{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35621/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35621","id":"gutenberg_35621","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35621","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME I\n\nBy\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\n\n\nEDITION DE LA PACIFICATION\n\nTHE WORKS OF VOLTAIRE\n\nA CONTEMPORARY VERSION\n\n\n  With Notes by Tobias Smollett, Revised and Modernized\n     New Translations by William F. Fleming, and an\n           Introduction by Oliver H.G. Leigh\n\n\nA CRITIQUE AND BIOGRAPHY\n\nBY\n\nTHE RT. HON. JOHN MORLEY\n\nFORTY-THREE VOLUMES\n\n\n  One hundred and sixty-eight designs, comprising reproductions\n      of rare old engravings, steel plates, photogravures,\n                    and curious fac-similes\n\n\nVOLUME V\n\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS--LONDON--NEW YORK--CHICAGO\n\n1901\n\n\n\n\n_The WORKS of VOLTAIRE_\n\n     _\"Between two servants of Humanity, who appeared eighteen hundred\n     years apart, there is a mysterious relation. * * * * Let us say it\n     with a sentiment of profound respect: JESUS WEPT: VOLTAIRE SMILED.\n     Of that divine tear and of that human smile is composed the\n     sweetness of the present civilization.\"_\n\n                                                    _VICTOR HUGO._\n\n\n[Illustration: Voltaire at the age of thirty]\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES--VOL. I\n\nVOLTAIRE AT THE AGE OF THIRTY _Frontispiece_\n\nMAHOMET\n\nLOUIS AND MDLLE. DE LA VALLI\u00c8RE\n\nANCIENT GREECE\n\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY.\n\n\n_The_ DICTIONNAIRE PHILOSOPHIQUE _is Voltaire's principal essay in\nphilosophy, though not a sustained work. The miscellaneous articles he\ncontributed to Diderot's_ ENCYCLOP\u00c9DIE _which compose this Dictionary\nembody a mass of scholarly research, criticism, and speculation, lit up\nwith pungent sallies at the formal and tyrannous ecclesiasticism of the\nperiod and the bases of belief on which it stood._\n\n_These short studies reflect every phase of Voltaire's sparkling genius.\nThough some of the views enunciated in them are now universally held,\nand others have become obsolete through extended knowledge, they were\nstartlingly new when Voltaire, at peril of freedom and reputation,\nspread them before the people of all civilized nations, who read them\nstill with their first charm of style and substance._\n\n                                                 OLIVER H.G. LEIGH\n\n\n[Illustration: Voltaire at the age of thirty]\n\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n        VOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY.\n\n         VOL. I\n\n   A, B, C--APPARITION\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nA.\n\n\nThe letter A has been accounted sacred in almost every nation, because\nit was the first letter. The Egyptians added this to their numberless\nsuperstitions; hence it was that the Greeks of Alexandria called it\n_hier'alpha_; and, as omega was the last of the letters, these words\n_alpha_ and _omega_ signified the beginning and the end of all things.\nThis was the origin of the cabalistic art, and of more than one\nmysterious folly.\n\nThe letters served as ciphers, and to express musical notes. Judge what\nan infinity of useful knowledge must thus have been produced. A, b, c,\nd, e, f, g, were the seven heavens; the harmony of the celestial spheres\nwas composed of the seven first letters; and an acrostic accounted for\neverything among the ever venerable Ancients.\n\n\n\n\nA, B, C, OR ALPHABET.\n\n\nWhy has not the alphabet a name in any European language? _Alphabet_\nsignifies nothing more than _A_, _B_, and _A_, _B_, signifies nothing,\nor but indicates two sounds, which two sounds have no relation to each\nother. _Beta_ is not formed from _alpha_; one is first, the other is\nsecond, and no one knows why.\n\nHow can it have happened that terms are still wanting to express the\nportal of all the sciences? The knowledge of numbers, the art of\nnumeration, is not called the _one-two_; yet the first rudiment of the\nart of expressing our thoughts has not in all Europe obtained a proper\ndesignation.\n\nThe alphabet is the first part of grammar; perhaps those who are\nacquainted with Arabic, of which I have not the slightest notion, can\ninform me whether that language, which is said to contain no fewer than\neighty words to express a _horse_, has _one_ which signifies the\n_alphabet_.\n\nI protest that I know no more of Chinese than of Arabic, but I have\nread, in a small Chinese vocabulary, that this nation has always had two\nwords to express the catalogue or list of the characters of its\nlanguage: one is _ko-tou_, the other _hai-pien_; we have neither\n_ko-tou_ nor _hai-pien_ in our Occidental tongues. The Greeks, who were\nno more adroit than ourselves, also said _alphabet_. Seneca, the\nphilosopher, used the Greek phrase to designate an old man who, like me,\nasks questions on grammar, calling him _Skedon analphabetos_. Now the\nGreeks had this same alphabet from the Ph\u0153nicians--from that people\ncalled _the letter nation_ by the Hebrews themselves, when the latter,\nat so late a period, went to settle in their neighborhood.\n\nIt may well be supposed that the Ph\u0153nicians, by communicating their\ncharacters to the Greeks, rendered them a great service in delivering\nthem from the embarrassment occasioned by the Egyptian mode of writing\ntaught them by Cecrops. The Ph\u0153nicians, in the capacity of merchants,\nsought to make everything easy of comprehension; while the Egyptians, in\ntheir capacity of interpreters of the gods, strove to make everything\ndifficult.\n\nI can imagine I hear a Ph\u0153nician merchant landed in Achaia saying to\na Greek correspondent: \"Our characters are not only easy to write, and\ncommunicate the thoughts as well as the sound of the voice; they also\nexpress our respective debts. My _aleph_, which you choose to pronounce\n_alpha_, stands for an ounce of silver, _beta_ for two ounces, _tau_ for\na hundred, _sigma_ for two hundred. I owe you two hundred ounces; I pay\nyou a _tau_, and still owe you another _tau_; thus we shall soon make\nour reckoning.\"\n\nIt was most probably by mutual traffic which administered to their\nwants, that society was first established among men; and it is necessary\nthat those between whom commerce is carried on should understand one\nanother.\n\nThe Egyptians did not apply themselves to commerce until a very late\nperiod; they had a horror of the sea; it was their _Typhon_. The\nTyrians, on the contrary, were navigators from time immemorial; they\nbrought together those nations which Nature had separated, and repaired\nthose calamities into which the revolutions of the world frequently\nplunged a large portion of mankind. The Greeks, in their turn, carried\nto other nations their commerce and their convenient alphabet, which\nlatter was altered a little, as the Greeks had altered that of the\nTyrians. When their merchants, who were afterwards made demi-gods, went\nto Colchis to establish a trade in sheepskins--whence we have the fable\nof _the golden fleece_--they communicated their letters to the people of\nthe country, who still retain them with some alteration. They have not\nadopted the alphabet of the Turks, to whom they are at present subject,\nbut whose yoke, thanks to the Empress of Russia, I hope they will throw\noff.\n\nIt is very likely (I do not say it is certain--God forbid!) that neither\nTyre nor Egypt, nor any other country situated near the Mediterranean\nSea, communicated its alphabet to the nations of Eastern Asia. If, for\nexample, the Tyrians, or the Chald\u00e6ans, who dwelt near the Euphrates,\nhad communicated their method to the Chinese, some traces of it would\nhave remained; we should have had the signs of the twenty-two,\ntwenty-three, or twenty-four letters, whereas they have a sign for each\nword in their language; and the number of their words, we are told, is\neighty thousand. This method has nothing in common with that of Tyre; it\nis seventy-nine thousand nine hundred and seventy-six times more learned\nand more embarrassing than our own. Besides this prodigious difference,\nthey write from the top to the bottom of the page; while the Tyrians\nand the Chald\u00e6ans wrote from right to left, and the Greeks, like\nourselves, wrote from left to right.\n\nExamine the Tartar, the Hindoo, the Siamese, the Japanese characters;\nyou will not find the least resemblance to the Greek or the Ph\u0153nician\nalphabet.\n\nYet all these nations, and not these alone, but even the Hottentots and\nKaffirs, pronounce the vowels and consonants as we do, because the\nlarynx in them is essentially the same as in us--just as the throat of\nthe rudest boor is made like that of the finest opera-singer, the\ndifference, which makes of one a rough, discordant, insupportable bass,\nand of the other a voice sweeter than the nightingale's, being\nimperceptible to the most acute anatomist; or, as the brain of a fool is\nfor all the world like the brain of a great genius.\n\nWhen we said that the Tyrian merchants taught the Greeks their A, B, C,\nwe did not pretend that they also taught them to speak. It is probable\nthat the Athenians already expressed themselves in a better manner than\nthe people of Lower Syria; their throats were more flexible, and their\nwords were a more happy assemblage of vowels, consonants, and\ndiphthongs. The language of the Ph\u0153nician people was rude and gross,\nconsisting of such words as _Shasiroth_, _Ashtaroth_, _Shabaoth_,\n_Chotiket_, _Thopheth_, etc.--enough to terrify a songstress from the\nopera of Naples. Suppose that the Romans of the present day had retained\nthe ancient Etrurian alphabet, and some Dutch traders brought them that\nwhich they now use; the Romans would do very well to receive their\ncharacters, but it is not at all likely that they would speak the\nBatavian language. Just so would the people of Athens deal with the\nsailors of Capthor, who had come from Tyre or Baireuth; they would adopt\ntheir alphabet as being better than that of Misraim or Egypt, but would\nreject their speech.\n\nPhilosophically speaking, and setting aside all inferences to be drawn\nfrom the Holy Scriptures, which certainly are not here the subject of\ndiscussion, is not _the primitive language_ a truly laughable chimera?\n\nWhat would be thought of a man who should seek to discover what had been\nthe primitive cry of all animals; and how it happens that, after a\nseries of ages, sheep bleat, cats mew, doves coo, linnets whistle? They\nunderstand one another perfectly in their respective idioms, and much\nbetter than we do. Every species has its language; that of the Esquimaux\nwas never that of Peru; there has no more been a _primitive language_ or\na _primitive alphabet_ than there have been _primitive oaks_ or\n_primitive grass_.\n\nSeveral rabbis assert that the Samaritan was the original tongue; other\npersons say that it was that of Lower Brittany. We may surely, without\noffending either the people of Brittany or those of Samaria, admit _no_\noriginal tongue.\n\nMay we not, also, without offending any one, suppose that the alphabet\noriginated in cries and exclamations? Infants of themselves articulate\none sound when an object catches their attention, another when they\nlaugh, and a third when they are whipped, which they ought not to be.\n\nAs for the two little boys whom the Egyptian king _Psammeticus_--which,\nby the by, is not an Egyptian word--brought up, in order to know what\nwas the primitive language, it seems hardly possible that they should\nboth have cried _bee bee_ when they wanted their breakfast.\n\nFrom exclamations formed by vowels as natural to children as croaking is\nto frogs, the transition to a complete alphabet is not so great as it\nmay be thought. A mother must always have said to her child the\nequivalent of _come_, _go_, _take_, _leave_, _hush!_ etc. These words\nrepresent nothing; they describe nothing; but a gesture makes them\nintelligible.\n\nFrom these shapeless rudiments we have, it is true, an immense distance\nto travel before we arrive at syntax. It is almost terrifying to\ncontemplate that from the simple word _come_, we have arrived at such\nsentences as the following: _Mother, I should have come with pleasure,\nand should have obeyed your commands, which are ever dear to me, if I\nhad not, when running towards you, fallen backwards, which caused a\nthorn to run into my left leg._\n\nIt appears to my astonished imagination that it must have required ages\nto adjust this sentence, and ages more to put it into language. Here we\nmight tell, or endeavor to tell, the reader how such words are\nexpressed and pronounced in every language of the earth, as _father_,\n_mother_, _land_, _water_, _day_, _night_, _eating_, _drinking_, etc.,\nbut we must, as much as possible, avoid appearing ridiculous.\n\nThe alphabetical characters, denoting at once the names of things, their\nnumber, and the dates of events, the ideas of men, soon became mysteries\neven to those who had invented the signs. The Chald\u00e6ans, the Syrians,\nand the Egyptians attributed something divine to the combination of the\nletters and the manner of pronouncing them. They believed that names had\na force--a virtue--independently of the things which they represented;\nthey went so far as to pretend that the word which signified _power_ was\n_powerful_ in itself; that which expressed an _angel_ was _angelic_, and\nthat which gave the idea of _God_ was _divine_. The science of numbers\nnaturally became a part of necromancy, and no magical operation could be\nperformed without the letters of the alphabet.\n\nThus the clue to all knowledge led to every error. The magi of every\ncountry used it to conduct themselves into the labyrinth which they had\nconstructed, and which the rest of mankind were not permitted to enter.\nThe manner of pronouncing vowels and consonants became the most profound\nof mysteries, and often the most terrible. There was, among the Syrians\nand Egyptians, a manner of pronouncing Jehovah which would cause a man\nto fall dead.\n\nSt. Clement of Alexandria relates that Moses killed a king of Egypt on\nthe spot by sounding this name in his ear, after which he brought him\nto life again by pronouncing the same word. St. Clement is very exact;\nhe cites the author, the learned _Artapanus_. Who can impeach the\ntestimony of _Artapanus_?\n\nNothing tended more to retard the progress of the human mind that this\nprofound science of error which sprung up among the Asiatics with the\norigin of truth. The universe was brutalized by the very art that should\nhave enlightened it. Of this we have great examples in Origen, Clement\nof Alexandria, Tertullian, etc.\n\nOrigen, in particular, expressly says: \"If, when invoking God, or\nswearing by him, you call him _the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob_ you\nwill, by these words, do things the nature and force of which are such\nthat the evil spirits submit to those who pronounce them; but if you\ncall him by another name as _God of the roaring sea_, etc., no effort\nwill be produced. The name of _Israel_ rendered in Greek will work\nnothing; but pronounce it in Hebrew with the other words required, and\nyou will effect the conjuration.\"\n\nThe same Origen had these remarkable words: \"There are names which are\npowerful from their own nature. Such are those used by the sages of\nEgypt, the magi of Persia, and the Brahmins of India. What is called\n_magic_ is not a vain and chimerical art, as the Stoics and Epicureans\npretend. The name _Sabaoth_ and _Adonai_ were _not_ made for created\nbeings, but belong to a mysterious theology which has reference to the\ncreator; hence the virtue of these names when they are arranged and\npronounced according to rule,\" etc.\n\nIt was by pronouncing letters according to the magical method, that the\nmoon was made to descend to the earth. Virgil must be pardoned for\nhaving faith in this nonsense, and speaking of it seriously in his\neighth eclogue:\n\n          _Carmina de c\u0153lo possunt de duecere lunam._\n     Pale Ph\u0153be, drawn by verse, from heaven descends.\n                                         --DRYDEN'S VIRGIL.\n\nIn short, the alphabet was the origin, of all man's knowledge, and of\nall his errors.\n\n\n\n\nABB\u00c9.\n\n\nThe word _abb\u00e9_, let it be remembered, signifies father. If you become\none you render a service to the state; you doubtless perform the best\nwork that a man can perform; you give birth to a thinking being: in this\naction there is something divine. But if you are only _Monsieur l'Abb\u00e9_\nbecause you have had your head shaved, wear a small collar, and a short\ncloak, and are waiting for a fat benefice, you do not deserve the name\nof _abb\u00e9_.\n\nThe ancient monks gave this name to the superior whom they elected; the\n_abb\u00e9_ was their spiritual father. What different things do the same\nwords signify at different times! The spiritual _abb\u00e9_ was once a poor\nman at the head of others equally poor: but the poor spiritual fathers\nhave since had incomes of two hundred or four hundred thousand livres,\nand there are poor spiritual fathers in Germany who have regiments of\nguards.\n\nA poor man, making a vow of poverty, and in consequence becoming a\nsovereign? Truly, this is intolerable. The laws exclaim against such an\nabuse; religion is indignant at it, and the really poor, who want food\nand clothing, appeal to heaven against _Monsieur l'Abb\u00e9_.\n\nBut I hear the _abb\u00e9s_ of Italy, Germany, Flanders, and Burgundy ask:\n\"Why are not we to accumulate wealth and honors? Why are we not to\nbecome princes? The bishops are, who were originally poor, like us; they\nhave enriched and elevated themselves; one of them has become superior\neven to kings; let us imitate them as far as we are able.\"\n\nGentlemen, you are right. Invade the land; it belongs to him whose\nstrength or skill obtains possession of it. You have made ample use of\nthe times of ignorance, superstition, and infatuation, to strip us of\nour inheritances, and trample us under your feet, that you might fatten\non the substance of the unfortunate. Tremble, for fear that the day of\nreason will arrive!\n\n\n\n\nABBEY--ABBOT.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nAn abbey is a religious community, governed by an abbot or an abbess.\n\nThe word _abbot_--_abbas_ in Latin and Greek, _abba_ in Chaldee and\nSyriac--came from the Hebrew _ab_, meaning _father_. The Jewish doctors\ntook this title through pride; therefore Jesus said to his disciples:\n\"Call no one your father upon the earth, for one is your Father who is\nin heaven.\"\n\nAlthough St. Jerome was much enraged against the monks of his time, who,\nin spite of our Lord's command, gave or received the title of _abbot_,\nthe Sixth Council of Paris decided that if abbots are spiritual fathers\nand beget spiritual sons for the Lord, it is with reason that they are\ncalled abbots.\n\nAccording to this decree, if any one deserved this appellation it\nbelonged most assuredly to St. Benedict, who, in the year 528, founded\non Mount Cassino, in the kingdom of Naples, that society so eminent for\nwisdom and discretion, and so grave in its speech and in its style.\nThese are the terms used by Pope St. Gregory, who does not fail to\nmention the singular privilege which it pleased God to grant to this\nholy founder--that all Benedictines who die on Mount Cassino are saved.\nIt is not, then, surprising that these monks reckon sixteen thousand\ncanonized saints of their order. The Benedictine sisters even assert\nthat they are warned of their approaching dissolution by some nocturnal\nnoise, which they call _the knocks of St. Benedict_.\n\nIt may well be supposed that this holy abbot did not forget himself when\nbegging the salvation of his disciples. Accordingly, on the 21st of\nMarch, 543, the eve of Passion Sunday, which was the day of his death,\ntwo monks--one of them in the monastery, the other at a distance from\nit--had the same vision. They saw a long road covered with carpets, and\nlighted by an infinite number of torches, extending eastward from the\nmonastery to heaven. A venerable personage appeared, and asked them for\nwhom this road was made. They said they did not know. \"It is that,\"\nrejoined he, \"by which Benedict, the well-beloved of God, has ascended\ninto heaven.\"\n\nAn order in which salvation was so well secured soon extended itself\ninto other states, whose sovereigns allowed themselves to be persuaded\nthat, to be sure of a place in Paradise, it was only necessary to make\nthemselves a friend in it, and that by donations to the churches they\nmight atone for the most crying injustices and the most enormous crimes.\n\nConfining ourselves to France, we read in the \"Exploits of King\nDagobert\" (_Gestes du Roi Dagobert_), the founder of the abbey of St.