, on the contrary, a standard is brought from heaven by an angel\nto the monks of Saint-Denis; a pigeon brings a bottle of oil to a church\nin Rheims; two armies of snakes give themselves over to a pitched battle\nin Germany; an archbishop of Mayence is besieged and eaten by rats; and,\nto crown everything, great care has been taken to mark the year of these\nadventures.\n\nAll history is recent. It is not astonishing that we have no ancient\nprofane history beyond about four thousand years. The revolutions of\nthis globe, the long and universal ignorance of that art which transmits\nfacts by writing are the cause of it. This art was common only among a\nvery small number of civilized nations; and was in very few hands even.\nNothing rarer among the French and the Germans than to know how to\nwrite; up to the fourteenth century of our era nearly all deeds were\nonly attested by witnesses. It was, in France, only under Charles VII.,\nin 1454, that one started to draft in writing some of the customs of\nFrance. The art of writing was still rarer among the Spanish, and from\nthat it results that their history is so dry and so uncertain, up to the\ntime of Ferdinand and Isabella. One sees by that to what extent the very\nsmall number of men who knew how to write could deceive, and how easy it\nwas to make us believe the most enormous absurdities.\n\nThere are nations which have subjugated a part of the world without\nhaving the usage of characters. We know that Gengis-khan conquered a\npart of Asia at the beginning of the thirteenth century, but it is not\nthrough either him or the Tartars that we know it. Their history,\nwritten by the Chinese and translated by Father Gaubil, states that\nthese Tartars had not at that time the art of writing.\n\nThis art cannot have been less unknown to the Scythian Oguskan, named\nMadies by the Persians and the Greeks, who conquered a part of Europe\nand Asia so long before the reign of Cyrus. It is almost certain that at\nthat time of a hundred nations there were hardly two or three who used\ncharacters. It is possible that in an ancient world destroyed, men knew\nwriting and the other arts; but in ours they are all very recent.\n\nThere remain records of another kind, which serve to establish merely\nthe remote antiquity of certain peoples, and which precede all the known\nepochs, and all the books; these are the prodigies of architecture, like\nthe pyramids and the palaces of Egypt, which have resisted time.\nHerodotus, who lived two thousand two hundred years ago, and who had\nseen them, was not able to learn from the Egyptian priests at what time\nthey had been erected.\n\nIt is difficult to give to the most ancient of the pyramids less than\nfour thousand years of antiquity; but one must consider that these\nefforts of the ostentation of the kings could only have been commenced\nlong after the establishment of the towns. But to build towns in a land\ninundated every year, let us always remark that it was first necessary\nto raise the land of the towns on piles in this land of mud, and to\nrender them inaccessible to the flood; it was essential, before taking\nthis necessary course, and before being in a state to attempt these\ngreat works, for the people to have practised retreating during the\nrising of the Nile, amid the rocks which form two chains right and left\nof this river. It was necessary for these mustered peoples to have the\ninstruments for tilling, those of architecture, a knowledge of\nsurveying, with laws and a police. All this necessarily requires a\nprodigious space of time. We see by the long details which face every\nday the most necessary and the smallest of our undertakings, how\ndifficult it is to do great things, and it needs not only indefatigable\nstubbornness, but several generations animated with this stubbornness.\n\nHowever, whether it be Menes, Thaut or Cheops, or Rameses who erected\none or two of these prodigious masses, we shall not be the more\ninstructed of the history of ancient Egypt: the language of this people\nis lost. We therefore know nothing but that before the most ancient\nhistorians there was matter for making an ancient history.\n\n\n\n\n_IGNORANCE_\n\n\nI am ignorant of how I was formed, and of how I was born. For a quarter\nof my life I was absolutely ignorant of the reasons for all that I saw,\nheard and felt, and I was nothing but a parrot at whom other parrots\nchattered.\n\nWhen I looked round me and within me, I conceived that something exists\nfor all eternity; since there are beings who exist to-day, I concluded\nthat there is a being who is necessary and necessarily eternal. Thus,\nthe first step I took to emerge from my ignorance crossed the boundaries\nof all the centuries.\n\nBut when I tried to walk in this infinite quarry open before me, I could\nneither find a single path, nor discern plainly a single object; and\nfrom the leap I made to contemplate eternity, I fell back again into the\nabyss of my ignorance.\n\nI saw what was called \"matter,\" from the star Sirius and the stars of\nthe Milky Way, as distant from Sirius as Sirius is from us, right to the\nlast atom that can be perceived with the microscope, and I am ignorant\nas to what matter is.\n\nThe light which let me see all these beings is unknown to me; I can,\nwith the help of a prism, dissect this light, and divide it into seven\npencils of rays; but I cannot divide these pencils; I am ignorant of\nwhat they are composed. Light is of the nature of matter, since it has\nmovement and makes an impression on objects; but it does not tend toward\na centre like all bodies: on the contrary, it escapes invincibly from\nthe centre, whereas all matter bears towards its centre. Light seems\npenetrable, and matter is impenetrable. Is this light matter? is it not\nmatter? with what innumerable properties can it be endowed? I am\nignorant thereof.\n\nIs this substance which is so brilliant, so swift and so unknown, are\nthese other substances which roll in the immensity of space, eternal as\nthey seem infinite? I have no idea. Has a necessary being, of sovereign\nintelligence, created them out of nothing, or has he arranged them? did\nhe produce this order in Time or before Time? What even is this Time of\nwhich I speak? I cannot define it. O God! Teach me, for I am enlightened\nneither by other men's darkness nor by my own.\n\nWhat is sensation? How have I received it? what connection is there\nbetween the air which strikes my ear and the sensation of sound? between\nthis body and the sensation of colour? I am profoundly ignorant thereof,\nand I shall always be ignorant thereof.\n\nWhat is thought? where does it dwell? how is it formed? who gives me\nthought during my sleep? is it by virtue of my will that I think? But\nalways during my sleep, and often while I am awake, I have ideas in\nspite of myself. These ideas, long forgotten, long relegated to the back\nshop of my brain, issue from it without my interfering, and present\nthemselves to my memory, which makes vain efforts to recall them.\n\nExternal objects have not the power to form ideas in me, for one does\nnot give oneself what one has not; I am too sensible that it is not I\nwho give them to me, for they are born without my orders. Who produces\nthem in me? whence do they come? whither do they go? Fugitive phantoms,\nwhat invisible hand produces you and causes you to disappear?\n\nWhy, alone of all animals, has man the mania for dominating his\nfellow-men?\n\nWhy and how has it been possible that of a hundred thousand million men\nmore than ninety-nine have been immolated to this mania?\n\nHow is reason so precious a gift that we would not lose it for anything\nin the world? and how has this reason served only to make us the most\nunhappy of all beings?\n\nWhence comes it that loving truth passionately, we are always betrayed\nto the most gross impostures?\n\nWhy is life still loved by this crowd of Indians deceived and enslaved\nby the bonzes, crushed by a Tartar's descendants, overburdened with\nwork, groaning in want, assailed by disease, exposed to every scourge?\n\nWhence comes evil, and why does evil exist?\n\nO atoms of a day! O my companions in infinite littleness, born like me\nto suffer everything and to be ignorant of everything, are there enough\nmadmen among you to believe that they know all these things? No, there\nare not; no, at the bottom of your hearts you feel your nonentity as I\nrender justice to mine. But you are arrogant enough to want people to\nembrace your vain systems; unable to be tyrants over our bodies, you\nclaim to be tyrants over our souls.\n\n\n\n\n_THE IMPIOUS_\n\n\nWho are the impious? those who give a white beard, feet and hands to the\nBeing of beings, to the great Demiourgos, to the eternal intelligence by\nwhich nature is governed. But they are only excusably impious, poor\nimpious people against whom one must not grow wroth.\n\nIf even they paint the great incomprehensible Being born on a cloud\nwhich can bear nothing; if they are foolish enough to put God in a mist,\nin the rain, or on a mountain, and to surround him with little chubby,\nflushed faces accompanied by two wings; I laugh and I pardon them with\nall my heart.\n\nThe impious persons who attribute to the Being of beings preposterous\npredictions and injustices would anger me if this great Being had not\ngiven me a reason which quells my wrath. The silly fanatic repeats to\nme, after others, that it is not for us to judge what is reasonable and\njust in the great Being, that His reason is not like our reason, that\nHis justice is not like our justice. Eh! how, you mad demoniac, do you\nwant me to judge justice and reason otherwise than by the notions I have\nof them? do you want me to walk otherwise than with my feet, and to\nspeak otherwise than with my mouth?\n\nThe impious man who supposes the great Being jealous, arrogant,\nmalignant, vindictive, is more dangerous. I would not want to sleep\nunder the same roof as this man.\n\nBut how would you treat the impious man who says to you: \"See only\nthrough my eyes, do not think; I announce to you a tyrannical God who\nhas made me to be your tyrant; I am his well-beloved: during all\neternity he will torture millions of his creatures whom he detests in\norder to gladden me; I shall be your master in this world, and I shall\nlaugh at your torments in the other.\"\n\nDo you not feel an itching to thrash this cruel, impious fellow? If you\nare born gentle, will you not run with all your might to the west when\nthis barbarian utters his atrocious reveries in the east?\n\n\n\n\n_JOAN OF ARC_\n\n\nIt is meet that the reader should be acquainted with the true history of\nJoan of Arc surnamed \"the Maid.\" The details of her adventure are very\nlittle known and may give readers pleasure; here they are.\n\nPaul Jove says that the courage of the French was stimulated by this\ngirl, and takes good care not to believe her inspired. Neither Robert,\nGaguin, Paul Emile, Polydore Vergile, Genebrard, Philip of Bergamo,\nPapyre Masson, nor even Mariana, say that she was sent by God; and even\nthough Mariana the Jesuit had said it, that would not deceive me.\n\nMezerai relates \"that the prince of the celestial militia appeared to\nher.\" I am sorry for Mezerai, and I ask pardon of the prince of the\ncelestial militia.\n\nMost of our historians, who copy each other, suppose that the Maid\nuttered prophecies, and that her prophecies were accomplished. She is\nmade to say that \"she will drive the English out of the kingdom,\" and\nthey were still there five years after her death. She is said to have\nwritten a long letter to the King of England, and assuredly she could\nneither read nor write; such an education was not given to an inn\nservant in the Barois; and the information laid against her states that\nshe could not sign her name.\n\nBut, it is said, she found a rusted sword, the blade of which was\nengraved with five golden _fleurs-de-lis_; and this sword was hidden in\nthe church of Sainte Catherine de Fierbois at Tours. There, certainly is\na great miracle!\n\nPoor Joan of Arc having been captured by the English, despite her\nprophecies and her miracles, maintained first of all in her\ncross-examination that St. Catherine and St. Marguerite had honoured her\nwith many revelations. I am astonished that she never said anything of\nher talks with the prince of the celestial militia. These two saints\napparently liked talking better than St. Michael. Her judges thought her\na sorceress, she thought herself inspired.\n\nOne great proof that Charles VII.'s captains made use of the marvellous\nin order to encourage the soldiers, in the deplorable state to which\nFrance was reduced, is that Saintrailles had his shepherd, as the Comte\nde Dunois had his shepherdess. The shepherd made prophecies on one side,\nwhile the shepherdess made them on the other.\n\nBut unfortunately the Comte de Dunois' prophetess was captured at the\nsiege of Compiegne by a bastard of Vendome, and Saintrailles' prophet\nwas captured by Talbot. The gallant Talbot was far from having the\nshepherd burned. This Talbot was one of those true Englishmen who scorn\nsuperstition, and who have not the fanaticism for punishing fanatics.\n\nThis, it seems to me, is what the historians should have observed, and\nwhat they have neglected.\n\nThe Maid was taken to Jean de Luxembourg, Comte de Ligny. She was shut\nup in the fortress of Beaulieu, then in that of Beaurevoir, and from\nthere in that of Crotoy in Picardy.\n\nFirst of all Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, who was of the King of\nEngland's party against his own legitimate king, claims the Maid as a\nsorceress arrested on the limits of his diocese. He wishes to judge her\nas a sorceress. He supported the right he claimed by a downright lie.\nJoan had been captured on the territory of the bishopric of Noyon: and\nneither the Bishop of Beauvais, nor the Bishop of Noyon assuredly had\nthe right of condemning anybody, and still less of committing to death a\nsubject of the Duke of Lorraine, and a warrior in the pay of the King of\nFrance.\n\nThere was at that time (who would believe it?) a vicar-general of the\nInquisition in France, by name Brother Martin.[8] It was one of the most\nhorrible effects of the total subversion of that unfortunate country.\nBrother Martin claimed the prisoner as smelling of heresy (_odorantem\nhaeresim_). He called upon the Duke of Burgundy and the Comte de Ligny,\n\"by the right of his office, and of the authority given to him by the\nHoly See, to deliver Joan to the Holy Inquisition.\"\n\nThe Sorbonne hastened to support Brother Martin, and wrote to the Duke\nof Burgundy and to Jean de Luxembourg--\"You have used your noble power\nto apprehend this woman who calls herself the Maid, by means of whom the\nhonour of God has been immeasurably offended, the faith exceedingly\nhurt, and the Church too greatly dishonoured; for by reason of her,\nidolatry, errors, bad doctrine, and other inestimable evils have ensued\nin this kingdom ... but what this woman has done would be of small\naccount, if did not ensue what is meet for satisfying the offence\nperpetrated by her against our gentle Creator and His faith, and the\nHoly Church with her other innumerable misdeeds ... and it would be\nintolerable offence against the divine majesty if it happened that this\nwoman were freed.\"[9]\n\nFinally, the Maid was awarded to Jean Cauchon whom people called the\nunworthy bishop, the unworthy Frenchman, and the unworthy man. Jean de\nLuxembourg sold the Maid to Cauchon and the English for ten thousand\nlivres, and the Duke of Bedford paid them. The Sorbonne, the bishop and\nBrother Martin, then presented a new petition to this Duke of Bedford,\nregent of France, \"in honour of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, for\nthat the said Joan may be briefly put into the hands of the Church.\"\nJoan was led to Rouen. The archbishopric was vacant at that time, and\nthe chapter permitted the Bishop of Beauvais to _work_ in the town.\n(_Besogner_ is the term which was used.) He chose as assessors nine\ndoctors of the Sorbonne with thirty-five other assistants, abbots or\nmonks. The vicar of the Inquisition, Martin, presided with Cauchon; and\nas he was only a vicar, he had but second place.\n\nJoan underwent fourteen examinations; they are singular. She said that\nshe saw St. Catherine and St. Marguerite at Poitiers. Doctor Beaupere\nasks her how she recognized the saints. She answers that it was by their\nway of bowing. Beaupere asks her if they are great chatterboxes. \"Go\nlook on the register,\" she says. Beaupere asks her if, when she saw St.\nMichael, he was naked. She answers: \"Do you think our Lord had nothing\nto clothe him with?\"\n\nThe curious will carefully observe here that Joan had long been directed\nwith other religious women of the populace by a rogue named Richard,[10]\nwho performed miracles, and who taught these girls to perform them. One\nday he gave communion three times in succession to Joan, in honour of\nthe Trinity. It was then the custom in matters of importance and in\ntimes of great peril. The knights had three masses said, and\ncommunicated three times when they went to seek fortune or to fight in a\nduel. It is what has been observed on the part of the Chevalier Bayard.\n\nThe workers of miracles, Joan's companions, who were submissive to\nRichard, were named Pierrone and Catherine. Pierrone affirmed that she\nhad seen that God appeared to her in human form as a friend to a friend.\nGod was \"clad in a long white robe, etc.\"\n\nUp to the present the ridiculous; here now is the horrible.\n\nOne of Joan's judges, doctor of theology and priest, by name Nicholas\n_the Bird-Catcher_, comes to confess her in prison. He abuses the\nsacrament to the point of hiding behind a piece of serge two priests who\ntranscribed Joan of Arc's confession. Thus did the judges use sacrilege\nin order to be murderers. And an unfortunate idiot, who had had enough\ncourage to render very great services to the king and the country, was\ncondemned to be burned by forty-four French priests who immolated her\nfor the English faction.\n\nIt is sufficiently well-known how someone had the cunning and meanness\nto put a man's suit beside her to tempt her to wear this suit again, and\nwith what absurd barbarism this transgression was claimed as a pretext\nfor condemning her to the flames, as if in a warrior girl it was a crime\nworthy of the fire, to put on breeches instead of a skirt. All this\nwrings the heart, and makes common sense shudder. One cannot conceive\nhow we dare, after the countless horrors of which we have been guilty,\ncall any nation by the name of barbarian.\n\nMost of our historians, lovers of the so-called embellishments of\nhistory rather than of truth, say that Joan went fearlessly to the\ntorture; but as the chronicles of the times bear witness, and as the\nhistorian Villaret admits, she received her sentence with cries and\ntears; a weakness pardonable in her sex, and perhaps in ours, and very\ncompatible with the courage which this girl had displayed amid the\ndangers of war; for one can be fearless in battle, and sensitive on the\nscaffold.\n\nI must add that many persons have believed without any examination that\nthe Maid of Orleans was not burned at Rouen at all, although we have the\nofficial report of her execution. They have been deceived by the account\nwe still have of an adventuress who took the name of the \"Maid,\"\ndeceived Joan of Arc's brothers, and under cover of this imposture,\nmarried in Lorraine a nobleman of the house of Armoise. There were two\nother rogues who also passed themselves off as the \"Maid of Orleans.\"\nAll three claimed that Joan was not burned at all, and that another\nwoman had been substituted for her. Such stories can be admitted only by\nthose who want to be deceived.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[8] Beuchot says: There was at that time in France an\nInquisitor-General, named Brother Jean or Jacques le Graverend. His\nvice-inquisitor or vicar, who took part in Joan's trial, was not called\nBrother Martin, but Brother Jean Magistri or the Master.\n\n[9] This is a translation of the Latin of the Sorbonne, made long after.\n\n[10] Beuchot says that Berriat Saint-Prix, in his \"Jeanne d'Arc,\"\nproves, page 341 _et seq._, that the imputations against Brother Richard\nare groundless, and that he could exercise no influence at the trial.\n\n\n\n\n_KISSING_\n\n\nI ask pardon of the boys and the girls; but maybe they will not find\nhere what they will seek. This article is only for scholars and serious\npersons for whom it is barely suitable.\n\nThere is but too much question of kissing in the comedies of Moliere's\ntime. Champagne, in the comedy of \"La Mere Coquette\" by Quinault, asks\nkisses of Laurette; she says to him--\"You are not content, then; really\nit is shameful; I have kissed you twice.\" Champagne answers her--\"What!\nyou keep account of your kisses?\" (Act I. Sc. 1.).\n\nThe valets always used to ask kisses of the soubrettes; people kissed\neach other on the stage. Usually it was very dull and very intolerable,\nparticularly in the case of ugly actors, who were nauseating.\n\nIf the reader wants kisses, let him look for them in the \"Pastor Fido\";\nthere is one entire chorus where nothing but kisses is mentioned; and\nthe piece is founded solely on a kiss that Mirtillo gave one day to\nAmarilli, in a game of blind man's buff, _un bacio molto saporito_.\n\nEveryone knows the chapter on kisses, in which Jean de la Casa,\nArchbishop of Benevento, says that people can kiss each other from head\nto foot. He pities the people with big noses who can only approach each\nother with difficulty; and he counsels ladies with long noses to have\nflat-nosed lovers.\n\nThe kiss was a very ordinary form of salutation throughout ancient\ntimes. Plutarch recalls that the conspirators, before killing Caesar,\nkissed his face, hand and breast. Tacitus says that when Agricola, his\nfather-in-law, returned from Rome, Domitian received him with a cold\nkiss, said nothing to him, and left him confounded in the crowd. The\ninferior who could not succeed in greeting his superior by kissing him,\nput his mouth to his own hand, and sent him a kiss that the other\nreturned in the same way if he so wished.\n\nThis sign was used even for worshipping the gods. Job, in his parable\n(Chap. xxxi.), which is perhaps the oldest of known books, says that he\nhas not worshipped the sun and the moon like the other Arabs, that he\nhas not carried his hand to his mouth as he looked at the stars.\n\nIn our Occident nothing remains of this ancient custom but the puerile\nand genteel civility that is still taught to children in some small\ntowns, of kissing their right hands when someone has given them some\nsweets.\n\nIt was a horrible thing to betray with a kiss; it was that that made\nCaesar's assassination still more hateful. We know all about Judas'\nkisses; they have become proverbial.\n\nJoab, one of David's captains, being very jealous of Amasa, another\ncaptain, says to him (2 Sam. xx. 9): \"Art thou in health, my brother?\nAnd he took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him,\" and\nwith his other hand drew his sword and \"smote him therewith in the fifth\nrib, and shed out his bowels on the ground.\"\n\nNo other kiss is to be found in the other fairly frequent assassinations\nwhich were committed among the Jews, unless it be perhaps the kisses\nwhich Judith gave to the captain Holophernes, before cutting off his\nhead while he was in bed asleep; but no mention is made of them, and the\nthing is merely probable.\n\nIn one of Shakespeare's tragedies called \"Othello,\" this Othello, who is\na black, gives two kisses to his wife before strangling her. That seems\nabominable to honourable people; but Shakespeare's partisans say it is\nbeautifully natural, particularly in a black.\n\nWhen Giovanni Galeas Sforza was assassinated in Milan Cathedral, on St.\nStephen's day, the two Medici in the Reparata church; Admiral Coligny,\nthe Prince of Orange, the Marechal d'Ancre, the brothers Witt, and so\nmany others; at least they were not kissed.\n\nThere was among the ancients I know not what of symbolic and sacred\nattached to the kiss, since one kissed the statues of the gods and their\nbeards, when the sculptors had shown them with a beard. Initiates kissed\neach other at the mysteries of Ceres, as a sign of concord.\n\nThe early Christians, men and women, kissed each other on the mouth at\ntheir _agapae_. This word signified \"love-feast.\" They gave each other\nthe holy kiss, the kiss of peace, the kiss of brother and sister, +agion\nphilema+. This custom lasted for more than four centuries, and was\nabolished at last on account of its consequences. It was these kisses of\npeace, these agapae of love, these names of \"brother\" and \"sister,\" that\nlong drew to the little-known Christians, those imputations of\ndebauchery with which the priests of Jupiter and the priestesses of\nVesta charged them. You see in Petronius, and in other profane authors,\nthat the libertines called themselves \"brother\" and \"sister.\" It was\nthought that among the Christians the same names signified the same\ninfamies. They were innocent accomplices in spreading these accusations\nover the Roman empire.\n\nThere were in the beginning seventeen different Christian societies,\njust as there were nine among the Jews, including the two kinds of\nSamaritans. The societies which flattered themselves at being the most\northodox accused the others of the most inconceivable obscenities. The\nterm of \"gnostic,\" which was at first so honourable, signifying\n\"learned,\" \"enlightened,\" \"pure,\" became a term of horror and scorn, a\nreproach of heresy. Saint Epiphanius, in the third century, claimed that\nthey used first to tickle each other, the men and the women; that then\nthey gave each other very immodest kisses, and that they judged the\ndegree of their faith by the voluptuousness of these kisses; that the\nhusband said to his wife, in presenting a young initiate to her: \"Have\nan agape with my brother,\" and that they had an agape.\n\nWe do not dare repeat here, in the chaste French tongue,[11] what Saint\nEpiphanius adds in Greek (Epiphanius, _contra haeres_, lib. I., vol. ii).\nWe will say merely that perhaps this saint was somewhat imposed upon;\nthat he allowed himself to be too carried away by zeal, and that all\nheretics are not hideous debauchees.\n\nThe sect of Pietists, wishing to imitate the early Christians, to-day\ngive each other kisses of peace on leaving the assembly, calling each\nother \"my brother, my sister\"; it is what, twenty years ago, a very\npretty and very human Pietist lady avowed to me. The ancient custom was\nto kiss on the mouth; the Pietists have carefully preserved it.\n\nThere was no other manner of greeting dames in France, Germany, Italy,\nEngland; it was the right of cardinals to kiss queens on the mouth, and\nin Spain even. What is singular is that they had not the same\nprerogative in France, where ladies always had more liberty than\nanywhere else, but \"every country has its ceremonies,\" and there is no\nusage so general that chance and custom have not provided exceptions. It\nwould have been an incivility, an affront, for an honourable woman, when\nshe received a lord's first visit, not to have kissed him, despite his\nmoustaches. \"It is a displeasing custom,\" says Montaigne (Book III.,\nchap. v.), \"and offensive to ladies, to have to lend their lips to\nwhoever has three serving-men in his suite, disagreeable though he be.\"\nThis custom was, nevertheless, the oldest in the world.\n\nIf it is disagreeable for a young and pretty mouth to stick itself out\nof courtesy to an old and ugly mouth, there was a great danger between\nfresh, red mouths of twenty to twenty-five years old; and that is what\nfinally brought about the abolition of the ceremony of kissing in the\nmysteries and the agapae. It is what caused women to be confined among\nthe Orientals, so that they might kiss only their fathers and their\nbrothers; custom long since introduced into Spain by the Arabs.\n\nBehold the danger: there is one nerve of the fifth pair which goes from\nthe mouth to the heart, and thence lower down, with such delicate\nindustry has nature prepared everything! The little glands of the lips,\ntheir spongy tissue, their velvety paps, the fine skin, ticklish, gives\nthem an exquisite and voluptuous sensation, which is not without analogy\nwith a still more hidden and still more sensitive part. Modesty may\nsuffer from a lengthily savoured kiss between two Pietists of eighteen.\n\nIt is to be remarked that the human species, the turtledoves and the\npigeons alone are acquainted with kisses; thence came among the Latins\nthe word _columbatim_, which our language has not been able to render.\nThere is nothing of which abuse has not been made. The kiss, designed by\nnature for the mouth, has often been prostituted to membranes which do\nnot seem made for this usage. One knows of what the templars were\naccused.\n\nWe cannot honestly treat this interesting subject at greater length,\nalthough Montaigne says: \"One should speak thereof shamelessly: brazenly\ndo we utter 'killing,' 'wounding,' 'betraying,' but of that we dare not\nspeak but with bated breath.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[11] Or the English--_Translator._\n\n\n\n\n_LANGUAGES_\n\n\nThere is no complete language, no language which can express all our\nideas and all our sensations; their shades are too numerous, too\nimperceptible. Nobody can make known the precise degree of sensation he\nexperiences. One is obliged, for example, to designate by the general\nnames of \"love\" and \"hate\" a thousand loves and a thousand hates all\ndifferent from each other; it is the same with our pleasures and our\npains. Thus all languages are, like us, imperfect.\n\nThey have all been made successively and by degrees according to our\nneeds. It is the instinct common to all men which made the first\ngrammars without perceiving it. The Lapps, the Negroes, as well as the\nGreeks, needed to express the past, the present and the future; and they\ndid it: but as there has never been an assembly of logicians who formed\na language, no language has been able to attain a perfectly regular\nplan.\n\nAll words, in all possible languages, are necessarily the images of\nsensations. Men have never been able to express anything but what they\nfelt. Thus everything has become metaphor; everywhere the soul is\nenlightened, the heart burns, the mind wanders. Among all peoples the\ninfinite has been the negation of the finite; immensity the negation of\nmeasure. It is evident that our five senses have produced all languages,\nas well as all our ideas. The least imperfect are like the laws: those\nin which there is the least that is arbitrary are the best. The most\ncomplete are necessarily those of the peoples who have cultivated the\narts and society. Thus the Hebraic language should be one of the\npoorest languages, like the people who used to speak it. How should the\nHebrews have had maritime terms, they who before Solomon had not a boat?\nhow the terms of philosophy, they who were plunged in such profound\nignorance up to the time when they started to learn something in their\nmigration to Babylon? The language of the Phoenicians, from which the\nHebrews drew their jargon, should be very superior, because it was the\nidiom of an industrious, commercial, rich people, distributed all over\nthe earth.\n\nThe most ancient known language should be that of the nation most\nanciently gathered together as a body of people. It should be, further,\nthat of the people which has been least subjugated, or which, having\nbeen subjugated, has civilized its conquerors. And in this respect, it\nis constant that Chinese and Arabic are the most ancient of all those\nthat are spoken to-day.\n\nThere is no mother-tongue. All neighbouring nations have borrowed from\neach other: but one has given the name of \"mother-tongue\" to those from\nwhich some known idioms are derived. For example, Latin is the\nmother-tongue in respect of Italian, Spanish and French: but it was\nitself derived from Tuscan; and Tuscan was derived from Celtic and\nGreek.\n\nThe most beautiful of all languages must be that which is at once, the\nmost complete, the most sonorous, the most varied in its twists and the\nmost regular in its progress, that which has most compound words, that\nwhich by its prosody best expresses the soul's slow or impetuous\nmovements, that which most resembles music.\n\nGreek has all these advantages: it has not the roughness of Latin, in\nwhich so many words end in _um_, _ur_, _us_. It has all the pomp of\nSpanish, and all the sweetness of Italian. It has above all the living\nlanguages of the world the expression of music, by long and short\nsyllables, and by the number and variety of its accents. Thus all\ndisfigured as it is to-day in Greece, it can still be regarded as the\nmost beautiful language in the universe.\n\nThe most beautiful language cannot be the most widely distributed, when\nthe people which speaks it is oppressed, not numerous, without commerce\nwith other nations, and when these other nations have cultivated their\nown languages. Thus Greek should be less diffused than Arabic, and even\nTurkish.\n\nOf all European languages French should be the most general, because it\nis the most suited to conversation: it has taken its character from that\nof the people which speaks it.\n\nThe French have been, for nearly a hundred and fifty years, the people\nwhich has best known society, which the first discarded all\nembarrassment, and the first among whom women were free and even\nsovereign, when elsewhere they were only slaves. The always uniform\nsyntax of this language, which admits no inversions, is a further\nfacility barely possessed by other tongues; it is more current coin than\nothers, even though it lacks weight. The prodigious quantity of\nagreeably frivolous books which this nation has produced is a further\nreason for the favour which its language has obtained among all nations.\n\nProfound books will not give vogue to a language: they will be\ntranslated; people will learn Newton's philosophy; but they will not\nlearn English in order to understand it.\n\nWhat makes French still more common is the perfection to which the drama\nhas been carried in this tongue. It is to \"Cinna,\" \"Phedre,\" the\n\"Misanthrope\" that it owes its vogue, and not to the conquests of Louis\nXIV.\n\nIt is not so copious and so flexible as Italian, or so majestic as\nSpanish, or so energetic as English; and yet it has had more success\nthan these three languages from the sole fact that it is more suited to\nintercourse, and that there are more agreeable books in it than\nelsewhere. It has succeeded like the cooks of France, because it has\nmore flattered general taste.\n\nThe same spirit which has led the nations to imitate the French in their\nfurniture, in the arrangement of rooms, in gardens, in dancing, in all\nthat gives charm, has led them also to speak their language. The great\nart of good French writers is precisely that of the women of this\nnation, who dress better than the other women of Europe, and who,\nwithout being more beautiful, appear to be so by the art with which they\nadorn themselves, by the noble and simple charm they give themselves so\nnaturally.\n\nIt is by dint of good breeding that this language has managed to make\nthe traces of its former barbarism disappear. Everything would bear\nwitness to this barbarism to whosoever should look closely. One would\nsee that the number _vingt_ comes from _viginti_, and that formerly this\n_g_ and this _t_ were pronounced with a roughness characteristic of all\nthe northern nations; of the month of _Augustus_ has been made the month\nof _aout_. Not so long ago a German prince thinking that in France one\nnever pronounced the term _Auguste_ otherwise, called King Auguste of\nPoland King Aout. All the letters which have been suppressed in\npronunciation, but retained in writing, are our former barbarous\nclothes.\n\nIt was when manners were softened that the language also was softened:\nbefore Francois Ier summoned women to his court, it was as clownish as\nwe were. It would have been as good to speak old Celtic as the French of\nthe time of Charles VIII. and Louis XII.: German was not more harsh.\n\nIt has taken centuries to remove this rust. The imperfections which\nremain would still be intolerable, were it not for the continual care\none takes to avoid them, as a skilful horseman avoids stones in the\nroad. Good writers are careful to combat the faulty expressions which\npopular ignorance first brings into vogue, and which, adopted by bad\nauthors, then pass into the gazettes and the pamphlets. _Roastbeef_\nsignifies in English _roasted ox_, and our waiters talk to us nowadays\nof a \"roastbeef of mutton.\" _Riding-coat_ means _a coat for going on\nhorseback_; of it people have made _redingote_, and the populace thinks\nit an ancient word of the language. It has been necessary to adopt this\nexpression with the people because it signifies an article of common\nuse.\n\nIn matters of arts and crafts and necessary things, the common people\nsubjugated the court, if one dare say so; just as in matters of religion\nthose who most despise the common run of people are obliged to speak and\nto appear to think like them.\n\nTo call things by the names which the common people has imposed on them\nis not to speak badly; but one recognizes a people naturally more\ningenious than another by the proper names which it gives to each thing.\n\nIt is only through lack of imagination that a people adapts the same\nexpression to a hundred different ideas. It is a ridiculous sterility\nnot to have known how to express otherwise _an arm of the sea_, _a scale\narm_, _an arm of a chair_; there is poverty of thought in saying equally\nthe _head of a nail_, the _head of an army_.\n\nIgnorance has introduced another custom into all modern languages. A\nthousand terms no longer signify what they should signify. _Idiot_ meant\n_solitary_, to-day it means _foolish_; _epiphany_ signified\n_appearance_, to-day it is the festival of three kings; _baptize_ is to\ndip in water, we say _baptize with the name_ of John or James.\n\nTo these defects in almost all languages are added barbarous\nirregularities. Venus is a charming name, _venereal_ is abominable.\nAnother result of the irregularity of these languages composed at hazard\nin uncouth times is the quantity of compound words of which the simple\nform does not exist any more. They are children who have lost their\nfather. We have _architects_ and no _tects_; there are things which are\n_ineffable_ and none which are _effable_. One is _intrepid_, one is not\n_trepid_. There are _impudent_ fellows, _insolent_ fellows, but neither\n_pudent_ fellows nor _solent_ fellows. All languages more or less retain\nsome of these defects; they are all irregular lands from which the hand\nof the adroit artist knows how to derive advantage.\n\nOther defects which make a nation's character evident always slip into\nlanguages. In France there are fashions in expressions as in ways of\ndoing the hair. A fashionable invalid or doctor will take it into his\nhead to say that he has had a _soupcon_ of fever to signify that he has\nhad a slight attack; soon the whole nation has _soupcons_ of colics,\n_soupcons_ of hatred, love, ridicule. Preachers in the pulpit tell you\nthat you must have at least a _soupcon_ of God's love. After a few\nmonths this fashion gives place to another.\n\nWhat does most harm to the nobility of the language is not this passing\nfashion with which people are soon disgusted, not the solecisms of\nfashionable people into which good authors do not fall, but the\naffectation of mediocre authors in speaking of serious things in a\nconversational style. Everything conspires to corrupt a language that is\nrather widely diffused; authors who spoil the style by affectation;\nthose who write to foreign countries, and who almost always mingle\nforeign expressions with their natural tongue; merchants who introduce\ninto conversation their business terms.\n\nAll languages being imperfect, it does not follow that one should change\nthem. One must adhere absolutely to the manner in which the good authors\nhave spoken them; and when one has a sufficient number of approved\nauthors, a language is fixed. Thus one can no longer change anything in\nItalian, Spanish, English, French, without corrupting them; the reason\nis clear: it is that one would soon render unintelligible the books\nwhich provide the instruction and the pleasure of the nations.\n\n\n\n\n_LAWS_\n\n\nSheep live very placidly in community, they are considered very\neasy-going, because we do not see the prodigious quantity of animals\nthey devour. It is even to be believed that they eat them innocently and\nwithout knowing it, like us when we eat a Sassenage cheese. The republic\nof the sheep is a faithful representation of the golden age.\n\nA chicken-run is visibly the most perfect monarchic state. There is no\nking comparable to a cock. If he marches proudly in the midst of his\npeople, it is not out of vanity. If the enemy approaches, he does not\ngive orders to his subjects to go to kill themselves for him by virtue\nof his certain knowledge and plenary power; he goes to battle himself,\nranges his chickens behind him and fights to the death. If he is the\nvictor, he himself sings the _Te Deum_. In civil life there is no one so\ngallant, so honest, so disinterested. He has all the virtues. Has he in\nhis royal beak a grain of corn, a grub, he gives it to the first lady\namong his subjects who presents herself. Solomon in his harem did not\ncome near a poultry-yard cock.\n\nIf it be true that the bees are governed by a queen to whom all her\nsubjects make love, that is a still more perfect government.\n\nThe ants are considered to be an excellent democracy. Democracy is above\nall the other States, because there everyone is equal, and each\nindividual works for the good of all.\n\nThe republic of the beavers is still superior to that of the ants, at\nleast if we judge by their masonry work.\n\nThe monkeys resemble strolling players rather than a civilized people;\nand they do not appear to be gathered together under fixed, fundamental\nlaws, like the preceding species.\n\nWe resemble the monkeys more than any other animal by the gift of\nimitation, the frivolity of our ideas, and by our inconstancy which has\nnever allowed us to have uniform and durable laws.\n\nWhen nature formed our species and gave us instincts, self-esteem for\nour preservation, benevolence for the preservation of others, love which\nis common to all the species, and the inexplicable gift of combining\nmore ideas than all the animals together; when she had thus given us our\nportion, she said to us: \"Do as you can.\"\n\nThere is no good code in any country. The reason for this is evident;\nthe laws have been made according to the times, the place and the need,\netc.\n\nWhen the needs have changed, the laws which have remained, have become\nridiculous. Thus the law which forbade the eating of pig and the\ndrinking of wine was very reasonable in Arabia, where pig and wine are\ninjurious; it is absurd at Constantinople.\n\nThe law which gives the whole fee to the eldest son is very good in\ntimes of anarchy and pillage. Then the eldest son is the captain of the\ncastle which the brigands will attack sooner or later; the younger sons\nwill be his chief officers, the husbandmen his soldiers. All that is to\nbe feared is that the younger son may assassinate or poison the Salian\nlord his elder brother, in order to become in his turn the master of the\nhovel; but these cases are rare, because nature has so combined our\ninstincts and our passions that we have more horror of assassinating our\nelder brother than we have of being envious of his position. But this\nlaw, suitable for the owners of dungeons in Chilperic's time is\ndetestable when there is question of sharing stocks in a city.\n\nTo the shame of mankind, one knows that the laws of games are the only\nones which everywhere are just, clear, inviolable and executed. Why is\nthe Indian who gave us the rules of the game of chess willingly obeyed\nall over the world, and why are the popes' decretals, for example,\nto-day an object of horror and scorn? the reason is that the inventor of\nchess combined everything with precision for the satisfaction of the\nplayers, and that the popes, in their decretals, had nothing in view but\ntheir own interest. The Indian wished to exercise men's minds equally,\nand give them pleasure; the popes wished to besot men's minds. Also, the\nessence of the game of chess has remained the same for five thousand\nyears, it is common to all the inhabitants of the earth; and the\ndecretals are known only at Spoletto, Orvieto, Loretto, where the\nshallowest lawyer secretly hates and despises them.\n\nBut I delight in thinking that there is a natural law independent of all\nhuman conventions: the fruit of my work must belong to me; I must honour\nmy father and my mother; I have no right over my fellow's life, and my\nfellow has none over mine, etc. But when I think that from Chedorlaomer\nto Mentzel,[12] colonel of hussars, everyone loyally kills and pillages\nhis fellow with a licence in his pocket, I am very afflicted.\n\nI am told that there are laws among thieves, and also laws of war. I ask\nwhat are these laws of war. I learn that they mean hanging a brave\nofficer who has held fast in a bad post without cannon against a royal\narmy; that they mean having a prisoner hanged, if the enemy has hanged\none of yours; that they mean putting to the fire and the sword villages\nwhich have not brought their sustenance on the appointed day, according\nto the orders of the gracious sovereign of the district. \"Good,\" say I,\n\"that is the 'Spirit of the Laws.'\"\n\nIt seems to me that most men have received from nature enough common\nsense to make laws, but that everyone is not just enough to make good\nlaws.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[12] Chedorlaomer was king of the Elamites, and contemporary with\nAbraham. See Genesis ch. xiv.\n\nMentzel was a famous chief of Austrian partisans in the war of 1741. At\nthe head of five thousand men, he made Munich capitulate on February\n13th, 1742.\n\n\n\n\n_LIBERTY_\n\n\nEither I am very much mistaken, or Locke the definer has very well\ndefined liberty as \"power.\" I am mistaken again, or Collins, celebrated\nLondon magistrate, is the only philosopher who has really sifted this\nidea, and Clark's answer to him was merely that of a theologian. But of\nall that has been written in France on liberty, the following little\ndialogue seems to me the most clear.\n\nA: There is a battery of guns firing in your ears, have you the liberty\nto hear them or not to hear them?\n\nB: Without doubt, I cannot stop myself hearing them.\n\nA: Do you want this gun to carry off your head and the heads of your\nwife and daughter, who are walking with you?\n\nB: What are you talking about? as long as I am of sound mind, I cannot\nwant such a thing; it is impossible.\n\nA: Good; you hear this gun necessarily, and you wish necessarily that\nneither you nor your family shall die from a cannon shot while you are\nout for a walk; you have not the power either of not hearing or of\nwishing to remain here?\n\nB: Clearly.\n\nA: You have consequently taken some thirty steps in order to be\nsheltered from the gun, you have had the power to walk these few steps\nwith me?\n\nB: Again very clearly.\n\nA: And if you had been a paralytic, you could not have avoided being\nexposed to this battery, you would necessarily have heard and received a\ngun shot; and you would be dead necessarily?\n\nB: Nothing is more true.\n\nA: In what then does your liberty consist, unless it be in the power\nthat your self has exercised in performing what your will required of\nabsolute necessity?\n\nB: You embarrass me; liberty then is nothing but the power of doing what\nI want to do?\n\nA: Think about it, and see if liberty can be understood otherwise.\n\nB: In that case my hunting dog is as free as I am; he has necessarily\nthe will to run when he sees a hare, and the power of running if he has\nnot a pain in his legs. I have then nothing above my dog; you reduce me\nto the state of the beasts.\n\nA: What poor sophistry from the poor sophists who have taught you.\nIndeed you are in a bad way to be free like your dog! Do you not eat,\nsleep, propagate like him, even almost to the attitude? Do you want the\nsense of smell other than through your nose? Why do you want to have\nliberty otherwise than your dog has?\n\nB: But I have a soul which reasons much, and my dog reasons hardly at\nall. He has almost only simple ideas, and I have a thousand metaphysical\nideas.\n\nA: Well, you are a thousand times freer than he is; that is, you have a\nthousand times more power of thinking than he has; but you do not think\notherwise than he does.\n\nB: What! I am not free to wish what I wish?\n\nA: What do you mean by that?\n\nB: I mean what everyone means. Doesn't one say every day, wishes are\nfree?\n\nA: A proverb is not a reason; explain yourself more clearly.\n\nB: I mean that I am free to wish as I please.\n\nA: With your permission, that has no sense; do you not see that it is\nridiculous to say, I wish to wish? You wish necessarily, as a result of\nthe ideas that have offered themselves to you. Do you wish to be\nmarried; yes or no?\n\nB: But if I tell you that I want neither the one nor the other?\n\nA: You will be answering like someone who says: \"Some believe Cardinal\nMazarin to be dead, others believe him to be alive, and as for me I\nbelieve neither the one nor the other.\"\n\nB: Well, I want to be married.\n\nA: Ah! that is an answer. Why do you want to be married?\n\nB: Because I am in love with a beautiful, sweet, well-bred young girl,\nwho is fairly rich and sings very well, whose parents are very honest\npeople, and because I flatter myself I am loved by her, and very welcome\nto her family.\n\nA: That is a reason. You see that you cannot wish without reason. I\ndeclare to you that you are free to marry; that is, that you have the\npower to sign the contract, have your nuptials, and sleep with your\nwife.\n\nB: How now! I cannot wish without reason? And what will become of that\nother proverb: _Sit pro ratione voluntas_; my will is my reason, I wish\nbecause I wish?\n\nA: That is absurd, my dear fellow; there would be in you an effect\nwithout a cause.\n\nB: What! When I play at odds and evens, I have a reason for choosing\nevens rather than odds?\n\nA: Yes, undoubtedly.\n\nB: And what is that reason, if you please?\n\nA: The reason is that the idea of even rather than the opposite idea\npresents itself to your mind. It would be comic that there were cases\nwhere you wished because there was a cause of wishing, and that there\nwere cases where you wished without any cause. When you wish to be\nmarried, you evidently feel the dominating reason; you do not feel it\nwhen you are playing at odds and evens; and yet there certainly must be\none.\n\nB: But, I repeat, I am not free then?\n\nA: Your will is not free, but your actions are. You are free to act,\nwhen you have the power to act.\n\nB: But all the books I have read on the liberty of indifference....\n\nA: What do you mean by the liberty of indifference?\n\nB: I mean the liberty of spitting on the right or on the left, of\nsleeping on my right side or on my left, of taking a walk of four turns\nor five.\n\nA: Really the liberty you would have there would be a comic liberty! God\nwould have given you a fine gift! It would really be something to boast\nof! Of what use to you would be a power which was exercised only on such\nfutile occasions? But the fact is that it is ridiculous to suppose the\nwill to wish to spit on the right. Not only is this will to wish absurd,\nbut it is certain that several trifling circumstances determine you in\nthese acts that you call indifferent. You are no more free in these acts\nthan in the others. But, I repeat, you are free at all times, in all\nplaces, as soon as you do what you wish to do.\n\nB: I suspect you are right. I will think about it.[13]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[13] See \"Free-Will.\"\n\n\n\n\n_LIBRARY_\n\n\nA big library has this in it of good, that it dismays those who look at\nit. Two hundred thousand volumes discourage a man tempted to print; but\nunfortunately he at once says to himself: \"People do not read all those\nbooks, and they may read mine.\" He compares himself to a drop of water\nwho complains of being lost in the ocean and ignored: a genius had pity\non it; he caused it to be swallowed by an oyster; it became the most\nbeautiful pearl in the Orient, and was the chief ornament in the throne\nof the Great Mogul. Those who are only compilers, imitators,\ncommentators, splitters of phrases, usurious critics, in short, those on\nwhom a genius has no pity, will always remain drops of water.\n\nOur man works in his garret, therefore, in the hope of becoming a pearl.\n\nIt is true that in this immense collection of books there are about a\nhundred and ninety-nine thousand which will never be read, from cover to\ncover at least; but one may need to consult some of them once in a\nlifetime. It is a great advantage for whoever wishes to learn to find at\nhis hand in the king's palace the volume and page he seeks, without\nbeing kept waiting a moment. It is one of the most noble institutions.\nNo expense is more magnificent and more useful.\n\nThe public library of the King of France is the finest in the whole\nworld, less on account of the number and rarity of the volumes than of\nthe ease and courtesy with which the librarians lend them to all\nscholars. This library is incontestably the most precious monument there\nis in France.\n\nThis astounding multitude of books should not scare. We have already\nremarked that Paris contains about seven hundred thousand men, that one\ncannot live with them all, and that one chooses three or four friends.\nThus must one no more complain of the multitude of books than of the\nmultitude of citizens.\n\nA man who wishes to learn a little about his existence, and who has no\ntime to waste, is quite embarrassed. He wishes to read simultaneously\nHobbes, Spinoza, Bayle who wrote against them, Leibnitz who disputed\nwith Bayle, Clarke who disputed with Leibnitz, Malebranche who differed\nfrom them all, Locke who passed as having confounded Malebranche,\nStillingfleet who thought he had vanquished Locke, Cudworth who thinks\nhimself above them because he is understood by no one. One would die of\nold age before having thumbed the hundredth part of the metaphysical\nromances.\n\nOne is very content to have the most ancient books, as one inquires into\nthe most ancient medals. It is that which makes the honour of a library.\nThe oldest books in the world are the \"Kings\" of the Chinese, the\n\"Shastabad\" of the Brahmins, of which Mr. Holwell has brought to our\nknowledge admirable passages, what remains of the ancient Zarathustra,\nthe fragments of Sanchoniathon which Eusebius has preserved for us and\nwhich bears the characteristics of the most remote antiquity. I do not\nspeak of the \"Pentateuch\" which is above all one could say of it.\n\nWe still have the prayer of the real Orpheus, which the hierophant\nrecited in the old Greek mysteries. \"Walk in the path of justice,\nworship the sole master of the universe. He is one; He is sole by\nHimself. All beings owe Him their existence; He acts in them and by\nthem. He sees everything, and never has been seen by mortal eyes.\"\n\nSt. Clement of Alexandria, the most learned of the fathers of the\nChurch, or rather the only scholar in profane antiquity, gives him\nalmost always the name of Orpheus of Thrace, of Orpheus the Theologian,\nto distinguish him from those who wrote later under his name.\n\nWe have no longer anything either of Museus or of Linus. A few passages\nfrom these predecessors of Homer would well be an adornment to a\nlibrary.\n\nAugustus had formed the library called the Palatine. The statue of\nApollo presided over it. The emperor embellished it with busts of the\nbest authors. One saw in Rome twenty-nine great public libraries. There\nare now more than four thousand important libraries in Europe. Choose\nwhich suits you, and try not to be bored.\n\n\n\n\n_LIMITS OF THE HUMAN MIND_\n\n\nSomeone asked Newton one day why he walked when he wanted to, and how\nhis arm and his hand moved at his will. He answered manfully that he had\nno idea. \"But at least,\" his interlocutor said to him, \"you who\nunderstand so well the gravitation of the planets will tell me why they\nturn in one direction rather than in another!\" And he again confessed\nthat he had no idea.\n\nThose who taught that the ocean was salt for fear that it might become\nputrid, and that the tides were made to bring our ships into port (The\nAbbe Pluche in \"The Spectacle of Nature\"), were somewhat ashamed when\nthe reply was made to them that the Mediterranean has ports and no ebb.\nMusschenbroeck himself fell into this inadvertence.\n\nHas anyone ever been able to say precisely how a log is changed on the\nhearth into burning carbon, and by what mechanism lime is kindled by\nfresh water?\n\nIs the first principle of the movement of the heart in animals properly\nunderstood? does one know clearly how generation is accomplished? has\none guessed what gives us sensations, ideas, memory? We do not\nunderstand the essence of matter any more than the children who touch\nits surface.\n\nWho will teach us by what mechanism this grain of wheat that we throw\ninto the ground rises again to produce a pipe laden with an ear of corn,\nand how the same soil produces an apple at the top of this tree, and a\nchestnut on its neighbour? Many teachers have said--\"What do I not\nknow?\" Montaigne used to say--\"What do I know?\"\n\nRuthlessly trenchant fellow, wordy pedagogue, meddlesome theorist, you\nseek the limits of your mind. They are at the end of your nose.\n\n\n\n\n_LOCAL CRIMES_\n\n\nTraverse the whole earth, you will find that theft, murder, adultery,\ncalumny are regarded as crimes which society condemns and curbs; but\nshould what is approved in England, and condemned in Italy, be punished\nin Italy as an outrage against the whole of humanity? That is what I\ncall a local crime. Does not that which is criminal only in the\nenclosure of some mountains, or between two rivers, demand of judges\nmore indulgence than those outrages which are held in horror in all\ncountries? Should not the judge say to himself: \"I should not dare\npunish at Ragusa what I punish at Loretto\"? Should not this reflection\nsoften in his heart the hardness that it is only too easy to contract\nduring the long exercise of his office?\n\nYou know the _kermesses_ in Flanders; in the last century they were\ncarried to a point of indecency which might revolt eyes unaccustomed to\nthese spectacles. This is how Christmas was celebrated in some towns.\nFirst there appeared a young man half naked, with wings on his back; he\nrecited the _Ave Maria_ to a young girl who answered him _fiat_, and the\nangel kissed her on the mouth: then a child enclosed in a great\ncardboard cock cried, imitating the cock's cry: _Puer natus est nobis._\nA big ox bellowed _ubi_, which it pronounced _oubi_; a sheep bleated\n_Bethlehem_. An ass cried _hihanus_, to signify _eamus_; a long\nprocession, preceded by four fools with baubles and rattles, closed the\nperformance. There remain to-day traces of these popular devotions,\nwhich among more educated peoples would be taken for profanations. A\nbad-tempered Swiss, more drunk maybe than those who played the roles of\nox and ass, came to words with them in Louvain; blows were given; the\npeople wanted to hang the Swiss, who escaped with difficulty.\n\nThe same man had a violent quarrel at the Hague in Holland for having\nstoutly taken Barneveldt's part against an extravagant Gomarist. He was\nput into prison in Amsterdam for having said that priests are the\nscourge of humanity and the source of all our misfortunes. \"What!\" he\nsaid. \"If one believes that good works make for salvation, one finds\noneself in a dungeon; if one laughs at a cock and an ass, one risks\nbeing hanged.\" This adventure, burlesque though it is, makes it quite\nclear that one can be reprehensible on one or two points in our\nhemisphere, and be absolutely innocent in the rest of the world.\n\n\n\n\n_LOVE_\n\n\nThere are so many sorts of love that one does not know to whom to\naddress oneself for a definition of it. The name of \"love\" is given\nboldly to a caprice lasting a few days, a sentiment without esteem,\ngallants' affectations, a frigid habit, a romantic fantasy, relish\nfollowed by prompt disrelish: people give this name to a thousand\nchimeras.\n\nIf philosophers want to probe to the bottom this barely philosophical\nmatter, let them meditate on the banquet of Plato, in which Socrates,\nhonourable lover of Alcibiades and Agathon, converses with them on the\nmetaphysics of love.\n\nLucretius speaks of it more as a natural philosopher: Virgil follows in\nthe steps of Lucretius; _amor omnibus idem_.\n\nIt is the stuff of nature broidered by nature. Do you want an idea of\nlove? look at the sparrows in your garden; look at your pigeons; look at\nthe bull which is brought to the heifer; look at this proud horse which\ntwo of your grooms lead to the quiet mare awaiting him; she draws aside\nher tail to welcome him; see how her eyes sparkle; hark to the neighing;\nwatch the prancing, the curvetting, the ears pricked, the mouth opening\nwith little convulsions, the swelling nostrils, the flaring breath, the\nmanes rising and floating, the impetuous movement with which he hurls\nhimself on the object which nature has destined for him; but be not\njealous of him, and think of the advantages of the human species; in\nlove they compensate for all those that nature has given to the\nanimals--strength, beauty, nimbleness, speed.\n\nThere are animals, even, who have no enjoyment in possession. Scale\nfish are deprived of this delight: the female throws millions of eggs on\nthe mud; the male coming across them passes over them, and fertilizes\nthem with his seed, without troubling about the female to whom they\nbelong.\n\nMost animals that pair, taste pleasure only by a single sense, and as\nsoon as the appetite is satisfied, everything is extinguished. No\nanimal, apart from you, knows what kissing is; the whole of your body is\nsensitive; your lips especially enjoy a voluptuousness that nothing can\ntire; and this pleasure belongs to no species but yours: you can give\nyourself up to love at any time, and the animals have but a fixed time.\nIf you reflect on these superiorities, you will say with the Count of\nRochester--\"In a country of atheists love would cause the Deity to be\nworshipped.\"\n\nAs men have received the gift of perfecting all that nature accords\nthem, they have perfected love. Cleanliness, the care of oneself, by\nrendering the skin more delicate, increase the pleasure of contact; and\nattention to one's health renders the organs of voluptuousness more\nsensitive. All the other sentiments that enter into that of love, just\nlike metals which amalgamate with gold: friendship, regard, come to\nhelp; the faculties of mind and body are still further chains.\n\nSelf-love above all tightens all these bonds. One applauds oneself for\none's choice, and a crowd of illusions form the decoration of the\nbuilding of which nature has laid the foundations.\n\nThat is what you have above the animals. But if you taste so many\npleasures unknown to them, how many sorrows too of which the beasts have\nno idea! What is frightful for you is that over three-fourths of the\nearth nature has poisoned the pleasures of love and the sources of life\nwith an appalling disease to which man alone is subject, and which\ninfects in him the organs of generation alone.\n\nIt is in no wise with this plague as with so many other maladies that\nare the result of our excesses. It was not debauch that introduced it\ninto the world. Phryne, Lais, Flora, Messalina and those like them,\nwere not attacked by it; it was born in some islands where men lived in\ninnocence, and thence spread itself over the ancient world.