\nDenis, near Paris, that this prince, after death, was condemned by the\njudgment of God, and that a hermit named John, who dwelt on the coast of\nItaly, saw his soul chained in a boat and beaten by devils, who were\ntaking him towards Sicily to throw him into the fiery mouth of Etna; but\nall at once St. Denis appeared on a luminous globe, preceded by thunder\nand lightning, and, having put the evil spirits to flight, and rescued\nthe poor soul from the clutches of the most cruel, bore it to heaven in\ntriumph.\n\nCharles Martel, on the contrary, was damned--body and soul--for having\nrewarded his captains by giving them abbeys. These, though laymen, bore\nthe title of _abbot_, as married women have since borne that of\n_abbess_, and had convents of females. A holy bishop of Lyons, named\nEucher, being at prayer, had the following vision: He thought he was led\nby an angel into hell, where he saw Charles Martel, who, the angel\ninformed him, had been condemned to everlasting flames by the saints\nwhose churches he had despoiled. St. Eucher wrote an account of this\nrevelation to Boniface, bishop of Mayence, and to Fulrad, grand chaplain\nto Pepin-le-bref, praying them to open the tomb of Charles Martel and\nsee if his body were there. The tomb was opened. The interior of it bore\nmarks of fire, but nothing was found in it except a great serpent, which\nissued forth with a cloud of offensive smoke.\n\nBoniface was so kind as to write to Pepin-le-bref and to Carloman all\nthese particulars relative to the damnation of their father; and when,\nin 858, Louis of Germany seized some ecclesiastical property, the\nbishops of the assembly of Cr\u00e9ci reminded him, in a letter, of all the\nparticulars of this terrible story, adding that they had them from aged\nmen, on whose word they could rely, and who had been eye-witnesses of\nthe whole.\n\nSt. Bernard, first abbot of Clairvaux, in 1115 had likewise had it\nrevealed to him that all who received the monastic habit from his hand\nshould be saved. Nevertheless, Pope Urban II., having, in a bull dated\n1092, given to the abbey of Mount Cassino the title of _chief of all\nmonasteries_, because from that spot the venerable religion of the\nmonastic order had flowed from the bosom of Benedict as from a celestial\nspring, the Emperor Lothario continued this prerogative by a charter of\nthe year 1137, which gave to the monastery of Mount Cassino the\npre-eminence in power and glory over all the monasteries which were or\nmight be founded throughout the world, and called upon all the abbots\nand monks in Christendom to honor and reverence it.\n\nPaschal II., in a bull of the year 1113, addressed to the abbot of Mount\nCassino, expresses himself thus: \"We decree that you, as likewise all\nyour successors, shall, as being superior to all abbots, be allowed to\nsit in every assembly of bishops or princes; and that in all judgments\nyou shall give your opinion before any other of your order.\" The abbot\nof Cluni having also dared to call himself _the abbot of abbots_, the\npope's chancellor decided, in a council held at Rome in 1112, that this\ndistinction belonged to the abbot of Mount Cassino. He of Cluni\ncontented himself with the title of _cardinal abbot_, which he\nafterwards obtained from Calixtus II., and which the abbot of _The\nTrinity_ of Vend\u00f4me and some others have since assumed.\n\nPope John XX., in 1326 granted to the abbot of Mount Cassino the title\nof bishop, and he continued to discharge the episcopal functions until\n1367; but Urban V., having then thought proper to deprive him of that\ndignity, he now simply entitles himself _Patriarch of the Holy\nReligion, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Mount Cassino, Chancellor and\nGrand Chaplain of the Holy Roman Empire, Abbot of Abbots, Chief of the\nBenedictine Hierarchy, Chancellor Collateral of the Kingdom of Sicily,\nCount and Governor of the Campagna and of the maritime province, Prince\nof Peace._\n\nHe lives, with a part of his officers, at San-Germano, a little town at\nthe foot of Mount Cassino, in a spacious house, where all passengers,\nfrom the pope down to the meanest beggar, are received, lodged, fed, and\ntreated according to their rank. The abbot each day visits all his\nguests, who sometimes amount to three hundred. In 1538, St. Ignatius\nshared his hospitality, but he was lodged in a house on Mount Cassino,\nsix hundred paces west of the abbey. There he composed his celebrated\nInstitute--whence a Dominican, in a work entitled, \"The Turtle-Dove of\nthe Soul,\" says: \"Ignatius dwelt for twelve months on this mountain of\ncontemplation, and, like another Moses, framed those second tables of\nreligious laws which are inferior in nothing to the first.\"\n\nTruly, this founder of the Jesuits was not received by the Benedictines\nwith that complaisance which St. Benedict, on his arrival at Mount\nCassino, had found in St. Martin the hermit, who gave up to him the\nplace in his possession, and retired to Mount Marsica, near Carniola. On\nthe contrary, the Benedictine Ambrose Cajeta, in a voluminous work\nwritten for the purpose, has endeavored to trace the origin of the\nJesuits to the order of St. Benedict.\n\nThe laxity of manners which has always prevailed in the world, even\namong the clergy, induced St. Basil, so early as the fourth century, to\nadopt the idea of assembling in one community the solitaries who had\nfled into deserts to follow the law; but, as will be elsewhere seen,\neven the _regulars_ have not always been regular.\n\nAs for the secular clergy, let us see what St. Cyprian says of them,\neven from the third century: \"Many bishops, instead of exhorting and\nsetting an example to others, neglected the affairs of God, busied\nthemselves with temporal concerns, quitted their pulpits, abandoned\ntheir flocks, and travelled in other provinces, in order to attend fairs\nand enrich themselves by traffic; they succored not their brethren who\nwere dying of hunger; they sought only to amass heaps of money, to gain\npossession of lands by unjust artifices, and to make immense profits by\nusury.\"\n\nCharlemagne, in a digest of what he intended to propose to the\nparliament of 811, thus expresses himself: \"We wish to know the duties\nof ecclesiastics, in order that we may not ask of them what they are not\npermitted to give, and that they may not demand of us what we ought not\nto grant. We beg of them to explain to us clearly what they call\n_quitting the world_, and by what those who quit it may be distinguished\nfrom those who remain in it; if it is only by their not bearing arms,\nand not being married in public; if that man has quitted the world who\ncontinues to add to his possessions by means of every sort, preaching\nParadise and threatening with damnation; employing the name of God or of\nsome saint to persuade the simple to strip themselves of their property,\nthus entailing want upon their lawful heirs, who therefore think\nthemselves justified in committing theft and pillage; if to quit the\nworld is to carry the passion of covetousness to such a length as to\nbribe false witnesses in order to obtain what belongs to another, and to\nseek out judges who are cruel, interested, and without the fear of God.\"\n\nTo conclude: We may judge of the morals of the regular clergy from a\nharangue delivered in 1493, in which the Abb\u00e9 Trit\u00eame said to his\nbrethren: \"You abb\u00e9s, who are ignorant and hostile to the knowledge of\nsalvation; who pass your days in shameless pleasures, in drinking and\ngaming; who fix your affections on the things of this life; what answer\nwill you make to God and to your founder, St. Benedict?\"\n\nThe same abb\u00e9 nevertheless asserted that one-third of all the property\nof Christians belonged of right to the order of St. Benedict, and that\nif they had it not, it was because they had been robbed of it. \"They are\nso poor at present,\" added he, \"that their revenues do not amount to\nmore than a hundred millions of louis d'ors.\" Trit\u00eame does not tell us\nto whom the other two-thirds belong, but as in his time there were only\nfifteen thousand abbeys of Benedictines, besides the small convents of\nthe same order, while in the seventeenth century their number had\nincreased to thirty-seven thousand, it is clear, by the rule of\nproportion, that this holy order ought now to possess five-sixths of the\nproperty in Christendom, but for the fatal progress of heresy during the\nlatter ages.\n\nIn addition to all other misfortunes, since the Concordat was signed, in\n1515, between Leo X. and Francis I., the king of France nominating to\nnearly all the abbeys in his kingdom, most of them have been given to\nseculars with shaven crowns. It was in consequence of this custom being\nbut little known in England that Dr. Gregory said pleasantly to the Abb\u00e9\nGallois, whom he took for a Benedictine: \"The good father imagines that\nwe have returned to those fabulous times when a monk was permitted to\nsay what he pleased.\"\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThose who fly from the world are wise; those who devote themselves to\nGod are to be respected. Perhaps time has corrupted so holy an\ninstitution.\n\nTo the Jewish therapeuts succeeded the Egyptian monks--_idiotoi_,\n_monoi_--_idiot_--then signifying only solitary. They soon formed\nthemselves into bodies and became the opposite of solitaries. Each\nsociety of monks elected its superior; for, in the early ages of the\nchurch, everything was done by the plurality of voices. Men sought to\nregain the primitive liberty of human nature by escaping through piety\nfrom the tumult and slavery inseparably attendant on great empires.\nEvery society of monks chose its _father_--its _abba_--its _abbot_,\nalthough it is said in the gospel, \"call no man your father.\"\n\nNeither abbots nor monks were priests in the early ages; they went in\ntroops to hear mass at the nearest village; their numbers, in time,\nbecame considerable. It is said that there were upwards of fifty\nthousand monks in Egypt.\n\nSt. Basil, who was first a monk and afterwards Bishop of C\u00e6sarea and\nCappadocia, composed a code for all the monks of the fourth century.\nThis rule of St. Basil's was received in the East and in the West; no\nmonks were known but those of St. Basil; they were rich, took part in\nall public affairs, and contributed to the revolutions of empires.\n\nNo order but this was known until, in the sixth century, St. Benedict\nestablished a new power on Mount Cassino. St. Gregory the Great assures\nus, in his Dialogues, that God granted him a special privilege, by which\nall the Benedictines who should die on Mount Cassino were to be saved.\nConsequently, Pope Urban II., in a bull of the year 1092, declared the\nabbot of Mount Cassino chief of all the abbeys in the world. Paschal II.\ngave him the title of _Abbot of Abbots, Patriarch of the Holy Religion,\nChancellor Collateral of the Kingdom of Sicily, Count and Governor of\nthe Campagna, Prince of Peace, etc._ All these titles would avail but\nlittle were they not supported by immense riches.\n\nNot long ago I received a letter from one of my German correspondents,\nwhich began with these words: \"The abbots, princes of Kempten, Elvengen,\nEudestet, Musbach, Berghsgaden, Vissemburg, Prum, Stablo, and Corvey,\nand the other abbots who are not princes, enjoy together a revenue of\nabout nine hundred thousand florins, or two millions and fifty thousand\nFrench livres of the present currency. Whence I conclude that Jesus\nChrist's circumstances were not quite so easy as theirs.\" I replied:\n\"Sir, you must confess that the French are more pious than the Germans,\nin the proportion of 4 16-41 to unity; for our consistorial benefices\nalone, that is, those which pay annats to the Pope, produce a revenue of\nnine millions; and two millions fifty thousand livres are to nine\nmillions as 1 is to 4 16-41. Whence I conclude that your abbots are not\nsufficiently rich, and that they ought to have ten times more. I have\nthe honor to be,\" etc. He answered me by the following short letter:\n\"Dear Sir, I do not understand you. You doubtless feel, with me, that\nnine millions of your money are rather too much for those who have made\na vow of poverty; yet you wish that they had ninety. I beg you will\nexplain this enigma.\" I had the honor of immediately replying: \"Dear\nSir, there was once a young man to whom it was proposed to marry a woman\nof sixty, who would leave him all her property. He answered that she\nwas not old enough.\" The German understood my enigma.\n\nThe reader must be informed that, in 1575, it was proposed in a council\nof Henry III., King of France, to erect all the abbeys of monks into\nsecular commendams, and to give them to the officers of his court and\nhis army; but this monarch, happening afterwards to be excommunicated\nand assassinated, the project was of course not carried into effect.\n\nIn 1750 Count d'Argenson, the minister of war, wished to raise pensions\nfrom the benefices for chevaliers of the military order of St. Louis.\nNothing could be more simple, more just, more useful; but his efforts\nwere fruitless. Yet the Princess of Conti had had an abbey under Louis\nXIV., and even before his reign seculars possessed benefices. The Duke\nde Sulli had an abbey, although he was a Huguenot.\n\nThe father of Hugh Capet was rich only by his abbeys, and was called\n_Hugh the Abbot_. Abbeys were given to queens, to furnish them with\npin-money. Ogine, mother of Louis d'Outremer, left her son because he\nhad taken from her the abbey of St. Mary of Laon, and given it to his\nwife, Gerberge.\n\nThus we have examples of everything. Each one strives to make customs,\ninnovations, laws--whether old or new, abrogated, revived, or\nmitigated--charters, whether real or supposed--the past, the present and\nthe future, alike subservient to the grand end of obtaining the good\nthings of this world; yet it is always for the greater glory of God.\n\n\n\n\nABLE--ABILITY.\n\n\nABLE.--An adjective term, which, like almost all others, has different\nacceptations as it is differently employed.\n\nIn general it signifies more than _capable_, more than _well-informed_,\nwhether applied to an artist, a general, a man of learning, or a judge.\nA man may have read all that has been written on war, and may have seen\nit, without being _able_ to conduct a war. He may be _capable_ of\ncommanding, but to acquire the name of an _able_ general he must command\nmore than once with success. A judge may know all the laws, without\nbeing _able_ to apply them. A learned man may not be _able_ either to\nwrite or to teach. An _able_ man, then, is _he who makes a great use of\nwhat he knows_. A _capable_ man _can_ do a thing; an _able_ one _does_\nit. This word cannot be applied to efforts of pure genius. We do not say\nan _able_ poet, an _able_ orator; or, if we sometimes say so of an\norator, it is when he has ably, dexterously treated a thorny subject.\n\nBossuet, for example, having, in his funeral oration over the great\nCond\u00e9, to treat of his civil wars, says that there is a penitence as\nglorious as innocence itself. He manages this point _ably_. Of the rest\nhe speaks with _grandeur_.\n\nWe say, an _able_ historian, meaning one who has drawn his materials\nfrom good sources, compared different relations, and judged soundly of\nthem; one, in short, who has taken great pains. If he has, moreover,\nthe gift of narrating with suitable eloquence, he is more than _able_,\nhe is a _great_ historian, like Titus, Livius, de Thou, etc.\n\nThe word _able_ is applicable to those arts which exercise at once the\nmind and the hand, as painting and sculpture. We say of a painter of\nsculptor, _he is an able artist_, because these arts require a long\nnovitiate; whereas a man becomes a poet nearly all at once, like Virgil\nor Ovid, or may even be an orator with very little study, as several\npreachers have been.\n\nWhy do we, nevertheless, say, an _able_ preacher? It is because more\nattention is then paid to art than to eloquence, which is no great\neulogium. We do not say of the sublime Bossuet, _he was an able maker of\nfuneral orations_. A mere player of an instrument is _able_; a composer\nmust be more than able; he must have genius. The workman executes\n_cleverly_ what the man of taste has designed _ably_.\n\nAn _able_ man in public affairs is well-informed, prudent and active; if\nhe wants either of these qualifications he is not _able_.\n\nThe term, _an able courtier_, implies blame rather than praise, since it\ntoo often means _an able flatterer_. It may also be used to designate\nsimply a clever man, who is neither very good nor very wicked. The fox\nwho, when questioned by the lion respecting the odor of his palace,\nreplied that he had taken cold, was an _able_ courtier; the fox who, to\nrevenge himself on the wolf, recommended to the old lion the skin of a\nwolf newly flayed, to keep his majesty warm, was something more than\n_able_.\n\nWe shall not here discuss those points of our subject which belong more\nparticularly to morality, as the danger of wishing to be _too able_, the\nrisks which an _able_ woman runs when she wishes to govern the affairs\nof her household without advice, etc. We are afraid of swelling this\ndictionary with useless declamations. They who preside over this great\nand important work must treat at length those articles relating to the\narts and sciences which interest the public, while those to whom they\nintrust little articles of literature must have the merit of being\nbrief.\n\nABILITY.--This word is to _capacity_ what _able_ is to\n_capable_--_ability_ in a science, in an art, in conduct.\n\nWe express an acquired quality by saying, _he has ability_; in action,\nby saying, _he conducts that affair with ability_.\n\nABLY has the same acceptations; he works, he plays, he teaches _ably_.\nHe has _ably_ surmounted that difficulty.\n\n\n\n\nABRAHAM.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWe must say nothing of what is divine in Abraham, since the Scriptures\nhave said all. We must not even touch, except with a respectful hand,\nthat which belongs to the profane--that which appertains to geography,\nthe order of time, manners, and customs; for these, being connected with\nsacred history, are so many streams which preserve something of the\ndivinity of their source.\n\nAbraham, though born near the Euphrates, makes a great epoch with the\nWestern nations, yet makes none with the Orientals, who, nevertheless,\nrespect him as much as we do. The Mahometans have no certain chronology\nbefore their hegira. The science of time, totally lost in those\ncountries which were the scene of great events, has reappeared in the\nregions of the West, where those events were unknown. We dispute about\neverything that was done on the banks of the Euphrates, the Jordan, and\nthe Nile, while they who are masters of the Nile, the Jordan and the\nEuphrates enjoy without disputing. Although our great epoch is that of\nAbraham, we differ sixty years with respect to the time of his birth.\nThe account, according to the registers, is as follows:\n\n\"And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. And\nthe days of Terah were two hundred and five years, and Terah died in\nHaran. Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, get thee out of thy country\nand from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I\nwill show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation.\"\n\nIt is sufficiently evident from the text that Terah, having had Abraham\nat the age of seventy, died at that of two hundred and five; and\nAbraham, having quitted Chald\u00e6a immediately after the death of his\nfather, was just one hundred and thirty-five years old when he left his\ncountry. This is nearly the opinion of St. Stephen, in his discourse to\nthe Jews.\n\nBut the Book of Genesis also says: \"And Abraham was seventy and five\nyears old when he departed out of Haran.\"\n\nThis is the principal cause (for there are several others) of the\ndispute on the subject of Abraham's age. How could he be at once a\nhundred and thirty-five years, and only seventy-five? St. Jerome and St.\nAugustine say that this difficulty is inexplicable. Father Calmet, who\nconfesses that these two saints could not solve the problem, thinks he\ndoes it by saying that Abraham was the youngest of Terah's sons,\nalthough the Book of Genesis names him the first, and consequently as\nthe eldest. According to Genesis, Abraham was born in his father's\nseventieth year; while, according to Calmet, he was born when his father\nwas a hundred and thirty. Such a reconciliation has only been a new\ncause of controversy. Considering the uncertainty in which we are left\nby both text and commentary, the best we can do is to adore without\ndisputing.