\n\nIf ever one could accuse nature of despising her work, of contradicting\nher plans, of acting against her designs, it is in this detestable\nscourge which has soiled the earth with horror and filth. Is that the\nbest of all possible worlds? What! if Caesar, Antony, Octavius never had\nthis disease, was it not possible for it not to cause the death of\nFrancois I.? \"No,\" people say, \"things were ordered thus for the best.\"\nI want to believe it; but it is sad for those to whom Rabelais dedicated\nhis book.\n\nErotic philosophers have often debated the question of whether Heloise\ncould still really love Abelard when he was a monk and emasculate? One\nof these qualities did very great harm to the other.\n\nBut console yourself, Abelard, you were loved; the root of the hewn tree\nstill retains a remnant of sap; the imagination aids the heart. One can\nstill be happy at table even though one eats no longer. Is it love? is\nit simply a memory? is it friendship? All that is composed of something\nindescribable. It is an obscure feeling resembling the fantastic\npassions retained by the dead in the Elysian fields. The heroes who,\nduring their lifetime, shone in the chariot races, drove imaginary\nchariots when they were dead. Heloise lived with you on illusions and\nsupplements. She kissed you sometimes, and with all the more pleasure\nthat having taken a vow at the Paraclet monastery to love you no longer,\nher kisses thereby became more precious as more guilty. A woman can\nbarely be seized with a passion for a eunuch: but she can keep her\npassion for her lover become eunuch, provided that he remains lovable.\n\nIt is not the same, ladies, for a lover who has grown old in service;\nthe externals subsist no longer; the wrinkles horrify; the white\neyebrows shock; the lost teeth disgust; the infirmities estrange: all\nthat one can do is to have the virtue of being nurse, and of tolerating\nwhat one has loved. It is burying a dead man.\n\n\n\n\n_LUXURY_\n\n\nPeople have declaimed against luxury for two thousand years, in verse\nand in prose, and people have always delighted in it.\n\nWhat has not been said of the early Romans when these brigands ravaged\nand pillaged the harvests; when, to enlarge their poor village, they\ndestroyed the poor villages of the Volscians and the Samnites? They were\ndisinterested, virtuous men; they had not yet been able to steal either\ngold, silver, or precious stones, because there were not any in the\nlittle towns they plundered. Their woods and their marshes produced\nneither pheasants nor partridges, and people praise their temperance.\n\nWhen gradually they had pillaged everything, stolen everything from the\nfar end of the Adriatic Gulf to the Euphrates, and when they had enough\nintelligence to enjoy the fruit of their plundering; when they\ncultivated the arts, when they tasted of all pleasures, and when they\neven made the vanquished taste of them, they ceased then, people say, to\nbe wise and honest men.\n\nAll these declamations reduce themselves to proving that a robber must\nnever either eat the dinner he has taken, or wear the coat he has\npilfered, or adorn himself with the ring he has filched. He should throw\nall that, people say, in the river, so as to live like an honest man.\nSay rather that he should not have stolen. Condemn brigands when they\npillage; but do not treat them as senseless when they enjoy. Honestly,\nwhen a large number of English sailors enriched themselves at the taking\nof Pondicherry and Havana, were they wrong to enjoy themselves later in\nLondon, as the price of the trouble they had had in the depths of Asia\nand America?\n\nThe declaimers want one to bury in the ground the wealth one has amassed\nby the fortune of arms, by agriculture, by commerce and by industry.\nThey cite Lacedaemon; why do they not cite also the republic of San\nMarino? What good did Sparto to Greece? Did she ever have Demosthenes,\nSophocles, Apelles, Phidias? The luxury of Athens produced great men in\nevery sphere; Sparta had a few captains, and in less number even than\nother towns. But how fine it is that as small a republic as Lacedaemon\nretains its poverty.[14]\n\nOne arrives at death as well by lacking everything as by enjoying what\ncan make life pleasant. The Canadian savage subsists, and comes to old\nage like the English citizen who has an income of fifty thousand\nguineas. But who will ever compare the land of the Iroquois to England?\n\nLet the republic of Ragusa and the canton of Zug make sumptuary laws,\nthey are right, the poor man must not spend beyond his powers; but I\nhave read somewhere:\n\n\"Learn that luxury enriches a great state, even if it ruins a\nsmall.\"[15]\n\nIf by luxury you understand excess, everyone knows that excess in any\nform is pernicious, in abstinence as in gluttony, in economy as in\ngenerosity. I do not know how it has happened that in my village where\nthe land is ungrateful, the taxes heavy, the prohibition against\nexporting the corn one has sown intolerable, there is nevertheless\nbarely a cultivator who has not a good cloth coat, and who is not well\nshod and well fed. If this cultivator toiled in his fields in his fine\ncoat, with white linen, his hair curled and powdered, there, certainly,\nwould be the greatest luxury, and the most impertinent; but that a\nbourgeois of Paris or London should appear at the theatre clad like a\npeasant, there would be the most vulgar and ridiculous niggardliness.\n\nWhen scissors, which are certainly not of the remotest antiquity, were\ninvented, what did people not say against the first men who pared their\nnails, and who cut part of the hair which fell on their noses? They were\ntreated, without a doubt, as fops and prodigals, who bought an\ninstrument of vanity at a high price, in order to spoil the Creator's\nhandiwork. What an enormous sin to cut short the horn which God made to\ngrow at the end of our fingers! It was an outrage against the Deity! It\nwas much worse when shirts and socks were invented. One knows with what\nfury the aged counsellors who had never worn them cried out against the\nyoung magistrates who were addicted to this disastrous luxury.[16]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[14] Lacedaemon avoided luxury only by preserving the community or\nequality of property; but she did not preserve either the one or the\nother save by having the land cultivated by an enslaved people. The\nexistence of the equality or community of property supposes the\nexistence of an enslaved people. The Spartans had virtue, just like\nhighwaymen, inquisitors and all classes of men whom habit has\nfamiliarized with a species of crime, to the point of committing them\nwithout remorse.\n\n[15] The sumptuary laws are by their nature a violation of the right of\nproperty. If in a little state there is not a great inequality of\nfortune, there will be no luxury; if this inequality exists, luxury is\nthe remedy for it. It is her sumptuary laws that have lost Geneva her\nliberty.\n\n[16] If by luxury one understands everything that is beyond the\nnecessary, luxury is a natural consequence of the progress of the human\nspecies; and to reason consequently every enemy of luxury should believe\nwith Rousseau that the state of happiness and virtue for man is that,\nnot of the savage, but of the orang-outang. One feels that it would be\nabsurd to regard as an evil the comforts which all men would enjoy:\nalso, does one not generally give the name of luxury to the\nsuperfluities which only a small number of individuals can enjoy. In\nthis sense, luxury is a necessary consequence of property, without which\nno society can subsist, and of a great inequality between fortunes which\nis the consequence, not of the right of property, but of bad laws.\nMoralists should address their sermons to the legislators, and not to\nindividuals, because it is in the order of possible things that a\nvirtuous and enlightened man may have the power to make reasonable laws,\nand it is not in human nature for all the rich men of a country to\nrenounce through virtue procuring for themselves for money the\nenjoyments of pleasure or vanity.\n\n\n\n\n_GENERAL REFLECTION ON MAN_\n\n\nIt needs twenty years to lead man from the plant state in which he is\nwithin his mother's womb, and the pure animal state which is the lot of\nhis early childhood, to the state when the maturity of the reason begins\nto appear. It has needed thirty centuries to learn a little about his\nstructure. It would need eternity to learn something about his soul. It\ntakes an instant to kill him.\n\n\n\n\n_MAN IN THE IRON MASK_\n\n\nThe author of the \"Siecle de Louis XIV.\"[17] is the first to speak of\nthe man in the iron mask in an authenticated history. The reason is that\nhe was very well informed about the anecdote which astonishes the\npresent century, which will astonish posterity, and which is only too\ntrue. He was deceived about the date of the death of this singularly\nunfortunate unknown. The date of his burial at St. Paul was March 3rd,\n1703, and not 1704. (Note.--According to a certificate reported by\nSaint-Foix, the date was November 20th, 1703.)\n\nHe was imprisoned first of all at Pignerol before being so on St.\nMargaret's Islands, and later in the Bastille; always under the same\nman's guard, Saint-Mars, who saw him die. Father Griffet, Jesuit, has\ncommunicated to the public the diary of the Bastille, which testifies to\nthe dates. He had this diary without difficulty, for he held the\ndelicate position of confessor of prisoners imprisoned in the Bastille.\n\nThe man in the iron mask is a riddle to which everyone wishes to guess\nthe answer. Some say that he was the Duc de Beaufort: but the Duc de\nBeaufort was killed by the Turks at the defence of Candia, in 1669; and\nthe man in the iron mask was at Pignerol, in 1662. Besides, how would\none have arrested the Duc de Beaufort surrounded by his army? how would\none have transferred him to France without anybody knowing anything\nabout it? and why should he have been put in prison, and why this mask?\n\nOthers have considered the Comte de Vermandois, natural son of Louis\nXIV., who died publicly of the small-pox in 1683, with the army, and was\nburied in the town of Arras.\n\nLater it was thought that the Duke of Monmouth, whose head King James\nII. had cut off publicly in London in 1685, was the man in the iron\nmask. It would have been necessary for him to be resuscitated, and then\nfor him to change the order of the times, for him to put the year 1662\nin place of 1685; for King James who never pardoned anyone, and who on\nthat account deserved all his misfortunes, to have pardoned the Duke of\nMonmouth, and to have caused the death, in his place, of a man exactly\nlike him. It would have been necessary to find this double who would\nhave been so kind as to have his neck cut off in public in order to save\nthe Duke of Monmouth. It would have been necessary for the whole of\nEngland to have been under a misapprehension; for James then to have\nsent his earnest entreaties to Louis XIV. to be so good as to serve as\nhis constable and gaoler. Then Louis XIV. having done King James this\nlittle favour, would not have failed to have the same consideration for\nKing William and for Queen Anne, with whom he was at war; and he would\ncarefully have preserved in these two monarchs' consideration his\ndignity of gaoler, with which King James had honoured him.\n\nAll these illusions being dissipated, it remains to be learned who was\nthis prisoner who was always masked, the age at which he died, and under\nwhat name he was buried. It is clear that if he was not allowed to pass\ninto the courtyard of the Bastille, if he was not allowed to speak to\nhis doctor, unless covered by a mask, it was for fear that in his\nfeatures might be recognized some too striking resemblance. He might\nshow his tongue, and never his face. As regards his age, he himself said\nto the Bastille apothecary, a few days before his death, that he thought\nhe was about sixty; and Master Marsolan, surgeon to the Marechal de\nRichelieu, and later to the Duc d'Orleans, regent, son-in-law of this\napothecary, has repeated it to me more than once.\n\nFinally, why give him an Italian name? he was always called Marchiali!\nHe who writes this article knows more about it, maybe, than Father\nGriffet, and will not say more.\n\n\nPUBLISHERS NOTE[18]\n\nIt is surprising to see so many scholars and so many intelligent and\nsagacious writers torment themselves with guessing who can have been\nthe famous man in the iron mask, without the simplest, most natural,\nmost probable idea ever presenting itself to them. Once the fact as M.\nde Voltaire reports it is admitted, with its circumstances; the\nexistence of a prisoner of so singular a species, put in the rank of the\nbest authenticated historical truths; it seems that not only is nothing\neasier than to imagine who this prisoner was, but that it is even\ndifficult for there to be two opinions on the subject. The author of\nthis article would have communicated his opinion earlier, if he had not\nbelieved that this idea must already have come to many others, and if he\nwere not persuaded that it was not worth while giving as a discovery\nwhat, according to him, jumps to the eyes of all who read this anecdote.\n\nHowever, as for some time past this event has divided men's minds, and\nas quite recently the public has again been given a letter in which it\nis claimed as proved that this celebrated prisoner was a secretary of\nthe Duke of Mantua (which cannot be reconciled with the great marks of\nrespect shown by M. de Saint-Mars to his prisoner), the author has\nthought it his duty to tell at last what has been his opinion for many\nyears. Maybe this conjecture will put an end to all other researches,\nunless the secret be revealed by those who can be its guardians, in such\na way as to remove all doubts.\n\nHe will not amuse himself with refuting those who have imagined that\nthis prisoner could be the Comte de Vermandois, the Duc de Beaufort, or\nthe Duke of Monmouth. The scholarly and very wise author of this last\nopinion has well refuted the others; but he had based his own opinion\nessentially merely on the impossibility of finding in Europe some other\nprince whose detention it would have been of the very highest importance\nshould not be known. M. de Saint-Foix is right, if he means to speak\nonly of princes whose existence was known; but why has nobody yet\nthought of supposing that the iron mask might have been an unknown\nprince, brought up in secret, and whose existence it was important\nshould remain unknown?\n\nThe Duke of Monmouth was not for France a prince of such great\nimportance; and one does not see even what could have engaged this\npower, at least after the death of this duke and of James II., to make\nso great a secret of his detention, if indeed he was the iron mask. It\nis hardly probable either that M. de Louvois and M. de Saint-Mars would\nhave shown the Duke of Monmouth the profound respect which M. de\nVoltaire assures they showed the iron mask.\n\nThe author conjectures, from the way that M. de Voltaire has told the\nfacts, that this celebrated historian is as persuaded as he is of the\nsuspicion which he is going, he says, to bring to light; but that M. de\nVoltaire, as a Frenchman, did not wish, he adds, to publish point-blank,\nparticularly as he had said enough for the answer to the riddle not to\nbe difficult to guess. Here it is, he continues, as I see it.\n\n\"The iron mask was undoubtedly a brother and an elder brother of Louis\nXIV., whose mother had that taste for fine linen on which M. de Voltaire\nlays stress. It was in reading the Memoirs of that time, which report\nthis anecdote about the queen, that, recalling this same taste in the\niron mask, I doubted no longer that he was her son: a fact of which all\nthe other circumstances had persuaded me already.\n\n\"It is known that Louis XIII. had not lived with the queen for a long\ntime; that the birth of Louis XIV. was due only to a happy chance\nskilfully induced; a chance which absolutely obliged the king to sleep\nin the same bed with the queen. This is how I think the thing came to\npass.\n\n\"The queen may have thought that it was her fault that no heir was born\nto Louis XIII. The birth of the iron mask will have undeceived her. The\ncardinal to whom she will have confided the fact will have known, for\nmore than one reason, how to turn the secret to account; he will have\nthought of making use of this event for his own benefit and for the\nbenefit of the state. Persuaded by this example that the queen could\ngive the king children, the plan which produced the chance of one bed\nfor the king and the queen was arranged in consequence. But the queen\nand the cardinal, equally impressed with the necessity of hiding from\nLouis XIII. the iron mask's existence, will have had him brought up in\nsecret. This secret will have been a secret for Louis XIV. until\nCardinal Mazarin's death.\n\n\"But this monarch learning then that he had a brother, and an elder\nbrother whom his mother could not disacknowledge, who further bore maybe\nthe marked features which betrayed his origin, reflecting that this\nchild born during marriage could not, without great inconvenience and a\nhorrible scandal, be declared illegitimate after Louis XIII.'s death,\nLouis XIV. will have judged that he could not use a wiser or juster\nmeans than the one he employed in order to assure his own tranquillity\nand the peace of the state; means which relieved him of committing a\ncruelty which policy would have represented as necessary to a monarch\nless conscientious and less magnanimous than Louis XIV.\n\n\"It seems to me, our author continues, that the more one knows of the\nhistory of those times, the more one must be struck by these assembled\ncircumstances which are in favour of such a supposition.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[17] Voltaire.\n\n[18] This note, given as a publisher's note in the 1771 edition, passes\namong many men of letters as being by Voltaire himself. He knew of this\nedition, and he never contradicted the opinion there advanced on the\nsubject of the man in the iron mask.\n\nHe was the first to speak of this man. He always combated all the\nconjectures made about the mask: he always spoke as though better\ninformed than others on the subject, and as though unwilling to tell all\nhe knew.\n\nThere is a letter in circulation from Mlle. de Valois, written to the\nDuke, afterward Marechal de Richelieu, where she boasts of having\nlearned from the Duc d'Orleans, her father, under strange conditions,\nwho the man in the iron mask was; this man, she says, was a twin brother\nof Louis XIV., born a few hours after him.\n\nEither this letter, which it was so useless, so indecent, so dangerous\nto read, is a supposititious letter, or the regent, in giving his\ndaughter the reward she had so nobly acquired, thought to weaken the\ndanger there was in revealing a state secret, by altering the facts, so\nas to make of this prince a younger son without right to the throne,\ninstead of the heir-apparent to the crown.\n\nBut Louis XIV., who had a brother; Louis XIV., whose soul was\nmagnanimous; Louis XIV., who prided himself even on a scrupulous\nprobity, whom history has reproached with no crime, who indeed committed\nno crime apart from letting himself be too swayed by the counsels of\nLouvois and the Jesuits; Louis XIV. would never have detained one of his\nbrothers in perpetual prison, in order to forestall the evils announced\nby an astrologer, in whom he did not believe. He needed more important\nmotives. Eldest son of Louis XIII., acknowledged by this prince, the\nthrone belonged to him; but a son born of Anne of Austria, unknown to\nher husband, had no rights, and could, nevertheless, try to make himself\nacknowledged, rend France with a long civil war, win maybe over Louis\nXIII.'s son, by alleging the right of primogeniture, and substitute a\nnew race for the old race of the Bourbons. These motives, if they did\nnot entirely justify Louis XIV.'s rigour, serve at least to excuse him;\nand the prisoner, too well-informed of his fate, could be grateful to\nhim for not having listened to more rigorous counsels, counsels which\npolitics have often employed against those who had pretensions to\nthrones occupied by their competitors.\n\nFrom his youth Voltaire was connected with the Duc de Richelieu, who was\nnot discreet: if Mlle. de Valois' letter is authentic, he knew of it;\nbut, possessed of a just mind, he felt the error, and sought other\ninformation. He was in a position to obtain it; he rectified the truth\naltered in the letter, as he rectified so many other errors.\n\n\n\n\n_MARRIAGE_\n\n\nI came across a reasoner who said: \"Engage your subjects to marry as\nsoon as possible; let them be exempt from taxes the first year, and let\ntheir tax be distributed over those who at the same age are celibate.\n\n\"The more married men you have, the less crime there will be. Look at\nthe frightful records of your registers of crime; you will find there a\nhundred bachelors hanged or wheeled for one father of a family.\n\n\"Marriage makes man wiser and more virtuous. The father of a family,\nnear to committing a crime, is often stopped by his wife whose blood,\nless feverish than his, makes her gentler, more compassionate, more\nfearful of theft and murder, more timorous, more religious.\n\n\"The father of a family does not want to blush before his children. He\nfears to leave them a heritage of shame.\n\n\"Marry your soldiers, they will not desert any more. Bound to their\nfamilies, they will be bound also to their fatherland. A bachelor\nsoldier often is nothing but a vagabond, to whom it is indifferent\nwhether he serves the king of Naples or the king of Morocco.\"\n\nThe Roman warriors were married; they fought for their wives and\nchildren; and they enslaved the wives and children of other nations.\n\nA great Italian politician, who further was very learned in oriental\nlanguages, a very rare thing among our politicians, said to me in my\nyouth: \"_Caro figlio_, remember that the Jews have never had but one\ngood institution, that of having a horror of virginity.\" If this little\nrace of superstitious intermediaries had not considered marriage as the\nfirst law of man, if there had been among them convents of nuns, they\nwere irreparably lost.\n\n\n\n\n_MASTER_\n\n\nSECTION I\n\n\"Unfortunate that I am to have been born!\" said Ardassan Ougli, young\npage of the great Sultan of the Turks. \"If it were only the great Sultan\non whom I am dependent; but I am subject to the chief of my oda, to the\ncapigi pasha; and when I receive my pay, I have to bow down to one of\nthe tefterdar's clerks who deducts half of it. Before I was seven years\nold I had cut off, in spite of myself, in ceremony, the end of my\nprepuce, and it made me ill for a fortnight. The dervish who prays for\nus is my master; an iman is still more my master; the mollah is still\nmore my master than the iman. The cadi is another master; the\ncadi-leskier is master still more; the mufti is much more master than\nall these together. The grand vizier's kaia can with a word have me\nthrown into the canal; and the grand vizier, finally, can have my neck\nwrung at his pleasure, and stuff the skin of my head, without anybody\neven taking notice.\n\n\"How many masters, great God! even if I had as many bodies and as many\nsouls as I have duties to accomplish, I could not attend to everything.\nOh, Allah! if only you had made me a screech-owl! I should live free in\nmy hole, and I should eat mice at my ease without masters or servants.\nThat assuredly is man's real destiny; only since he was perverted has he\nmasters. No man was made to serve another man continuously. Each would\nhave charitably aided his fellow, if things were as they should be. The\nman with eyes would have led the blind man, the active man would have\nacted as crutch to the cripple. This world would have been the paradise\nof Mohammed; and it is the hell which is exactly under the pointed\nbridge.\"\n\nThus did Ardassan Ougli speak, after receiving the stirrup-leather from\none of his masters.\n\nAfter a few years Ardassan Ougli became pasha with three tails. He made\na prodigious fortune, and he firmly believed that all men, excepting the\nGreat Turk and the Grand Vizier, were born to serve him, and all women\nto give him pleasure in accordance with his caprice.\n\n\nSECTION II\n\nHow has it been possible for one man to become another man's master, and\nby what species of incomprehensible magic has he been able to become the\nmaster of many other men? On this phenomenon a great number of good\nvolumes have been written; but I give the preference to an Indian fable,\nbecause it is short, and because the fables have said everything.\n\nAdimo, the father of all the Indians, had two sons and two daughters by\nhis wife Procriti. The elder son was a giant, the younger was a little\nhunchback, the two daughters were pretty. As soon as the giant was\nconscious of his strength, he lay with his two sisters, and made the\nlittle hunchback serve him. Of his two sisters, one was his cook, the\nother his gardener. When the giant wanted to sleep, he started by\nchaining his little hunchback brother to a tree; and when the brother\nescaped, he caught him in four strides, and gave him twenty strokes with\na length of ox sinew.\n\nThe hunchback became submissive and the best subject in the world. The\ngiant, satisfied to see him fulfilling his duties as subject, permitted\nhim to lie with one of his sisters for whom he himself had taken a\ndistaste. The children who came of this marriage were not entirely\nhunchbacked; but they had sufficiently misshapen forms. They were\nreared in fear of God and the giant. They received an excellent\neducation; they were taught that their great uncle was giant by divine\nright, that he could do with his family as pleased him; that if he had a\npretty niece or great-niece, she was for him alone without a doubt, and\nthat no one could lie with her until he wanted her no longer.\n\nThe giant having died, his son, who was not by a long way as strong and\nas big as he, thought nevertheless that he, like his father, was giant\nby divine right. He claimed to make all the men work for him, and to lie\nwith all the women. The family leagued itself against him, he was beaten\nto death, and the others turned themselves into a republic.\n\nThe Siamese, on the contrary, maintain that the family had started by\nbeing republican, and that the giant did not come until after a great\nnumber of years and dissensions; but all the authors of Benares and Siam\nagree that mankind lived an infinity of centuries before having the\nintelligence to make laws; and they prove it by an unanswerable reason,\nwhich is that even to-day when everyone plumes himself on his\nintelligence, no way has been found of making a score of passably good\nlaws.\n\nIt is indeed still an insoluble question in India whether republics were\nestablished before or after monarchies, whether confusion appeared more\nhorrible to mankind than despotism. I do not know what happened in order\nof time; but in that of nature it must be agreed that all men being born\nequal, violence and adroitness made the first masters, the laws made the\nlast.\n\n\n\n\n_MEN OF LETTERS_\n\n\nIn our barbarous times, when the Franks, the Germans, the Bretons, the\nLombards, the Spanish Muzarabs, knew not how either to read or write,\nthere were instituted schools, universities, composed almost entirely of\necclesiastics who, knowing nothing but their own jargon, taught this\njargon to those who wished to learn it; the academies came only a long\ntime afterwards; they despised the foolishness of the schools, but did\nnot always dare to rise against them, because there are foolishnesses\nthat are respected provided that they concern respectable things.\n\nThe men of letters who have rendered the greatest services to the small\nnumber of thinking beings spread over the world, are the isolated\nwriters, the true scholars shut in their studies, who have neither\nargued on the benches of the universities, nor told half-truths in the\nacademies; and almost all of them have been persecuted. Our wretched\nspecies is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always\nthrow stones at those who are showing a new road.\n\nMontesquieu says that the Scythians rent their slaves' eyes, so that\nthey might be less distracted while they were churning their butter;\nthat is just how the inquisition functions, and in the land where this\nmonster reigns almost everybody is blind. In England people have had two\neyes for more than two hundred years; the French are starting to open\none eye; but sometimes there are men in power who do not want the people\nto have even this one eye open.\n\nThese poor persons in power are like Doctor Balouard of the Italian\nComedy, who does not want to be served by anyone but the dolt\nHarlequin, and who is afraid of having too shrewd a valet.\n\nCompose some odes in praise of My Lord Superbus Fadus, some madrigals\nfor his mistress; dedicate a book on geography to his door-keeper, you\nwill be well-received; enlighten mankind, you will be exterminated.\n\nDescartes was forced to leave his country, Gassendi was calumniated,\nArnauld dragged out his days in exile; every philosopher is treated as\nthe prophets were among the Jews.\n\nWho would believe that in the eighteenth century a philosopher was\ndragged before the secular tribunals, and treated as impious by the\ntribunals of arguments, for having said that men could not practise the\narts if they had no hands? I do not despair that soon the first person\nwho is so insolent as to say that men could not think if they had no\nheads will be immediately condemned to the galleys; \"for,\" some young\ngraduate will say to him, \"the soul is a pure spirit, the head is only\nmatter; God can put the soul in the heel, as well as in the brain;\ntherefore I denounce you as impious.\"\n\nThe greatest misfortune of a man of letters is not perhaps being the\nobject of his confreres' jealousy, the victim of the cabal, the despised\nof the men of power; but of being judged by fools. Fools go far\nsometimes, particularly when bigotry is added to ineptitude, and to\nineptitude the spirit of vengeance. The further great misfortune of a\nman of letters is that ordinarily he is unattached. A bourgeois buys\nhimself a small position, and there he is backed by his colleagues. If\nhe suffers an injustice, he finds defenders at once. The man of letters\nis unsuccoured; he resembles a flying-fish; if he rises a little, the\nbirds devour him; if he dives, the fish eat him.\n\nEvery public man pays tribute to malignity, but he is paid in honours\nand gold.\n\n\n\n\n_METAMORPHOSIS_, _METEMPSYCHOSIS_\n\n\nIs it not very natural that all the metamorphoses with which the world\nis covered should have made people imagine in the Orient, where\neverything has been imagined, that our souls passed from one body to\nanother? An almost imperceptible speck becomes a worm, this worm becomes\na butterfly; an acorn transforms itself into an oak; an egg into a bird;\nwater becomes cloud and thunder; wood is changed into fire and ash;\neverything in nature appears, in fine, metamorphosed. Soon people\nattributed to souls, which were regarded as light figures, what they saw\nin more gross bodies. The idea of metempsychosis is perhaps the most\nancient dogma of the known universe, and it still reigns in a large part\nof India and China.\n\n\n\n\n_MILTON, ON THE REPROACH OF PLAGIARISM AGAINST_\n\n\nSome people have accused Milton of having taken his poem from the\ntragedy of \"The Banishment of Adam\" by Grotius, and from the \"Sarcotis\"\nof the Jesuit Masenius, printed at Cologne in 1654 and in 1661, long\nbefore Milton gave his \"Paradise Lost.\"\n\nAs regards Grotius, it was well enough known in England that Milton had\ncarried into his epic English poem a few Latin verses from the tragedy\nof \"Adam.\" It is in no wise to be a plagiarist to enrich one's language\nwith the beauties of a foreign language. No one accused Euripides of\nplagiarism for having imitated in one of the choruses of \"Iphigenia\" the\nsecond book of the Iliad; on the contrary, people were very grateful to\nhim for this imitation, which they regarded as a homage rendered to\nHomer on the Athenian stage.