\n\nThere is no epoch in those ancient times which has not produced a\nmultitude of different opinions. According to Mor\u00e9ri there were in his\nday seventy systems of chronology founded on the history dictated by God\nhimself. There have since appeared five new methods of reconciling the\nvarious texts of Scripture. Thus there are as many disputes about\nAbraham as the number of his years (according to the text) when he left\nHaran. And of these seventy-five systems there is not one which tells us\nprecisely what this town or village of Haran was, or where it was\nsituated. What thread shall guide us in this labyrinth of conjectures\nand contradictions from the very first verse to the very last?\nResignation. The Holy Spirit did not intend to teach us chronology,\nmetaphysics or logic; but only to inspire us with the fear of God. Since\nwe can comprehend nothing, all that we can do is to submit.\n\nIt is equally difficult to explain satisfactorily how it was that Sarah,\nthe wife of Abraham, was also his sister. Abraham says positively to\nAbimelech, king of Gerar, who had taken Sarah to himself on account of\nher great beauty, at the age of ninety, when she was pregnant of Isaac:\n\"And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but\nnot the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife.\" The Old\nTestament does not inform us how Sarah was her husband's sister. Calmet,\nwhose judgment and sagacity are known to every one, says that she might\nbe his niece. With the Chald\u00e6ans it was probably no more an incest than\nwith their neighbors, the Persians. Manners change with times and with\nplaces. It may be supposed that Abraham, the son of Terah, an idolater,\nwas still an idolater when he married Sarah, whether Sarah was his\nsister or his niece.\n\nThere are several Fathers of the Church who do not think Abraham quite\nso excusable for having said to Sarah, in Egypt: \"It shall come to pass,\nwhen the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his\nwife, and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive. Say, I pray\nthee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake.\" She\nwas then only sixty-five. Since she had, twenty-five years afterwards\nthe king of Gerar for a lover, it is not surprising that, when\ntwenty-five years younger, she had kindled some passion in Pharaoh of\nEgypt. Indeed, she was taken away by him in the same manner as she was\nafterwards taken by Abimelech, the king of Gerar, in the desert.\n\nAbraham received presents, at the court of Pharaoh, of many \"sheep, and\noxen, and he-asses, and men-servants, and maid-servants, and she-asses,\nand camels.\" These presents, which were considerable, prove that the\nPharaohs had already become great kings; the country of Egypt must\ntherefore have been very populous. But to make the country inhabitable,\nand to build towns, it must have cost immense labor. It was necessary to\nconstruct canals for the purpose of draining the waters of the Nile,\nwhich overflowed Egypt during four or five months of each year, and\nstagnated on the soil. It was also necessary to raise the town at least\ntwenty feet above these canals. Works so considerable seem to have\nrequired thousands of ages.\n\nThere were only about four hundred years between the Deluge and the\nperiod at which we fix Abraham's journey into Egypt. The Egyptians must\nhave been very ingenious and indefatigably laborious, since, in so short\na time, they invented all the arts and sciences, set bounds to the Nile,\nand changed the whole face of the country. Probably they had already\nbuilt some of the great Pyramids, for we see that the art of embalming\nthe dead was in a short time afterwards brought to perfection, and the\nPyramids were only the tombs in which the bodies of their princes were\ndeposited with the most august ceremonies.\n\nThis opinion of the great antiquity of the Pyramids receives additional\ncountenance from the fact that three hundred years earlier, or but one\nhundred years after the Hebrew epoch of the Deluge of Noah, the Asiatics\nhad built, in the plain of Sennaar, a tower which was to reach to\nheaven. St. Jerome, in his commentary on Isaiah, says that this tower\nwas already four thousand paces high when God came down to stop the\nprogress of the work.\n\nLet us suppose each pace to be two feet and a half. Four thousand paces,\nthen, are ten thousand feet; consequently the tower of Babel was twenty\ntimes as high as the Pyramids of Egypt, which are only about five\nhundred feet. But what a prodigious quantity of instruments must have\nbeen requisite to raise such an edifice! All the arts must have\nconcurred in forwarding the work. Whence commentators conclude that men\nof those times were incomparably larger, stronger, and more industrious\nthan those of modern nations.\n\nSo much may be remarked with respect to Abraham, as relating to the arts\nand sciences. With regard to his person, it is most likely that he was a\nman of considerable importance. The Chald\u00e6ans and the Persians each\nclaim him as their own. The ancient religion of the magi has, from time\nimmemorial, been called Kish Ibrahim, Milat Ibrahim, and it is agreed\nthat the word _Ibrahim_ is precisely the same as _Abraham_, nothing\nbeing more common among the Asiatics, who rarely wrote the vowels, than\nto change the _i_ into _a_, or the _a_ into _i_ in pronunciation.\n\nIt has even been asserted that Abraham was the Brahma of the Indians,\nand that their notions were adopted by the people of the countries near\nthe Euphrates, who traded with India from time immemorial.\n\nThe Arabs regarded him as the founder of Mecca. Mahomet, in his Koran,\nalways viewed in him the most respectable of his predecessors. In his\nthird _sura_, or chapter, he speaks of him thus: \"Abraham was neither\nJew nor Christian; he was an orthodox Mussulman; he was not of the\nnumber of those who imagine that God has colleagues.\"\n\nThe temerity of the human understanding has even gone so far as to\nimagine that the Jews did not call themselves the descendants of Abraham\nuntil a very late period, when they had at last established themselves\nin Palestine. They were strangers, hated and despised by their\nneighbors. They wished, say some, to relieve themselves by passing for\ndescendants of that Abraham who was so much reverenced in a great part\nof Asia. The faith which we owe to the sacred books of the Jews removes\nall these difficulties.\n\nOther critics, no less hardy, start other objections relative to\nAbraham's direct communication with the Almighty, his battles and his\nvictories. The Lord appeared to him after he went out of Egypt, and\nsaid, \"Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art,\nnorthward and southward, and eastward, and westward. For all the land\nwhich thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.\"\n\nThe Lord, by a second oath, afterwards promised him all \"from the river\nof Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.\" The critics ask,\nhow could God promise the Jews this immense country which they have\nnever possessed? And how could God give to them _forever_ that small\npart of Palestine out of which they have so long been driven? Again, the\nLord added to these promises, that Abraham's posterity should be as\nnumerous as the dust of the earth--\"so that if a man can number the dust\nof the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.\"\n\nOur critics insist there are not now on the face of the earth four\nhundred thousand Jews, though they have always regarded marriage as a\nsacred duty and made population their greatest object. To these\ndifficulties it is replied that the church, substituted for the\nsynagogue, is the true race of Abraham, which is therefore very\nnumerous.\n\nIt must be admitted that they do not possess Palestine; but they may one\nday possess it, as they have already conquered it once, in the first\ncrusade, in the time of Urban II. In a word, when we view the Old\nTestament with the eyes of faith, as a type of the New, all either is or\nwill be accomplished, and our weak reason must bow in silence.\n\nFresh difficulties are raised respecting Abraham's victory near Sodom.\nIt is said to be inconceivable that a stranger who drove his flocks to\ngraze in the neighborhood of Sodom should, with three hundred and\neighteen keepers of sheep and oxen, beat a _king of Persia, a king of\nPontus, the king of Babylon, and the king of nations_, and pursue them\nto Damascus, which is more than a hundred miles from Sodom. Yet such a\nvictory is not impossible, for we see other similar instances in those\nheroic times when the arm of God was not shortened. Think of _Gideon_,\nwho, with three hundred men, armed with three hundred pitchers and three\nhundred lamps, defeated a whole army! Think of _Samson_, who slew a\nthousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass!\n\nEven profane history furnishes like examples. Three hundred Spartans\nstopped, for a moment, the whole army of Xerxes, at the pass of\nThermopyl\u00e6. It is true that, with the exception of one man who fled,\nthey were all slain, together with their king, Leonidas, whom Xerxes had\nthe baseness to gibbet, instead of raising to his memory the monument\nwhich it deserved. It is moreover true that these three hundred\nLaced\u00e6monians, who guarded a steep passage which would scarcely admit\ntwo men abreast, were supported by an army of ten thousand Greeks,\ndistributed in advantageous posts among the rocks of Pelion and Ossa,\nfour thousand of whom, be it observed, were stationed behind this very\npassage of Thermopyl.\n\nThese four thousand perished after a long combat. Having been placed in\na situation more exposed than that of the three hundred Spartans, they\nmay be said to have acquired more glory in defending it against the\nPersian army, which cut them all in pieces. Indeed, on the monument\nafterwards erected on the field of battle, mention was made of these\nfour thousand victims, whereas none are spoken of now but the _three\nhundred_.\n\nA still more memorable, though much less celebrated, action was that of\nfifty Swiss, who, in 1315, routed at Morgarten the whole army of the\nArchduke Leopold, of Austria, consisting of twenty thousand men. They\ndestroyed the cavalry by throwing down stones from a high rock; and gave\ntime to fourteen hundred Helvetians to come up and finish the defeat of\nthe army. This achievement at Morgarten is more brilliant than that of\nThermopyl\u00e6, inasmuch as it is a finer thing to conquer than to be\nconquered. The Greeks amounted to ten thousand, well armed; and it was\nimpossible that, in a mountainous country, they could have to encounter\nmore than a hundred thousand Persians at once; it is more than probable\nthat there were not thirty thousand Persians engaged. But here fourteen\nhundred Swiss defeat an army of twenty thousand men. The diminished\nproportions of the less to the greater number also increases the\nproportion of glory. But how far has Abraham led us? These digressions\namuse him who makes and sometimes him who reads them. Besides, every one\nis delighted to see a great army beaten by a little one.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Abraham_ is one of those names which were famous in Asia Minor and\nArabia, as _Thaut_ was among the Egyptians, the first _Zoroaster_ in\nPersia, _Hercules_ in Greece, _Orpheus_ in Thrace, _Odin_ among the\nnorthern nations, and so many others, known more by their fame than by\nany authentic history. I speak here of profane history only; as for that\nof the Jews, our masters and our enemies, whom we at once detest and\nbelieve, their history having evidently been written by the Holy Ghost,\nwe feel toward it as we ought to feel. We have to do here only with the\nArabs. They boast of having descended from Abraham through Ishmael,\nbelieving that this patriarch built Mecca and died there. The fact is,\nthat the race of Ishmael has been infinitely more favored by God than\nhas that of Jacob. Both races, it is true, have produced robbers; but\nthe Arabian robbers have been prodigiously superior to the Jewish ones;\nthe descendants of Jacob conquered only a very small country, which they\nhave lost, whereas the descendants of Ishmael conquered parts of Asia,\nof Europe, and of Africa, established an empire more extensive than that\nof the Romans, and drove the Jews from their caverns, which they called\n_The Land of Promise_.\n\nJudging of things only by the examples to be found in our modern\nhistories, it would be difficult to believe that Abraham had been the\nfather of two nations so widely different. We are told that he was born\nin Chald\u00e6a, and that he was the son of a poor potter, who earned his\nbread by making little earthen idols. It is hardly likely that this son\nof a potter should have passed through impracticable deserts and founded\nthe city of Mecca, at the distance of four hundred leagues, under a\ntropical sun. If he was a conqueror, he doubtless cast his eyes on the\nfine country of Assyria. If he was no more than a poor man, he did not\nfound kingdoms abroad.\n\nThe Book of Genesis relates that he was seventy-five years old when he\nwent out of the land of Haran after the death of his father, Terah the\npotter; but the same book also tells us that Terah, having begotten\nAbraham at the age of seventy years, lived to that of two hundred and\nfive; and, afterward, that Abraham went out of Haran, which seems to\nsignify that it was after the death of his father.\n\nEither the author did not know how to dispose his narration, or it is\nclear from the Book of Genesis itself that Abraham was one hundred and\nthirty-five years old when he quitted Mesopotamia. He went from a\ncountry which is called idolatrous to another idolatrous country named\nSichem, in Palestine. Why did he quit the fruitful banks of the\nEuphrates for a spot so remote, so barren, and so stony as Sichem? It\nwas not a place of trade, and was distant a hundred leagues from\nChald\u00e6a, and deserts lay between. But God chose that Abraham should go\nthis journey; he chose to show him the land which his descendants were\nto occupy several ages after him. It is with difficulty that the human\nunderstanding comprehends the reasons for such a journey.\n\nScarcely had he arrived in the little mountainous country of Sichem,\nwhen famine compelled him to quit it. He went into Egypt with his wife\nSarah, to seek a subsistence. The distance from Sichem to Memphis is two\nhundred leagues. Is it natural that a man should go so far to ask for\ncorn in a country the language of which he did not understand? Truly\nthese were strange journeys, undertaken at the age of nearly a hundred\nand forty years!\n\nHe brought with him to Memphis his wife, Sarah, who was extremely young,\nand almost an infant when compared with himself; for she was only\nsixty-five. As she was very handsome, he resolved to turn her beauty to\naccount. \"Say, I pray thee, that thou art my sister, that it may be well\nwith me for thy sake.\" He should rather have said to her, \"Say, I pray\nthee, that thou art my _daughter_.\" The king fell in love with the young\nSarah, and gave the pretended brother abundance of sheep, oxen,\nhe-asses, she-asses, camels, men-servants and maid-servants; which\nproves that Egypt was then a powerful and well-regulated, and\nconsequently an ancient kingdom, and that those were magnificently\nrewarded who came and offered their sisters to the kings of Memphis. The\nyouthful Sarah was ninety years old when God promised her that, in the\ncourse of a year, she should have a child by Abraham, who was then a\nhundred and sixty.\n\nAbraham, who was fond of travelling, went into the horrible desert of\nKadesh with his pregnant wife, ever young and ever pretty. A king of\nthis desert was, of course, captivated by Sarah, as the king of Egypt\nhad been. The father of the faithful told the same lie as in Egypt,\nmaking his wife pass for his sister; which brought him more sheep, oxen,\nmen-servants, and maid-servants. It might be said that this Abraham\nbecame rich principally by means of his wife. Commentators have written\na prodigious number of volumes to justify Abraham's conduct, and to\nexplain away the errors in chronology. To these commentaries we must\nrefer the reader; they are all composed by men of nice and acute\nperceptions, excellent metaphysicians, and by no means pedants.\n\nFor the rest, this name of _Bram_, or _Abram_, was famous in Jud\u00e6a and\nin Persia. Several of the learned even assert that he was the same\nlegislator whom the Greeks called _Zoroaster_. Others say that he was\nthe _Brahma_ of the Indians, which is not demonstrated. But it appears\nvery reasonable to many that this Abraham was a Chald\u00e6an or a Persian,\nfrom whom the Jews afterwards boasted of having descended, as the Franks\ndid of their descent from Hector, and the Britons from Tubal. It cannot\nbe denied that the Jewish nation were a very modern horde; that they did\nnot establish themselves on the borders of Ph\u0153nicia until a very late\nperiod; that they were surrounded by ancient states, whose language they\nadopted, receiving from them even the name of _Israel_, which is\nChald\u00e6an, from the testimony of the Jew Flavius Josephus himself. We\nknow that they took the names of the angels from the Babylonians, and\nthat they called God by the names of _Eloi_ or _Eloa_, _Adona\u00ef_,\n_Jehovah_ or _Hiao_, after the Ph\u0153nicians. It is probable that they\nknew the name of _Abraham_or _Ibrahim_ only through the Babylonians; for\nthe ancient religion of all the countries from the Euphrates to the Oxus\nwas called _Kish Ibrahim_ or _Milat Ibrahim_. This is confirmed by all\nthe researches made on the spot by the learned Hyde.\n\nThe Jews, then, treat their history and ancient fables as their\nclothesmen treat their old coats--they turn them and sell them for new\nat as high a price as possible. It is a singular instance of human\nstupidity that we have so long considered the Jews as a nation which\ntaught all others, while their historian Josephus himself confesses the\ncontrary.\n\nIt is difficult to penetrate the shades of antiquity; but it is evident\nthat all the kingdoms of Asia were in a very flourishing state before\nthe wandering horde of Arabs, called _Jews_, had a small spot of earth\nwhich they called their own--when they had neither a town, nor laws, nor\neven a fixed religion. When, therefore, we see an ancient rite or an\nancient opinion established in Egypt or Asia, and also among the Jews,\nit is very natural to suppose that this small, newly formed, ignorant,\nstupid people copied, as well as they were able, the ancient,\nflourishing, and industrious nation.\n\nIt is on this principle that we must judge of Jud\u00e6a, Biscay, Cornwall,\netc. Most certainly triumphant Rome did not in anything imitate Biscay\nor Cornwall; and he must be either very ignorant or a great knave who\nwould say that the Jews taught anything to the Greeks.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIt must not be thought that Abraham was known only to the Jews; on the\ncontrary, he was renowned throughout Asia. This name, which signifies\n_father of a people_ in more Oriental languages than one, was given to\nsome inhabitant of Chald\u00e6a from whom several nations have boasted of\ndescending. The pains which the Arabs and the Jews took to establish\ntheir descent from this patriarch render it impossible for even the\ngreatest Pyrrhoneans to doubt of there having been an Abraham.\n\nThe Hebrew Scriptures make him the son of Terah, while the Arabs say\nthat Terah was his grandfather and Azar his father, in which they have\nbeen followed by several Christians. The interpreters are of forty-two\ndifferent opinions with respect to the year in which Abraham was brought\ninto the world, and I shall not hazard a forty-third. It also appears,\nby the dates, that Abraham lived sixty years longer than the text allows\nhim; but mistakes in chronology do not destroy the truth of a fact.\nSupposing even that the book which speaks of Abraham had not been so\nsacred as was the law, it is not therefore less certain that Abraham\nexisted. The Jews distinguished books written by inspired men from books\ncomposed by particular inspiration. How, indeed, can it be believed that\nGod dictated false dates?\n\nPhilo, the Jew of Suidas, relates that Terah, the father or grandfather\nof Abraham, who dwelt at Ur in Chald\u00e6a, was a poor man who gained a\nlivelihood by making little idols, and that he was himself an idolater.\nIf so, that ancient religion of the Sabeans, who had no idols, but\nworshipped the heavens, had not, then, perhaps, been established in\nChald\u00e6a; or, if it prevailed in one part of the country, it is very\nprobable that idolatry was predominant in the rest. It seems that in\nthose times each little horde had its religion, as each family had its\nown peculiar customs; all were tolerated, and all were peaceably\nconfounded. Laban, the father-in-law of Jacob, had idols. Each clan was\nperfectly willing that the neighboring clan should have its gods, and\ncontented itself with believing that its own were the mightiest.