\n\nVirgil never suffered a reproach for having happily imitated, in the\nAEneid, a hundred verses by the first of Greek poets.\n\nAgainst Milton the accusation was pushed a little further. A Scot, Will\nLauder by name, very attached to the memory of Charles I., whom Milton\nhad insulted with the most uncouth animosity, thought himself entitled\nto dishonour the memory of this monarch's accuser. It was claimed that\nMilton was guilty of an infamous imposture in robbing Charles I. of the\nsad glory of being the author of the \"Eikon Basilika,\" a book long dear\nto the royalists, and which Charles I., it was said, had composed in his\nprison to serve as consolation for his deplorable adversity.\n\nLauder, therefore, about the year of 1752, wanted to begin by proving\nthat Milton was only a plagiarist, before proving that he had acted as a\nforger against the memory of the most unfortunate of kings; he procured\nsome editions of the poem of the \"Sarcotis.\" It seemed evident that\nMilton had imitated some passages of it, as he had imitated Grotius and\nTasso.\n\nBut Lauder did not rest content there; he unearthed a bad translation in\nLatin verse of the \"Paradise Lost\" of the English poet; and joining\nseveral verses of this translation to those by Masenius, he thought\nthereby to render the accusation more grave, and Milton's shame more\ncomplete. It was in that, that he was badly deceived; his fraud was\ndiscovered. He wanted to make Milton pass for a forger, and he was\nhimself convicted of forging. No one examined Masenius' poem of which at\nthat time there were only a few copies in Europe. All England, convinced\nof the Scot's poor trick, asked no more about it. The accuser,\nconfounded, was obliged to disavow his manoeuvre, and ask pardon for\nit.\n\nSince then a new edition of Masenius was printed in 1757. The literary\npublic was surprised at the large number of very beautiful verses with\nwhich the Sarcotis was sprinkled. It is in truth nothing but a long\ndeclamation of the schools on the fall of man: but the exordium, the\ninvocation, the description of the garden of Eden, the portrait of Eve,\nthat of the devil, are precisely the same as in Milton. Further, it is\nthe same subject, the same plot, the same catastrophe. If the devil\nwishes, in Milton, to be revenged on man for the harm which God has done\nhim, he has precisely the same plan in the work of the Jesuit Masenius;\nand he manifests it in verses worthy maybe of the century of Augustus.\n(\"Sarcotis,\" I., 271 _et seq._)\n\nOne finds in both Masenius and Milton little episodes, trifling\ndigressions which are absolutely alike; both speak of Xerxes who covered\nthe sea with his ships. Both speak in the same tone of the Tower of\nBabel; both give the same description of luxury, of pride, of avarice,\nof gluttony.\n\nWhat most persuaded the generality of readers of Milton's plagiarism was\nthe perfect resemblance of the beginning of the two poems. Many\nforeigners, after reading the exordium, had no doubt but that the rest\nof Milton's poem was taken from Masenius. It is a very great error and\neasy to recognize.\n\nI do not think that the English poet imitated in all more than two\nhundred of the Jesuit of Cologne's verses; and I dare say that he\nimitated only what was worthy of being imitated. These two hundred\nverses are very beautiful; so are Milton's; and the total of Masenius'\npoem, despite these two hundred beautiful verses, is not worth anything\nat all.\n\nMoliere took two whole scenes from the ridiculous comedy of the \"Pedant\nJoue\" by Cyrano de Bergerac. \"These two scenes are good,\" he said as he\nwas jesting with his friends. \"They belong to me by right: I recover my\nproperty.\" After that anyone who treated the author of \"Tartufe\" and \"Le\nMisanthrope\" as a plagiarist would have been very badly received.\n\nIt is certain that generally Milton, in his \"Paradise\", has in imitating\nflown on his own wings; and it must be agreed that if he borrowed so\nmany traits from Grotius and from the Jesuit of Cologne, they are\nblended in the crowd of original things which are his; in England he is\nalways regarded as a very great poet.\n\nIt is true that he should have avowed having translated two hundred of a\nJesuit's verses; but in his time, at the court of Charles II., people\ndid not worry themselves with either the Jesuits, or Milton, or\n\"Paradise Lost\", or \"Paradise Regained\". All those things were either\nscoffed at, or unknown.\n\n\n\n\n_MOHAMMEDANS_\n\n\nI tell you again, ignorant imbeciles, whom other ignoramuses have made\nbelieve that the Mohammedan religion is voluptuous and sensual, there is\nnot a word of truth in it; you have been deceived on this point as on so\nmany others.\n\nCanons, monks, vicars even, if a law were imposed on you not to eat or\ndrink from four in the morning till ten at night, during the month of\nJuly, when Lent came at this period; if you were forbidden to play at\nany game of chance under pain of damnation; if wine were forbidden you\nunder the same pain; if you had to make a pilgrimage into the burning\ndesert; if it were enjoined on you to give at least two and a half per\ncent. of your income to the poor; if, accustomed to enjoy possession of\neighteen women, the number were cut down suddenly by fourteen; honestly,\nwould you dare call that religion sensual?\n\nThe Latin Christians have so many advantages over the Mussulmans, I do\nnot say in the matter of war, but in the matter of doctrines; the Greek\nChristians have so beaten them latterly from 1769 to 1773, that it is\nnot worth the trouble to indulge in unjust reproaches against Islam.\n\nTry to retake from the Mohammedans all that they usurped; but it is\neasier to calumniate them.\n\nI hate calumny so much that I do not want even to impute foolishness to\nthe Turks, although I detest them as tyrants over women and enemies of\nthe arts.\n\nI do not know why the historian of the Lower Empire maintains that\nMohammed speaks in his Koran of his journey into the sky: Mohammed does\nnot say a word about it; we have proved it.\n\nOne must combat ceaselessly. When one has destroyed an error, there is\nalways someone who resuscitates it.\n\n\n\n\n_MOUNTAIN_\n\n\nIt is a very old, very universal fable that tells of the mountain which,\nhaving frightened all the countryside by its outcry that it was in\nlabour, was hissed by all present when it brought into the world a mere\nmouse. The people in the pit were not philosophers. Those who hissed\nshould have admired. It was as fine for the mountain to give birth to a\nmouse, as for the mouse to give birth to a mountain. A rock which\nproduces a rat is a very prodigious thing; and never has the world seen\nanything approaching this miracle. All the globes of the universe could\nnot call a fly into existence. Where the vulgar laugh, the philosopher\nadmires; and he laughs where the vulgar open their big, stupid eyes in\nastonishment.\n\n\n\n\n_NAKEDNESS_\n\n\nWhy should one lock up a man or a woman who walked stark naked in the\nstreet? and why is no one shocked by absolutely nude statues, by\npictures of the Madonna and of Jesus that may be seen in some churches?\n\nIt is probably that the human species lived long without being clothed.\n\nPeople unacquainted with clothing have been found in more than one\nisland and in the American continent.\n\nThe most civilized hide the organs of generation with leaves, woven\nrushes, feathers.\n\nWhence comes this form of modesty? is it the instinct for lighting\ndesires by hiding what it gives pleasure to discover?\n\nIs it really true that among slightly more civilized nations, such as\nthe Jews and half-Jews, there have been entire sects who would not\nworship God save by stripping themselves of all their clothes? such\nwere, it is said, the Adamites and the Abelians. They gathered quite\nnaked to sing the praises of God: St. Epiphanius and St. Augustine say\nso. It is true that they were not contemporary, and that they were very\nfar from these people's country. But at all events this madness is\npossible: it is not even more extraordinary, more mad than a hundred\nother madnesses which have been round the world one after the other.\n\nWe have said elsewhere that to-day even the Mohammedans still have\nsaints who are madmen, and who go naked like monkeys. It is very\npossible that some fanatics thought it was better to present themselves\nto the Deity in the state in which He formed them, than in the disguise\ninvented by man. It is possible that they showed everything out of\npiety. There are so few well-made persons of both sexes, that nakedness\nmight have inspired chastity, or rather disgust, instead of increasing\ndesire.\n\nIt is said particularly that the Abelians renounced marriage. If there\nwere any fine lads and pretty lasses among them, they were at least\ncomparable to St. Adhelme and to blessed Robert d'Arbrisselle, who slept\nwith the prettiest persons, that their continence might triumph all the\nmore.\n\nBut I avow that it would have been very comic to see a hundred Helens\nand Parises singing anthems, giving each other the kiss of peace, and\nmaking agapae.\n\nAll of which shows that there is no singularity, no extravagance, no\nsuperstition which has not passed through the heads of mankind. Happy\nthe day when these superstitions do not trouble society and make of it a\nscene of disorder, hatred and fury! It is better without doubt to pray\nGod stark naked, than to stain His altars and the public places with\nhuman blood.\n\n\n\n\n_NATURAL LAW_\n\n\nB: What is natural law?\n\nA: The instinct which makes us feel justice.\n\nB: What do you call just and unjust?\n\nA: What appears such to the entire universe.\n\nB: The universe is composed of many heads. It is said that in Lacedaemon\nwere applauded thefts for which people in Athens were condemned to the\nmines.\n\nA: Abuse of words, logomachy, equivocation; theft could not be committed\nat Sparta, when everything was common property. What you call \"theft\"\nwas the punishment for avarice.\n\nB: It was forbidden to marry one's sister in Rome. It was allowed among\nthe Egyptians, the Athenians and even among the Jews, to marry one's\nsister on the father's side. It is but with regret that I cite that\nwretched little Jewish people, who should assuredly not serve as a rule\nfor anyone, and who (putting religion aside) was never anything but a\nrace of ignorant and fanatic brigands. But still, according to their\nbooks, the young Thamar, before being ravished by her brother Amnon,\nsays to him:--\"Nay, my brother, do not thou this folly, but speak unto\nthe king; for he will not withhold me from thee.\" (2 Samuel xiii. 12,\n13.)\n\nA: Conventional law all that, arbitrary customs, fashions that pass: the\nessential remains always. Show me a country where it was honourable to\nrob me of the fruit of my toil, to break one's promise, to lie in order\nto hurt, to calumniate, to assassinate, to poison, to be ungrateful\ntowards a benefactor, to beat one's father and one's mother when they\noffer you food.\n\nB: Have you forgotten that Jean-Jacques, one of the fathers of the\nmodern Church, has said that \"the first man who dared enclose and\ncultivate a piece of land\" was the enemy \"of the human race,\" that he\nshould have been exterminated, and that \"the fruits of the earth are for\nall, and that the land belongs to none\"? Have we not already examined\ntogether this lovely proposition which is so useful to society\n(Discourse on Inequality, second part)?\n\nA: Who is this Jean-Jacques? he is certainly not either John the\nBaptist, nor John the Evangelist, nor James the Greater, nor James the\nLess[19]; it must be some Hunnish wit who wrote that abominable\nimpertinence or some poor joker _bufo magro_ who wanted to laugh at what\nthe entire world regards as most serious. For instead of going to spoil\nthe land of a wise and industrious neighbour, he had only to imitate\nhim; and every father of a family having followed this example, behold\nsoon a very pretty village formed. The author of this passage seems to\nme a very unsociable animal.\n\nB: You think then that by outraging and robbing the good man who has\nsurrounded his garden and chicken-run with a live hedge, he has been\nwanting in respect towards the duties of natural law?\n\nA: Yes, yes, once again, there is a natural law, and it does not consist\neither in doing harm to others, or in rejoicing thereat.\n\nB: I imagine that man likes and does harm only for his own advantage.\nBut so many people are led to look for their own interest in the\nmisfortune of others, vengeance is so violent a passion, there are such\ndisastrous examples of it; ambition, still more fatal, has inundated the\nworld with so much blood, that when I retrace for myself the horrible\npicture, I am tempted to avow that man is a very devil. In vain have I\nin my heart the notion of justice and injustice; an Attila courted by\nSt. Leo, a Phocas flattered by St. Gregory with the most cowardly\nbaseness, an Alexander VI. sullied with so many incests, so many\nmurders, so many poisonings, with whom the weak Louis XII., who is\ncalled \"the good,\" makes the most infamous and intimate alliance; a\nCromwell whose protection Cardinal Mazarin seeks, and for whom he drives\nout of France the heirs of Charles I., Louis XIV.'s first cousins, etc.,\netc.; a hundred like examples set my ideas in disorder, and I know no\nlonger where I am.\n\nA: Well, do storms stop our enjoyment of to-day's beautiful sun? Did the\nearthquake which destroyed half the city of Lisbon stop your making the\nvoyage to Madrid very comfortably? If Attila was a brigand and Cardinal\nMazarin a rogue, are there not princes and ministers who are honest\npeople? Has it not been remarked that in the war of 1701, Louis XIV.'s\ncouncil was composed of the most virtuous men? The Duc de Beauvilliers,\nthe Marquis de Torci, the Marechal de Villars, Chamillart lastly who\npassed for being incapable, but never for dishonest. Does not the idea\nof justice subsist always? It is upon that idea that all laws are\nfounded. The Greeks called them \"daughters of heaven,\" which only means\ndaughters of nature. Have you no laws in your country?\n\nB: Yes, some good, some bad.\n\nA: Where, if it was not in the notions of natural law, did you get the\nidea that every man has within himself when his mind is properly made?\nYou must have obtained it there, or nowhere.\n\nB: You are right, there is a natural law; but it is still more natural\nto many people to forget it.\n\nA: It is natural also to be one-eyed, hump-backed, lame, deformed,\nunhealthy; but one prefers people who are well made and healthy.\n\nB: Why are there so many one-eyed and deformed minds?\n\nA: Peace! But go to the article on \"Power.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[19] Jean=John: Jacques=James.\n\n\n\n\n_NATURE_\n\n\nDIALOGUE BETWEEN THE PHILOSOPHER AND NATURE\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nWho are you, Nature? I live in you; for fifty years have I been seeking\nyou, and I have not found you yet.\n\nNATURE:\n\nThe ancient Egyptians, who lived, it is said, some twelve hundred years,\nmade me the same reproach. They called me Isis; they put a great veil on\nmy head, and they said that nobody could lift it.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nThat is what makes me address myself to you. I have been able to measure\nsome of your globes, know their paths, assign the laws of motion; but I\nhave not been able to learn who you are.\n\nAre you always active? are you always passive? did your elements arrange\nthemselves, as water deposits itself on sand, oil on water, air on oil?\nhave you a mind which directs all your operations, as councils are\ninspired as soon as they are assembled, although their members are\nsometimes ignoramuses? I pray you tell me the answer to your riddle.\n\nNATURE:\n\nI am the great everything. I know no more about it. I am not a\nmathematician; and everything is arranged in my world according to\nmathematical laws. Guess if you can how it is all done.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nCertainly, since your great everything does not know mathematics, and\nsince all your laws are most profoundly geometrical, there must be an\neternal geometer who directs you, a supreme intelligence who presides\nover your operations.\n\nNATURE:\n\nYou are right; I am water, earth, fire, atmosphere, metal, mineral,\nstone, vegetable, animal. I feel indeed that there is in me an\nintelligence; you have an intelligence, you do not see it. I do not see\nmine either; I feel this invisible power; I cannot know it: why should\nyou, who are but a small part of me, want to know what I do not know?\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nWe are curious. I want to know how being so crude in your mountains, in\nyour deserts, in your seas, you appear nevertheless so industrious in\nyour animals, in your vegetables?\n\nNATURE:\n\nMy poor child do you want me to tell you the truth? It is that I have\nbeen given a name which does not suit me; my name is \"Nature\", and I am\nall art.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nThat word upsets all my ideas. What! nature is only art?\n\nNATURE:\n\nYes, without any doubt. Do you not know that there is an infinite art in\nthose seas and those mountains that you find so crude? do you not know\nthat all those waters gravitate towards the centre of the earth, and\nmount only by immutable laws; that those mountains which crown the\nearth are the immense reservoirs of the eternal snows which produce\nunceasingly those fountains, lakes and rivers without which my animal\nspecies and my vegetable species would perish? And as for what are\ncalled my animal kingdom, my vegetable kingdom and my mineral kingdom,\nyou see here only three; learn that I have millions of kingdoms. But if\nyou consider only the formation of an insect, of an ear of corn, of\ngold, of copper, everything will appear as marvels of art.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nIt is true. The more I think about it, the more I see that you are only\nthe art of I know not what most potent and industrious great being, who\nhides himself and who makes you appear. All reasoners since Thales, and\nprobably long before him, have played at blind man's buff with you; they\nhave said: \"I have you!\" and they had nothing. We all resemble Ixion; he\nthought he was kissing Juno, and all that he possessed was a cloud.\n\nNATURE:\n\nSince I am all that is, how can a being such as you, so small a part of\nmyself, seize me? Be content, atoms my children, with seeing a few atoms\nthat surround you, with drinking a few drops of my milk, with vegetating\nfor a few moments on my breast, and with dying without having known your\nmother and your nurse.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nMy dear mother, tell me something of why you exist, of why there is\nanything.\n\nNATURE:\n\nI will answer you as I have answered for so many centuries all those who\nhave interrogated me about first principles: I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THEM.\n\nTHE PHILOSOPHER:\n\nWould not non-existence be better than this multitude of existences made\nin order to be continually dissolved, this crowd of animals born and\nreproduced in order to devour others and to be devoured, this crowd of\nsentient beings formed for so many painful sensations, that other crowd\nof intelligences which so rarely hear reason. What is the good of all\nthat, Nature?\n\nNATURE:\n\nOh! go and ask Him who made me.\n\n\n\n\n_NECESSARY_\n\n\nOSMIN:\n\nDo you not say that everything is necessary?\n\nSELIM:\n\nIf everything were not necessary, it would follow that God had made\nuseless things.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nThat is to say that it was necessary to the divine nature to make all\nthat it has made?\n\nSELIM:\n\nI think so, or at least I suspect it; there are people who think\notherwise; I do not understand them; maybe they are right. I am afraid\nof disputes on this subject.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nIt is also of another necessary that I want to talk to you.\n\nSELIM:\n\nWhat! of what is necessary to an honest man that he may live? of the\nmisfortune to which one is reduced when one lacks the necessary?\n\nOSMIN:\n\nNo; for what is necessary to one is not always necessary to the other:\nit is necessary for an Indian to have rice, for an Englishman to have\nmeat; a fur is necessary to a Russian, and a gauzy stuff to an African;\nthis man thinks that twelve coach-horses are necessary to him, that man\nlimits himself to a pair of shoes, a third walks gaily barefoot: I want\nto talk to you of what is necessary to all men.\n\nSELIM:\n\nIt seems to me that God has given all that is necessary to this species:\neyes to see with, feet for walking, a mouth for eating, an oesophagus\nfor swallowing, a stomach for digesting, a brain for reasoning, organs\nfor producing one's fellow creature.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nHow does it happen then that men are born lacking a part of these\nnecessary things?\n\nSELIM:\n\nIt is because the general laws of nature have brought about some\naccidents which have made monsters to be born; but generally man is\nprovided with everything that is necessary to him in order to live in\nsociety.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nAre there notions common to all men which serve to make them live in\nsociety?\n\nSELIM:\n\nYes. I have travelled with Paul Lucas, and wherever I went, I saw that\npeople respected their father and their mother, that people believed\nthemselves to be obliged to keep their promises, that people pitied\noppressed innocents, that they hated persecution, that they regarded\nliberty of thought as a rule of nature, and the enemies of this liberty\nas enemies of the human race; those who think differently seemed to me\nbadly organized creatures, monsters like those who are born without eyes\nand hands.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nAre these necessary things in all time and in all places?\n\nSELIM:\n\nYes, if they were not they would not be necessary to the human species.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nSo a belief which is new is not necessary to this species. Men could\nvery well live in society and accomplish their duty to God, before\nbelieving that Mahomet had frequent interviews with the angel Gabriel.\n\nSELIM:\n\nNothing is clearer; it would be ridiculous to think that man could not\naccomplish his duty to God before Mahomet came into the world; it was\nnot at all necessary for the human species to believe in the Alcoran:\nthe world went along before Mahomet just as it goes along to-day. If\nMahometanism had been necessary to the world, it would have existed in\nall places; God who has given us all two eyes to see the sun, would have\ngiven us all an intelligence to see the truth of the Mussulman religion.\nThis sect is therefore only like the positive laws that change according\nto time and place, like the fashions, like the opinions of the natural\nphilosophers which follow one after the other.\n\nThe Mussulman sect could not be essentially necessary to mankind.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nBut since it exists, God has permitted it?\n\nSELIM:\n\nYes, as he permits the world to be filled with foolishness, error and\ncalamity; that is not to say that men are all essentially made to be\nfools and miscreants. He permits that some men be eaten by snakes; but\none cannot say--\"God made man to be eaten by snakes.\"\n\nOSMIN:\n\nWhat do you mean when you say \"God permits\"? can nothing happen without\nHis order? permit, will and do, are they not the same thing for Him?\n\nSELIM:\n\nHe permits crime, but He does not commit it.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nCommitting a crime is acting against divine justice, it is disobeying\nGod. Well, God cannot disobey Himself, He cannot commit crime; but He\nhas made man in such a way that man may commit many crimes: where does\nthat come from?\n\nSELIM:\n\nThere are people who know, but I do not; all that I know is that the\nAlcoran is ridiculous, although from time to time it has some tolerably\ngood things; certainly the Alcoran was not at all necessary to man; I\nstick by that: I see clearly what is false, and I know very little that\nis true.\n\nOSMIN:\n\nI thought you would instruct me, and you teach me nothing.\n\nSELIM:\n\nIs it not a great deal to recognize people who deceive you, and the\ngross and dangerous errors which they retail to you?\n\nOSMIN:\n\nI should have ground for complaint against a doctor who showed me all\nthe harmful plants, and who did not show me one salutary plant.\n\nSELIM:\n\nI am not a doctor, and you are not ill; but it seems to me I should be\ngiving you a very good prescription if I said to you: \"Put not your\ntrust in all the inventions of charlatans, worship God, be an honest\nman, and believe that two and two make four.\"\n\n\n\n\n_NEW NOVELTIES_\n\n\nIt seems that the first words of Ovid's \"Metamorphoses,\" _In nova fert\nanimus_, are the motto of the human race. Nobody is touched by the\nadmirable spectacle of the sun which rises, or rather seems to rise,\nevery day; everybody runs to see the smallest little meteor which\nappears for an instant in that accumulation of vapours, called the sky,\nthat surround the earth.\n\nAn itinerant bookseller does not burden himself with a Virgil, with a\nHorace, but with a new book, even though it be detestable. He draws you\naside and says to you: \"Sir, do you want some books from Holland?\"\n\nFrom the beginning of the world women have complained of the fickleness\nthat is imputed to them in favour of the first new object which presents\nitself, and whose novelty is often its only merit. Many ladies (it must\nbe confessed, despite the infinite respect we have for them) have\ntreated men as they complain they have themselves been treated; and the\nstory of Gioconda is much older than Ariosto.\n\nPerhaps this universal taste for novelty is one of nature's favours.\nPeople cry to us: \"Be content with what you have, desire nothing that is\nbeyond your estate, restrain your curiosity, tame your intellectual\ndisquiet.\" These are very good maxims; but if we had always followed\nthem, we should still be eating acorns, we should be sleeping in the\nopen air, and we should not have had Corneille, Racine, Moliere,\nPoussin, Lebrun, Lemoine or Pigalle.\n\n\n\n\n_PHILOSOPHER_\n\n\nPhilosopher, _lover of wisdom_, that is to say, _of truth_. All\nphilosophers have had this dual character; there is not one in antiquity\nwho has not given mankind examples of virtue and lessons in moral\ntruths. They have all contrived to be deceived about natural philosophy;\nbut natural philosophy is so little necessary for the conduct of life,\nthat the philosophers had no need of it. It has taken centuries to learn\na part of nature's laws. One day was sufficient for a wise man to learn\nthe duties of man.\n\nThe philosopher is not enthusiastic; he does not set himself up as a\nprophet; he does not say that he is inspired by the gods. Thus I shall\nnot put in the rank of philosophers either the ancient Zarathustra, or\nHermes, or the ancient Orpheus, or any of those legislators of whom the\nnations of Chaldea, Persia, Syria, Egypt and Greece boasted. Those who\nstyled themselves children of the gods were the fathers of imposture;\nand if they used lies for the teaching of truths, they were unworthy of\nteaching them; they were not philosophers; they were at best very\nprudent liars.\n\nBy what fatality, shameful maybe for the Western peoples, is it\nnecessary to go to the far Orient to find a wise man who is simple,\nunostentatious, free from imposture, who taught men to live happily six\nhundred years before our vulgar era, at a time when the whole of the\nNorth was ignorant of the usage of letters, and when the Greeks were\nbarely beginning to distinguish themselves by their wisdom?\n\nThis wise man is Confucius, who being legislator never wanted to\ndeceive men. What more beautiful rule of conduct has ever been given\nsince him in the whole world?\n\n\"Rule a state as you rule a family; one can only govern one's family\nwell by setting the example.\n\n\"Virtue should be common to both husbandman and monarch.\n\n\"Apply thyself to the trouble of preventing crimes in order to lessen\nthe trouble of punishing them.\n\n\"Under the good kings Yao and Xu the Chinese were good; under the bad\nkings Kie and Chu they were wicked.\n\n\"Do to others as to thyself.\n\n\"Love all men; but cherish honest people. Forget injuries, and never\nkindnesses.\n\n\"I have seen men incapable of study; I have never seen them incapable of\nvirtue.\"\n\nLet us admit that there is no legislator who has proclaimed truths more\nuseful to the human race.\n\nA host of Greek philosophers have since taught an equally pure moral\nphilosophy. If they had limited themselves to their empty systems of\nnatural philosophy, their names would be pronounced to-day in mockery\nonly. If they are still respected, it is because they were just and that\nthey taught men to be so.\n\nOne cannot read certain passages of Plato, and notably the admirable\nexordium of the laws of Zaleucus, without feeling in one's heart the\nlove of honourable and generous actions. The Romans have their Cicero,\nwho alone is worth perhaps all the philosophers of Greece. After him\ncome men still more worthy of respect, but whom one almost despairs of\nimitating; Epictetus in bondage, the Antonines and the Julians on the\nthrone.\n\nWhich is the citizen among us who would deprive himself, like Julian,\nAntoninus and Marcus Aurelius, of all the delicacies of our flabby and\neffeminate lives? who would sleep as they did on the ground? who would\nimpose on himself their frugality? who, as they did, would march\nbarefoot and bareheaded at the head of the armies, exposed now to the\nheat of the sun, now to the hoar-frost? who would command all their\npassions as they did? There are pious men among us; but where are the\nwise men? where are the resolute, just and tolerant souls?\n\nThere have been philosophers of the study in France; and all, except\nMontaigne, have been persecuted. It is, I think, the last degree of the\nmalignity of our nature, to wish to oppress these very philosophers who\nwould correct it.\n\nI quite understand that the fanatics of one sect slaughter the\nenthusiasts of another sect, that the Franciscans hate the Dominicans,\nand that a bad artist intrigues to ruin one who surpasses him; but that\nthe wise Charron should have been threatened with the loss of his life,\nthat the learned and generous Ramus should have been assassinated, that\nDescartes should have been forced to flee to Holland to escape the fury\nof the ignorant, that Gassendi should have been obliged to withdraw\nseveral times to Digne, far from the calumnies of Paris; these things\nare a nation's eternal shame.\n\n\n\n\n_POWER_, _OMNIPOTENCE_\n\n\nI suppose that the man who reads this article is convinced that this\nworld is formed with intelligence, and that a little astronomy and\nanatomy suffices to make this universal and supreme intelligence\nadmired.\n\nCan he know by himself if this intelligence is omnipotent, that is to\nsay, infinitely powerful? Has he the least notion of the infinite, to\nunderstand what is an infinite power?\n\nThe celebrated historian philosopher, David Hume, says in \"Particular\nProvidence\": \"A weight of ten ounces is lifted in a balance by another\nweight; therefore this other weight is of more than ten ounces; but one\ncan adduce no reason why it should weigh a hundred ounces.\"\n\nOne can say likewise: You recognize a supreme intelligence strong enough\nto form you, to preserve you for a limited time, to reward you, to\npunish you. Do you know enough of this power to demonstrate that it can\ndo still more?\n\nHow can you prove by your reason that this being can do more than he has\ndone?\n\nThe life of all animals is short. Could he make it longer?\n\nAll animals are the prey of each other: everything is born to be\ndevoured. Could he form without destroying?