\n\nThe Scripture says that the God of the Jews, who intended to give them\nthe land of Canaan, commanded Abraham to leave the fertile country of\nChald\u00e6a and go towards Palestine, promising him that in his seed all the\nnations of the earth should be blessed. It is for theologians to\nexplain, by allegory and _mystical sense_, how all the nations of the\nearth were to be blessed in a seed from which they did not descend,\nsince this much-to-be-venerated _mystical sense_ cannot be made the\nobject of a research purely critical. A short time after these promises\nAbraham's family was afflicted by famine, and went into Egypt for corn.\nIt is singular that the Hebrews never went into Egypt, except when\npressed by hunger; for Jacob afterwards sent his children on the same\nerrand.\n\nAbraham, who was then very old, went this journey with his wife Sarah,\naged sixty-five: she was very handsome, and Abraham feared that the\nEgyptians, smitten by her charms, would kill him in order to enjoy her\ntranscendent beauties: he proposed to her that she should pass for his\nsister, etc. Human nature must at that time have possessed a vigor which\ntime and luxury have since very much weakened. This was the opinion of\nall the ancients; it has been asserted that Helen was seventy when she\nwas carried off by Paris. That which Abraham had foreseen came to pass;\nthe Egyptian youth found his wife charming, notwithstanding her\nsixty-five years; the king himself fell in love with her, and placed her\nin his seraglio, though, probably, he had younger women there; but the\nLord plagued the king and his seraglio with very great sores. The text\ndoes not tell us how the king came to know that this dangerous beauty\nwas Abraham's wife; but it seems that he did come to know it, and\nrestored her.\n\nSarah's beauty must have been unalterable; for twenty-five years\nafterwards, when she was ninety years old, pregnant, and travelling with\nher husband through the dominions of a king of Ph\u0153nicia named\nAbimelech, Abraham, who had not yet corrected himself, made her a second\ntime pass for his sister. The Ph\u0153nician king was as sensible to her\nattractions as the king of Egypt had been; but God appeared to this\nAbimelech in a dream, and threatened him with death if he touched his\nnew mistress. It must be confessed that Sarah's conduct was as\nextraordinary as the lasting nature of her charms.\n\nThe singularity of these adventures was probably the reason why the Jews\nhad not the same sort of faith in their histories as they had in their\nLeviticus. There was not a single iota of their _law_ in which they did\nnot believe; but the historical part of their Scriptures did not demand\nthe same respect. Their conduct in regard to their ancient books may be\ncompared to that of the English, who received the laws of St. Edward\nwithout absolutely believing that St. Edward cured the scrofula; or to\nthat of the Romans, who, while they obeyed their primitive laws, were\nnot obliged to believe in the miracles of the sieve filled with water,\nthe ship drawn to the shore by a vestal's girdle, the stone cut with a\nrazor, and so forth. Therefore the historian Josephus, though strongly\nattached to his form of worship, leaves his readers at liberty to\nbelieve just so much as they choose of the ancient prodigies which he\nrelates. For the same reason the Sadducees were permitted not to believe\nin the angels, although the angels are so often spoken of in the Old\nTestament; but these same Sadducees were not permitted to neglect the\nprescribed feasts, fasts, and ceremonies. This part of Abraham's history\n(the journeys into Egypt and Ph\u0153nicia) proves that great kingdoms\nwere already established, while the Jewish nation existed in a single\nfamily; that there already were laws, since without them a great kingdom\ncannot exist; and consequently that the law of Moses, which was\nposterior, was not the first law. It is not necessary for a law to be\ndivine, that it should be the most ancient of all. God is undoubtedly\nthe master of time. It would, it is true, seem more conformable to the\nfaint light of reason that God, having to give a law, should have given\nit at the first to all mankind; but if it be proved that He proceeds in\na different way, it is not for us to question Him.\n\nThe remainder of Abraham's history is subject to great difficulties.\nGod, who frequently appeared to and made several treaties with him, one\nday sent three angels to him in the valley of Mamre. The patriarch gave\nthem bread, veal, butter, and milk to eat. The three spirits dined, and\nafter dinner they sent for Sarah, who had baked the bread. One of the\nangels, whom the text calls _the Lord, the Eternal_, promised Sarah\nthat, in the course of a year, she should have a son. Sarah, who was\nthen ninety-four, while her husband was nearly a hundred, laughed at the\npromise--a proof that Sarah confessed her decrepitude--a proof that,\naccording to the Scripture itself, human nature was not then very\ndifferent from what it is now. Nevertheless, the following year, as we\nhave already seen, this aged woman, after becoming pregnant, captivated\nKing Abimelech. Certes, to consider these stories as natural, we must\neither have a species of understanding quite different from that which\nwe have at present, or regard every trait in the life of Abraham as a\nmiracle, or believe that it is only an allegory; but whichever way we\nturn, we cannot escape embarrassment. For instance, what are we to make\nof God's promise to Abraham that he would give to him and his posterity\nall the land of Canaan, which no Chald\u00e6an ever possessed? This is one\nof the difficulties which it is impossible to solve.\n\nIt seems astonishing that God, after causing Isaac to be born of a\ncentenary father and a woman of ninety-five, should afterwards have\nordered that father to murder the son whom he had given him contrary to\nevery expectation. This strange order from God seems to show that, at\nthe time when this history was written, the sacrifice of human victims\nwas customary amongst the Jews, as it afterwards became in other\nnations, as witness the vow of Jephthah. But it may be said that the\nobedience of Abraham, who was ready to sacrifice his son to the God who\nhad given him, is an _allegory_ of the resignation which man owes to the\norders of the Supreme Being.\n\nThere is one remark which it is particularly important to make on the\nhistory of this patriarch regarded as the father of the Jews and the\nArabs. His principal children were Isaac, born of his wife by a\nmiraculous favor of Providence, and Ishmael, born of his servant. It was\nin Isaac that the race of the patriarch was blessed; yet Isaac was\nfather only of an unfortunate and contemptible people, who were for a\nlong period slaves, and have for a still longer period been dispersed.\nIshmael, on the contrary, was the father of the Arabs, who, in course of\ntime, established the empire of the caliphs, one of the most powerful\nand most extensive in the world.\n\nThe Mussulmans have a great reverence for Abraham, whom they call\n_Ibrahim_. Those who believe him to have been buried at Hebron, make a\npilgrimage thither, while those who think that his tomb is at Mecca, go\nand pay their homage to him there.\n\nSome of the ancient Persians believed that Abraham was the same as\nZoroaster. It has been with him as with most of the founders of the\nEastern nations, to whom various names and various adventures have been\nattributed; but it appears by the Scripture text that he was one of\nthose wandering Arabs who had no fixed habitation. We see him born at Ur\nin Chald\u00e6a, going first to Haran, then into Palestine, then into Egypt,\nthen into Ph\u0153nicia, and lastly forced to buy a grave at Hebron.\n\nOne of the most remarkable circumstances of his life was, that at the\nage of ninety, before he had begotten Isaac, he caused himself, his son\nIshmael, and all his servants to be circumcised. It seems that he had\nadopted this idea from the Egyptians. It is difficult to determine the\norigin of such an operation; but it is most likely that it was performed\nin order to prevent the abuses of puberty. But why should a man undergo\nthis operation at the age of a hundred?\n\nOn the other hand it is asserted that only the priests were anciently\ndistinguished in Egypt by this custom. It was a usage of great antiquity\nin Africa and part of Asia for the most holy personages to present their\nvirile member to be kissed by the women whom they met. The organs of\ngeneration were looked upon as something noble and sacred--as a symbol\nof divine power: it was customary to swear by them; and, when taking an\noath to another person, to lay the hand on his _testicles_. It was\nperhaps from this ancient custom that they afterwards received their\nname, which signifies witnesses, because they were thus made a\n_testimony_ and a pledge. When Abraham sent his servant to ask Rebecca\nfor his son Isaac, the servant placed his hand on Abraham's _genitals_,\nwhich has been translated by the word _thigh_.\n\nBy this we see how much the manners of remote antiquity differed from\nours. In the eyes of a philosopher it is no more astonishing that men\nshould formerly have sworn by that part than by the head; nor is it\nastonishing that those who wished to distinguish themselves from other\nmen should have testified by this venerated portion of the human person.\n\nThe Book of Genesis tells us that circumcision was a covenant between\nGod and Abraham; and expressly adds, that whosoever shall not be\ncircumcised in his house, shall be put to death. Yet we are not told\nthat Isaac was circumcised; nor is circumcision again spoken of until\nthe time of Moses.\n\nWe shall conclude this article with one more observation, which is, that\nAbraham, after having by Sarah and Hagar two sons, who became each the\nfather of a great nation, had six sons by Keturah, who settled in\nArabia; but their posterity were not famous.\n\n\n\n\nABUSE.\n\n\nA vice attached to all the customs, to all the laws, to all the\ninstitutions of man: the detail is too vast to be contained in any\nlibrary.\n\nStates are governed by abuses. _Maximus ille est qui minimis urgetur._\nIt might be said to the Chinese, to the Japanese, to the English--your\ngovernment swarms with abuses, which you do not correct! The Chinese\nwill reply: We have existed as a people for five thousand years, and at\nthis day are perhaps the most fortunate nation on earth, because we are\nthe most tranquil. The Japanese will say nearly the same. The English\nwill answer: We are powerful at sea, and prosperous on land; perhaps in\nten thousand years we shall bring our usages to perfection. The grand\nsecret is, to be in a better condition than others, even with enormous\n_abuses_.\n\n\n\n\nABUSE OF WORDS.\n\n\nBooks, like conversation, rarely give us any precise ideas: nothing is\nso common as to read and converse unprofitably.\n\nWe must here repeat what Locke has so strongly urged--_Define your\nterms._\n\nA jurisconsult, in his criminal institute, announces that the\nnon-observance of Sundays and holidays is treason against the Divine\nMajesty. _Treason against the Divine Majesty_ gives an idea of the most\nenormous of crimes, and the most dreadful of chastisements. But what\nconstitutes the offence? To have missed vespers?--a thing which may\nhappen to the best man in the world.\n\nIn all disputes on _liberty_, one reasoner generally understands one\nthing, and his adversary another. A third comes in who understands\nneither the one nor the other, nor is himself understood. In these\ndisputes, one has in his head the power of acting; a second, the power\nof willing; a third, the desire of executing; each revolves in his own\ncircle, and they never meet. It is the same with quarrels about _grace_.\nWho can understand its nature, its operations, the _sufficiency_ which\nis not sufficient, and the _efficacy_ which is ineffectual.\n\nThe words _substantial form_ were pronounced for two thousand years\nwithout suggesting the least notion. For these, _plastic natures_ have\nbeen substituted, but still without anything being gained.\n\nA traveller, stopped on his way by a torrent, asks a villager on the\nopposite bank to show him the ford: \"Go to the right!\" shouts the\ncountryman. He takes the right and is drowned. The other runs up crying:\n\"Oh! how unfortunate! I did not tell him to go to _his_ right, but to\n_mine_!\"\n\nThe world is full of these misunderstandings. How will a Norwegian, when\nreading this formula: _Servant of the servants of God_; discover that it\nis the _Bishop of Bishops, and King of Kings_ who speaks?\n\nAt the time when the \"Fragments of Petronius\" made a great noise in the\nliterary world, Meibomius, a noted learned man of L\u00fcbeck, read in the\nprinted letter of another learned man of Bologna: \"We have here an\nentire Petronius, which I have seen with my own eyes and admired.\"\n_Habemus hic Petronium integrum, quem vidi meis oculis non sine\nadmiratione._ He immediately set out for Italy, hastened to Bologna,\nwent to the librarian Capponi, and asked him if it were true that they\nhad the entire Petronius at Bologna. Capponi answered that it was a fact\nwhich had long been public. \"Can I see this Petronius? Be so good as to\nshow him to me.\" \"Nothing is more easy,\" said Capponi. He then took him\nto the church in which the body of St. Petronius was laid. Meibomius\nordered horses and fled.\n\nIf the Jesuit Daniel took a warlike abbot, _abbatem martialem_, for the\nabbot Martial, a hundred historians have fallen into still greater\nmistakes. The Jesuit d'Orleans, in his \"Revolutions of England,\" wrote\nindifferently _Northampton_ or _Southampton_, only mistaking the north\nfor the south, or _vice versa_.\n\nMetaphysical terms, taken in their proper sense, have sometimes\ndetermined the opinion of twenty nations. Every one knows the metaphor\nof Isaiah, _How hast thou fallen from heaven, thou star which rose in\nthe morning?_ This discourse was imagined to have been addressed to the\ndevil; and as the Hebrew word answering to the planet _Venus_ was\nrendered in Latin by the word _Lucifer_, the devil has ever since been\ncalled Lucifer.\n\nMuch ridicule has been bestowed on the \"Chart of the Tender Passion\" by\nMdlle. Cuderi. The lovers embark on the river _Tendre_; they dine at\n_Tendre sur Estime_, sup at _Tendre sur Inclination_, sleep at _Tendre\nsur D\u00e9sir_, find themselves the next morning at _Tendre sur Passion_,\nand lastly at _Tendre sur Tendre_. These ideas may be ridiculous,\nespecially when _Clelia, Horatius Cocles_, and other rude and austere\nRomans set out on the voyage; but this geographical chart at least shows\nus that love has various lodgings, and that the same word does not\nalways signify the same thing. There is a prodigious difference between\nthe love of Tarquin and that of Celadon--between David's love for\nJonathan, which was stronger than that of women, and the Abb\u00e9\nDesfontaines' love for little chimney-sweepers.\n\nThe most singular instance of this abuse of words--these voluntary\n_equivoques_--these misunderstandings which have caused so many\nquarrels--is the Chinese _King-tien_. The missionaries having violent\ndisputes about the meaning of this word, the Court of Rome sent a\nFrenchman, named _Maigrot_, whom they made the imaginary bishop of a\nprovince in China, to adjust the difference. Maigrot did not know a word\nof Chinese; but the emperor deigned to grant that he should be told\nwhat he understood by _King-tien_. Maigrot would not believe what was\ntold him, but caused the emperor of China to be condemned at Rome!\n\nThe abuse of words is an inexhaustible subject. In history, in morality,\nin jurisprudence, in medicine, but especially in _theology_, beware of\nambiguity.\n\n\n\n\nACADEMY.\n\n\nAcademies are to universities as maturity is to childhood, oratory to\ngrammar, or politeness to the first lessons in civility. Academies, not\nbeing stipendiary, should be entirely free; such were the academies of\nItaly; such is the French Academy; and such, more particularly, is the\nRoyal Society of London.\n\nThe French Academy, which formed itself, received, it is true, letters\npatent from Louis XIII., but without any salary, and consequently\nwithout any subjection; hence it was that the first men in the kingdom,\nand even princes, sought admission into this illustrious body. The\nSociety of London has possessed the same advantage.\n\nThe celebrated Colbert, being a member of the French Academy, employed\nsome of his brethren to compose inscriptions and devices for the public\nbuildings. This assembly, to which Boileau and Racine afterwards\nbelonged, soon became an academy of itself. The establishment of this\nAcademy of Inscriptions, now called that of the _Belles-Lettres_, may,\nindeed, be dated from the year 1661, and that of the Academy of Sciences\nfrom 1666. We are indebted for both establishments to the same minister,\nwho contributed in so many ways to the splendor of the age of Louis XIV.\n\nAfter the deaths of Jean Baptiste Colbert and the Marquis de Louvois,\nwhen Count de Pontchartrain, secretary of state, had the department of\nParis, he intrusted the government of the new academies to his nephew,\nthe Abb\u00e9 Bignon. Then were first devised honorary fellowships requiring\nno learning, and without remuneration; places with salaries disagreeably\ndistinguished from the former; fellowships without salaries; and\nscholarships, a title still more disagreeable, which has since been\nsuppressed. The Academy of the Belles-Lettres was put on the same\nfooting; both submitted to the immediate control of the secretary of\nstate, and to the revolting distinction of _honoraries_, _pensionaries_,\nand _pupils_.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 Bignon ventured to propose the same regulation to the French\nAcademy, of which he was a member; but he was heard with unanimous\nindignation. The least opulent in the Academy were the first to reject\nhis offers, and to prefer liberty to pensions and honors. The Abb\u00e9\nBignon, who, in the laudable intention of doing good, had dealt too\nfreely with the noble sentiments of his brethren, never again set his\nfoot in the French Academy.\n\nThe word _Academy_ became so celebrated that when Lulli, who was a sort\nof favorite, obtained the establishment of his Opera, in 1692, he had\ninterest enough to get inserted in the patent, _that it was a Royal\nAcademy of Music, in which Ladies and Gentlemen might sing without\ndemeaning themselves_. He did not confer the same honor on the dancers;\nthe public, however, has always continued to go to the Opera, but never\nto the Academy of Music.\n\nIt is known that the word _Academy_, borrowed from the Greeks,\noriginally signified a society or school of philosophy at Athens, which\nmet in a garden bequeathed to it by _Academus_. The Italians were the\nfirst who instituted such societies after the revival of letters; the\nAcademy _Delia Crusca_ is of the sixteenth century. Academies were\nafterwards established in every town where the sciences were cultivated.\nThe Society of London has never taken the title of _Academy_.\n\nThe provincial academies have been of signal advantage. They have given\nbirth to emulation, forced youth to labor, introduced them to a course\nof good reading, dissipated the ignorance and prejudices of some of our\ntowns, fostered a spirit of politeness, and, as far as it is possible,\ndestroyed pedantry.\n\nScarcely anything has been written against the French Academy, except\nfrivolous and insipid pleasantries. St. Evremond's comedy of \"The\nAcademicians\" had some reputation in its time; but a proof of the little\nmerit it possessed is that it is now forgotten, whereas the good satires\nof Boileau are immortal.\n\n\n\n\nADAM.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nSo much has been said and so much written concerning Adam, his wife, the\npre-Adamites, etc., and the rabbis have put forth so many idle stories\nrespecting Adam, and it is so dull to repeat what others have said\nbefore, that I shall here hazard an idea entirely new; one, at least,\nwhich is not to be found in any ancient author, father of the church,\npreacher, theologian, critic, or scholar with whom I am acquainted. I\nmean the profound _secrecy_ with respect to Adam which was observed\nthroughout the habitable earth, Palestine only excepted, until the time\nwhen the Jewish books began to be known in Alexandria, and were\ntranslated into Greek under one of the Ptolemies. Still they were very\nlittle known; for large books were very rare and very dear. Besides, the\nJews of Jerusalem were so incensed against those of Alexandria, loaded\nthem with so many reproaches for having translated their Bible into a\nprofane tongue, called them so many ill names, and cried so loudly to\nthe Lord, that the Alexandrian Jews concealed their translation as much\nas possible; it was so secret that no Greek or Roman author speaks of it\nbefore the time of the Emperor Aurelian.\n\nThe historian Josephus confesses, in his answer to Appian, that the Jews\nhad not long had any intercourse with other nations: \"We inhabit,\" says\nhe, \"a country distant from the sea; we do not apply ourselves to\ncommerce, nor have we any communication with other nations. Is it to be\nwondered at that our people, dwelling so far from the sea, and affecting\nnever to write, have been so little known?\"\n\nHere it will probably be asked how Josephus could say that his nation\naffected _never to write anything_, when they had twenty-two canonical\nbooks, without reckoning the _\"Targum\"_ by _Onkelos_. But it must be\nconsidered that twenty-two small volumes were very little when compared\nwith the multitude of books preserved in the library of Alexandria, half\nof which were burned in C\u00e6sar's war.\n\nIt is certain that the Jews had written and read very little; that they\nwere profoundly ignorant of astronomy, geometry, geography, and physics;\nthat they knew nothing of the history of other nations; and that in\nAlexandria they first began to learn. Their language was a barbarous\nmixture of ancient Ph\u0153nician and corrupted Chaldee; it was so poor\nthat several moods were wanting in the conjugation of their verbs.\n\nMoreover, as they communicated neither their books nor the titles of\nthem to any foreigner, no one on earth except themselves had ever heard\nof _Adam_, or _Eve_, or _Abel_, or _Cain_, or _Noah_. _Abraham_ alone\nwas, in course of time, known to the Oriental nations; but no ancient\npeople admitted that Abraham was the root of the Jewish nation.\n\nSuch are the secrets of Providence, that the father and mother of the\nhuman race have ever been totally unknown to their descendants; so that\nthe names of Adam and Eve are to be found in no ancient author, either\nof Greece, of Rome, of Persia, or of Syria, nor even among the Arabs,\nuntil near the time of Mahomet. It was God's pleasure that the origin of\nthe great family of the world should be concealed from all but the\nsmallest and most unfortunate part of that family.\n\nHow is it that Adam and Eve have been unknown to all their children? How\ncould it be that neither in Egypt nor in Babylon was any trace--any\ntradition--of our first parents to be found? Why were they not mentioned\nby Orpheus, by Linus, or by Thamyris? For if they had said but one word\nof them, it would undoubtedly have been caught by Hesiod, and especially\nby Homer, who speak of everything except the authors of the human race.\nClement of Alexandria, who collected so many ancient testimonies, would\nnot have failed to quote any passage in which mention had been made of\nAdam and Eve. Eusebius, in his \"Universal History,\" has examined even\nthe most doubtful testimonies, and would assuredly have made the most of\nthe smallest allusion, or appearance of an allusion, to our first\nparents. It is, then, sufficiently clear that they were always utterly\nunknown to the nations.\n\nWe do, it is true, find among the Brahmins, in the book entitled the\n_\"Ezourveidam\"_ the names of _Adimo_ and of _Procriti_, his wife. But\nthough _Adimo_ has some little resemblance to our _Adam_, the Indians\nsay: \"We were a great people established on the banks of the Indus and\nthe Ganges many ages before the Hebrew horde moved towards the Jordan.\nThe Egyptians, the Persians, and the Arabs came to us for wisdom and\nspices when the Jews were unknown to the rest of mankind. We cannot have\ntaken our _Adimo_ from their Adam; our _Procriti_ does not in the least\nresemble _Eve_; besides, their history and ours are entirely different.\n\n\"Moreover, the _'Veidam'_ on which the _'Ezourveidam'_ is a commentary,\nis believed by us to have been composed at a more remote period of\nantiquity than the Jewish books; and the _'Veidam'_ itself is a newer\nlaw given to the Brahmins, fifteen hundred years after their first law,\ncalled _Shasta_ or _Shastabad_.\"\n\nSuch, or nearly such, are the answers which the Brahmins of the present\nday have often made to the chaplains of merchant vessels who have talked\nto them of Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel, when the traders of Europe\nhave gone, with arms in their hands, to buy their spices and lay waste\ntheir country.\n\nThe Ph\u0153nician Sanchoniathon, who certainly lived before the period at\nwhich we place Moses, and who is quoted by Eusebius as an authentic\nwriter, gives ten generations to the human race, as does Moses, down to\nthe time of Noah; but, in these ten generations, he mentions neither\nAdam nor Eve, nor any of their descendants, not even Noah himself. The\nnames, according to the Greek translation by Philo of Biblos, are _\u00c6on_,\n_Gems_, _Phox_, _Liban_, _Usou_, _Halieus_, _Chrisor_, _Tecnites_,\n_Agrove_, _Amine_; these are the first ten generations.\n\nWe do not see the name of _Noah_ or of _Adam_ in any of the ancient\ndynasties of Egypt: they are not to be found among the Chald\u00e6ans; in a\nword, the whole earth has been silent respecting them. It must be owned\nthat such a silence is unparalleled. Every people has attributed to\nitself some imaginary origin, yet none has approached the true one. We\ncannot comprehend how the father of all nations has so long been\nunknown, while in the natural course of things his name should have been\ncarried from mouth to mouth to the farthest corners of the earth.\n\nLet us humble ourselves to the decrees of that Providence which has\npermitted so astonishing an oblivion. All was mysterious and concealed\nin the nation guided by God Himself, which prepared the way for\nChristianity, and was the wild olive on which the fruitful one has been\ngrafted. That the names of the authors of mankind should be unknown to\nmankind is a mystery of the highest order.\n\nI will venture to affirm that it has required a miracle thus to shut the\neyes and ears of all nations--to destroy every monument, every memorial\nof their first father. What would C\u00e6sar, Antony, Crassus, Pompey,\nCicero, Marcellus, or Metellus have thought, if a poor Jew, while\nselling them balm, had said, \"We all descend from one father, named\nAdam.\" All the Roman senate would have cried, \"Show us our genealogical\ntree.\" Then the Jew would have displayed his ten generations, down to\nthe time of Noah, and the secret of the universal deluge. The senate\nwould have asked him how many persons were in the ark to feed all the\nanimals for ten whole months, and during the following year in which no\nfood would be produced? The peddler would have said, \"We were\neight--Noah and his wife, their three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and\ntheir wives. All this family descended in a right line from Adam.\"\n\nCicero, would, doubtless, have inquired for the great monuments, the\nindisputable testimonies which Noah and his children had left of our\ncommon father. \"After the deluge,\" he would have said, \"the whole world\nwould have resounded with the names of Adam and Noah, one the father,\nthe other the restorer of every race. These names would have been in\nevery mouth as soon as men could speak, on every parchment as soon as\nthey could write, on the door of every house as soon as they could\nbuild, on every temple, on every statue; and have you known so great a\nsecret, yet concealed it from us?\" The Jew would have answered: \"It is\nbecause we are pure and you are impure.\" The Roman senate would have\nlaughed and the Jew would have been whipped; so much are men attached to\ntheir prejudices!\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThe pious Madame de Bourignon was sure that Adam was an hermaphrodite,\nlike the first men of the divine Plato. God had revealed a great secret\nto her; but as I have not had the same revelation, I shall say nothing\nof the matter.\n\nThe Jewish rabbis have read Adam's books, and know the names of his\npreceptor and his second wife; but as I have not read our first parent's\nbooks, I shall remain silent. Some acute and very learned persons are\nquite astonished when they read the _\"Veidam\"_ of the ancient Brahmins,\nto find that the first man was created in India, and called _Adimo_,\nwhich signifies _the begetter_, and his wife, Procriti, signifying\n_life_. They say the sect of the Brahmins is incontestably more ancient\nthan that of the Jews; that it was not until a late period that the Jews\ncould write in the Canaanitish language, since it was not until late\nthat they established themselves in the little country of Canaan. They\nsay the Indians were always inventors, and the Jews always imitators;\nthe Indians always ingenious, and the Jews always rude. They say it is\ndifficult to believe that Adam, who was fair and had hair on his head,\nwas father to the negroes, who are entirely black, and have black wool.\nWhat, indeed, do they _not_ say? As for me, I say nothing; I leave these\nresearches to the Reverend Father Berruyer of the Society of Jesus. He\nis the most perfect _Innocent_ I have ever known; the book has been\nburned, as that of a man who wished to turn the Bible into ridicule; but\nI am quite sure he had no such wicked end in view.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nThe age for inquiring seriously whether or not knowledge was infused\ninto Adam had passed by; those who so long agitated the question had no\nknowledge, either infused or acquired. It is as difficult to know at\nwhat time the Book of Genesis, which speaks of Adam, was written, as it\nis to know the date of the _\"Veidam\"_ of the \"Sanskrit,\" or any other of\nthe ancient Asiatic books. It is important to remark that the Jews were\nnot permitted to read the first chapter of Genesis before they were\ntwenty-five years old. Many rabbis have regarded the formation of Adam\nand Eve and their adventure as an allegory. Every celebrated nation of\nantiquity has imagined some similar one; and, by a singular concurrence,\nwhich marks the weakness of our nature, all have endeavored to explain\nthe origin of moral and physical evil by ideas nearly alike. The\nChald\u00e6ans, the Indians, the Persians and the Egyptians have accounted,\nin similar ways, for that mixture of good and evil which seems to be a\nnecessary appendage to our globe. The Jews, who went out of Egypt, rude\nas they were, had heard of the allegorical philosophy of the Egyptians.\nWith the little knowledge thus acquired, they afterwards mixed that\nwhich they received from the Ph\u0153nicians and from the Babylonians\nduring their long slavery. But as it is natural and very common for a\nrude nation to imitate rudely the conceptions of a polished people, it\nis not surprising that the Jews imagined a woman formed from the side of\na man, the spirit of life breathed from the mouth of God on the face of\nAdam--the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Nile and the Oxus, having all the\nsame source in a garden, and the forbidden fruit, which brought death\ninto the world, as well as physical and moral evil. Full of the idea\nwhich prevailed among the ancients, that the serpent was a very cunning\nanimal, they had no great difficulty in endowing it with understanding\nand speech.\n\nThis people, who then inhabited only a small corner of the earth, which\nthey believed to be long, narrow and flat, could easily believe that all\nmen came from Adam. They did not even know that the negroes, with a\nconformation different from their own, inhabited immense regions; still\nless could they have any idea of America.\n\nIt is, however, very strange that the Jewish people were permitted to\nread the books of Exodus, where there are so many miracles that shock\nreason, yet were not permitted to read before the age of twenty-five the\nfirst chapter of Genesis, in which all is necessarily a miracle, since\nthe creation is the subject Perhaps it was because God, after creating\nthe man and woman in the first chapter, makes them again in another, and\nit was thought expedient to keep this appearance of contradiction from\nthe eyes of youth. Perhaps it is because it is said that _God made man\nin his own image_, and this expression gave the Jews too corporeal an\nidea of God. Perhaps it was because it is said that God took a rib from\nAdam's side to form the woman, and the young and inconsiderate, feeling\ntheir sides, and finding the right number of ribs, might have suspected\nthe author of some infidelity. Perhaps it was because God, who always\ntook a walk at noon in the garden of Eden, laughed at Adam after his\nfall, and this tone of ridicule might tend to give youth too great a\ntaste for pleasantry. In short, every line of this chapter furnishes\nvery plausible reasons for interdicting the reading of it; but such\nbeing the case, one cannot clearly see how it was that the other\nchapters were permitted. It is, besides, surprising that the Jews were\nnot to read this chapter until they were twenty-five. One would think\nthat it should first have been proposed to childhood, which receives\neverything without examination, rather than to youth, whose pride is to\njudge and to laugh. On the other hand, the Jews of twenty-five years of\nage, having their judgments prepared and strengthened, might be more\nfitted to receive this chapter than inexperienced minds. We shall say\nnothing here of Adam's second wife, named Lillah, whom the ancient\nrabbis have given him. It must be confessed that we know very few\nanecdotes of our family.\n\n\n\n\nADORATION.\n\n\nIs it not a great fault in some modern languages that the same word that\nis used in addressing the Supreme Being is also used in addressing a\nmistress? We not infrequently go from hearing a sermon, in which the\npreacher has talked of nothing but _adoring_ God in spirit and in truth,\nto the opera, where nothing is to be heard but _the charming object of\nmy adoration, etc._\n\nThe Greeks and Romans, at least, did not fall into this extravagant\nprofanation. Horace does not say that he _adores_ Lalage; Tibullus does\nnot _adore_ Delia; nor is even the term _adoration_to be found in\nPetronius. If anything can excuse this indecency, it is the frequent\nmention which is made in our operas and songs of the gods of ancient\nfable. Poets have said that their mistresses were more adorable than\nthese false divinities; for which no one could blame them. We have\ninsensibly become familiarized with this mode of expression, until at\nlast, without any perception of the folly, the God of the universe is\naddressed in the same terms as an opera singer.\n\nBut to return to the important part of our subject: There is no\ncivilized nation which does not render public adoration to God. It is\ntrue that neither in Asia nor in Africa is any person forced to the\nmosque or temple of the place; each one goes of his own accord. This\ncustom of assembling should tend to unite the minds of men and render\nthem more gentle in society; yet have they been seen raging against each\nother, even in the consecrated abode of peace. The temple of Jerusalem\nwas deluged with blood by zealots who murdered their brethren, and our\nchurches have more than once been defiled by carnage.\n\nIn the article on \"China\" it will be seen that the emperor is the chief\npontiff, and that the worship is august and simple. There are other\ncountries in which it is simple without any magnificence, as among the\nreformers of Europe and in British America. In others wax tapers must be\nlighted at noon, although in the primitive ages they were held in\nabomination. A convent of nuns, if deprived of their tapers, would cry\nout that the light of the faith was extinguished and the world would\nshortly be at an end. The Church of England holds a middle course\nbetween the pompous ceremonies of the Church of Rome and the plainness\nof the Calvinists.\n\nThroughout the East, songs, dances and torches formed part of the\nceremonies essential in all sacred feasts. No sacerdotal institution\nexisted among the Greeks without songs and dances. The Hebrews borrowed\nthis custom from their neighbors; for David _sang and danced before the\nark_.\n\nSt. Matthew speaks of a canticle sung by Jesus Christ Himself and by His\napostles after their Passover. This canticle, which is not admitted into\nthe authorized books, is to be found in fragments in the 237th letter\nof St. Augustine to Bishop Chretius; and, whatever disputes there may\nhave been about its authenticity, it is certain that singing was\nemployed in all religious ceremonies. Mahomet found this a settled mode\nof worship among the Arabs; it is also established in India, but does\nnot appear to be in use among the lettered men of China. The ceremonies\nof all places have some resemblance and some difference; but God is\nworshipped throughout the earth. Woe, assuredly, unto those who do not\nadore Him as we do! whether erring in their tenets or in their rites.\nThey sit in the shadow of death; but the greater their misfortune the\nmore are they to be pitied and supported.\n\nIt is indeed a great consolation for us that the Mahometans, the\nIndians, the Chinese, the Tartars, all adore one only God; for so far\nthey are our kindred. Their fatal ignorance of our sacred mysteries can\nonly inspire us with tender compassion for our wandering brethren. Far\nfrom us be all spirit of persecution which would only serve to render\nthem irreconcilable.\n\nOne only God being adored throughout the known world, shall those who\nacknowledge Him as their Father never cease to present to Him the\nrevolting spectacle of His children detesting, anathematizing,\npersecuting and massacring one another by way of argument?\n\nIt is hard to determine precisely what the Greeks and Romans understood\nby _adoring_, or whether they adored fauns, sylvans, dryads and naiads\nas they adored the twelve superior gods. It is not likely that Adrian's\nminion, Antinous, was adored by the Egyptians of later times with the\nsame worship which they paid to Serapis; and it is sufficiently proved\nthat the ancient Egyptians did not adore onions and crocodiles as they\ndid Isis and Osiris. Ambiguity abounds everywhere and confounds\neverything; we are obliged at every word to exclaim, _What do you mean?_\nwe must constantly repeat--_Define your terms._\n\nIs it quite true that Simon, called the _Magician_, was adored among the\nRomans? It is not more true that he was utterly unknown to them. St.\nJustin in his \"Apology,\" which was as little known at Rome as Simon,\ntells us that this God had a statue erected on the Tiber, or rather near\nthe Tiber, between the two bridges, with this inscription: _Simoni deo\nsancto._ St. Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian attest the same thing; but to whom\ndo they attest it? To people who had never seen Rome--to Africans, to\nAllobroges, to Syrians, and to some of the inhabitants of Sichem. _They_\nhad certainly not seen this statue, the real inscription on which was\n_Semo sanco deo fidio_, and not _Simoni deo sancto_. They should at\nleast have consulted Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who gives this\ninscription in his fourth book. _Semo sanco_ was an old Sabine word,\nsignifying _half god and half man_; we find in Livy, _Bona Semoni sanco\ncensuerunt consecranda_. This god was one of the most ancient in Roman\nworship, having been consecrated by Tarquin the Proud, and was\nconsidered as the god of alliances and good faith. It was the custom to\nsacrifice an ox to him, and to write any treaty made with a neighboring\npeople upon the skin. He had a temple near that of Quirinus; offerings\nwere sometimes presented to him under the name of _Semo the father_, and\nsometimes under that of _Sancus fidius_, whence Ovid says in his\n_\"Fasti\"_:\n\n     _Qu\u00e6rebam nonas Sanco, Fidove referrem,_\n     _An tibi, Semo pater._\n\nSuch was the Roman divinity which for so many ages was taken for _Simon\nthe Magician_. St. Cyril of Jerusalem had no doubts on the subject, and\nSt. Augustine in his first book of \"Heresies\" tells us that Simon the\nMagician himself procured the erection of this statue, together with\nthat of his _Helena_, by order of the emperor and senate.\n\nThis strange fable, the falsehood of which might so easily have been\ndiscovered, was constantly connected with another fable, which relates\nthat Simon and St. Peter both appeared before Nero and challenged each\nother which of them should soonest bring to life the corpse of a near\nrelative of Nero's, and also raise himself highest in the air; that\nSimon caused himself to be carried up by devils in a fiery chariot; that\nSt. Peter and St. Paul brought him down by their prayers; that he broke\nhis legs and in consequence died, and that Nero, being enraged, put\nboth St. Peter and St. Paul to death.\n\nAbdias, Marcellinus and Hegisippus have each related this story, with a\nlittle difference in the details. Arnobius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem,\nSulpicius Severus, Philaster, St. Epiphanius, Isidorus of Damietta,\nMaximus of Turin, and several other authors successively gave currency\nto this error, and it was generally adopted, until at length there was\nfound at Rome a statue of _Semo sancus deus fidius_, and the learned\nFather Mabillon dug up an ancient monument with the inscription _Semoni\nsanco deo fidio_.