\n\nYou do not know what nature is. You cannot therefore know if nature has\nnot forced him to do only the things he has done.\n\nThis globe is only a vast field of destruction and carnage. Either the\ngreat Being has been able to make of it an eternal abode of delight for\nall sentient beings, or He has not been able. If He has been able and if\nHe has not done so, fear to regard him as malevolent; but if He has not\nbeen able, fear not to look on Him as a very great power, circumscribed\nby nature in His limits.\n\nWhether or no His power is infinite does not regard you. It is a matter\nof indifference to a subject whether his master possesses five hundred\nleagues of land or five thousand; he is subject neither more nor less.\n\nWhich would be the greater insult to this ineffable Being, to say: \"He\nhas made miserable men without being able to dispense with them, or He\nhas made them for His pleasure?\"\n\nMany sects represent Him as cruel; others, for fear of admitting a\nwicked God, have the audacity to deny His existence. Is it not better to\nsay that probably the necessity of His nature and the necessity of\nthings have determined everything?\n\nThe world is the theatre of moral ill and physical ill; one is only too\naware of it: and the \"All is good\" of Shaftesbury, Bolingbroke and Pope,\nis only a witty paradox, a poor joke.\n\nThe two principles of Zarathustra and Manes, so carefully scrutinized by\nBayle, are a still poorer joke. They are, as has been observed already,\nMoliere's two doctors, one of whom says to the other: \"Grant me the\nemetic, and I will grant you the bleeding.\" Manichaeism is absurd; and\nthat is why it has had so many supporters.\n\nI admit that I have not been enlightened by all that Bayle says about\nthe Manichaeans and the Paulicians. That is controversy; I would have\npreferred pure philosophy. Why discuss our mysteries beside\nZarathustra's? As soon as you dare to treat of our mysteries, which need\nonly faith and no reasoning, you open precipices for yourself.\n\nThe trash in our scholastic theology has nothing to do with the trash in\nZarathustra's reveries.\n\nWhy debate original sin with Zarathustra? There was never any question\nof it save in St. Augustine's time. Neither Zarathustra nor any\nlegislator of antiquity had ever heard speak of it.\n\nIf you dispute with Zarathustra, put under lock and key the old and the\nnew Testaments which he did not know, and which one must revere without\ndesiring to explain them.\n\nWhat then should I have said to Zarathustra? My reason cannot admit two\ngods who fight, that is good only in a poem where Minerva quarrels with\nMars. My feeble reason is much more content with a single great Being,\nwhose essence was to make, and who has made all that nature has\npermitted Him, than it is satisfied with two great Beings, one of whom\nspoils the works of the other. Your bad principle Ahriman, has not been\nable to upset a single one of the astronomical and physical laws of the\ngood principle Ormuzd; everything progresses in the heavens with the\ngreatest regularity. Why should the wicked Ahriman have had power over\nthis little globe of the world?\n\nIf I had been Ahriman, I should have attacked Ormuzd in his fine grand\nprovinces of so many suns and stars. I should not have limited myself to\nmaking war on him in a little village.\n\nThere is much evil in this village: but whence have you the knowledge\nthat this evil is not inevitable?\n\nYou are forced to admit an intelligence diffused over the universe; but\n(1) do you know, for instance, if this power reaches right to foreseeing\nthe future? You have asserted it a thousand times; but you have never\nbeen able either to prove it, or to understand it. You cannot know how\nany being whatever sees what is not. Well, the future is not; therefore\nno being can see it. You are reduced to saying that He foresees it; but\nforeseeing is conjecturing. This is the opinion of the Socinians.\n\nWell, a God who, according to you, conjectures, can be mistaken. In your\nsystem He is really mistaken; for if He had foreseen that His enemy\nwould poison all His works here below, He would not have produced them;\nHe would not have prepared for Himself the shame of being continually\nvanquished.\n\n(2) Do I not do Him much more honour by saying that He has made\neverything by the necessity of His nature, than you do Him by raising an\nenemy who disfigures, who soils, who destroys all His works here below?\n\n(3) It is not to have an unworthy idea of God to say that, having formed\nthousands of millions of worlds where death and evil do not dwell, it\nwas necessary that evil and death should dwell in this world.\n\n(4) It is not to disparage God to say that He could not form man without\ngiving him self-esteem; that this self-esteem could not lead him without\nmisguiding him almost always; that his passions are necessary, but that\nthey are disastrous; that propagation cannot be executed without desire;\nthat desire cannot animate man without quarrels; that these quarrels\nnecessarily bring wars in their train, etc.\n\n(5) When he sees part of the combinations of the animal, vegetable and\nmineral kingdoms, and this globe pierced everywhere like a sieve, from\nwhich escape in crowds so many exhalations, what philosopher will be\nbold enough, what scholastic foolish enough to see clearly that nature\ncould stop the effects of volcanoes, the inclemencies of the atmosphere,\nthe violence of the winds, the plagues, and all the destructive\nscourges?\n\n(6) One must be very powerful, very strong, very industrious, to have\nformed lions which devour bulls, and to have produced men who invent\narms to kill at one blow, not only bulls and lions, but even each other.\nOne must be very powerful to have caused to be born spiders which spin\nwebs to catch flies; but that is not to be omnipotent, infinitely\npowerful.\n\n(7) If the great Being had been infinitely powerful, there is no reason\nwhy He should not have made sentient animals infinitely happy; He has\nnot done so, therefore He was not able.\n\n(8) All the sects of the philosophers have stranded on the reef of moral\nand physical ill. It only remains to avow that God having acted for the\nbest has not been able to act better.\n\n(9) This necessity settles all the difficulties and finishes all the\ndisputes. We have not the impudence to say--\"All is good.\" We say--\"All\nis the least bad that is possible.\"\n\n(10) Why does a child often die in its mother's womb? Why is another who\nhas had the misfortune to be born, reserved for torments as long as his\nlife, terminated by a frightful death?\n\nWhy has the source of life been poisoned all over the world since the\ndiscovery of America? why since the seventh century of our era does\nsmallpox carry off the eighth part of the human race? why since all time\nhave bladders been subject to being stone quarries? why the plague, war,\nfamine, the inquisition? Turn in every direction, you will find no other\nsolution than that everything has been necessary.\n\nI speak here to philosophers only and not to theologians. We know well\nthat faith is the thread in the labyrinth. We know that the fall of Adam\nand Eve, original sin, the immense power given to the devil, the\npredilection accorded by the great Being to the Jewish people, and the\nbaptism substituted for the amputation of the prepuce, are the answers\nwhich explain everything. We have argued only against Zarathustra and\nnot against the university of Conimbre or Coimbre, to which we submit in\nour articles.\n\n\n\n\n_PRAYERS_\n\n\nWe do not know any religion without prayers, even the Jews had some,\nalthough there was not among them any public form, until the time when\nthey sang canticles in their synagogues, which happened very late.\n\nAll men, in their desires and their fears, invoked the aid of a deity.\nSome philosophers, more respectful to the Supreme Being, and less\ncondescending to human frailty, for all prayer desired only resignation.\nIt is indeed what seems proper as between creature and creator. But\nphilosophy is not made to govern the world; she rises above the common\nherd; she speaks a language that the crowd cannot understand. It would\nbe suggesting to fishwives that they should study conic sections.\n\nEven among the philosophers, I do not believe that anyone apart from\nMaximus of Tyre has treated of this matter; this is the substance of\nMaximus' ideas.\n\nThe Eternal has His intentions from all eternity. If prayer accords with\nHis immutable wishes, it is quite useless to ask of Him what He has\nresolved to do. If one prays Him to do the contrary of what He has\nresolved, it is praying Him to be weak, frivolous, inconstant; it is\nbelieving that He is thus, it is to mock Him. Either you ask Him a just\nthing; in this case He must do it, and the thing will be done without\nyour praying Him for it; entreating Him is even to distrust Him: or the\nthing is unjust, and then you outrage Him. You are worthy or unworthy of\nthe grace you implore: if worthy, He knows it better than you; if\nunworthy, you commit a crime the more in asking for what you do not\ndeserve.\n\nIn a word, we pray to God only because we have made Him in our own\nimage. We treat Him like a pasha, like a sultan whom one may provoke and\nappease.\n\nIn short, all nations pray to God: wise men resign themselves and obey\nHim.\n\nLet us pray with the people, and resign ourselves with the wise men.\n\n\n\n\n_PRECIS OF ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY_\n\n\nI have spent nearly forty years of my pilgrimage in two or three corners\nof this world seeking the philosopher's stone that is called Truth. I\nhave consulted all the adepts of antiquity, Epicurus and Augustine,\nPlato and Malebranche, and I have remained in my poverty. Maybe in all\nthese philosophers' crucibles there are one or two ounces of gold; but\nall the rest is residue, dull mud, from which nothing can be born.\n\nIt seems to me that the Greeks our masters wrote much more to show their\nintelligence than that they used their intelligence in order to learn. I\ndo not see a single author of antiquity who had a coherent system, a\nclear, methodical system progressing from consequence to consequence.\n\nWhen I wanted to compare and combine the systems of Plato, of the\npreceptor of Alexander, of Pythagoras and of the Orientals, here, more\nor less, is what I was able to gather:\n\nChance is a word empty of sense; nothing can exist without a cause. The\nworld is arranged according to mathematical laws; it is therefore\narranged by an intelligence.\n\nIt is not an intelligent being such as I am, who directed the formation\nof this world, for I cannot form a mite; therefore this world is the\nwork of a prodigiously superior intelligence.\n\nDoes this being, who possesses intelligence and power in so high a\ndegree, exist necessarily? It must be so, for either the being received\nexistence from another, or from its own nature. If the being received\nexistence from another, which is very difficult to imagine, I must have\nrecourse to this other, and this other will be the prime author. To\nwhichever side I turn I have to admit a prime author, potent and\nintelligent, who is such necessarily by his own nature.\n\nDid this prime author produce things out of nothing? that is not\nimaginable; to create out of nothing is to change nothing into\nsomething. I must not admit such a production unless I find invincible\nreasons which force me to admit what my intelligence can never\ncomprehend.\n\nAll that exists appears to exist necessarily, since it exists. For if\nto-day there is a reason for the existence of things, there was one\nyesterday, there was one in all time; and this cause must always have\nhad its effect, without which it would have been during eternity a\nuseless cause.\n\nBut how shall things have always existed, being visibly under the hand\nof the prime author? This power therefore must always have acted; in the\nsame way, nearly, that there is no sun without light, so there is no\nmovement without a being that passes from one point of space to another\npoint.\n\nThere is therefore a potent and intelligent being who has always acted;\nand if this being had never acted, of what use would his existence have\nbeen to him?\n\nAll things are therefore eternal emanations of this prime author.\n\nBut how imagine that stone and mud are emanations of the eternal Being,\npotent and intelligent?\n\nOf two things one, either the matter of this stone and this mud exist\nnecessarily by themselves, or they exist necessarily through this prime\nauthor; there is no middle course.\n\nThus, therefore, there are only two choices to make, admit either matter\neternal by itself, or matter issuing eternally from the potent,\nintelligent eternal Being.\n\nBut, either subsisting by its own nature, or emanated from the producing\nBeing, it exists from all eternity, because it exists, and there is no\nreason why it should not have existed before.\n\nIf matter is eternally necessary, it is therefore impossible, it is\ntherefore contradictory that it does not exist; but what man can affirm\nthat it is impossible, that it is contradictory that this pebble and\nthis fly have not existence? One is, nevertheless, forced to suppress\nthis difficulty which astonishes the imagination more than it\ncontradicts the principles of reasoning.\n\nIn fact, as soon as you have imagined that everything has emanated from\nthe supreme and intelligent Being, that nothing has emanated from the\nBeing without reason, that this Being existing always, must always have\nacted, that consequently all things must have eternally issued from the\nwomb of His existence, you should no more refuse to believe in the\nmatter of which this pebble and this fly, an eternal production, are\nformed, than you refuse to imagine light as an eternal emanation from\nthe omnipotent Being.\n\nSince I am a being with extension and thought, my extension and my\nthought are therefore necessary productions of this Being. It is evident\nto me that I cannot give myself either extension or thought. I have\ntherefore received both from this necessary Being.\n\nCan He give me what He has not? I have intelligence and I am in space;\ntherefore He is intelligent, and He is in space.\n\nTo say that this eternal Being, this omnipotent God, has from all time\nnecessarily filled the universe with His productions, is not to deprive\nHim of His liberty; on the contrary, for liberty is only the power of\nacting. God has always acted to the full; therefore God has always made\nuse of the fullness of His liberty.\n\nThe liberty that is called _liberty of indifference_ is a phrase without\nidea, an absurdity; for it would be determination without reason; it\nwould be an effect without a cause. Therefore, God cannot have this\nso-called liberty which is a contradiction in terms. He has therefore\nalways acted through this same necessity which makes His existence.\n\nIt is therefore impossible for the world to be without God, it is\nimpossible for God to be without the world.\n\nThis world is filled with beings who succeed each other, therefore God\nhas always produced beings who succeed each other.\n\nThese preliminary assertions are the basis of the ancient Oriental\nphilosophy and of that of the Greeks. One must except Democritus and\nEpicurus, whose corpuscular philosophy combated these dogmas. But let us\nremark that the Epicureans relied on an entirely erroneous natural\nphilosophy, and that the metaphysical system of all the other\nphilosophers holds good with all the systems of natural philosophy. The\nwhole of nature, excepting the vacuum, contradicts Epicurus; and no\nphenomenon contradicts the philosophy which I have just explained. Well,\nis not a philosophy which is in accord with all that passes in nature,\nand which contents the most careful minds, superior to all other\nnon-revealed systems?\n\nAfter the assertions of the ancient philosophers, which I have\nreconciled as far as has been possible for me, what is left to us? a\nchaos of doubts and chimeras. I do not think that there has ever been a\nphilosopher with a system who did not at the end of his life avow that\nhe had wasted his time. It must be admitted that the inventors of the\nmechanical arts have been much more useful to mankind than the inventors\nof syllogisms: the man who invented the shuttle surpasses with a\nvengeance the man who imagined innate ideas.\n\n\n\n\n_PREJUDICES_\n\n\nPrejudice is an opinion without judgment. Thus all over the world do\npeople inspire children with all the opinions they desire, before the\nchildren can judge.\n\nThere are some universal, necessary prejudices, which even make virtue.\nIn all countries children are taught to recognize a rewarding and\nrevenging God; to respect and love their father and their mother; to\nlook on theft as a crime, selfish lying as a vice before they can guess\nwhat is a vice and what a virtue.\n\nThere are then some very good prejudices; they are those which are\nratified by judgment when one reasons.\n\nSentiment is not a simple prejudice; it is something much stronger. A\nmother does not love her son because she has been told she must love\nhim; she cherishes him happily in spite of herself. It is not through\nprejudice that you run to the help of an unknown child about to fall\ninto a precipice, or be eaten by a beast.\n\nBut it is through prejudice that you will respect a man clad in certain\nclothes, walking gravely, speaking likewise. Your parents have told you\nthat you should bow before this man; you respect him before knowing\nwhether he merits your respect; you grow in years and in knowledge; you\nperceive that this man is a charlatan steeped in arrogance,\nself-interest and artifice; you despise what you revered, and the\nprejudice cedes to judgment. Through prejudice you have believed the\nfables with which your childhood was cradled; you have been told that\nthe Titans made war on the gods, and Venus was amorous of Adonis; when\nyou are twelve you accept these fables as truths; when you are twenty\nyou look on them as ingenious allegories.\n\nLet us examine briefly the different sorts of prejudices, so as to set\nour affairs in order. We shall be perhaps like those who, at the time of\nLaw's system, perceived that they had calculated imaginary riches.\n\n\nPREJUDICES OF THE SENSES\n\nIs it not strange that our eyes always deceive us, even when we have\nvery good sight, and that on the contrary our ears do not deceive us?\nLet your well-informed ear hear \"You are beautiful, I love you\"; it is\nquite certain that someone has not said \"I hate you, you are ugly\": but\nyou see a smooth mirror; it is demonstrated that you are mistaken, it\nhas a very uneven surface. You see the sun as about two feet in\ndiameter; it is demonstrated that it is a million times bigger than the\nearth.\n\nIt seems that God has put truth in your ears, and error in your eyes;\nbut study optics, and you will see that God has not deceived you, and\nthat it is impossible for objects to appear to you otherwise than you\nsee them in the present state of things.\n\n\nPHYSICAL PREJUDICES\n\nThe sun rises, the moon also, the earth is motionless: these are natural\nphysical prejudices. But that lobsters are good for the blood, because\nwhen cooked they are red; that eels cure paralysis because they wriggle;\nthat the moon affects our maladies because one day someone observed that\na sick man had an increase of fever during the waning of the moon; these\nideas and a thousand others are the errors of ancient charlatans who\njudged without reasoning, and who, being deceived, deceived others.\n\n\nHISTORICAL PREJUDICES\n\nMost historical stories have been believed without examination, and this\nbelief is a prejudice. Fabius Pictor relates that many centuries before\nhim, a vestal of the town of Alba, going to draw water in her pitcher,\nwas ravished, that she gave birth to Romulus and Remus, that they were\nfed by a she-wolf, etc. The Roman people believed this fable; they did\nnot examine whether at that time there were vestals in Latium, whether\nit were probable that a king's daughter would leave her convent with her\npitcher, whether it were likely that a she-wolf would suckle two\nchildren instead of eating them; the prejudice established itself.\n\nA monk writes that Clovis, being in great danger at the battle of\nTolbiac, made a vow to turn Christian if he escaped; but is it natural\nto address oneself to a foreign god on such an occasion? is it not then\nthat the religion in which one was born acts most potently? Which is the\nChristian who, in a battle against the Turks, will not address himself\nto the Holy Virgin rather than to Mohammed? It is added that a pigeon\nbrought the holy phial in its beak to anoint Clovis, and that an angel\nbrought the oriflamme to lead him; prejudice believed all the little\nstories of this kind. Those who understand human nature know well that\nClovis the usurper and Rolon (or Rol) the usurper turned Christian in\norder to govern the Christians more surely, just as the Turkish usurpers\nturned Mussulman in order to govern the Mussulmans more surely.\n\n\nRELIGIOUS PREJUDICES\n\nIf your nurse has told you that Ceres rules over the crops, or that\nVistnou and Xaca made themselves men several times, or that Sammonocodom\ncame to cut down a forest, or that Odin awaits you in his hall near\nJutland, or that Mohammed or somebody else made a journey into the sky;\nif lastly your tutor comes to drive into your brain what your nurse has\nimprinted on it you keep it for life. If your judgment wishes to rise\nagainst these prejudices, your neighbours and, above all, your\nneighbours' wives cry out \"Impious reprobate,\" and dismay you; your\ndervish, fearing to see his income diminish, accuses you to the cadi,\nand this cadi has you impaled if he can, because he likes ruling over\nfools, and thinks that fools obey better than others: and that will last\nuntil your neighbours and the dervish and the cadi begin to understand\nthat foolishness is good for nothing, and that persecution is\nabominable.\n\n\n\n\n_RARE_\n\n\nRare in natural philosophy is the opposite of dense. In moral\nphilosophy, it is the opposite of common.\n\nThis last variety of rare is what excites admiration. One never admires\nwhat is common, one enjoys it.\n\nAn eccentric thinks himself above the rest of wretched mortals when he\nhas in his study a rare medal that is good for nothing, a rare book that\nnobody has the courage to read, an old engraving by Albrecht Durer,\nbadly designed and badly printed: he triumphs if he has in his garden a\nstunted tree from America. This eccentric has no taste; he has only\nvanity. He has heard say that the beautiful is rare; but he should know\nthat all that is rare is not beautiful.\n\nBeauty is rare in all nature's works, and in all works of art.\n\nWhatever ill things have been said of women, I maintain that it is rarer\nto find women perfectly beautiful than passibly good.\n\nYou will meet in the country ten thousand women attached to their homes,\nlaborious, sober, feeding, rearing, teaching their children; and you\nwill find barely one whom you could show at the theatres of Paris,\nLondon, Naples, or in the public gardens, and who would be looked on as\na beauty.\n\nLikewise, in works of art, you have ten thousand daubs and scrawls to\none masterpiece.\n\nIf everything were beautiful and good, it is clear that one would no\nlonger admire anything; one would enjoy. But would one have pleasure in\nenjoying? that is a big question.\n\nWhy have the beautiful passages in \"The Cid,\" \"The Horaces,\" \"Cinna,\"\nhad such a prodigious success? Because in the profound night in which\npeople were plunged, they suddenly saw shine a new light that they did\nnot expect. It was because this beauty was the rarest thing in the\nworld.\n\nThe groves of Versailles were a beauty unique in the world, as were then\ncertain passages of Corneille. St. Peter's, Rome, is unique.\n\nBut let us suppose that all the churches of Europe were equal to St.\nPeter's, Rome, that all statues were Venus dei Medici, that all\ntragedies were as beautiful as Racine's \"Iphigenie\", all works of poetry\nas well written as Boileau's \"Art Poetique\", all comedies as good as\n\"Tartufe\", and thus in every sphere; would you then have as much\npleasure in enjoying masterpieces become common as they made you taste\nwhen they were rare? I say boldly \"No!\"; and I believe that the ancient\nschool, which so rarely was right, was right when it said: _Ab assuetis\nnon fit passio_, habit does not make passion.\n\nBut, my dear reader, will it be the same with the works of nature? Will\nyou be disgusted if all the maids are so beautiful as Helen; and you,\nladies, if all the lads are like Paris? Let us suppose that all wines\nare excellent, will you have less desire to drink? if the partridges,\npheasants, pullets are common at all times, will you have less appetite?\nI say boldly again \"No!\", despite the axiom of the schools, \"Habit does\nnot make passion\": and the reason, you know it, is that all the\npleasures which nature gives us are always recurring needs, necessary\nenjoyments, and that the pleasures of the arts are not necessary. It is\nnot necessary for a man to have groves where water gushes to a height of\na hundred feet from the mouth of a marble face, and on leaving these\ngroves to go to see a fine tragedy. But the two sexes are always\nnecessary to each other. The table and the bed are necessities. The\nhabit of being alternately on these two thrones will never disgust you.\n\nIn Paris a few years ago people admired a rhinoceros. If there were in\none province ten thousand rhinoceroses, men would run after them only to\nkill them. But let there be a hundred thousand beautiful women men will\nalways run after them to ... honour them.\n\n\n\n\n_REASON_\n\n\nAt the time when all France was mad about Law's system, and Law was\ncontroller-general, there came to him in the presence of a great\nassembly a man who was always right, who always had reason on his side.\nSaid he to Law:\n\n\"Sir, you are the biggest madman, the biggest fool, or the biggest rogue\nwho has yet appeared among us; and that is saying a great deal: this is\nhow I prove it. You have imagined that a state's wealth can be increased\ntenfold with paper; but as this paper can represent only the money that\nis representative of true wealth, the products of the land and industry,\nyou should have begun by giving us ten times more corn, wine, cloth,\ncanvas, etc. That is not enough, you must be sure of your market. But\nyou make ten times as many notes as we have of silver and commodities,\ntherefore you are ten times more extravagant, or more inept, or more of\na rogue than all the comptrollers who have preceded you. This is how I\nprove my major.\"\n\nHardly had he started his major than he was conducted to Saint-Lazare.\n\nWhen he came out of Saint-Lazare, where he studied much and strengthened\nhis reason, he went to Rome; he asked for a public audience of the Pope,\non condition that he was not interrupted in his harangue; and he spoke\nto the Pope in these terms:\n\n\"Holy Father, you are an antichrist and this is how I prove it to Your\nHoliness. I call antichrist the man who does the contrary to what Christ\ndid and commanded. Now Christ was poor, and you are very rich; he paid\ntribute, and you exact tribute; he submitted to the powers that were,\nand you have become a power; he walked on foot, and you go to\nCastel-Gandolfo in a sumptuous equipage; he ate all that one was so good\nas to give him, and you want us to eat fish on Friday and Saturday, when\nwe live far from sea and river; he forbade Simon Barjona to use a sword,\nand you have swords in your service, etc., etc., etc. Therefore in this\nsense Your Holiness is antichrist. In every other sense I hold you in\ngreat veneration, and I ask you for an indulgence _in articulo mortis_.\"\n\nMy man was put in the Castello St. Angelo.\n\nWhen he came out of the Castello St. Angelo, he rushed to Venice, and\nasked to speak to the doge.\n\n\"Your Serenity,\" he said, \"must be a scatter-brain to marry the sea\nevery year: for firstly, one only marries the same person once;\nsecondly, your marriage resembles Harlequin's which was half made,\nseeing that it lacked but the consent of the bride; thirdly, who has\ntold you that one day other maritime powers will not declare you\nincapable of consummating the marriage?\"\n\nHe spoke, and was shut up in the Tower of St. Mark's.\n\nWhen he came out of the Tower of St. Mark's, he went to Constantinople;\nhe had audience of the mufti; and spoke to him in these terms:\n\n\"Your religion, although it has some good points, such as worship of the\ngreat Being, and the necessity of being just and charitable, is\notherwise nothing but a rehash of Judaism and a tedious collection of\nfairy tales. If the archangel Gabriel had brought the leaves of the\nKoran to Mahomet from some planet, all Arabia would have seen Gabriel\ncome down: nobody saw him; therefore Mahomet was a brazen impostor who\ndeceived imbeciles.\"\n\nHardly had he pronounced these words than he was impaled. Nevertheless\nhe had always been right, and had always had reason on his side.\n\n\n\n\n_RELIGION_\n\n\nI meditated last night; I was absorbed in the contemplation of nature; I\nadmired the immensity, the course, the harmony of these infinite globes\nwhich the vulgar do not know how to admire.\n\nI admired still more the intelligence which directs these vast forces. I\nsaid to myself: \"One must be blind not to be dazzled by this spectacle;\none must be stupid not to recognize the author of it; one must be mad\nnot to worship Him. What tribute of worship should I render Him? Should\nnot this tribute be the same in the whole of space, since it is the same\nsupreme power which reigns equally in all space? Should not a thinking\nbeing who dwells in a star in the Milky Way offer Him the same homage as\nthe thinking being on this little globe where we are? Light is uniform\nfor the star Sirius and for us; moral philosophy must be uniform. If a\nsentient, thinking animal in Sirius is born of a tender father and\nmother who have been occupied with his happiness, he owes them as much\nlove and care as we owe to our parents. If someone in the Milky Way sees\na needy cripple, if he can relieve him and if he does not do it, he is\nguilty toward all globes. Everywhere the heart has the same duties: on\nthe steps of the throne of God, if He has a throne; and in the depth of\nthe abyss, if He is an abyss.\"\n\nI was plunged in these ideas when one of those genii who fill the\nintermundane spaces came down to me. I recognized this same aerial\ncreature who had appeared to me on another occasion to teach me how\ndifferent God's judgments were from our own, and how a good action is\npreferable to a controversy.\n\nHe transported me into a desert all covered with piled up bones; and\nbetween these heaps of dead men there were walks of ever-green trees,\nand at the end of each walk a tall man of august mien, who regarded\nthese sad remains with pity.\n\n\"Alas! my archangel,\" said I, \"where have you brought me?\"\n\n\"To desolation,\" he answered.\n\n\"And who are these fine patriarchs whom I see sad and motionless at the\nend of these green walks? they seem to be weeping over this countless\ncrowd of dead.\"\n\n\"You shall know, poor human creature,\" answered the genius from the\nintermundane spaces; \"but first of all you must weep.\"\n\nHe began with the first pile. \"These,\" he said, \"are the twenty-three\nthousand Jews who danced before a calf, with the twenty-four thousand\nwho were killed while lying with Midianitish women. The number of those\nmassacred for such errors and offences amounts to nearly three hundred\nthousand.\n\n\"In the other walks are the bones of the Christians slaughtered by each\nother for metaphysical disputes. They are divided into several heaps of\nfour centuries each. One heap would have mounted right to the sky; they\nhad to be divided.\"\n\n\"What!\" I cried, \"brothers have treated their brothers like this, and I\nhave the misfortune to be of this brotherhood!\"\n\n\"Here,\" said the spirit, \"are the twelve million Americans killed in\ntheir fatherland because they had not been baptized.