\n\nIt is nevertheless certain that there was a Simon, whom the Jews\nbelieved to be a magician, as it is certain that there was an Apollonius\nof Tyana. It is also true that this Simon, who was born in the little\ncountry of Samaria, gathered together some vagabonds, whom he persuaded\nthat he was one sent by God; he baptized, indeed, as well as the\napostles, and raised altar against altar.\n\nThe Jews of Samaria, always hostile to those of Jerusalem, ventured to\noppose this Simon to Jesus Christ, acknowledged by the apostles and\ndisciples, all of whom were of the tribe of Benjamin or that of Judah.\nHe baptized like them, but to the baptism of water he added fire, saying\nthat he had been foretold by John the Baptist in these words: \"He that\ncometh after me is mightier than I; _he_ shall baptize you with the Holy\nGhost and with fire.\"\n\nSimon lighted a lambent flame over the baptismal font with naphtha from\nthe Asphaltic Lake. His party was very strong, but it is very doubtful\nwhether his disciples adored him; St. Justin is the only one who\nbelieves it.\n\nMenander, like Simon, said he was sent by God to be the savior of men.\nAll the false Messiahs, Barcochebas especially, called themselves _sent\nby God_; but not even Barcochebas demanded to be adored. Men are not\noften erected into divinities while they live, unless, indeed, they be\nAlexanders or Roman emperors, who expressly order their slaves so to do.\nBut this is not, strictly speaking, adoration; it is an extraordinary\nhomage, an anticipated apotheosis, a flattery as ridiculous as those\nwhich are lavished on Octavius by Virgil and Horace.\n\n\n\n\nADULTERY.\n\n\nWe are not indebted for this expression to the Greeks; they called\nadultery _moicheia_, from which came the Latin _m\u0153chus_, which we\nhave not adopted. We owe it neither to the Syriac tongue nor to the\nHebrew, a jargon of the Syriac, in which adultery is called _niuph_. In\nLatin _adulteratio_ signified _alteration_--_adulteration, one thing put\nfor another--a counterfeit, as false keys, false bargains, false\nsignatures_; thus he who took possession of another's bed was called\n_adulter_.\n\nIn a similar way, by antiphrasis, the name of _coccyx_, a cuckoo, was\ngiven to the poor husband into whose nest a stranger intruded. Pliny,\nthe naturalist, says: _\"Coccyx ova subdit in nidis alienis; ita\nplerique alienas uxores faciunt matres\"_--\"the cuckoo deposits its eggs\nin the nest of other birds; so the Romans not unfrequently made mothers\nof the wives of their friends.\" The comparison is not over just.\n_Coccyx_ signifying a cuckoo, we have made it _cuckold_. What a number\nof things do we owe to the Romans! But as the sense of all words is\nsubject to change, the term applied to _cuckold_, which, according to\ngood grammar, should be the gallant, is appropriated to the _husband_.\nSome of the learned assert that it is to the Greeks we owe the emblem of\nthe _horns_, and that they bestowed the appellation of _goat_ upon a\nhusband the disposition of whose wife resembled that of a female of the\nsame species. Indeed, they used the epithet _son of a goat_ in the same\nway as the modern vulgar do an appellation which is much more literal.\n\nThese vile terms are no longer made use of in good company. Even the\nword _adultery_ is never pronounced. We do not now say, _\"Madame la\nDuchesse_ lives in adultery with _Monsieur le Chevalier_--_Madame la\nMarquise_ has a criminal intimacy with _Monsieur l'Abb\u00e9;\"_ but we say,\n_\"Monsieur l'Abb\u00e9_ is this week the lover of _Madame la Marquise_.\" When\nladies talk of their adulteries to their female friends, they say, \"I\nconfess I have some inclination for _him_.\" They used formerly to\nconfess that they felt some _esteem_, but since the time when a certain\ncitizen's wife accused herself to her confessor of having _esteem_ for\na counsellor, and the confessor inquired as to the number of proofs of\nesteem afforded, ladies of quality have _esteemed_ no one and gone but\nlittle to confession.\n\nThe women of Laced\u00e6mon, we are told, knew neither confession nor\nadultery. It is true that Menelaus had experienced the intractability of\nHelen, but Lycurgus set all right by making the women common, when the\nhusbands were willing to lend them and the wives consented. Every one\nmight dispose of his own. In this case a husband had not to apprehend\nthat he should foster in his house the offspring of a stranger; all\nchildren belonged to the republic, and not to any particular family, so\nthat no one was injured. Adultery is an evil only inasmuch as it is a\ntheft; but we do not steal that which is given to us. The Laced\u00e6monians,\ntherefore, had good reason for saying that adultery was impossible among\nthem. It is otherwise in our modern nations, where every law is founded\non the principle of _meum_ and _tuum_.\n\nIt is the greatest wrong, the greatest injury, to give a poor fellow\nchildren which do not belong to him and lay upon him a burden which he\nought not to bear. Races of heroes have thus been utterly bastardized.\nThe wives of the Astolphos and the Jocondas, through a depraved\nappetite, a momentary weakness, have become pregnant by some deformed\ndwarf--some little page, devoid alike of heart and mind, and both the\nbodies and souls of the offspring have borne testimony to the fact. In\nsome countries of Europe the heirs to the greatest names are little\ninsignificant apes, who have in their halls the portraits of their\npretended fathers, six feet high, handsome, well-made, and carrying a\nbroadsword which their successors of the present day would scarcely be\nable to lift. Important offices are thus held by men who have no right\nto them, and whose hearts, heads, and arms are unequal to the burden.\n\nIn some provinces of Europe the girls make love, without their\nafterwards becoming less prudent wives. In France it is quite the\ncontrary; the girls are shut up in convents, where, hitherto, they have\nreceived a most ridiculous education. Their mothers, in order to console\nthem, teach them to look for liberty in marriage. Scarcely have they\nlived a year with their husbands when they become impatient to ascertain\nthe force of their attractions. A young wife neither sits, nor eats, nor\nwalks, nor goes to the play, but in company with women who have each\ntheir regular intrigue. If she has not her lover like the rest, she is\nto be _unpaired_; and ashamed of being so, she is afraid to show\nherself.\n\nThe Orientals proceed quite in another way. Girls are brought to them\nand warranted virgins on the words of a Circassian. They marry them and\nshut them up as a measure of precaution, as we shut up our maids. No\njokes there upon ladies and their husbands! no songs!--nothing\nresembling our quodlibets about horns and cuckoldom! We _pity_ the\ngreat ladies of Turkey, Persia and India; but they are a thousand times\nhappier in their seraglios than our young women in their convents.\n\nIt sometimes happens among us that a dissatisfied husband, not choosing\nto institute a criminal process against his wife for adultery, which\nwould subject him to the imputation of _barbarity_, contents himself\nwith obtaining a separation of person and property. And here we must\ninsert an abstract of a memorial, drawn up by a good man who finds\nhimself in this situation. These are his complaints; are they just or\nnot?--\n\n_A memorial, written by a magistrate, about the year 1764._\n\nA principal magistrate of a town in France is so unfortunate as to have\na wife who was debauched by a priest before her marriage, and has since\nbrought herself to public shame; he has, however, contented himself with\na private separation. This man, who is forty years old, healthy, and of\na pleasing figure, has need of woman's society. He is too scrupulous to\nseek to seduce the wife of another; he even fears to contract an illicit\nintimacy with a maid or a widow. In this state of sorrow and perplexity\nhe addresses the following complaints to the Church, of which he is a\nmember:\n\n\"My wife is criminal, and I suffer the punishment. A woman is necessary\nto the comfort of my life--nay, even to the preservation of my virtue;\nyet she is refused me by the Church, which forbids me to marry an\nhonest woman. The civil law of the present day, which is, unhappily,\nfounded on the canon law, deprives me of the rights of humanity. The\nChurch compels me to seek either pleasures which it reprobates, or\nshameful consolations which it condemns; it forces me to be criminal.\n\n\"If I look round among the nations of the earth, I see no religion\nexcept the Roman Catholic which does not recognize divorce and second\nmarriage as a natural right. What inversion of order, then, has made it\na virtue in Catholics to suffer adultery and a duty to live without\nwives when their wives have thus shamefully injured them? Why is a\ncankered tie indissoluble, notwithstanding the great maxim adopted by\nthe code, _Quicquid ligatur dissolubile est_? A separation of person and\nproperty is granted me, but not a divorce. The law takes from me my\nwife, and leaves me the word _sacrament_! I no longer enjoy matrimony,\nbut still I am married! What contradiction! What slavery!\n\n\"Nor is it less strange that this law of the Church is directly contrary\nto the words which it believes to have been pronounced by Jesus Christ:\nWhosoever shall put away his wife, _except it be for fornication_, and\nshall marry another, committeth adultery.\"\n\n\"I have no wish here to inquire whether the pontiffs of Rome have a\nright to violate at pleasure the law of Him whom they regard as their\nMaster; whether when a kingdom wants an heir, it is allowable to\nrepudiate the woman who is incapable of giving one; nor whether a\nturbulent wife, one attacked by lunacy, or one guilty of murder, should\nnot be divorced as well as an adulteress; I confine myself to what\nconcerns my own sad situation. God permits me to marry again, but the\nbishop of Rome forbids me.\n\n\"Divorce was customary among Catholics under all the emperors, as well\nas in all the disjointed members of the Roman Empire. Almost all those\nkings of France who are called _of the first race_, repudiated their\nwives and took fresh ones. At length came one Gregory IX., an enemy to\nemperors and kings, who, by a decree, made the bonds of marriage\nindissoluble; and his _decretal_ became the law of Europe. Hence, when a\nking wished to repudiate an adulterous wife, according to the law of\nJesus Christ, he could not do so without seeking some ridiculous\npretext. St. Louis was obliged, in order to effect his unfortunate\ndivorce from Eleanora of Guienne, to allege a relationship which did not\nexist; and Henry IV., to repudiate Margaret of Valois, brought forward a\nstill more unfounded pretence--a want of consent. Thus a lawful divorce\nwas to be obtained by falsehood.\n\n\"What! may a sovereign abdicate his crown, and shall he not without the\npope's permission abdicate his faithless wife? And is it possible that\nmen, enlightened in other things, have so long submitted to this absurd\nand abject slavery?\n\n\"Let our priests and our monks abstain from women, if it must be so;\nthey have my consent. It is detrimental to the progress of population\nand a misfortune for them; but they deserve that misfortune which they\nhave contrived for themselves. They are the victims of the popes, who in\nthem wish to possess slaves--soldiers without family or country, living\nfor _the Church_; but I, a magistrate, who serve the state the whole day\nlong, have occasion for a woman at night; and the Church has no right to\ndeprive me of a possession allowed me by the Deity. The apostles were\nmarried, Joseph was married, and I wish to be married. If I, an\nAlsatian, am dependent on a priest who lives at Rome and has the\nbarbarous power to deprive me of a wife, he may as well make me a eunuch\nto sing _Miserere_ in his chapel.\"\n\n_A Plea for Wives._\n\nEquity requires that, after giving this memorial in favor of husbands,\nwe should also lay before the public the plea on behalf of wives,\npresented to the junta of Portugal, by one Countess _D'Arcira_. It is in\nsubstance as follows:\n\n\"The gospel has forbidden adultery to my husband as well as to me; we\nshall be damned alike; nothing is more certain. Although he has been\nguilty of fifty infidelities--though he has given my necklace to one of\nmy rivals, and my earrings to another, I have not called upon the judges\nto order his head to be shaved, himself to be shut up with monks, and\nhis property to be given to me; yet I, for having but once imitated\nhim--for having done that with the handsomest young man in Lisbon, which\nhe is allowed to do every day with the homeliest and most stupid\ncreatures of the court and the city, must be placed on a stool to answer\nthe questions of a set of licentiates, every one of whom would be at my\nfeet were he alone with me in my closet; must have the finest hair in\nthe world cut from my head; be confined with nuns who have not common\nsense; be deprived of my portion and marriage settlement, and see my\nproperty given to my fool of a husband to assist him in seducing other\nwomen and committing fresh adulteries. I ask if the thing is just? if it\nis not evident that the cuckolds are the lawmakers?\n\n\"The answer to my complaint is that I am but too fortunate in not being\nstoned at the city gate by the canons and the people, as was the custom\nwith the first nation of the earth--the cherished nation--the chosen\npeople--the only one which was right when all others were wrong.\n\n\"To these barbarians I reply that when the poor woman, taken in\nadultery, was presented to her accusers by the Master of the Old and of\nthe New Law, he did not order her to be stoned; on the contrary, he\nreproached their injustice, tracing on the sand with his finger the old\nHebrew proverb: 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.' All\nthen retired, the oldest being the first to depart, since the greater\ntheir age the more adulteries they had committed.\n\n\"The doctors of the canon law tell me that this story of the woman taken\nin adultery is related only in the Gospel of St. John, and that there it\nis nothing more than an interpolation; that Leontius and Maldonat affirm\nthat it is to be found in but one ancient Greek copy; that not one of\nthe first twenty-three commentators has spoken of it; that neither\nOrigen nor St. Jerome, nor St. John Chrysostom, nor Theophylact, nor\nNonnus, knew anything of it; and that it is not in the Syriac Bible, nor\nin the version of Ulphilas.\n\n\"Such are the arguments advanced by my husband's advocates, who would\nnot only shave my head, but stone me also. However, those who plead for\nme say that Ammonius, a writer of the third century, acknowledges the\ntruth of this story, and that St. Jerome, while he rejects it in some\npassages, adopts it in others; in short, that it is now authenticated.\nHere I hold, and say to my husband: If you are without sin shave my\nhead, confine me, take my property; but if you have committed more sins\nthan I have, it is I who must shave you, have you confined and seize\nyour possessions. In both cases the justice is the same.'\n\n\"My husband replies that he is my superior and my head; that he is\ntaller than I by more than an inch; that he is as rough as a bear; and\nthat, consequently, I owe him everything and he owes me nothing. But I\nask if Queen Anne, of England, is not the _head_ of her husband? if the\nPrince of Denmark, who is her high admiral, does not owe her an entire\nobedience? and if she would not have him condemned by the House of Peers\nshould the little man prove unfaithful? It is clear that, if women have\nnot their husbands punished, it is when they are not the strongest.\"\n\n_Conclusion of the Chapter on Adultery._\n\nIn order to obtain an equitable verdict in an action for adultery, the\njury should be composed of twelve men and twelve women, with an\nhermaphrodite to give the casting vote in the event of necessity. But\nsingular cases may exist wherein raillery is inapplicable, and of which\nit is not for us to judge. Such is the adventure related by St.\nAugustine in his sermon on Christ's preaching on the Mount.\n\nSeptimius Acyndicus, proconsul of Syria, caused a Christian of Antioch\nwho was unable to pay the treasury a pound of gold (the amount to which\nhe was taxed), to be thrown into prison and threatened with death. A\nwealthy man promised the unfortunate prisoner's wife to furnish her with\nthe pound if she would consent to his desires. The wife hastened to\ninform her husband, who begged that she would save his life at the\nexpense of his rights, which he was willing to give up. She obeyed, but\nthe man who owed her the gold deceived her by giving her a sackful of\nearth. The husband, being still unable to pay the tax, was about to be\nled to the scaffold, but this infamous transaction having come to the\nears of the proconsul he paid the pound of gold from his own coffers and\ngave to the Christian couple the estate from which the sackful of earth\nhad been taken.\n\nIt is certain that far from injuring her husband the wife, in this\ninstance, acted conformably to his will, not only obeying him, but also\nsaving his life. St. Augustine does not venture to decide on the guilt\nor virtue of this action; he is afraid to condemn it.\n\nIt is, in my opinion, very singular that Bayle should pretend to be more\nsevere than St. Augustine. He boldly condemns the poor woman. This would\nbe inconceivable did we not know how much almost every writer has\nsuffered his pen to belie his heart--with what facility his own feelings\nhave been sacrificed to the fear of enraging some evil-disposed\npedant--in a word, how inconsistent he has been with himself.\n\n_A Father's Reflection._\n\nA word on the contradictory education which we bestow upon our\ndaughters. We inculcate an immoderate desire of pleasing; we dictate\nwhen nature does enough without us, and add to her lessons every\nrefinement of art. When they are perfectly trained we punish them if\nthey put in practice the very arts which we have been so anxious to\nteach! What should we think of a dancing master who, having taught a\npupil for ten years, would break his leg because he had found him\ndancing with other people?\n\nMight not this paragraph be added to the chapter of contradictions?\n\n\n\n\nAFFIRMATION OR OATH.\n\n\nWe shall not say anything of the affirmations so frequently made use of\nby the learned. To affirm, to decide, is permissible only in geometry.\nIn everything else let us imitate the Doctor _Metaphrastes_ of\nMoli\u00e8re--_it may be so; the thing is feasible; it is not impossible; we\nshall see._ Let us adopt Rabelais' _perhaps_, Montaigne's _what know I?_\nthe Roman _non liquet_, or the _doubt_ of the Athenian academy: but only\nin profane matters, be it understood, for in _sacred_ things, we are\nwell aware that doubting is not permitted.\n\nThe primitives, in England called _Quakers_, are allowed to give\ntestimony in a court of justice on their simple affirmation, without\ntaking an oath. The peers of the realm have the same privilege--the lay\npeers affirming _on their honor_, and the bishops laying their hands _on\ntheir hearts_. The Quakers obtained it in the reign of Charles II., and\nare the only sect in Europe so honored.\n\nThe Lord Chancellor Cowper wished to compel the Quakers to swear like\nother citizens. He who was then at their head said to him gravely:\n\"Friend Chancellor, thou oughtest to know that our Lord and Saviour\nJesus Christ hath forbidden us to affirm otherwise than by _yea_ or\n_nay_, he hath expressly said: _I forbid thee to swear by heaven,\nbecause it is the throne of God; by the earth, because it is his\nfootstool; by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the King of kings; or\nby thy head, because thou canst not change the color of a single hair._\nThis, friend, is positive, and we will not disobey God to please thee\nand thy parliament.\" \"It is impossible to argue better,\" replied the\nChancellor; \"but be it known to thee that Jupiter one day ordered all\nbeasts of burden to get shod: horses, mules, and even camels, instantly\nobeyed, the asses alone resisted; they made so many representations, and\nbrayed so long that Jupiter, who was good-natured, at last said to them,\n'Asses, I grant your prayer; you shall not be shod; but the first slip\nyou make you shall have a most sound cudgelling.'\"\n\nIt must be granted that, hitherto, the Quakers have made no _slips_.\n\n\n\n\nAGAR, OR HAGAR.\n\n\nWhen a man puts away his mistress--his friend--the partner of his bed,\nhe must either make her condition tolerably comfortable or be regarded\namong us as a man of bad heart.