\"\n\n\"My God! why did you not leave these frightful bones to dry in the\nhemisphere where their bodies were born, and where they were consigned\nto so many different deaths? Why assemble here all these abominable\nmonuments to barbarism and fanaticism?\"\n\n\"To instruct you.\"\n\n\"Since you wish to instruct me,\" I said to the genius, \"tell me if there\nhave been peoples other than the Christians and the Jews in whom zeal\nand religion wretchedly transformed into fanaticism, have inspired so\nmany horrible cruelties.\"\n\n\"Yes,\" he said. \"The Mohammedans were sullied with the same\ninhumanities, but rarely; and when one asked _amman_, pity, of them and\noffered them tribute, they pardoned. As for the other nations there has\nnot been one right from the existence of the world which has ever made a\npurely religious war. Follow me now.\" I followed him.\n\nA little beyond these piles of dead men we found other piles; they were\ncomposed of sacks of gold and silver, and each had its label: _Substance\nof the heretics massacred in the eighteenth century, the seventeenth and\nthe sixteenth._ And so on in going back: _Gold and silver of Americans\nslaughtered_, etc., etc. And all these piles were surmounted with\ncrosses, mitres, croziers, triple crowns studded with precious stones.\n\n\"What, my genius! it was then to have these riches that these dead were\npiled up?\"\n\n\"Yes, my son.\"\n\nI wept; and when by my grief I had merited to be led to the end of the\ngreen walks, he led me there.\n\n\"Contemplate,\" he said, \"the heroes of humanity who were the world's\nbenefactors, and who were all united in banishing from the world, as far\nas they were able, violence and rapine. Question them.\"\n\nI ran to the first of the band; he had a crown on his head, and a little\ncenser in his hand; I humbly asked him his name. \"I am Numa Pompilius,\"\nhe said to me. \"I succeeded a brigand, and I had brigands to govern: I\ntaught them virtue and the worship of God; after me they forgot both\nmore than once; I forbade that in the temples there should be any image,\nbecause the Deity which animates nature cannot be represented. During my\nreign the Romans had neither wars nor seditions, and my religion did\nnothing but good. All the neighbouring peoples came to honour me at my\nfuneral: that happened to no one but me.\"\n\nI kissed his hand, and I went to the second. He was a fine old man about\na hundred years old, clad in a white robe. He put his middle-finger on\nhis mouth, and with the other hand he cast some beans behind him. I\nrecognized Pythagoras. He assured me he had never had a golden thigh,\nand that he had never been a cock; but that he had governed the\nCrotoniates with as much justice as Numa governed the Romans, almost at\nthe same time; and that this justice was the rarest and most necessary\nthing in the world. I learned that the Pythagoreans examined their\nconsciences twice a day. The honest people! how far we are from them!\nBut we who have been nothing but assassins for thirteen hundred years,\nwe say that these wise men were arrogant.\n\nIn order to please Pythagoras, I did not say a word to him and I passed\nto Zarathustra, who was occupied in concentrating the celestial fire in\nthe focus of a concave mirror, in the middle of a hall with a hundred\ndoors which all led to wisdom. (Zarathustra's precepts are called\n_doors_, and are a hundred in number.) Over the principal door I read\nthese words which are the precis of all moral philosophy, and which cut\nshort all the disputes of the casuists: \"When in doubt if an action is\ngood or bad, refrain.\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" I said to my genius, \"the barbarians who immolated all\nthese victims had never read these beautiful words.\"\n\nWe then saw the Zaleucus, the Thales, the Aniximanders, and all the\nsages who had sought truth and practised virtue.\n\nWhen we came to Socrates, I recognized him very quickly by his flat\nnose. \"Well,\" I said to him, \"here you are then among the number of the\nAlmighty's confidants! All the inhabitants of Europe, except the Turks\nand the Tartars of the Crimea, who know nothing, pronounce your name\nwith respect. It is revered, loved, this great name, to the point that\npeople have wanted to know those of your persecutors. Melitus and\nAnitus are known because of you, just as Ravaillac is known because of\nHenry IV.; but I know only this name of Anitus. I do not know precisely\nwho was the scoundrel who calumniated you, and who succeeded in having\nyou condemned to take hemlock.\"\n\n\"Since my adventure,\" replied Socrates, \"I have never thought about that\nman; but seeing that you make me remember it, I have much pity for him.\nHe was a wicked priest who secretly conducted a business in hides, a\ntrade reputed shameful among us. He sent his two children to my school.\nThe other disciples taunted them with having a father who was a currier;\nthey were obliged to leave. The irritated father had no rest until he\nhad stirred up all the priests and all the sophists against me. They\npersuaded the counsel of the five hundred that I was an impious fellow\nwho did not believe that the Moon, Mercury and Mars were gods. Indeed, I\nused to think, as I think now, that there is only one God, master of all\nnature. The judges handed me over to the poisoner of the republic; he\ncut short my life by a few days: I died peacefully at the age of\nseventy; and since that time I pass a happy life with all these great\nmen whom you see, and of whom I am the least.\"\n\nAfter enjoying some time in conversation with Socrates, I went forward\nwith my guide into a grove situated above the thickets where all the\nsages of antiquity seemed to be tasting sweet repose.\n\nI saw a man of gentle, simple countenance, who seemed to me to be about\nthirty-five years old. From afar he cast compassionate glances on these\npiles of whitened bones, across which I had had to pass to reach the\nsages' abode. I was astonished to find his feet swollen and bleeding,\nhis hands likewise, his side pierced, and his ribs flayed with whip\ncuts. \"Good Heavens!\" I said to him, \"is it possible for a just man, a\nsage, to be in this state? I have just seen one who was treated in a\nvery hateful way, but there is no comparison between his torture and\nyours. Wicked priests and wicked judges poisoned him; is it by priests\nand judges that you have been so cruelly assassinated?\"\n\nHe answered with much courtesy--\"_Yes._\"\n\n\"And who were these monsters?\"\n\n\"_They were hypocrites._\"\n\n\"Ah! that says everything; I understand by this single word that they\nmust have condemned you to death. Had you then proved to them, as\nSocrates did, that the Moon was not a goddess, and that Mercury was not\na god?\"\n\n\"_No, these planets were not in question. My compatriots did not know at\nall what a planet is; they were all arrant ignoramuses. Their\nsuperstitions were quite different from those of the Greeks._\"\n\n\"You wanted to teach them a new religion, then?\"\n\n\"_Not at all; I said to them simply--'Love God with all your heart and\nyour fellow-creature as yourself, for that is man's whole duty.' Judge\nif this precept is not as old as the universe; judge if I brought them a\nnew religion. I did not stop telling them that I had come not to destroy\nthe law but to fulfil it; I had observed all their rites; circumcised as\nthey all were, baptized as were the most zealous among them, like them I\npaid the Corban; I observed the Passover as they did, eating standing up\na lamb cooked with lettuces. I and my friends went to pray in the\ntemple; my friends even frequented this temple after my death; in a\nword, I fulfilled all their laws without a single exception._\"\n\n\"What! these wretches could not even reproach you with swerving from\ntheir laws?\"\n\n\"_No, without a doubt._\"\n\n\"Why then did they put you in the condition in which I now see you?\"\n\n\"_What do you expect me to say! they were very arrogant and selfish.\nThey saw that I knew them; they knew that I was making the citizens\nacquainted with them; they were the stronger; they took away my life:\nand people like them will always do as much, if they can, to whoever\ndoes them too much justice._\"\n\n\"But did you say nothing, do nothing that could serve them as a\npretext?\"\n\n\"_To the wicked everything serves as pretext._\"\n\n\"Did you not say once that you were come not to send peace, but a\nsword?\"\n\n\"_It is a copyist's error; I told them that I sent peace and not a\nsword. I have never written anything; what I said can have been changed\nwithout evil intention._\"\n\n\"You therefore contributed in no way by your speeches, badly reported,\nbadly interpreted, to these frightful piles of bones which I saw on my\nroad in coming to consult you?\"\n\n\"_It is with horror only that I have seen those who have made themselves\nguilty of these murders._\"\n\n\"And these monuments of power and wealth, of pride and avarice, these\ntreasures, these ornaments, these signs of grandeur, which I have seen\npiled up on the road while I was seeking wisdom, do they come from you?\"\n\n\"_That is impossible; I and my people lived in poverty and meanness: my\ngrandeur was in virtue only._\"\n\nI was about to beg him to be so good as to tell me just who he was. My\nguide warned me to do nothing of the sort. He told me that I was not\nmade to understand these sublime mysteries. Only did I conjure him to\ntell me in what true religion consisted.\n\n\"_Have I not already told you? Love God and your fellow-creature as\nyourself._\"\n\n\"What! if one loves God, one can eat meat on Friday?\"\n\n\"_I always ate what was given me; for I was too poor to give anyone\nfood._\"\n\n\"In loving God, in being just, should one not be rather cautious not to\nconfide all the adventures of one's life to an unknown man?\"\n\n\"_That was always my practice._\"\n\n\"Can I not, by doing good, dispense with making a pilgrimage to St.\nJames of Compostella?\"\n\n\"_I have never been in that country._\"\n\n\"Is it necessary for me to imprison myself in a retreat with fools?\"\n\n\"_As for me, I always made little journeys from town to town._\"\n\n\"Is it necessary for me to take sides either for the Greek Church or the\nLatin?\"\n\n\"_When I was in the world I never made any difference between the Jew\nand the Samaritan._\"\n\n\"Well, if that is so, I take you for my only master.\" Then he made me a\nsign with his head which filled me with consolation. The vision\ndisappeared, and a clear conscience stayed with me.\n\n\n\n\n_SECT_\n\n\nSECTION I\n\nEvery sect, in whatever sphere, is the rallying-point of doubt and\nerror. Scotist, Thomist, Realist, Nominalist, Papist, Calvinist,\nMolinist, Jansenist, are only pseudonyms.\n\nThere are no sects in geometry; one does not speak of a Euclidian, an\nArchimedean.\n\nWhen the truth is evident, it is impossible for parties and factions to\narise. Never has there been a dispute as to whether there is daylight at\nnoon.\n\nThe branch of astronomy which determines the course of the stars and the\nreturn of eclipses being once known, there is no more dispute among\nastronomers.\n\nIn England one does not say--\"I am a Newtonian, a Lockian, a Halleyan.\"\nWhy? Those who have read cannot refuse their assent to the truths taught\nby these three great men. The more Newton is revered, the less do people\nstyle themselves Newtonians; this word supposes that there are\nanti-Newtonians in England. Maybe we still have a few Cartesians in\nFrance; that is solely because Descartes' system is a tissue of\nerroneous and ridiculous imaginings.\n\nIt is likewise with the small number of truths of fact which are well\nestablished. The records of the Tower of London having been\nauthentically gathered by Rymer, there are no Rymerians, because it\noccurs to no one to combat this collection. In it one finds neither\ncontradictions, absurdities nor prodigies; nothing which revolts the\nreason, nothing, consequently, which sectarians strive to maintain or\nupset by absurd arguments. Everyone agrees, therefore, that Rymer's\nrecords are worthy of belief.\n\nYou are Mohammedan, therefore there are people who are not, therefore\nyou might well be wrong.\n\nWhat would be the true religion if Christianity did not exist? the\nreligion in which there were no sects; the religion in which all minds\nwere necessarily in agreement.\n\nWell, to what dogma do all minds agree? to the worship of a God and to\nintegrity. All the philosophers of the world who have had a religion\nhave said in all time--\"There is a God, and one must be just.\" There,\nthen, is the universal religion established in all time and throughout\nmankind.\n\nThe point in which they all agree is therefore true, and the systems\nthrough which they differ are therefore false.\n\n\"My sect is the best,\" says a Brahmin to me. But, my friend, if your\nsect is good, it is necessary; for if it were not absolutely necessary\nyou would admit to me that it was useless: if it is absolutely\nnecessary, it is for all men; how then can it be that all men have not\nwhat is absolutely necessary to them? How is it possible for the rest of\nthe world to laugh at you and your Brahma?\n\nWhen Zarathustra, Hermes, Orpheus, Minos and all the great men say--\"Let\nus worship God, and let us be just,\" nobody laughs; but everyone hisses\nthe man who claims that one cannot please God unless when one dies one\nis holding a cow's tail, and the man who wants one to have the end of\none's prepuce cut off, and the man who consecrates crocodiles and\nonions, and the man who attaches eternal salvation to the dead men's\nbones one carries under one's shirt, or to a plenary indulgence which\none buys at Rome for two and a half sous.\n\nWhence comes this universal competition in hisses and derision from one\nend of the world to the other? It is clear that the things at which\neveryone sneers are not of a very evident truth. What shall we say of\none of Sejan's secretaries who dedicated to Petronius a bombastic book\nentitled--\"The Truths of the Sibylline Oracles, Proved by the Facts\"?\n\nThis secretary proves to you first that it was necessary for God to send\non earth several sibyls one after the other; for He had no other means\nof teaching mankind. It is demonstrated that God spoke to these sibyls,\nfor the word _sibyl_ signifies _God's counsel_. They had to live a long\ntime, for it is the very least that persons to whom God speaks should\nhave this privilege. They were twelve in number, for this number is\nsacred. They had certainly predicted all the events in the world, for\nTarquinius Superbus bought three of their Books from an old woman for a\nhundred crowns. \"What incredulous fellow,\" adds the secretary, \"will\ndare deny all these evident facts which happened in a corner before the\nwhole world? Who can deny the fulfilment of their prophecies? Has not\nVirgil himself quoted the predictions of the sibyls? If we have not the\nfirst examples of the Sibylline Books, written at a time when people did\nnot know how to read or write, have we not authentic copies? Impiety\nmust be silent before such proofs.\" Thus did Houttevillus speak to\nSejan. He hoped to have a position as augur which would be worth an\nincome of fifty thousand francs, and he had nothing.[20]\n\n\"What my sect teaches is obscure, I admit it,\" says a fanatic; \"and it\nis because of this obscurity that it must be believed; for the sect\nitself says it is full of obscurities. My sect is extravagant, therefore\nit is divine; for how should what appears so mad have been embraced by\nso many peoples, if it were not divine?\" It is precisely like the\nAlcoran which the Sonnites say has an angel's face and an animal's\nsnout; be not scandalized by the animal's snout, and worship the angel's\nface. Thus speaks this insensate fellow. But a fanatic of another sect\nanswers--\"It is you who are the animal, and I who am the angel.\"\n\nWell, who shall judge the suit? who shall decide between these two\nfanatics? The reasonable, impartial man learned in a knowledge that is\nnot that of words; the man free from prejudice and lover of truth and\njustice; in short, the man who is not the foolish animal, and who does\nnot think he is the angel.\n\n\nSECTION II\n\n_Sect_ and _error_ are synonymous. You are Peripatetic and I\nPlatonician; we are therefore both wrong; for you combat Plato only\nbecause his fantasies have revolted you, and I am alienated from\nAristotle only because it seems to me that he does not know what he is\ntalking about. If one or the other had demonstrated the truth, there\nwould be a sect no longer. To declare oneself for the opinion of the one\nor the other is to take sides in a civil war. There are no sects in\nmathematics, in experimental physics. A man who examines the relations\nbetween a cone and a sphere is not of the sect of Archimedes: he who\nsees that the square of the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is\nequal to the square of the two other sides is not of the sect of\nPythagoras.\n\nWhen you say that the blood circulates, that the air is heavy, that the\nsun's rays are pencils of seven refrangible rays, you are not either of\nthe sect of Harvey, or the sect of Torricelli, or the sect of Newton;\nyou agree merely with the truth demonstrated by them, and the entire\nuniverse will ever be of your opinion.\n\nThis is the character of truth; it is of all time; it is for all men; it\nhas only to show itself to be recognized; one cannot argue against it. A\nlong dispute signifies--\"Both parties are wrong.\"\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[20] Reference to the Abbe Houtteville, author of a book entitled--\"The\nTruth of the Christian Religion, Proved by the Facts.\"\n\n\n\n\n_SELF-ESTEEM_\n\n\nNicole in his \"Essais de Morale,\" written after two or three thousand\nvolumes of ethics (\"Treatise on Charity,\" Chap. II), says that \"by means\nof the wheels and gibbets which people establish in common are repressed\nthe tyrannous thoughts and designs of each individual's self-esteem.\"\n\nI shall not examine whether people have gibbets in common, as they have\nmeadows and woods in common, and a common purse, and if one represses\nideas with wheels; but it seems very strange to me that Nicole should\ntake highway robbery and assassination for self-esteem. One should\ndistinguish shades of difference a little better. The man who said that\nNero had his mother assassinated through self-esteem, that Cartouche had\nmuch self-esteem, would not be expressing himself very correctly.\nSelf-esteem is not wickedness, it is a sentiment that is natural to all\nmen; it is much nearer vanity than crime.\n\nA beggar in the suburbs of Madrid nobly begged charity; a passer-by says\nto him: \"Are you not ashamed to practise this infamous calling when you\nare able to work?\"\n\n\"Sir,\" answered the beggar, \"I ask for money, not advice.\" And he turned\non his heel with full Castillian dignity.\n\nThis gentleman was a proud beggar, his vanity was wounded by a trifle.\nHe asked charity out of love for himself, and could not tolerate the\nreprimand out of further love for himself.\n\nA missionary travelling in India met a fakir laden with chains, naked as\na monkey, lying on his stomach, and having himself whipped for the sins\nof his compatriots, the Indians, who gave him a few farthings.\n\n\"What self-denial!\" said one of the lookers-on.\n\n\"Self-denial!\" answered the fakir. \"Learn that I have myself flogged in\nthis world in order to return it in another, when you will be horses and\nI horseman.\"\n\nThose who have said that love of ourselves is the basis of all our\nopinions and all our actions, have therefore been quite right in India,\nSpain, and all the habitable world: and as one does not write to prove\nto men that they have faces, it is not necessary to prove to them that\nthey have self-esteem. Self-esteem is the instrument of our\nconservation; it resembles the instrument of the perpetuity of the\nspecies: it is necessary, it is dear to us, it gives us pleasure, and it\nhas to be hidden.\n\n\n\n\n_SOUL_\n\n\nSECTION I\n\nThis is a vague, indeterminate term, which expresses an unknown\nprinciple of known effects that we feel in us. The word _soul_\ncorresponds to the Latin _anima_, to the Greek +pneuma+, to the term of\nwhich all nations have made use to express what they did not understand\nany better than we do.\n\nIn the proper and literal sense of the Latin and the languages derived\nfrom Latin, it signifies _that which animates_. Thus people have spoken\nof the soul of men, of animals, sometimes of plants, to signify their\nprincipal of vegetation and life. In pronouncing this word, people have\nnever had other than a confused idea, as when it is said in\nGenesis--\"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and\nbreathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living\nsoul; and the soul of animals is in the blood; and kill not my soul,\netc.\"\n\nThus the soul was generally taken for the origin and the cause of life,\nfor life itself. That is why all known nations long imagined that\neverything died with the body. If one can disentangle anything in the\nchaos of ancient histories, it seems that the Egyptians at least were\nthe first to distinguish between the intelligence and the soul: and the\nGreeks learned from them to distinguish their +nous+, their +pneuma+,\ntheir +skia+. The Latins, following their example, distinguish _animus_\nand _anima_; and we, finally, have also had our _soul_ and our\n_understanding_. But is that which is the principle of our life\ndifferent from that which is the principle of our thoughts? is it the\nsame being? Does that which directs us and gives us sensation and\nmemory resemble that which is in animals the cause of digestion and the\ncause of their sensations and of their memory?\n\nThere is the eternal object of the disputes of mankind; I say eternal\nobject; for not having any first notion from which we can descend in\nthis examination, we can only rest for ever in a labyrinth of doubt and\nfeeble conjecture.\n\nWe have not the smallest step where we may place a foot in order to\nreach the most superficial knowledge of what makes us live and of what\nmakes us think. How should we have? we should have had to see life and\nthought enter a body. Does a father know how he has produced his son?\ndoes a mother how she conceived him? Has anyone ever been able to divine\nhow he acts, how he wakes, how he sleeps? Does anyone know how his limbs\nobey his will? has anyone discovered by what art ideas are marked out in\nhis brain and issue from it at his command? Frail automatons moved by\nthe invisible hand which directs us on this stage of the world, which of\nus has been able to detect the wire which guides us?\n\nWe dare question whether the soul is \"spirit\" or \"matter\"; if it is\ncreated before us, if it issues from non-existence at our birth, if\nafter animating us for one day on earth, it lives after us into\neternity. These questions appear sublime; what are they? questions of\nblind men saying to other blind men--\"What is light?\"\n\nWhen we want to learn something roughly about a piece of metal, we put\nit in a crucible in the fire. But have we a crucible in which to put the\nsoul? \"The soul is _spirit_,\" says one. But what is spirit? Assuredly no\none has any idea; it is a word that is so void of sense that one is\nobliged to say what spirit is not, not being able to say what it is.\n\"The soul is matter,\" says another. But what is matter? We know merely\nsome of its appearances and some of its properties; and not one of these\nproperties, not one of these appearances, seems to have the slightest\nconnection with thought.\n\n\"Thought is something distinct from matter,\" say you. But what proof of\nit have you? Is it because matter is divisible and figurable, and\nthought is not? But who has told you that the first principles of matter\nare divisible and figurable? It is very probable that they are not;\nentire sects of philosophers maintain that the elements of matter have\nneither form nor extension. With a triumphant air you cry--\"Thought is\nneither wood, nor stone, nor sand, nor metal, therefore thought does not\nbelong to matter.\" Weak, reckless reasoners! gravitation is neither\nwood, nor sand, nor metal, nor stone; movement, vegetation, life are not\nthese things either, and yet life, vegetation, movement, gravitation,\nare given to matter. To say that God cannot make matter think is to say\nthe most insolently absurd thing that anyone has ever dared utter in the\nprivileged schools of lunacy. We are not certain that God has treated\nmatter like this; we are only certain that He can. But what matters all\nthat has been said and all that will be said about the soul? what does\nit matter that it has been called entelechy, quintessence, flame, ether?\nthat it has been thought universal, uncreated, transmigrant, etc.?\n\nIn these matters that are inaccessible to the reason, what do these\nromances of our uncertain imaginations matter? What does it matter that\nthe Fathers of the first four centuries thought the soul corporeal? What\ndoes it matter that Tertullian, by a contradiction frequent in him, has\ndecided that it is simultaneously corporeal, formed and simple? We have\na thousand witnesses to ignorance, and not one that gives a glimmer of\nprobability.\n\nHow then are we so bold as to assert what the soul is? We know certainly\nthat we exist, that we feel, that we think. Do we want to take a step\nbeyond? we fall into a shadowy abyss; and in this abyss we are still so\nmadly reckless as to dispute whether this soul, of which we have not the\nleast idea, was made before us or with us, and whether it perishes or is\nimmortal.\n\nThe article SOUL, and all the articles of the nature of metaphysics,\nmust start by a sincere submission to the incontrovertible dogmas of\nthe Church. Revelation is worth more, without doubt, than the whole of\nphilosophy. Systems exercise the mind, but faith illumines and guides\nit.\n\nDo we not often pronounce words of which we have only a very confused\nidea, or even of which we have none at all? Is not the word _soul_ an\ninstance? When the clapper or valve of a bellows is out of order, and\nwhen air which is in the bellows leaves it by some unexpected opening in\nthis valve, so that it is no longer compressed against the two blades,\nand is not thrust violently towards the hearth which it has to light,\nFrench servants say--\"The soul of the bellows has burst.\" They know no\nmore about it than that; and this question in no wise disturbs their\npeace of mind.\n\nThe gardener utters the phrase \"the soul of the plants,\" and cultivates\nthem very well without knowing what he means by this term.\n\nThe violin-maker poses, draws forward or back the \"soul of a violin\"\nbeneath the bridge in the belly of the instrument; a puny piece of wood\nmore or less gives the violin or takes away from it a harmonious soul.\n\nWe have many industries in which the workmen give the qualification of\n\"soul\" to their machines. Never does one hear them dispute about this\nword. Such is not the case with philosophers.\n\nFor us the word \"soul\" signifies generally that which animates. Our\nancestors the Celts gave to their soul the name of _seel_, from which\nthe English _soul_, and the German _seel_; and probably the ancient\nTeutons and the ancient Britons had no quarrels in their universities\nover this expression.\n\nThe Greeks distinguished three sorts of souls--+psyche+, which signified\nthe sensitive soul, the soul of the senses; and that is why Love, child\nof Aphrodite, had so much passion for Psyche, and why Psyche loved him\nso tenderly: +pneuma+, the breath which gives life and movement to the\nwhole machine, and which we have translated by _spiritus_, spirit;\nvague word to which have been given a thousand different meanings: and\nfinally +nous+, the intelligence.\n\nWe possessed therefore three souls, without having the least notion of\nany of them. St. Thomas Aquinas (Summation of St. Thomas. Lyons edition,\n1738) admits these three souls as a peripatetic, and distinguishes each\nof these three souls in three parts. +psyche+ was in the breast,\n+pneuma+ was distributed throughout the body, and +nous+ was in the\nhead. There has been no other philosophy in our schools up to our day,\nand woe betide any man who took one of these souls for the other.\n\nIn this chaos of ideas there was, nevertheless, a foundation. Men had\nnoticed that in their passions of love, hate, anger, fear, their\ninternal organs were stimulated to movement. The liver and the heart\nwere the seat of the passions. If one thought deeply, one felt a strife\nin the organs of the head; therefore the intellectual soul was in the\nhead. Without respiration no vegetation, no life; therefore the\nvegetative soul was in the breast which receives the breath of air.\n\nWhen men saw in dreams their dead relatives or friends, they had to seek\nwhat had appeared to them. It was not the body which had been consumed\non a funeral pyre, or swallowed up in the sea and eaten by the fishes.\nIt was, however, something, so they maintained; for they had seen it;\nthe dead man had spoken; the dreamer had questioned him. Was it\n+psyche+, was it +pneuma+, was it +nous+, with whom one had conversed in\nthe dream? One imagined a phantom, an airy figure: it was +skia+, it was\n+daimon+, a ghost from the shades, a little soul of air and fire, very\nunrestricted, which wandered I know not where.\n\nEventually, when one wanted to sift the matter, it became a constant\nthat this soul was corporeal; and the whole of antiquity never had any\nother idea. At last came Plato who so subtilized this soul that it was\ndoubtful if he did not separate it entirely from matter; but that was a\nproblem that was never solved until faith came to enlighten us.\n\nIn vain do the materialists quote some of the fathers of the Church who\ndid not express themselves with precision. St. Irenaeus says (liv. v.\nchaps. vi and vii) that the soul is only the breath of life, that it is\nincorporeal only by comparison with the mortal body, and that it\npreserves the form of man so that it may be recognized.\n\nIn vain does Tertullian express himself like this--\"The corporeality of\nthe soul shines bright in the Gospel.\" (_Corporalitas animae in ipso\nEvangelio relucescit_, DE ANIMA, cap. vii.) For if the soul did\nnot have a body, the image of the soul would not have the image of the\nbody.\n\nIn vain does he record the vision of a holy woman who had seen a very\nshining soul, of the colour of air.\n\nIn vain does Tatien say expressly (_Oratio ad Graecos_, c. xxiii.)--\"The\nsoul of man is composed of many parts.\"\n\nIn vain is St. Hilarius quoted as saying in later times (St. Hilarius on\nSt. Matthew)--\"There is nothing created which is not corporeal, either\nin heaven, or on earth, or among the visible, or among the invisible:\neverything is formed of elements; and souls, whether they inhabit a\nbody, or issue from it, have always a corporeal substance.\"\n\nIn vain does St. Ambrose, in the sixth century, say (On Abraham, liv.\nii., ch. viii.)--\"We recognize nothing but the material, except the\nvenerable Trinity alone.\"\n\nThe body of the entire Church has decided that the soul is immaterial.\nThese saints fell into an error at that time universal; they were men;\nbut they were not mistaken over immortality, because that is clearly\nannounced in the Gospels.\n\nWe have so evident a need of the decision of the infallible Church on\nthese points of philosophy, that we have not indeed by ourselves any\nsufficient notion of what is called \"pure spirit,\" and of what is named\n\"matter.\" Pure spirit is an expression which gives us no idea; and we\nknow matter only by a few phenomena. We know it so little that we call\nit \"substance\"; well, the word substance means \"that which is under\";\nbut what is under will be eternally hidden from us. What is _under_ is\nthe Creator's secret; and this secret of the Creator is everywhere. We\ndo not know either how we receive life, or how we give it, or how we\ngrow, or how we digest, or how we sleep, or how we think, or how we\nfeel.\n\nThe great difficulty is to understand how a being, whoever he be, has\nthoughts.