\n\nWe are told that Abraham was very rich in the desert of Gerar, although\nhe did not possess an inch of land. However, we know with the greatest\ncertainty that he defeated the armies of four great kings with three\nhundred and eighteen shepherds.\n\nHe should, then, at least have given a small flock to his mistress Agar,\nwhen he sent her away in the desert. I speak always according to worldly\nnotions, always reverencing those incomprehensible ways which are not\n_our_ ways.\n\n_I_ would have given my old companion Agar a few sheep, a few goats, a\nfew suits of clothes for herself and our son Ishmael, a good she-ass for\nthe mother and a pretty foal for the child, a camel to carry their\nbaggage, and at least two men to attend them and prevent them from being\ndevoured by wolves.\n\nBut when the _Father of the Faithful_ exposed his poor mistress and her\nchild in the desert he gave them only a loaf and a pitcher of water.\nSome impious persons have asserted that Abraham was not a very tender\nfather--that he wished to make his bastard son die of hunger, and to cut\nhis legitimate son's throat! But again let it be remembered that these\nways were not _our_ ways.\n\nIt is said that poor Agar went away into the desert of Beer-sheba. There\nwas no desert of _Beer-sheba_; this name was not known until long after;\nbut this is a mere trifle; the foundation of the story is not the less\nauthentic. It is true that the posterity of Agar's son Ishmael took\nample revenge on the posterity of Sarah's son Isaac, in favor of whom\nhe had been cast out. The Saracens, descending in a right line from\nIshmael, made themselves masters of Jerusalem, which belonged by right\nof conquest to the posterity of Isaac. I would have made the _Saracens_\ndescend from _Sarah_; the etymology would then have been neater.\n\nIt has been asserted that the word _Saracen_ comes from _sarac_, a\nrobber. I do not believe any people have ever called themselves\n_robbers_; nearly all have been robbers, but it is not usual for them to\ntake the _title_. _Saracen_ descending from _Sarah_, appears to me to\nsound better.\n\n\n\n\nALCHEMY.\n\n\nThe emphatic _al_ places the alchemist as much above the ordinary\nchemist as the gold which he obtains is superior to other metals.\nGermany still swarms with people who seek the _philosopher's stone_, as\nthe _water_ of _immortality_ has been sought in China, and the _fountain\nof youth_ in Europe. In France some have been known to ruin themselves\nin this pursuit.\n\nThe number of those who have believed in transmutations is prodigious,\nand the number of cheats has been in proportion to that of the\ncredulous. At Paris we have seen Signor Dammi, Marquis of Conventiglio,\nobtain some hundred louis from several of the nobility that he might\nmake them gold to the amount of two or three crowns. The best trick that\nhas ever been performed in alchemy was that of a Rosicrucian, who, in\n1620, went to Henry, Duke of Bouillon, of the house of Turenne,\nSovereign Prince of Sedan, and addressed him as follows:\n\n\"You have not a sovereignty proportioned to your great courage, but I\nwill make you richer than the emperor. I cannot remain for more than two\ndays in your states, having to go to Venice to hold the grand assembly\nof the brethren; I only charge you to keep the secret. Send to the first\napothecary of your town for some litharge; throw into it one grain of\nthe red powder which I will give you, put the whole into a crucible and\nin a quarter of an hour you will have gold.\"\n\nThe prince performed the operation, and repeated it three times, in\npresence of the virtuoso. This man had previously bought up all the\nlitharge from the apothecaries of Sedan and got it resold after mixing\nit with a few ounces of gold. The adept, on taking leave, made the Duke\nof Bouillon a present of all his transmuting powder.\n\nThe prince, having made three ounces of gold with three grains, doubted\nnot that with three hundred thousand grains he should make three hundred\nthousand ounces, and that he should in a week possess eighteen thousand,\nseven hundred and fifty pounds of gold, besides what he should\nafterwards make. It took at least three months to make this powder. The\nphilosopher was in haste to depart; he was without anything, having\ngiven all to the prince, and wanted some ready money in order to hold\nthe states-general of hermetic philosophy. He was a man very moderate in\nhis desires, and asked only twenty thousand crowns for the expenses of\nhis journey. The duke, ashamed to give so small a sum, presented him\nwith forty thousand. When he had consumed all the litharge in Sedan he\nmade no more gold, nor ever more saw his philosopher or his forty\nthousand crowns.\n\nAll pretended alchemic transmutations have been performed nearly in the\nsame manner. To change one natural production into another, for example,\niron into silver, is a rather difficult operation, since it requires two\nthings a little above our power--the _annihilation_ of the iron and\n_creation_ of the silver.\n\nWe must not, however, reject all discoveries of secrets and all new\ninventions. It is with them as with theatrical pieces, there may be one\ngood out of a thousand.\n\n\n\n\nALKORAN;\n\nOR, MORE PROPERLY, THE KORAN.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThis book governs with despotic sway the whole of northern Africa, from\nMount Atlas to the desert of Barca, the whole of Egypt, the coasts of\nthe Ethiopian Sea to the extent of six hundred leagues, Syria, Asia\nMinor, all the countries round the Black and the Caspian seas (excepting\nthe kingdom of Astrakhan), the whole empire of Hindostan, all Persia, a\ngreat part of Tartary; and in Europe, Thrace, Macedonia, Bulgaria,\nServia, Bosnia, Greece, Epirus, and nearly all the islands as far as the\nlittle strait of Otranto, which terminates these possessions.\n\nIn this prodigious extent of country there is not a single Mahometan who\nhas the happiness of reading our sacred books; and very few of our\nliterati are acquainted with the Koran, of which we always form a\nridiculous idea, notwithstanding the researches of our really learned\nmen.\n\nThe first lines of this book are as follows: \"Praise to God, the\nsovereign of all worlds, to the God of mercy, the sovereign of the day\nof justice? Thee we adore! to Thee only do we look for protection. Lead\nus in the right way--in the way of those whom Thou hast loaded with Thy\ngraces, and not in the way of the objects of Thy wrath--of them who have\ngone astray.\"\n\nSuch is the introduction. Then come three letters, _A_, _L_, _M_, which,\naccording to the learned Sale, are not understood, for each commentator\nexplains them in his own way; but the most common opinion is that they\nsignify _Ali_, _Latif_, _Magid_--God, Grace, Glory.\n\nGod himself then speaks to Mahomet in these words: \"This book admitteth\nnot of doubt. It is for the direction of the just, who believe in the\ndepths of the faith, who observe the times of prayer, who distribute in\nalms what it has pleased Me to give them, who believe in the revelation\nwhich hath descended to thee, and was delivered to the prophets\nbefore thee. Let the faithful have a firm assurance in the life to come;\nlet them be directed by their Lord; and they shall be happy.\n\n[Illustration: Mahomet.]\n\n\"As for unbelievers, it mattereth not whether thou callest them or no:\nthey do not believe; the seal of unbelief is on their hearts and on\ntheir ears; a terrible punishment awaiteth them. There are some who say,\n'We believe in God and in the Last Day,' but in their hearts they are\nunbelievers. They think to deceive the Eternal; they deceive themselves\nwithout knowing it. Infirmity is in their hearts, and God himself\nincreaseth this infirmity,\" etc.\n\nThese words are said to have incomparably more energy in Arabic. Indeed,\nthe Koran still passes for the most elegant and most sublime book that\nhas been written in that language. We have imputed to the Koran a great\nnumber of foolish things which it never contained. It was chiefly\nagainst the Turks, who had become Mahometans, that our monks wrote so\nmany books, at a time when no other opposition was of much service\nagainst the conquerors of Constantinople. Our authors, much more\nnumerous than the janissaries, had no great difficulty in ranging our\nwomen on their side; they persuaded them that Mahomet looked upon them\nmerely as intelligent animals; that, by the laws of the Koran, they were\nall slaves, having no property in this world, nor any share in the\nparadise of the next. The falsehood of all this is evident; yet it has\nall been firmly believed.\n\nIt was, however, only necessary in order to discover the deception to\nhave read the fourth _sura_ or chapter of the Koran, in which would have\nbeen found the following laws, translated in the same manner by Du Ryer,\nwho resided for a long time at Constantinople; by Maracci, who never\nwent there; and by Sale, who lived twenty-five years among the Arabs:\n\n_Mahomet's Regulations with Respect to Wives._\n\n1.\n\nNever marry idolatrous women, unless they will become believers. A\nMussulman servant is better than an idolatrous woman, though of the\nhighest rank.\n\n2.\n\nThey who, having wives, wish to make a vow of chastity, shall wait four\nmonths before they decide.\n\nWives shall conduct themselves towards their husbands as their husbands\nconduct themselves towards them.\n\n3.\n\nYou may separate yourself from your wife twice; but if you divorce her a\nthird time, it must be forever; you must either keep her humanely or put\nher away kindly. You are not permitted to keep anything from her that\nyou have given to her.\n\n4.\n\nGood wives are obedient and attentive, even in the absence of their\nhusbands. If your wife is prudent be careful not to have any quarrel\nwith her; but if one should happen, let an arbiter be chosen from your\nown family, and one from hers.\n\n5.\n\nTake one wife, or two, or three, or four, but never more. But if you\ndoubt your ability to act equitably towards several, take only one. Give\nthem a suitable dowry, take care of them, and speak to them always like\na friend.\n\n6.\n\nYou are not permitted to inherit from your wife against her will; nor to\nprevent her from marrying another after her divorce, in order to possess\nyourself of her dower, unless she has been declared guilty of some\ncrime.\n\nWhen you choose to separate yourself from your wife and take another,\nyou must not, though you have even given her a talent at your marriage,\ntake anything from her.\n\n7.\n\nYou are permitted to marry a slave, but it is better that you should not\ndo so.\n\n8.\n\nA repudiated wife is obliged to suckle her child until it is two years\nold, during which time the father is obliged to maintain them according\nto his condition. If the infant is weaned at an earlier period, it must\nbe with the consent of both father and mother. If you are obliged to\nentrust it to a strange nurse, you shall make her a reasonable\nallowance.\n\nHere, then, is sufficient to reconcile the women to Mahomet, who has not\nused them so hardly as he is said to have done. We do not pretend to\njustify either his ignorance or his imposture; but we cannot condemn his\ndoctrine of _one only God_. These words of his 122d _sura_, \"God is one,\neternal, neither begetting nor begotten; no one is like to Him;\" these\nwords had more effect than even his sword in subjugating the East.\n\nStill his Koran is a collection of ridiculous revelations and vague and\nincoherent predictions, combined with laws that were very good for the\ncountry in which he lived, and all which continue to be followed,\nwithout having been changed or weakened, either by Mahometan\ninterpreters or by new decrees. The poets of Mecca were hostile to\nMahomet, but above all the doctors. These raised the magistracy against\nhim, and a warrant was issued for his apprehension as only duly accused\nand convicted of having said that God must be adored, and not the stars.\nThis, it is known, was the source of his greatness. When it was seen\nthat he could not be put down, and that his writings were becoming\npopular, it was given out in the city that he was not the author of\nthem, or that at least he was assisted in their composition by a learned\nJew, and sometimes by a learned Christian--supposing that there were at\nthat time learned Jews and learned Christians.\n\nSo, in our days, more than one prelate has been reproached with having\nset monks to compose his sermons and funeral orations. There was one\nFather Hercules (_P\u00e8re Hercule_) who made sermons for a certain bishop,\nand when people went to hear him preach, they used to say, \"Let us go\nand hear the _labors of Hercules_.\"\n\nTo this charge Mahomet gives an answer in his 16th chapter, occasioned\nby a gross blunder he had made in the pulpit, about which a great deal\nhad been said. He gets out of the scrape thus: \"When thou readest the\nKoran, address thyself to God, that He may preserve thee from the\nmachinations of Satan. He has power only over those who have chosen Him\nfor their Master, and who give associates unto God.\n\n\"When I substitute one verse for another in the Koran (the reason for\nwhich changes is known to God) some unbelievers cry out, _'Thou hast\nforged those verses'_; but they know not how to distinguish truth from\nfalsehood. Say rather that the Holy Spirit brought those verses of truth\nto me from God. Others say, still more malignantly, _There is a certain\nman who labors with him in composing the Koran_. But how can this man,\nto whom they attribute my works, have taught me, speaking as he does, a\nforeign language, while the Koran is written in the purest Arabic?\"\n\nHe who, it was pretended, assisted Mahomet, was a Jew named _Bensalen_\nor _Bensalon_. It is not very likely that a Jew should have lent his\nassistance to Mahomet in writing against the Jews; yet the thing is not\nimpossible. The monk who was said to have contributed to the Koran was\nby some called _Bohaira_, by others _Sergius_. There is something\npleasant in this monk's having had both a Latin and an Arabic name. As\nfor the fine theological disputes which have arisen among the\nMussulmans, I have no concern with them; I leave them to the decision of\nthe mufti.\n\nIn \"The Triumph of the Cross\" (_\"le Triomphe de la Croix\"_) the Koran is\nsaid to be Arian, Sabellian, Carpocratian, Cardonician, Manich\u00e6an,\nDonatistic, Origenian, Macedonian, and Ebionitish. Mahomet, however, was\nnothing of all this; he was rather a _Jansenist_, for the foundation of\nhis doctrine is the absolute degree of gratuitous predestination.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThis Mahomet, son of Abdallah, was a bold and sublime charlatan. He says\nin his tenth chapter, \"Who but God can have composed the Koran? Mahomet,\nyou say, has forged this book. Well; try then to write one chapter\nresembling it and call to your aid whomsoever you please.\" In the\nseventeenth he exclaims, \"Praise be to Him who in one night transported\nHis servant from the sacred temple of Mecca to that of Jerusalem!\"\n\nThis was a very fine journey, but nothing like that which he took the\nvery same night from planet to planet. He pretended that it was five\nhundred years' journey from one to another, and that he cleft the moon\nin twain. His disciples who, after his death, collected, in a solemn\nmanner, the verses of this Koran, suppressed this celestial journey, for\nthey dreaded raillery and philosophy. After all, they had too much\ndelicacy; they might have trusted to the commentators, who would have\nfound no difficulty whatever in explaining the itinerary. Mahomet's\nfriends should have known by experience that the marvellous is the\nreason of the multitude; the wise contradict in silence, which the\nmultitude prevent them from breaking. But while the itinerary of the\nplanets was suppressed, a few words were retained about the adventure of\nthe moon. One cannot be always on one's guard.\n\nThe Koran is a rhapsody, without connection, without order, and without\nart. This tedious book is, nevertheless, said to be a very fine\nproduction, at least by the Arabs, who assert that it is written with an\nelegance and purity that no later work has equalled. It is a poem, or\nsort of rhymed prose, consisting of three thousand verses. No poem ever\nadvanced the fortune of its author so much as the Koran. It was disputed\namong the Mussulmans whether it was eternal or God had created it in\norder to dictate it to Mahomet. The doctors decided that it was eternal,\nand they were right; this eternity is a much finer opinion than the\nother, for with the vulgar we must always adopt that which is the most\nincredible.\n\nThe monks who have attacked Mahomet, and said so many silly things\nabout him, have asserted that he could not write. But how can we imagine\nthat a man who had been a merchant, a poet, a legislator, and a\nsovereign, did not know how to sign his name? If his book is bad for our\ntimes and for us, it was very good for his contemporaries, and his\nreligion was still better. It must be acknowledged that he reclaimed\nnearly the whole of Asia from idolatry. He taught the unity of God, and\nforcibly declaimed against all those who gave him associates. He forbade\nusury with foreigners, and commanded the giving of alms. With him prayer\nwas a thing of absolute necessity, and resignation to the eternal\ndecrees the _primum mobile_ of all. A religion so simple and so wise,\ntaught by one who was constantly victorious, could hardly fail to\nsubjugate a portion of the earth. Indeed the Mussulmans have made as\nmany proselytes by their creed as by their swords; they have converted\nthe Indians and the negroes to their religion; even the Turks, who\nconquered them, submitted to Islamism.\n\nMahomet allowed many things to remain in his law which he had found\nestablished among the Arabs--as circumcision, fasting, the pilgrimage to\nMecca, which was instituted four thousand years before his time;\nablutions, so necessary to health and cleanliness in a burning country,\nwhere linen was unknown; and the idea of a last judgment, which the magi\nhad always inculcated, and which had reached the inhabitants of Arabia.\nIt is said that on his announcing that we should rise again quite\nnaked, his wife. _Aishca_, expressed her opinion that the thing would be\nimmodest and dangerous. \"Do not be alarmed, my dear,\" said he, \"no one\nwill then feel any inclination to _laugh_.\" According to the Koran, an\nangel will weigh both men and women in a great balance; this idea, too,\nis taken from the magi. He also stole from them their narrow bridge\nwhich must be passed over after death; and their elysium, where the\nMussulmans elect will find baths, well-furnished apartments, good beds,\nand houris with great black eyes. He does, it is true, say that all\nthese pleasures of the senses, so necessary to those that are to rise\nagain with senses, will be nothing in comparison with the pleasure of\ncontemplating the Supreme Being. He has the humility to confess that he\nhimself will not enter paradise through his own merits, but purely by\nthe _will_ of God. Through this same _pure Divine will_ he orders that a\nfifth part of the spoil shall always be reserved for the prophet.\n\nIt is not true that he excludes women from paradise. It is hardly likely\nthat so able a man should have chosen to embroil himself with that half\nof the human race by which the other half is led. Abulfeda relates that\nan old lady one day importuned him to tell her what she must do to get\ninto paradise. \"My good lady,\" said he, \"paradise is not for old women.\"\nThe good woman began to weep, but the prophet consoled her by saying,\n\"There will be no old women because they will become young again.\" This\nconsolatory doctrine is confirmed in the fifty-fourth chapter of the\nKoran.\n\nHe forbade wine because some of his followers once went intoxicated to\nprayers. He permitted a plurality of wives, conforming in this point to\nthe immemorial usage of the orientals.\n\nIn short, his civil laws are good; his doctrine is admirable in all\nwhich it has in common with ours; but his means are shocking--villainy\nand murder!\n\nHe is excused by some, on the first of these charges, because, say they,\nthe Arabs had a hundred and twenty-four thousand prophets before him,\nand there could be no great harm in the appearance of one more; men, it\nis added, require to be deceived. But how are we to justify a man who\nsays, _\"Believe that I have conversed with the angel Gabriel, or pay me\ntribute!\"_\n\nHow superior is _Confucius_--the first of mortals who have not been\nfavored with revelations! He employs neither falsehood nor the sword,\nbut only reason. The viceroy of a great province, he causes the laws to\nbe observed and morality to flourish; disgraced and poor, he teaches\nthem. He practises them alike in greatness and in humiliation; he\nrenders virtue amiable; and has for his disciples the most ancient and\nwisest people on the earth.