\n\n\nSECTION II\n\nThe author of the article SOUL in the \"Encyclopedia\" (the Abbe Yvon)\nfollowed Jaquelot scrupulously; but Jaquelot teaches us nothing. He sets\nhimself also against Locke, because the modest Locke said (liv. iv, ch.\niii, para. vi.)--\"We possibly shall never be able to know whether any\nmere material being thinks or no; it being impossible for us, by the\ncontemplation of our own ideas without revelation, to discover whether\nOmnipotency has not given to some systems of matter, fitly disposed, a\npower to perceive and think, or else joined and fixed to matter, so\ndisposed, a thinking immaterial substance: it being, in respect of our\nnotions, not much more remote from our comprehension to conceive that\nGod can, if he pleases, superadd to matter a faculty of thinking, than\nthat he should superadd to it another substance with a faculty of\nthinking; since we know not wherein thinking consists, nor to what sort\nof substances the Almighty has been pleased to give that power which\ncannot be in any created being but merely by the good pleasure and\nbounty of the Creator, for I see no contradiction in it, that the first\neternal thinking Being should, if he pleased, give to certain systems of\ncreated senseless matter, put together as he thinks fit, some degrees of\nsense, perception and thought.\"\n\nThose are the words of a profound, religious and modest man.\n\nWe know what quarrels he had to undergo on account of this opinion which\nappeared bold, but which was in fact in him only a consequence of his\nconviction of the omnipotence of God and the weakness of man. He did not\nsay that matter thought; but he said that we have not enough knowledge\nto demonstrate that it is impossible for God to add the gift of thought\nto the unknown being called \"matter\", after according it the gift of\ngravitation and the gift of movement, both of which are equally\nincomprehensible.\n\nLocke was not assuredly the only one who had advanced this opinion; it\nwas the opinion of all antiquity, who, regarding the soul as very\nunrestricted matter, affirmed consequently that matter could feel and\nthink.\n\nIt was Gassendi's opinion, as may be seen in his objections to\nDescartes. \"It is true,\" says Gassendi, \"that you know what you think;\nbut you are ignorant of what species of substance you are, you who\nthink. Thus although the operation of thought is known to you, the\nprinciple of your essence is hidden from you; and you do not know what\nis the nature of this substance, one of the operations of which is to\nthink. You are like a blind man who, feeling the heat of the sun and\nbeing informed that it is caused by the heat of the sun, thinks he has a\nclear and distinct idea of this luminary; because if he were asked what\nthe sun was, he could reply that it is a thing which heats, etc.\"\n\nThe same Gassendi, in his \"Epicurean Philosophy,\" repeats several times\nthat there is no mathematical evidence of the pure spirituality of the\nsoul.\n\nDescartes, in one of his letters to the Palatine Princess Elisabeth,\nsays to her--\"I confess that by the natural reason alone we can make\nmany conjectures on the soul, and have gratifying hopes, but no\ncertainty.\" And in that sentence Descartes combats in his letters what\nhe puts forward in his works; a too ordinary contradiction.\n\nIn fine we have seen that all the Fathers of the first centuries of the\nChurch, while believing the soul immortal, believed it at the same time\nmaterial; they thought that it is as easy for God to conserve as to\ncreate. They said--\"God made the soul thinking, He will preserve it\nthinking.\"\n\nMalebranche has proved very well that we have no idea by ourselves, and\nthat objects are incapable of giving us ideas: from that he concludes\nthat we see everything in God. That is at the bottom the same thing as\nmaking God the author of all our ideas; for with what should we see in\nHim, if we had not instruments for seeing? and these instruments, it is\nHe alone who holds them and guides them. This system is a labyrinth, one\nlane of which would lead you to Spinozism, another to Stoicism, another\nto chaos.\n\nWhen one has had a good argument about spirit and matter, one always\nfinishes by not understanding each other. No philosopher has been able\nwith his own strength to lift this veil stretched by nature over all the\nfirst principles of things. Men argue, nature acts.\n\n\nSECTION III\n\nOF THE SOUL OF ANIMALS, AND OF SOME EMPTY IDEAS\n\nBefore the strange system which supposes animals to be pure machines\nwithout any sensation, men had never thought that the beasts possessed\nan immaterial soul; and nobody had pushed recklessness to the point of\nsaying that an oyster has a spiritual soul. Everyone concurred peaceably\nin agreeing that the beasts had received from God feeling, memory,\nideas, and no pure spirit. Nobody had abused the gift of reason to the\npoint of saying that nature had given the beasts all the organs of\nfeeling so that they might not feel anything. Nobody had said that they\ncry when they are wounded, and that they fly when pursued, without\nexperiencing pain or fear.\n\nAt that time people did not deny the omnipotence of God; He had been\nable to communicate to the organized matter of animals pleasure, pain,\nremembrance, the combination of a few ideas; He had been able to give to\nseveral of them, such as the monkey, the elephant, the hunting-dog, the\ntalent of perfecting themselves in the arts which were taught to them;\nnot only had He been able to endow nearly all carnivorous animals with\nthe talent of warring better in their experienced old age than in their\ntoo trustful youth; not only, I say, had He been able to do these\nthings, but He had done them: the universe bore witness thereto.\n\nPereira and Descartes maintained that the universe was mistaken, that\nGod was a juggler, that He had given animals all the instruments of life\nand sensation, so that they might have neither life nor sensation,\nproperly speaking. But I do not know what so-called philosophers, in\norder to answer Descartes' chimera, leaped into the opposite chimera;\nthey gave liberally of pure spirit to the toads and the insects.\n\nBetween these two madnesses, the one refusing feeling to the organs of\nfeeling, the other lodging a pure spirit in a bug, somebody thought of a\nmiddle path. It was instinct. And what is instinct? Oh, oh, it is a\nsubstantial form; it is a plastic form; it is I do not know what! it is\ninstinct. I shall be of your opinion so long as you will call the\nmajority of things, \"I do not know what\"; so long as your philosophy\nbegins and ends with \"I do not know what\", I shall quote Prior to you in\nhis poem on the vanity of the world.\n\nThe author of the article SOUL in the \"Encyclopedia\" explains\nhimself like this:--\"I picture the animals' soul as an immaterial and\nintelligent substance, but of what species? It must, it seems to me, be\nan active principle which has sensations, and which has only that.... If\nwe reflect on the nature of the soul of animals, it supplies us with\ngroundwork which might lead us to think that its spirituality will save\nit from annihilation.\"\n\nI do not know how one pictures an immaterial substance. To picture\nsomething is to make an image of it; and up till now nobody has been\nable to paint the spirit. For the word \"picture\", I want the author to\nunderstand \"I conceive\"; speaking for myself, I confess I do not\nconceive it. I confess still less that a spiritual soul may be\nannihilated, because I do not conceive either creation or non-existence;\nbecause I have never been present at God's council; because I know\nnothing at all about the principle of things.\n\nIf I wish to prove that the soul is a real being, someone stops me by\ntelling me that it is a faculty. If I assert that it is a faculty, and\nthat I have the faculty of thinking, I am told that I am mistaken; that\nGod, the eternal master of all nature, does everything in me, and\ndirects all my actions and all my thoughts; that if I produced my\nthoughts, I should know the thought I will have in a minute; that I\nnever know it; that I am only an automaton with sensations and ideas,\nnecessarily dependent, and in the hands of the Supreme Being, infinitely\nmore compliant to Him than clay is to the potter.\n\nI confess my ignorance, therefore; I avow that four thousand tomes of\nmetaphysics will not teach us what our soul is.\n\nAn orthodox philosopher said to a heterodox philosopher--\"How have you\nbeen able to come to the point of imagining that the soul is mortal by\nnature, and eternal only by the pure wish of God?\"\n\n\"By my own experience,\" said the other.\n\n\"How! are you dead?\"\n\n\"Yes, very often. I suffered from epilepsy in my youth, and I assure you\nthat I was completely dead for several hours. No sensation, no\nremembrance even of the moment that I fell ill. The same thing happens\nto me now nearly every night. I never feel the precise moment that I go\nto sleep; my sleep is absolutely dreamless. I cannot imagine by\nconjecture how long I have slept. I am dead regularly six hours out of\nthe twenty-four. That is a quarter of my life.\"\n\nThe orthodox then asserted that he always thought during his sleep\nwithout knowing anything about it. The heterodox answered him--\"I\nbelieve through revelation that I shall always think in the other life;\nbut I assure you I think rarely in this one.\"\n\nThe orthodox was not mistaken in asserting the immortality of the soul,\nfor faith and reason demonstrate this truth; but he might be mistaken in\nasserting that a sleeping man always thinks.\n\nLocke admitted frankly that he did not always think while he was asleep:\nanother philosopher has said--\"Thought is characteristic of man; but it\nis not his essence.\"\n\nLet us leave to each man the liberty and consolation of seeking himself,\nand of losing himself in his ideas.\n\nIt is good, however, to know, that in 1730 a philosopher[21] suffered a\nsevere enough persecution for having confessed, with Locke, that his\nunderstanding was not exercised at every moment of the day and night,\njust as he did not use his arms and his legs at all moments. Not only\ndid court ignorance persecute him, but the malignant influence of a few\nso-called men of letters was let loose against him. What in England had\nproduced merely a few philosophical disputes, produced in France the\nmost cowardly atrocities; a Frenchman suffered by Locke.\n\nThere have always been in the mud of our literature more than one of\nthese miscreants who have sold their pens, and intrigued against their\nbenefactors even. This remark is rather foreign to the article\nSOUL; but should one miss an opportunity of dismaying those who\nmake themselves unworthy of the name of men of letters, who prostitute\nthe little mind and conscience they have to a vile self-interest, to a\nfantastic policy, who betray their friends to flatter fools, who in\nsecret powder the hemlock which the powerful and malicious ignoramus\nwants to make useful citizens drink?\n\nIn short, while we worship God with all our soul, let us confess always\nour profound ignorance of this soul, of this faculty of feeling and\nthinking which we possess from His infinite goodness. Let us avow that\nour feeble reasonings can take nothing away from, or add anything to\nrevelation and faith. Let us conclude in fine that we should use this\nintelligence, the nature of which is unknown, for perfecting the\nsciences which are the object of the \"Encyclopedia\"; just as watchmakers\nuse springs in their watches, without knowing what a spring is.\n\n\nSECTION IV\n\nABOUT THE SOUL, AND ABOUT OUR LITTLE KNOWLEDGE\n\nOn the testimony of our acquired knowledge, we have dared question\nwhether the soul is created before us, whether it comes from\nnon-existence into our body? at what age it came to settle between a\nbladder and the intestines _caecum_ and _rectum_? if it brought ideas\nwith it or received them there, and what are these ideas? if after\nanimating us for a few moments, its essence is to live after us into\neternity without the intervention of God Himself? if being spirit, and\nGod being spirit, they are both of like nature? These questions seem\nsublime; what are they? questions about light by men born blind.\n\nWhat have all the philosophers, ancient and modern, taught us? a child\nis wiser than they are; he does not think about things of which he can\nform no conception.\n\nYou will say that it is sad for our insatiable curiosity, for our\ninexhaustible thirst for happiness, to be thus ignorant of ourselves! I\nagree, and there are still sadder things; but I shall answer you:\n\n _Sors tua mortalis, non est mortale quod optas._\n\n --Ovid, Met. II. 56\n\n \"You have a man's fate, and a god's desires.\"\n\nOnce again, it seems that the nature of every principle of things is the\nCreator's secret. How does the air carry sound? how are animals formed?\nhow do some of our limbs constantly obey our wills? what hand puts ideas\nin our memory, keeps them there as in a register, and pulls them out\nsometimes when we want them and sometimes in spite of ourselves? Our\nnature, the nature of the universe, the nature of the least plant,\neverything for us is sunk in a shadowy pit.\n\nMan is an acting, feeling, thinking being: that is all we know of him:\nit is not given to us to know what makes us feel and think, or what\nmakes us act, or what makes us exist. The acting faculty is as\nincomprehensible for us as the thinking faculty. The difficulty is less\nto conceive how a body of mud has feelings and ideas, than to conceive\nhow a being, whatever it be, has ideas and feelings.\n\nHere on one side the soul of Archimedes, on the other the soul of an\nidiot; are they of the same nature? If their essence is to think, they\nthink always, and independently of the body which cannot act without\nthem. If they think by their own nature, can the species of a soul which\ncannot do a sum in arithmetic be the same as that which measured the\nheavens? If it is the organs of the body which made Archimedes think,\nwhy is it that my idiot, who has a stronger constitution than\nArchimedes, who is more vigorous, digests better and performs all his\nfunctions better, does not think at all? It is, you say, because his\nbrain is not so good. But you are making a supposition; you do not know\nat all. No difference has ever been found between healthy brains that\nhave been dissected. It is even very probable that a fool's cerebellum\nwill be in better condition than Archimedes', which has worked\nprodigiously, and which might be worn out and shrivelled.\n\nLet us conclude therefore what we have already concluded, that we are\nignoramuses about all first principles. As regards ignoramuses who pride\nthemselves on their knowledge, they are far inferior to monkeys.\n\nNow dispute, choleric arguers: present your petitions against each\nother; proffer your insults, pronounce your sentences, you who do not\nknow one word about the matter.\n\n\nSECTION V\n\nOF WARBURTON'S PARADOX ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL\n\nWarburton, editor and commentator of Shakespeare and Bishop of\nGloucester, making use of English freedom, and abuse of the custom of\nhurling insults at one's adversaries, has composed four volumes to prove\nthat the immortality of the soul was never announced in the Pentateuch,\nand to conclude from this same proof that Moses' mission is divine. Here\nis the precis of his book, which he himself gives, pages 7 and 8 of the\nfirst volume.\n\n\"1. The doctrine of a life to come, of rewards and punishments after\ndeath, is necessary to all civil society.\n\n\"2. The whole human race (_and this is where he is mistaken_), and\nespecially the wisest and most learned nations of antiquity, concurred\nin believing and teaching this doctrine.\n\n\"3. It cannot be found in any passage of the law of Moses; therefore the\nlaw of Moses is of divine origin. Which I am going to prove by the two\nfollowing syllogisms:\n\n\n_First Syllogism_\n\n\"Every religion, every society that has not the immortality of the soul\nfor its basis, can be maintained only by an extraordinary providence;\nthe Jewish religion had not the immortality of the soul for basis;\ntherefore the Jewish religion was maintained by an extraordinary\nprovidence.\n\n\n_Second Syllogism_\n\n\"All the ancient legislators have said that a religion which did not\nteach the immortality of the soul could not be maintained but by an\nextraordinary providence; Moses founded a religion which is not founded\non the immortality of the soul; therefore Moses believed his religion\nmaintained by an extraordinary providence.\"\n\nWhat is much more extraordinary is this assertion of Warburton's, which\nhe has put in big letters at the beginning of his book. He has often\nbeen reproached with the extreme rashness and bad faith with which he\ndares to say that all the ancient legislators believed that a religion\nwhich is not founded on pains and recompenses after death, can be\nmaintained only by an extraordinary providence; not one of them ever\nsaid it. He does not undertake even to give any example in his huge book\nstuffed with a vast number of quotations, all of which are foreign to\nhis subject. He has buried himself beneath a pile of Greek and Latin\nauthors, ancient and modern, for fear one might see through him on the\nother side of a horrible multitude of envelopes. When criticism finally\nprobed to the bottom, he was resurrected from among all these dead men\nin order to load all his adversaries with insults.\n\nIt is true that towards the end of his fourth volume, after having\nwalked through a hundred labyrinths, and having fought with everybody he\nmet on the road, he comes at last to his great question which he had\nleft there. He lays all the blame on the Book of Job which passes among\nscholars for an Arab work, and he tries to prove that Job did not\nbelieve in the immortality of the soul. Later he explains in his own way\nall the texts of Holy Writ by which people have tried to combat this\nopinion.\n\nAll one can say about it is that, if he was right, it was not for a\nbishop to be right in such a way. He should have felt that one might\ndraw dangerous inferences; but everything in this world is a mass of\ncontradiction. This man, who became accuser and persecutor, was not made\nbishop by a minister of state's patronage until immediately after he had\nwritten his book.\n\nAt Salamanca, Coimbre or Rome, he would have been obliged to recant and\nto ask pardon. In England he became a peer of the realm with an income\nof a hundred thousand _livres_; it was enough to modify his methods.\n\n\nSECTION VI\n\nOF THE NEED OF REVELATION\n\nThe greatest benefit we owe to the New Testament is that it has revealed\nto us the immortality of the soul. It is in vain, therefore, that this\nfellow Warburton tried to cloud over this important truth, by\ncontinually representing in his legation of Moses that \"the ancient Jews\nknew nothing of this necessary dogma, and that the Sadducees did not\nadmit it in the time of our Lord Jesus.\"\n\nHe interprets in his own way the very words that have been put into\nJesus Christ's mouth: \"... have ye not read that which was spoken unto\nyou by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and\nthe God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living\"\n(St. Matt. xxii. 31, 32). He gives to the parable of the wicked rich man\na sense contrary to that of all the Churches. Sherlock, Bishop of\nLondon, and twenty other scholars refuted him. English philosophers even\nreproached him with the scandal of an Anglican bishop manifesting an\nopinion so contrary to the Anglican Church; and after that, this man\ntakes it into his head to treat these persons as impious: like the\ncharacter of _Arlequin_ in the comedy of the _Devaliseur de maisons_,\nwho, after throwing the furniture out of the window, sees a man carrying\nsome of it off, and cries with all his might \"Stop thief!\"\n\nOne should bless the revelation of the immortality of the soul, and of\nrewards and punishments after death, all the more that mankind's vain\nphilosophy has always been sceptical of it. The great Caesar did not\nbelieve in it at all, he made himself quite clear in full senate when,\nin order to stop Catalina being put to death, he represented that death\nleft man without sensation, that everything died with him; and nobody\nrefuted this view.\n\nThe Roman Empire was divided between two principal sects: that of\nEpicurus which asserted that deity was useless to the world, and that\nthe soul perished with the body: and that of the Stoics who regarded the\nsoul as part of the Deity, which after death was joined again to its\norigin, to the great everything from which it emanated. Thus, whether\none believed the soul mortal, or whether one believed it immortal, all\nthe sects were agreed in laughing at pains and punishments after death.\n\nWe still have a hundred monuments of this belief of the Romans. It is by\nvirtue of this opinion graved profoundly in their hearts, that so many\nsimple Roman citizens killed themselves without the least scruple; they\ndid not wait for a tyrant to hand them over to the executioners.\n\nThe most virtuous men even, and those most persuaded of the existence of\na God, hoped for no reward, and feared no punishment. Clement, who later\nwas Pope and saint, began by himself doubting what the early Christians\nsaid of another life, and consulted St. Peter at Caesarea. We are far\nfrom believing that St. Clement wrote the history that is attributed to\nhim; but this history makes evident the need the human race had of a\nprecise revelation. All that can surprise us is that so repressive and\nsalutary a doctrine has left a prey to so many horrible crimes men who\nhave so little time to live, and who see themselves squeezed between two\neternities.\n\n\nSECTION VII\n\nSOULS OF FOOLS AND MONSTERS\n\nA deformed child is born absolutely imbecile, it has no ideas and lives\nwithout ideas; we have seen examples of this. How shall this animal be\ndefined? doctors have said that it is something between man and beast;\nothers have said that it had a sensitive soul, but not an intellectual\nsoul. It eats, drinks, sleeps, wakes, has sensations; but it does not\nthink.\n\nIs there another life for this creature, or is there none? The question\nhas been posed, and has not yet been completely answered.\n\nSome say that this creature must have a soul, because its father and\nmother had one. But by this reasoning one would prove that if it came\ninto the world without a nose it would be deemed to have one, because\nits father and its mother had noses.\n\nA woman gives birth to child with no chin, its forehead is receding and\nrather black, its nose is slim and pointed, its eyes are round, it bears\nnot a bad resemblance to a swallow; the rest of its body, nevertheless,\nis made like ours. The parents have it baptised; by a plurality of votes\nit is considered a man and possessor of an immortal soul. But if this\nridiculous little figure has pointed nails and beak-like mouth, it is\ndeclared a monster, it has no soul, and is not baptised.\n\nIt is well known that in London in 1726 there was a woman who gave birth\nevery week to a rabbit. No difficulty was made about refusing baptism to\nthis child, despite the epidemic mania there was for three weeks in\nLondon for believing that this poor rogue was making wild rabbits. The\nsurgeon who attended her, St. Andre by name, swore that nothing was\nmore true, and people believed him. But what reason did the credulous\nhave for refusing a soul to this woman's children? she had a soul, her\nchildren should be provided with souls also; whether they had hands,\nwhether they had paws, whether they were born with a little snout or\nwith a face; cannot the Supreme Being bestow the gift of thought and\nsensation on a little I know not what, born of a woman, shaped like a\nrabbit, as well as to a little I know not what, shaped like a man? Shall\nthe soul that was ready to lodge in this woman's foetus go back again\ninto space?\n\nLocke makes the sound observation, about monsters, that one must not\nattribute immortality to the exterior of a body; that the form has\nnothing to do with it. This immortality, he says, is no more attached to\nthe form of his face or his chest, than to the way his beard is dressed\nor his coat cut.\n\nHe asks what is the exact measure of deformity by which you can\nrecognize whether or no a child has a soul? What is the precise degree\nat which it must be declared a monster and deprived of a soul?\n\nOne asks still further what would be a soul which never has any but\nfantastic ideas? there are some which never escape from them. Are they\nworthy or unworthy? what is to be done with their pure spirit?\n\nWhat is one to think of a child with two heads? without deformity apart\nfrom this? Some say that it has two souls because it is provided with\ntwo pineal glands, with two _corpus callosum_, with two _sensorium\ncommune_. Others reply that one cannot have two souls when one has only\none chest and one navel.[22]\n\nIn fine, so many questions have been asked about this poor human soul,\nthat if it were necessary to answer them all, this examination of its\nown person would cause it the most intolerable boredom. There would\nhappen to it what happened to Cardinal de Polignac at a conclave. His\nsteward, tired of never being able to make him settle his accounts, made\nthe journey from Rome, and came to the little window of his cell\nburdened with an immense bundle of papers. He read for nearly two hours.\nAt last, seeing that no reply was forthcoming, he put his head forward.\nThe cardinal had departed nearly two hours before. Our souls will depart\nbefore their stewards have acquainted them with the facts: but let us be\nexact before God, whatever sort of ignoramuses we are, we and our\nstewards.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[21] Voltaire himself.\n\n[22] The Chevalier d'Angos, learned astronomer, has carefully observed a\ntwo-headed lizard for several days; and he has assured himself that the\nlizard had two independent wills, each of which had an almost equal\npower over the body. When the lizard was given a piece of bread, in such\na way that it could see it with only one head, this head wanted to go\nafter the bread, and the other wanted the body to remain at rest.\n\n\n\n\n_STATES_, _GOVERNMENTS_\n\n\nThe ins and outs of all governments have been closely examined recently.\nTell me then, you who have travelled, in what state, under what sort of\ngovernment you would choose to be born. I imagine that a great\nland-owning lord in France would not be vexed to be born in Germany; he\nwould be sovereign instead of subject. A peer of France would be very\nglad to have the privileges of the English peerage; he would be\nlegislator. The lawyer and the financier would be better off in France\nthan elsewhere.\n\nBut what country would a wise, free man, a man with a moderate fortune,\nand without prejudices, choose?\n\nA member of the government of Pondicherry, a learned man enough,\nreturned to Europe by land with a Brahmin better educated than the\nordinary Brahmin. \"What do you think of the government of the Great\nMogul?\" asked the councillor.\n\n\"I think it abominable,\" answered the Brahmin. \"How can you expect a\nstate to be happily governed by the Tartars? Our rajahs, our omrahs, our\nnabobs, are very content, but the citizens are hardly so; and millions\nof citizens are something.\"\n\nReasoning, the councillor and the Brahmin traversed the whole of Upper\nAsia. \"I make the observation,\" said the Brahmin, \"that there is not one\nrepublic in all this vast part of the world.\"\n\n\"Formerly there was the republic of Tyre,\" said the councillor, \"but it\ndid not last long; there was still another one in the direction of\nArabia Petrea, in a little corner called Palestine, if one can honour\nwith the name of republic a horde of thieves and usurers sometimes\ngoverned by judges, sometimes by a species of kings, sometimes by\ngrand-pontiffs, become slave seven or eight times, and finally driven\nout of the country which it had usurped.\"\n\n\"I imagine,\" said the Brahmin, \"that one ought to find very few\nrepublics on the earth. Men are rarely worthy of governing themselves.\nThis happiness should belong only to little peoples who hide themselves\nin islands, or among the mountains, like rabbits who shun carnivorous\nbeasts; but in the long run they are discovered and devoured.\"\n\nWhen the two travellers reached Asia Minor, the councillor said to the\nBrahmin: \"Would you believe that a republic was formed in a corner of\nItaly, which lasted more than five hundred years, and which owned Asia\nMinor, Asia, Africa, Greece, Gaul, Spain and the whole of Italy?\"\n\n\"She soon became a monarchy, then,\" said the Brahmin.\n\n\"You have guessed right,\" said the other. \"But this monarchy fell, and\nevery day we compose beautiful dissertations in order to find the cause\nof its decadence and downfall.\"\n\n\"You take a deal of trouble,\" said the Indian. \"This empire fell because\nit existed. Everything has to fall. I hope as much will happen to the\nGrand Mogul's empire.\"\n\n\"By the way,\" said the European, \"do you consider that there should be\nmore honour in a despotic state, and more virtue in a republic?\"\n\nThe Indian, having had explained to him what we mean by honour, answered\nthat honour was more necessary in a republic, and that one had more need\nof virtue in a monarchical state. \"For,\" said he, \"a man who claims to\nbe elected by the people, will not be if he is dishonoured; whereas at\nthe court he could easily obtain a place, in accordance with a great\nprince's maxim, that in order to succeed a courtier should have neither\nhonour nor character. As regards virtue, one must be prodigiously\nvirtuous to dare to say the truth. The virtuous man is much more at his\nease in a republic; he has no one to flatter.\"\n\n\"Do you think,\" said the man from Europe, \"that laws and religions are\nmade for climates, just as one has to have furs in Moscow, and gauzy\nstuffs in Delhi?\"\n\n\"Without a doubt,\" answered the Brahmin. \"All the laws which concern\nmaterial things are calculated for the meridian one lives in. A German\nneeds only one wife, and a Persian three or four.\n\n\"The rites of religion are of the same nature. How, if I were Christian,\nshould I say mass in my province where there is neither bread nor wine?\nAs regards dogmas, that is another matter; the climate has nothing to do\nwith them. Did not your religion begin in Asia, whence it was driven\nout? does it not exist near the Baltic Sea, where it was unknown?\"\n\n\"In what state, under what domination, would you like best to live?\"\nasked the councillor.\n\n\"Anywhere but where I do live,\" answered his companion. \"And I have met\nmany Siamese, Tonkinese, Persians and Turks who said as much.\"\n\n\"But, once again,\" persisted the European, \"what state would you\nchoose?\"\n\nThe Brahmin answered: \"The state where only the laws are obeyed.\"\n\n\"That is an old answer,\" said the councillor.\n\n\"It is none the worse for that,\" said the Brahmin.\n\n\"Where is that country?\" asked the councillor.\n\n\"We must look for it,\" answered the Brahmin.\n\n\n\n\n_SUPERSTITION_\n\n\nThe superstitious man is to the rogue what the slave is to the tyrant.\nFurther, the superstitious man is governed by the fanatic and becomes\nfanatic. Superstition born in Paganism, adopted by Judaism, infested the\nChristian Church from the earliest times. All the fathers of the Church,\nwithout exception, believed in the power of magic. The Church always\ncondemned magic, but she always believed in it: she did not\nexcommunicate sorcerers as madmen who were mistaken, but as men who were\nreally in communication with the devil.\n\nTo-day one half of Europe thinks that the other half has long been and\nstill is superstitious. The Protestants regard the relics, the\nindulgences, the mortifications, the prayers for the dead, the holy\nwater, and almost all the rites of the Roman Church, as a superstitious\ndementia. Superstition, according to them, consists in taking useless\npractices for necessary practices. Among the Roman Catholics there are\nsome more enlightened than their ancestors, who have renounced many of\nthese usages formerly considered sacred; and they defend themselves\nagainst the others who have retained them, by saying: \"They are\nindifferent, and what is merely indifferent cannot be an evil.\"\n\nIt is difficult to mark the limits of superstition. A Frenchman\ntravelling in Italy finds almost everything superstitious, and is hardly\nmistaken. The Archbishop of Canterbury maintains that the Archbishop of\nParis is superstitious; the Presbyterians make the same reproach against\nHis Grace of Canterbury, and are in their turn treated as superstitious\nby the Quakers, who are the most superstitious of all in the eyes of\nother Christians.\n\nIn Christian societies, therefore, no one agrees as to what superstition\nis. The sect which seems to be the least attacked by this malady of the\nintelligence is that which has the fewest rites. But if with few\nceremonies it is still strongly attached to an absurd belief, this\nabsurd belief is equivalent alone to all the superstitious practices\nobserved from the time of Simon the magician to that of Father\nGauffridi.\n\nIt is therefore clear that it is the fundamentals of the religion of one\nsect which is considered as superstition by another sect.\n\nThe Moslems accuse all Christian societies of it, and are themselves\naccused. Who will judge this great matter? Will it be reason? But each\nsect claims to have reason on its side. It will therefore be force which\nwill judge, while awaiting the time when reason will penetrate a\nsufficient number of heads to disarm force.\n\nUp to what point does statecraft permit superstition to be destroyed?\nThis is a very thorny question; it is like asking up to what point one\nshould make an incision in a dropsical person, who may die under the\noperation. It is a matter for the doctor's discretion.\n\nCan there exist a people free from all superstitious prejudices? That is\nto ask--Can there exist a nation of philosophers? It is said that there\nis no superstition in the magistrature of China. It is probable that\nnone will remain in the magistrature of a few towns of Europe.\n\nThen the magistrates will stop the superstition of the people from being\ndangerous. These magistrates' example will not enlighten the mob, but\nthe principal persons of the middle-classes will hold the mob in check.\nThere is not perhaps a single riot, a single religious outrage in which\nthe middle-classes were not formerly imbrued, because these middle\nclasses were then the mob; but reason and time will have changed them.\nTheir softened manners will soften those of the lowest and most savage\npopulace; it is a thing of which we have striking examples in more than\none country. In a word, less superstition, less fanaticism; and less\nfanaticism, less misery.\n\n\n\n\n_TEARS_\n\n\nTears are the mute language of sorrow. But why? What connection is there\nbetween a sad idea and this limpid, salt liquid, filtered through a\nlittle gland at the external corner of the eye, which moistens the\nconjunctiva and the small lachrymal points, whence it descends into the\nnose and mouth through the reservoir called the lachrymal sack and its\nducts?\n\nWhy in women and children, whose organs are part of a frail and delicate\nnetwork, are tears more easily excited by sorrow than in grown men,\nwhose tissue is firmer?\n\nDid nature wish compassion to be born in us at sight of these tears\nwhich soften us, and lead us to help those who shed them? The woman of a\nsavage race is as firmly determined to help the child that cries as\nwould be a woman of the court, and maybe more, because she has fewer\ndistractions and passions.\n\nIn the animal body everything has an object without a doubt. The eyes\nespecially bear such evident, such proven, such admirable relation to\nthe rays of light; this mechanism is so divine, that I should be tempted\nto take for a delirium of burning fever the audacity which denies the\nfinal causes of the structure of our eyes.\n\nThe use of tears does not seem to have so well determined and striking\nan object; but it would be beautiful that nature made them flow in order\nto stir us to pity.\n\nThere are women who are accused of weeping when they wish. I am not at\nall surprised at their talent. A live, sensitive, tender imagination can\nfix itself on some object, on some sorrowful memory, and picture it in\nsuch dominating colours that they wring tears from it. It is what\nhappens to many actors, and principally to actresses, on the stage.\n\nThe women who imitate them in their own homes add to this talent the\npetty fraud of appearing to weep for their husbands, whereas in fact\nthey are weeping for their lovers. Their tears are true, but the object\nof them is false.\n\nOne asks why the same man who has watched the most atrocious events\ndry-eyed, who even has committed cold-blooded crimes, will weep at the\ntheatre at the representation of these events and crimes? It is that he\ndoes not see them with the same eyes, he sees them with the eyes of the\nauthor and the actor. He is no longer the same man; he was a barbarian,\nhe was agitated by furious passions when he saw an innocent woman\nkilled, when he stained himself with his friend's blood. His soul was\nfilled with stormy tumult; it is tranquil, it is empty; nature returns\nto it; he sheds virtuous tears. That is the true merit, the great good\nof the theatres; there is achieved what can never be achieved by the\nfrigid declamations of an orator paid to bore the whole of an audience\nfor an hour.\n\nDavid the capitoul, who, without emotion, caused and saw the death of\ninnocent Calas on the wheel, would have shed tears at the sight of his\nown crime in a well-written and well-spoken tragedy.\n\nIt is thus that Pope has said in the prologue to Addison's Cato:--\n\n \"Tyrants no more their savage nature kept;\n And foes to virtue wondered how they wept.\"\n\n\n\n\n_THEIST_\n\n\nThe theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being\nas good as He is powerful, who has formed all beings with extension,\nvegetating, sentient and reflecting; who perpetuates their species, who\npunishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with\nkindness.\n\nThe theist does not know how God punishes, how he protects, how he\npardons, for he is not reckless enough to flatter himself that he knows\nhow God acts, but he knows that God acts and that He is just.\nDifficulties against Providence do not shake him in his faith, because\nthey are merely great difficulties, and not proofs. He submits to this\nProvidence, although he perceives but a few effects and a few signs of\nthis Providence: and, judging of the things he does not see by the\nthings he sees, he considers that this Providence reaches all places and\nall centuries.\n\nReconciled in this principle with the rest of the universe, he does not\nembrace any of the sects, all of which contradict each other; his\nreligion is the most ancient and the most widespread; for the simple\nworship of a God has preceded all the systems of the world. He speaks a\nlanguage that all peoples understand, while they do not understand one\nanother. He has brothers from Pekin to Cayenne, and he counts all wise\nmen as his brethren. He believes that religion does not consist either\nin the opinions of an unintelligible metaphysic, or in vain display, but\nin worship and justice. The doing of good, there is his service; being\nsubmissive to God, there is his doctrine. The Mahometan cries to\nhim--\"Have a care if you do not make the pilgrimage to Mecca!\" \"Woe unto\nyou,\" says a Recollet, \"if you do not make a journey to Notre-Dame de\nLorette!\" He laughs at Lorette and at Mecca; but he succours the needy\nand defends the oppressed.\n\n\n\n\n_TOLERANCE_\n\n\nWhat is tolerance? it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed\nof frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's\nfolly--that is the first law of nature.\n\nIt is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother,\nbecause he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. That admits of no\ndifficulty. But the government! but the magistrates! but the princes!\nhow do they treat those who have another worship than theirs? If they\nare powerful strangers, it is certain that a prince will make an\nalliance with them. Francois I., very Christian, will unite with\nMussulmans against Charles V., very Catholic. Francois I. will give\nmoney to the Lutherans of Germany to support them in their revolt\nagainst the emperor; but, in accordance with custom, he will start by\nhaving Lutherans burned at home. For political reasons he pays them in\nSaxony; for political reasons he burns them in Paris. But what will\nhappen? Persecutions make proselytes? Soon France will be full of new\nProtestants. At first they will let themselves be hanged, later they in\ntheir turn will hang. There will be civil wars, then will come the St.\nBartholomew; and this corner of the world will be worse than all that\nthe ancients and moderns have ever told of hell.\n\nMadmen, who have never been able to give worship to the God who made\nyou! Miscreants, whom the example of the Noachides, the learned Chinese,\nthe Parsees and all the sages, has never been able to lead! Monsters,\nwho need superstitions as crows' gizzards need carrion! you have been\ntold it already, and there is nothing else to tell you--if you have two\nreligions in your countries, they will cut each other's throat; if you\nhave thirty religions, they will dwell in peace. Look at the great Turk,\nhe governs Guebres, Banians, Greek Christians, Nestorians, Romans. The\nfirst who tried to stir up tumult would be impaled; and everyone is\ntranquil.\n\nOf all religions, the Christian is without doubt the one which should\ninspire tolerance most, although up to now the Christians have been the\nmost intolerant of all men. The Christian Church was divided in its\ncradle, and was divided even in the persecutions which under the first\nemperors it sometimes endured. Often the martyr was regarded as an\napostate by his brethren, and the Carpocratian Christian expired beneath\nthe sword of the Roman executioners, excommunicated by the Ebionite\nChristian, the which Ebionite was anathema to the Sabellian.\n\nThis horrible discord, which has lasted for so many centuries, is a very\nstriking lesson that we should pardon each other's errors; discord is\nthe great ill of mankind; and tolerance is the only remedy for it.\n\nThere is nobody who is not in agreement with this truth, whether he\nmeditates soberly in his study, or peaceably examines the truth with his\nfriends. Why then do the same men who admit in private indulgence,\nkindness, justice, rise in public with so much fury against these\nvirtues? Why? it is that their own interest is their god, and that they\nsacrifice everything to this monster that they worship.\n\nI possess a dignity and a power founded on ignorance and credulity; I\nwalk on the heads of the men who lie prostrate at my feet; if they\nshould rise and look me in the face, I am lost; I must bind them to the\nground, therefore, with iron chains.\n\nThus have reasoned the men whom centuries of bigotry have made powerful.\nThey have other powerful men beneath them, and these have still others,\nwho all enrich themselves with the spoils of the poor, grow fat on their\nblood, and laugh at their stupidity. They all detest tolerance, as\npartisans grown rich at the public expense fear to render their\naccounts, and as tyrants dread the word liberty. And then, to crown\neverything, they hire fanatics to cry at the top of their voices:\n\"Respect my master's absurdities, tremble, pay, and keep your mouths\nshut.\"\n\nIt is thus that a great part of the world long was treated; but to-day\nwhen so many sects make a balance of power, what course to take with\nthem? Every sect, as one knows, is a ground of error; there are no sects\nof geometers, algebraists, arithmeticians, because all the propositions\nof geometry, algebra and arithmetic are true. In every other science one\nmay be deceived. What Thomist or Scotist theologian would dare say\nseriously that he is sure of his case?\n\nIf it were permitted to reason consistently in religious matters, it is\nclear that we all ought to become Jews, because Jesus Christ our Saviour\nwas born a Jew, lived a Jew, died a Jew, and that he said expressly that\nhe was accomplishing, that he was fulfilling the Jewish religion. But it\nis clearer still that we ought to be tolerant of one another, because we\nare all weak, inconsistent, liable to fickleness and error. Shall a reed\nlaid low in the mud by the wind say to a fellow reed fallen in the\nopposite direction: \"Crawl as I crawl, wretch, or I shall petition that\nyou be torn up by the roots and burned?\"\n\n\n\n\n_TRUTH_\n\n\n\"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered,\nThou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause\ncame I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.\nEveryone that is of the truth heareth my voice.\n\n\"Pilate saith unto Him, What is truth? And when he had said this he went\nout, etc.\" (St. John xviii. 37.)\n\nIt is a sad thing for the human race that Pilate went out without\nwaiting for the answer; we should know what truth is. Pilate had very\nlittle curiosity. The accused led before him, says he is king, that he\nwas to be king; and Pilate does not inquire how that can be. He is\nsupreme judge in Caesar's name, he has power of life and death; his duty\nwas to probe the sense of these words. He ought to say--\"Tell me what\nyou understand by being king. How were you born to be king and to bear\nwitness to the truth? It is maintained that truth reaches but with\ndifficulty to the ear of kings. I am judge, I have always had great\ntrouble in finding it. While your enemies are howling against you\nwithout, give me some information on the point; you will be doing me the\ngreatest service that has ever been done a judge; and I much prefer to\nlearn to recognize truth, than to accede to the Jews' clamorous demand\nto have you hanged.\"\n\nWe shall not dare, to be sure, seek what the author of all truth would\nhave been able to reply to Pilate.\n\nWould he have said: \"Truth is an abstract word which most men use\nindifferently in their books and judgments, for error and falsehood?\"\nThis definition would have been marvellously appropriate to all makers\nof systems. Similarly is the word \"wisdom\" taken often for folly, and\n\"wit\" for nonsense.\n\nHumanly speaking, let us define truth, while waiting for a better\ndefinition, as--\"a statement of the facts as they are.\"\n\nI suppose that if one had given only six months to teaching Pilate the\ntruths of logic, he would assuredly have made this conclusive syllogism.\nOne must not take away the life of a man who has only preached good\nmorality: well, the man who has been impeached has, on the showing of\nhis enemies even, often preached excellent morality; therefore he should\nnot be punished with death.\n\nHe might have drawn this further argument.\n\nMy duty is to disperse the riotous assemblage of a seditious people who\ndemand a man's death, unreasonably and without legal form; well, that is\nthe position of the Jews in this instance; therefore I must drive them\naway and break up their meeting.\n\nWe suppose that Pilate knew arithmetic; hence we will not speak of those\nforms of truth.\n\nAs regards mathematical truths, I think it would have taken at least\nthree years before he could have learned higher geometry. The truths of\nphysics combined with those of geometry would have demanded more than\nfour years. We spend six, ordinarily, in studying theology; I ask twelve\nfor Pilate, seeing that he was pagan, and that six years would not have\nbeen too much for eradicating all his old errors, and six years more for\nmaking him fit to receive a doctor's hood.\n\nIf Pilate had had a well-balanced mind, I should have asked only two\nyears to teach him metaphysical truth; and as metaphysical truth is\nnecessarily allied to moral truth, I flatter myself that in less than\nnine years he would have become a real scholar and a perfectly honest\nman.\n\nI should then have said to Pilate:--Historical truths are merely\nprobabilities. If you had fought at the battle of Philippi, that is for\nyou a truth which you know by intuition, by perception. But for us who\ndwell near the Syrian desert, it is merely a very probable thing, which\nwe know by hearsay. How much hearsay is necessary to form a conviction\nequal to that of a man who, having seen the thing, can flatter himself\nthat he has a sort of certainty?\n\nHe who has heard the thing told by twelve thousand eyewitnesses, has\nonly twelve thousand probabilities, equal to one strong probability,\nwhich is not equal to certainty.\n\nIf you have the thing from only one of these witnesses, you know\nnothing; you should be sceptical. If the witness is dead, you should be\nstill more sceptical, for you cannot enlighten yourself. If from several\nwitnesses who are dead, you are in the same plight. If from those to\nwhom the witnesses have spoken, your scepticism should increase still\nmore.\n\nFrom generation to generation scepticism increases, and probability\ndiminishes; and soon probability is reduced to zero.\n\n\n\n\n_TYRANNY_\n\n\nOne gives the name of tyrant to the sovereign who knows no laws but\nthose of his caprice, who takes his subjects' property, and who\nafterwards enrols them to go to take the property of his neighbours.\nThere are none of these tyrants in Europe.\n\nOne distinguishes between the tyranny of one man and that of many. The\ntyranny of many would be that of a body which invaded the rights of\nother bodies, and which exercised despotism in favour of the laws\ncorrupted by it. Nor are there any tyrants of this sort in Europe.\n\nUnder which tyranny would you like to live? Under neither; but if I had\nto choose, I should detest the tyranny of one man less than that of\nmany. A despot always has his good moments; an assembly of despots\nnever. If a tyrant does me an injustice, I can disarm him through his\nmistress, his confessor or his page; but a company of grave tyrants is\ninaccessible to all seductions. When it is not unjust, it is at the\nleast hard, and never does it bestow favours.\n\nIf I have only one despot, I am quit of him by drawing myself up against\na wall when I see him pass, or by bowing low, or by striking the ground\nwith my forehead, according to the custom of the country; but if there\nis a company of a hundred despots, I am exposed to repeating this\nceremony a hundred times a day, which in the long run is very annoying\nif one's hocks are not supple. If I have a farm in the neighbourhood of\none of our lords, I am crushed; if I plead against a relation of the\nrelations of one of our lords, I am ruined. What is to be done? I fear\nthat in this world one is reduced to being either hammer or anvil; lucky\nthe man who escapes these alternatives!\n\n\n\n\n_VIRTUE_\n\n\nSECTION I\n\nIt is said of Marcus Brutus that, before killing himself, he uttered\nthese words: \"O virtue! I thought you were something; but you are only\nan empty phantom!\"\n\nYou were right, Brutus, if you considered virtue as being head of a\nfaction, and assassin of your benefactor; but if you had considered\nvirtue as consisting only of doing good to those dependent on you, you\nwould not have called it a phantom, and you would not have killed\nyourself in despair.\n\nI am very virtuous says this excrement of theology, for I have the four\ncardinal virtues, and the three divine. An honest man asks him--\"What is\nthe cardinal virtue?\" The other answers--\"Strength, prudence, temperance\nand justice.\"\n\n\nTHE HONEST MAN:\n\nIf you are just, you have said everything; your strength, your prudence,\nyour temperance, are useful qualities. If you have them, so much the\nbetter for you; but if you are just, so much the better for the others.\nBut it is not enough to be just, you must do good; that is what is\nreally cardinal. And your divine virtues, which are they?\n\nTHE EXCREMENT:\n\nFaith, hope, charity.\n\nTHE HONEST MAN:\n\nIs it a virtue to believe? either what you believe seems true to you,\nand in this case there is no merit in believing; or it seems false to\nyou, and then it is impossible for you to believe.\n\nHope cannot be a virtue any more than fear; one fears and one hopes,\naccording as one receives a promise or a threat. As for charity, is it\nnot what the Greeks and the Romans understood by humanity, love of one's\nneighbour? this love is nothing if it be not active; doing good,\ntherefore, is the sole true virtue.\n\nTHE EXCREMENT:\n\nOne would be a fool! Really, I am to give myself a deal of torment in\norder to serve mankind, and I shall get no return! all work deserves\npayment. I do not mean to do the least honest action, unless I am\ncertain of paradise.\n\nTHE HONEST MAN:\n\nAh, master! that is to say that, if you did not hope for paradise, and\nif you did not fear hell, you would never do any good action. Believe\nme, master, there are two things worthy of being loved for themselves,\nGod and virtue.\n\nTHE EXCREMENT:\n\nI see, sir, you are a disciple of Fenelon.\n\nTHE HONEST MAN:\n\nYes, master.\n\nTHE EXCREMENT:\n\nI shall denounce you to the judge of the ecclesiastical court at Meaux.\n\nTHE HONEST MAN:\n\nGo along, denounce!\n\n\nSECTION II\n\nWhat is virtue? Beneficence towards the fellow-creature. Can I call\nvirtue things other than those which do me good? I am needy, you are\ngenerous. I am in danger, you help me. I am deceived, you tell me the\ntruth. I am neglected, you console me. I am ignorant, you teach me.\nWithout difficulty I shall call you virtuous. But what will become of\nthe cardinal and divine virtues? Some of them will remain in the\nschools.\n\nWhat does it matter to me that you are temperate? you observe a precept\nof health; you will have better health, and I am happy to hear it. You\nhave faith and hope, and I am happy still; they will procure you eternal\nlife. Your divine virtues are celestial gifts; your cardinal virtues are\nexcellent qualities which serve to guide you: but they are not virtues\nas regards your fellow-creature. The prudent man does good to himself,\nthe virtuous man does good to mankind. St. Paul was right to tell you\nthat charity prevails over faith and hope.\n\nBut shall only those that are useful to one's fellow-creature be\nadmitted as virtues? How can I admit any others? We live in society;\nreally, therefore, the only things that are good for us are those that\nare good for society. A recluse will be sober, pious; he will be clad in\nhair-cloth; he will be a saint: but I shall not call him virtuous until\nhe has done some act of virtue by which other men have profited. So long\nas he is alone, he is doing neither good nor evil; for us he is nothing.\nIf St. Bruno brought peace to families, if he succoured want, he was\nvirtuous; if he fasted, prayed in solitude, he was a saint. Virtue among\nmen is an interchange of kindness; he who has no part in this\ninterchange should not be counted. If this saint were in the world, he\nwould doubtless do good; but so long as he is not in the world, the\nworld will be right in refusing him the title of virtuous; he will be\ngood for himself and not for us.\n\nBut, you say to me, if a recluse is a glutton, a drunkard, given to\nsecret debauches with himself, he is vicious; he is virtuous, therefore,\nif he has the opposite qualities. That is what I cannot agree: he is a\nvery disagreeable fellow if he has the faults you mention; but he is not\nvicious, wicked, punishable as regards society to whom these infamies do\nno harm. It is to be presumed that were he to return to society he would\ndo harm there, that he would be very vicious; and it is even more\nprobable that he would be a wicked man, than it is sure that the other\ntemperate and chaste recluse would be a virtuous man, for in society\nfaults increase, and good qualities diminish.\n\nA much stronger objection is made; Nero, Pope Alexander VI., and other\nmonsters of this species, have bestowed kindnesses; I answer hardily\nthat on that day they were virtuous.\n\nA few theologians say that the divine emperor Antonine was not virtuous;\nthat he was a stubborn Stoic who, not content with commanding men,\nwished further to be esteemed by them; that he attributed to himself the\ngood he did to the human race; that all his life he was just, laborious,\nbeneficent through vanity, and that he only deceived men through his\nvirtues. \"My God!\" I exclaim. \"Give us often rogues like him!\"\n\n\n\n\n_WHY?_\n\n\nWhy does one hardly ever do the tenth part of the good one might do?\n\nWhy in half Europe do girls pray to God in Latin, which they do not\nunderstand?\n\nWhy in antiquity was there never a theological quarrel, and why were no\npeople ever distinguished by the name of a sect? The Egyptians were not\ncalled Isiacs or Osiriacs; the peoples of Syria did not have the name of\nCybelians. The Cretans had a particular devotion to Jupiter, and were\nnever entitled Jupiterians. The ancient Latins were very attached to\nSaturn; there was not a village in Latium called Saturnian: on the\ncontrary, the disciples of the God of truth taking their master's title,\nand calling themselves \"anointed\" like Him, declared, as soon as they\ncould, an eternal war on all the peoples who were not anointed, and made\nwar among themselves for fourteen hundred years, taking the names of\nArians, Manicheans, Donatists, Hussites, Papists, Lutherans, Calvinists.\nAnd lastly, the Jansenists and the Molinists have had no more poignant\nmortification than that of not having been able to slaughter each other\nin pitched battle. Whence does this come?\n\nWhy is the great number of hard-working, innocent men who till the land\nevery day of the year that you may eat all its fruits, scorned,\nvilified, oppressed, robbed; and why is it that the useless and often\nvery wicked man who lives only by their work, and who is rich only\nthrough their poverty, is on the contrary respected, courted,\nconsidered?\n\nWhy is it that, the fruits of the earth being so necessary for the\nconservation of men and animals, one yet sees so many years and so many\ncountries where there is entire lack of these fruits?\n\nWhy is the half of Africa and America covered with poisons?\n\nWhy is there no land where insects are not far in excess of men?\n\nWhy does a little whitish, evil-smelling secretion form a being which\nhas hard bones, desires and thoughts? and why do these beings always\npersecute each other?\n\nWhy does so much evil exist, seeing that everything is formed by a God\nwhom all theists are agreed in naming \"good?\"\n\nWhy, since we complain ceaselessly of our ills, do we spend all our time\nin increasing them?\n\nWhy, as we are so miserable, have we imagined that not to be is a great\nill, when it is clear that it was not an ill not to be before we were\nborn?\n\nWhy and how does one have dreams during sleep, if one has no soul; and\nhow is it that these dreams are always so incoherent, so extravagant, if\none has a soul?\n\nWhy do the stars move from west to east rather than from east to west?\n\nWhy do we exist? why is there anything?\n\n\n\n\n_DECLARATION OF THE ADMIRERS, QUESTIONERS AND DOUBTERS WHO HAVE AMUSED\nTHEMSELVES BY PROPOUNDING TO THE SCHOLARS THE ABOVE QUESTIONS IN NINE\nVOLUMES._[23]\n\n\nWe declare to the scholars that, being like them prodigiously ignorant\nabout the first principles of all things, and about the natural,\ntypical, mystic, allegorical sense of many things, we refer these things\nto the infallible judgment of the Holy Inquisition of Rome, Florence,\nMadrid, Lisbon, and to the decrees of the Sorbonne of Paris, perpetual\ncouncil of the Gauls.\n\nOur errors springing in no wise from malice, but being the natural\nconsequence of human frailty, we hope that they will be pardoned to us\nin this world and the other.\n\nWe beseech the small number of heavenly spirits who are still shut up in\nFrance in mortal bodies, and who, from there, enlighten the universe at\n_thirty sous_ the sheet, to communicate their luminousness to us for the\ntenth volume which we reckon on publishing at the end of Lent 1772, or\nin Advent 1773; and for their luminousness we will pay _forty sous_.\n\nThis tenth volume will contain some very curious articles, which, if God\nfavours us, will give new point to the salt which we shall endeavour to\nbestow in the thanks we shall give to these gentlemen.\n\nExecuted on Mount Krapack, the thirtieth day of the month of Janus, the\nyear of the world\n\naccording to Scaliger 5722\naccording to Riccioli 5956\naccording to Eusebius 6972\naccording to the Alphonsine Tables 8707\naccording to the Egyptians 370000\naccording to the Chaldeans 465102\naccording to the Brahmins 780000\naccording to the philosophers infinity\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[23] The Philosophical Dictionary was first published as \"Questions on\nthe Encyclopedia,\" then reprinted as \"Reason by Alphabet,\" and then\nfinally, with many additions, became the \"Philosophical Dictionary.\"\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:\n\nThis text had three occurrences of \"Francois I\" followed by a\nsuperscripted \"er\". These have be rendered as Francois Ier in this text.\n\nThe following words used an \"oe\" ligature in the original:\n\n foetus\n manoeuvre\n oesophagus\n Phoenicia\n Phoenicians\n subpoenaed\n\nVariations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the original.\n\nThere is one occurrence of \"Vistnou\" and one of \"Vitsnou\". One of these\nis clearly an error, but each has been left as in the original.\n\nThe symbol representing infinity has been replaced with the word\n\"infinity\" on page 316, the last line of the text.\n\nThe following corrections have been made to the original text:\n\n page 17: Nestor, in the \"Iliad,\" wishing to insinuate himself\n as a wise conciliator into the minds of Achilles and\n Agamemnon{original had \"Agamamemnon\"},\n\n page 40: Atheism is the vice of a few intelligent persons, and\n superstition{original had \"superstitution\"} is the vice of\n fools.\n\n page 42: if it is a greater crime not to believe in the\n Deity{original had \"Diety\"} than to have unworthy opinions\n thereof:\n\n page 54: They will say as much of the great moral maxims, of\n Zarathustra's--\"In doubt if an{original had \"in\"} action be\n just, abstain...\";\n\n page 58: What time and what trouble for copying correctly in\n Greek and Latin the works of Origen{original had \"Origin\"}, of\n Clement of Alexandria, and of all those other authors called\n \"fathers.\"\n\n page 101: we shall be convinced that we must not be vain about\n anything, and yet we shall always{original had \"aways\"} have\n vanity.\n\n page 128: All that certain tyrants{original had \"tryants\"} of\n the souls desire is that the men they teach shall have false\n judgment.\n\n page 166: and to surround him with little chubby, flushed faces\n accompanied{original had \"accompained\"} by two wings; I laugh\n and I pardon them with all my heart.\n\n page 171: And an unfortunate{original had \"unforunate\"} idiot,\n who had had enough courage to render very great services to the\n king\n\n page 220: Try to retake from the Mohammedans all that they\n usurped; but it is easier to calumniate{original had\n \"calcumniate\"} them.\n\n pafe 224: It was allowed among the Egyptians{original had\n \"Egyptains\"}, the Athenians and even among the Jews, to marry\n one's sister on the father's side.\n\n page 251: Your parents have told you that you should bow before\n this man; you respect him before knowing whether he merits your\n respect;{original had colon} you grow in years and in\n knowledge;\n\n page 280: (Corporalitas animae in ipso Evangelio relucescit, De\n Anima,{original had period} cap. vii.)\n\n page 295: \"She soon became a monarchy, then,{original had\n period}\" said the Brahmin.\n\n page 315: we refer these things to the infallible{original had\n \"infallable\"} judgment of the Holy Inquisition of Rome,\n Florence, Madrid, Lisbon,","title":"Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":86163}