\n\nIn vain does Count de Boulainvilliers, who had some respect for Mahomet,\nextol the Arabs. Notwithstanding all his boastings, they were a nation\nof banditti. They robbed before Mahomet, when they adored the stars;\nthey robbed under Mahomet in the name of God. They had, say you, the\nsimplicity of the heroic ages; but what were these heroic ages?--times\nwhen men cut one another's throats for a well or a cistern, as they now\ndo for a province?\n\nThe first Mussulmans were animated by Mahomet with the rage of\nenthusiasm. Nothing is more terrible than a people who, having nothing\nto lose, fight in the united spirit of rapine and of religion.\n\nIt is true there was not much art in their proceedings. The contract of\nmarriage between Mahomet and his first wife expresses that, while\n_Cadisha_ loves him, and he in like manner loves _Cadisha_, it is\nthought meet to join them. But is there the same simplicity in having\ncomposed a genealogy which makes him descend in a right line from Adam,\nas several Spanish and Scotch families have been made to descend?\n\nThe great prophet experienced the disgrace common to so many husbands,\nafter which no one should complain. The name of him who received the\nfavors of his second wife was _Assam_. The behavior of Mahomet, on this\noccasion, was even more lofty than that of C\u00e6sar, who put away his wife,\nsaying, \"The wife of C\u00e6sar ought not to be suspected.\" The prophet\n_would not_ suspect his. He sent to heaven for a chapter of the Koran,\naffirming that his wife was faithful. This chapter, like all the others,\nhad been written _from all eternity_.\n\nHe is admired for having raised himself from being a camel-driver to be\na pontiff, a legislator, and a monarch; for having subdued Arabia, which\nhad never before been subjugated; for having given the first shock to\nthe Roman Empire in the East, and to that of the Persians; and _I_\nadmire him still more for having kept peace in his house among his\nwives. He changed the face of part of Europe, one half of Asia, and\nnearly all Africa; nor was his religion unlikely, at one time, to\nsubjugate the whole earth. On how trivial a circumstance will\nrevolutions sometimes depend! A blow from a stone, a little harder than\nthat which he received in his first battle, might have changed the\ndestiny of the world!\n\nHis son-in-law Ali asserted that when the prophet was about to be\ninhumed, he was found in a situation not very common to the dead. The\nwords of the Roman sovereign might be well applied in this case: _\"Decet\nimperatorem stantem mori.\"_\n\nNever was the life of a man written more in detail than his; the most\nminute particulars were regarded as sacred. We have the name and the\nnumbers of all that belonged to him--nine swords, three lances, three\nbows, seven cuirasses, three bucklers, twelve wives, one white cock,\nseven horses, two mules, and four camels, besides the mare _Borac_, on\nwhich he went to heaven. But this last he had only borrowed; it was the\nproperty of the angel Gabriel.\n\nAll his sayings have been preserved. One was that _the enjoyment of\nwomen made him more fervent in prayer_. Besides all his other knowledge\nhe is said to have been a great _physician_; so that he wanted none of\nthe qualifications for deceiving mankind.\n\n\n\n\nALEXANDER.\n\n\nIt is no longer allowable to speak of Alexander, except in order to say\nsomething new of him, or to destroy the fables, historical, physical,\nand moral, which have disfigured the history of the only great man to be\nfound among the conquerors of Asia.\n\nAfter reflecting a little on the life of Alexander, who, amid the\nintoxications of pleasure and conquest, built more towns than all the\nother conquerors of Asia destroyed--after calling to mind that, young as\nhe was, he turned the commerce of the world into a new channel, it\nappears very strange that Boileau should have spoken of him as a robber\nand a madman. Alexander, having been elected at Corinth captain-general\nof Greece, and commissioned as such to avenge the invasions of the\nPersians, did no more than his duty in destroying their empire; and,\nhaving always united the greatest magnanimity with the greatest\ncourage--having respected the wife and daughters of Darius when in his\npower, he did not in any way deserve either to be confined as a madman\nor hanged as a robber.\n\nRollin asserts that Alexander took the famous city of Tyre only to\noblige the Jews, who hated the Tyrians; it is, however, quite as likely\nthat Alexander had other reasons; for a naval commander would not leave\nTyre mistress of the sea, when he was going to attack Egypt. Alexander's\nfriendship and respect for Jerusalem were undoubtedly great; but it\nshould hardly be said that _the Jews set a rare example of fidelity--an\nexample worthy of the only people who, at that time, had the knowledge\nof the true God, in refusing to furnish Alexander with provisions\nbecause they had sworn fidelity to Darius_. It is well known that the\nJews took every opportunity of revolting against their sovereigns; for a\nJew was not to serve a profane king. If they imprudently refused\ncontributions to the conqueror, it was not with a view to prove\nthemselves the faithful slaves of Darius, since their law expressly\nordered them to hold all idolatrous nations in abhorrence; their books\nare full of execrations pronounced against them, and of reiterated\nattempts to throw off their yoke. If, therefore, they at first refused\nthe contributions, it was because their rivals, the Samaritans, had paid\nthem without hesitation, and they believed that Darius, though\nvanquished, was still powerful enough to support Jerusalem against\nSamaria.\n\nIt is wholly false that the Jews were then the only people who had the\nknowledge of the true God, as Rollin tells us. The Samaritans worshipped\nthe same God, though in another temple; they had the same Pentateuch as\nthe Jews, and they had it in Tyrian characters, which the Jews had lost.\nThe schism between Samaria and Jerusalem was, on a small scale, what\nthe schism between the Greek and Latin churches is on a large one. The\nhatred was equal on both sides, having the same foundation--religion.\n\nAlexander, having possessed himself of Tyre by means of that famous\ncauseway which is still the admiration of all generals, went to punish\nJerusalem, which lay not far out of his way. The Jews, headed by their\nhigh priest, came and humbled themselves before him, offering him\nmoney--for angry conquerors are not to be appeased without money.\nAlexander was appeased, and they remained subject to Alexander and to\nhis successors. Such is the true, as well as the only probable, history\nof the affair.\n\nRollin repeats a story told about four hundred years after Alexander's\nexpedition, by that romancing, exaggerating historian, Flavius Josephus,\nwho may be pardoned for having taken every opportunity of setting off\nhis wretched country to the best advantage. Rollin repeats, after\nJosephus, that Jaddus, the high-priest, having prostrated himself before\nAlexander, the prince, seeing the name of Jehovah engraved on a plate of\ngold attached to Jaddus' cap, and understanding Hebrew perfectly, fell\nprostrate in his turn, and paid homage to Jaddus. This excess of\ncivility having astonished Parmenio, Alexander told him that he had\nknown Jaddus a long time; that he had appeared to him, in the same habit\nand the same cap, ten years before, when he was meditating the conquest\nof Asia (a conquest which he had not then even thought of); that this\nsame Jaddus had exhorted him to cross the Hellespont, assuring him that\nGod would march at the head of the Greeks, and that the God of the Jews\nwould give him the victory over the Persians. This old woman's tale\nmakes but a sorry figure in the history of such a man as Alexander.\n\nAn _ancient history_ well digested was an undertaking calculated to be\nof great service to youth; it is to be wished that it had not been in\nsome degree marred by the adoption of some absurdities. The story of\nJaddus would be entitled to our respect--it would be beyond the reach of\nanimadversion--were even any shadow of it to be found in the sacred\nwritings; but as they do not make the slightest mention of it, we are\nquite at liberty to see that it is ridiculous.\n\nThere can be no doubt that Alexander subdued that part of India which\nlies on this side the Ganges and was tributary to the Persians. Mr.\nHolwell, who lived for thirty years among the Brahmins of Benares and\nthe neighboring countries, and who learned not only their modern\nlanguage but also their ancient sacred tongue, assures us that their\nannals attest the invasion by Alexander, whom they call _Mahadukoit\nKounha_--great robber, great murderer. These peaceful people could not\ncall him otherwise; indeed, it is hardly to be supposed that they gave\nany other name to the kings of Persia. The same annals say that\nAlexander entered by the province now called Candahar, and it is\nprobable that there were always some fortresses on that frontier.\n\nAlexander afterwards descended the river Zombodipo, which the Greeks\ncalled _Sind_. In the history of Alexander there is not a single Indian\nname to be found. The Greeks never called an Asiatic town or province by\ntheir own name. They dealt in the same manner with the Egyptians. They\nwould have thought it a dishonor to the Greek tongue had they introduced\ninto it a pronunciation which they thought barbarous; if, for instance,\nthey had not called the city of _Moph_ Memphis.\n\nMr. Holwell says that the Indians never knew either Porus or Taxiles;\nindeed these are not Indian words. Nevertheless, if we may believe our\nmissionaries, there are still some Indian lords who pretend to have\ndescended from Porus. Perhaps the missionaries have flattered them with\nthis origin until they have adopted it. There is, at least, no country\nin Europe in which servility has not invented and vanity received\ngenealogies yet more chimerical.\n\nIf Flavius Josephus has related a ridiculous fable about Alexander and a\nJewish pontiff, Plutarch, who wrote long after Josephus, in his turn\nseems not to have been sparing in fables concerning this hero. He has\neven outdone Quintus Curtius. Both assert that Alexander, when marching\ntowards India, wished to have himself adored, not only by the Persians\nbut also by the Greeks. The question is, what did Alexander, the\nPersians, the Greeks, Quintus Curtius, and Plutarch understand by\n_adoring_? We must never lose sight of the great rule--_Define your\nterms._\n\nIf by _adoring_ he meant invoking a man as a divinity--offering to him\nincense and sacrifices--raising to him altars and temples, it is clear\nthat Alexander required nothing of all this. If, being the conqueror and\nmaster of the Persians, he chose that they should salute him after the\nPersian manner, prostrating themselves on certain occasions, treating\nhim, in short, like what he was, a sovereign of Persia, there is nothing\nin this but what is very reasonable and very common. The members of the\nFrench parliament, in their _beds of justice_, address the king\nkneeling; the third estate addresses the states-general kneeling, a cup\nof wine is presented kneeling, to the king of England; several European\nsovereigns are served kneeling at their consecration. The great mogul,\nthe emperor of China, and the emperor of Japan are always addressed\nkneeling. The Chinese colaos of an inferior order bend the knee before\nthe colaos of a superior order. We _adore_ the pope, and kiss the toe of\nhis right foot. None of these ceremonies have ever been regarded as\nadoration in the strict sense of the word, or as a worship like that due\nto the Divinity.\n\nThus, all that has been said of the pretended adoration exacted by\nAlexander is founded on ambiguity.\n\nOctavius, surnamed _Augustus_, really caused himself to be _adored_ in\nthe strictest sense of the word. Temples and altars were raised to him.\nThere were _priests of Augustus_. Horace positively tells him:\n\n     _\"Jurandisque tuum par nomen ponimus aras.\"_\n\nHere was truly a sacrilegious adoration; yet we are not told that it\nexcited discontent.\n\nThe contradictions in the character of Alexander would be more difficult\nto reconcile did we not know that men, especially men called _heroes_,\nare often very inconsistent with themselves, and that the life or death\nof the best citizens, or the fate of a province, has more than once\ndepended on the good or bad digestion of a well or ill advised\nsovereign.\n\nBut how are we to reconcile improbable facts related in a contradictory\nmanner? Some say that Callisthenes was crucified by order of Alexander\nfor not having acknowledged him to be the son of Jupiter. But the cross\nwas not a mode of execution among the Greeks. Others say that he died\nlong afterwards, of too great corpulency. Athen\u00e6us assures us that he\nwas carried, like a bird, in an iron cage until he was devoured by\nvermin. Among all these different stories distinguish the true one if\nyou can. Some adventures are supposed by Quintus Curtius to have\nhappened in one town, and by Plutarch in another, the two places being\nfive hundred leagues apart. Alexander, armed and alone, leaped from the\ntop of a wall into a town he was besieging; according to Plutarch near\nthe mouth of the Indus. When he arrived on the Malabar coast, or near\nthe Ganges--no matter which, it is only nine hundred miles from the one\nto the other--he gave orders to seize ten of the Indian philosophers,\ncalled by the Greeks _gymnosophists_, who went about as naked as apes;\nto those he proposed ridiculous questions, promising them very seriously\nthat he who gave the worst answers should be hanged the first, and the\nrest in due order. This reminds us of Nebuchadonosor, who would\nabsolutely put his magi to death if they did not divine one of his\ndreams which he had forgotten; and of the _Caliph_ of the \"Thousand and\nOne Nights,\" who was to strangle his wife as soon as she had finished\nher story. But it is Plutarch who relates this nonsense; therefore it\nmust be respected, for he was _a Greek_.\n\nThis latter story is entitled to the same credit as that of the\npoisoning of Alexander by Aristotle; for Plutarch tells us that somebody\nhad heard one _Agnotemis_ say, that he had heard Antigonus say, that\nAristotle sent a bottle of water from Nonacris, a town in Arcadia, which\nwater was so extremely cold that they who drank it instantly died; that\nAntipater sent this water in a horn; that it arrived at Babylon quite\nfresh; that Alexander drank of it; and that, at the end of six days, he\ndied of a continued fever.\n\nPlutarch has, it is true, some doubts respecting this anecdote. All that\nwe can be quite certain of is that Alexander, at the age of twenty-four,\nhad conquered Persia by three battles; that his genius was as great as\nhis valor; that he changed the face of Asia, Greece, and Egypt, and gave\na new direction to the commerce of the world; and that Boileau should\nhave been more sparing of his ridicule, since it is not very likely that\nBoileau would have done more in as short a time.\n\n\n\n\nALEXANDRIA.\n\n\nMore than twenty towns have borne the name of Alexandria, all built by\nAlexander and his captains, who became so many kings. These towns are so\nmany monuments of glory, far superior to the statues which servility\nafterwards erected to power; but the only one of them which attracted\nthe attention of the world by its greatness and its wealth was that\nwhich became the capital of Egypt. This is now but a heap of ruins; for\nit is well known that one half of the city has been rebuilt on another\nsite, near the sea. The lighthouse, formerly one of the wonders of the\nworld, has also ceased to exist.\n\nThe city was always flourishing under the Ptolemies and the Romans. It\ndid not decline under the Arabs, nor did the Mamelukes or the Turks, who\nsuccessively conquered it, together with the rest of Egypt, suffer it to\ngo to decay. It preserved some portion of its greatness until the\npassage of the Cape of Good Hope opened a new route to the Indies, and\nonce more gave a new direction to the commerce of the world, which\nAlexander had previously changed, and which had been changed several\ntimes before Alexander.\n\nThe Alexandrians were remarkable, under all their successive\ndominations, for industry united with levity; for love of novelty,\naccompanied by a close application to commerce, and to all the arts that\nmake commerce flourish; and for a contentious and quarrelsome spirit,\njoined to cowardice, superstition, and debauchery--all which never\nchanged. The city was peopled with Egyptians, Jews, and Turks, all of\nwhom, though poor at first, enriched themselves by traffic. Opulence\nintroduced the cultivation of the fine arts, with a taste for\nliterature, and consequently for disputation.\n\nThe Jews built a magnificent temple, and translated their books into\nGreek, which had become the language of the country. So great were the\nanimosities among the native Egyptians, the Greeks, the Jews, and the\nChristians, that they were continually accusing one another to the\ngovernor, to the no small advantage of his revenue. There were even\nfrequent and bloody seditions, in one of which, in the reign of\nCaligula, the Jews, who exaggerate everything, assert that religious and\ncommercial jealousy, united, cost them fifty thousand men, whom the\nAlexandrians murdered.\n\nChristianity, which the Origens, Clements, and others had established\nand rendered admirable by their lives, degenerated into a mere spirit of\nparty. The Christians adopted the manners of the Egyptians; religion\nyielded to the desire of gain; and all the inhabitants, divided in\neverything else, were unanimous only in the love of money. This it was\nwhich produced that famous letter from the Emperor Adrian to the Consul\nServianus, which Vopiscus gives us as follows:\n\nADRIANI EPISTOLA, EX LIBRIS PHLEGONTIS EJUS PRODITA.\n\n_Adrianus Augustus Serviano Cos. Vo._\n\n_\u00c6gyptum, quam mihi laudabas, Serviane carissime, totam didici, levem,\npendulam, et ad omnia fam\u00e6 monumenta volitantem. Illi qui Serapin colunt\nChristiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui se_ CHRISTI _episcopus\ndicunt. Nemo illic Archisynagogus Jud\u00e6orum, nemo Semarites, nemo\nChristianorum presbyter, non mathematicus, non aruspex, non aliptes.\nIpse ille Patriarcha, quum \u00c6gyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare,\nab aliis cogitur_ CHRISTUM. _Genus hominis seditiosissimum,\ninjuriosissimum. Civitas opulenta, dives, fecunda, in qua nemo vivat\notiosus. Alli vitrum constant, ab aliis charta conficitur; omnes certe\nlymphiones cujuscunque artis et videntur et habentur, Podagrosi quod\nagant habent, c\u0153ci quod faciant; ne chiragri quidem apud cos otiosi\nvivunt. Unus illis deus est; hunc Christiani, hunc Jud\u00e6i, hunc homnes\nvenerantur et gentes._\n\nWhich may be rendered thus:\n\n\"My dear Servian: I have seen that Egypt of which you have spoken so\nhighly; I know it thoroughly. It is a light, uncertain, fickle nation.\nThe worshippers of Serapis turn Christians, and they who are at the head\nof the religion of Christ devote themselves to Serapis. There is no\nchief of the rabbis, no Samaritan, no Christian priest who is not an\nastrologer, a diviner, a pander. When the Greek patriarch comes into\nEgypt, some press him to worship Serapis, others to adore Christ. They\nare very seditious, very vain, and very quarrelsome. The city is\ncommercial, opulent, and populous. No one is idle. Some make glass;\nothers manufacture paper; they seem to be, and indeed are, of all\ntrades; not even the gout in their feet and hands can reduce them to\nentire inactivity; even the blind work. Money is a god which the\nChristians, Jews, and all men adore alike.\"\n\nThis letter of an emperor, whose discernment was as great as his valor,\nsufficiently proves that the Christians, as well as others, had become\ncorrupted in this abode of luxury and controversy; but the manners of\nthe primitive Christians had not degenerated everywhere; and although\nthey had the misfortune to be for a long time divided into different\nsects, which detested and accused one another, the most violent enemies\nof Christianity were obliged to acknowledge that the purest and the\ngreatest souls were to be found among its proselytes. Such is the case\neven at the present day in cities wherein the degree of folly and frenzy\nexceeds that of ancient Alexandria.\n\n\n\n\nALGIERS.\n\n\nThe principal object of this dictionary is philosophy. It is not,\ntherefore, as geographers that we speak of Algiers, but for the purpose\nof remarking that the first design of Louis XIV., when he took the\nreigns of government, was to deliver Christian Europe from the continual\ndepredations of the Barbary corsairs. This project was an indication of\na great mind. He wished to pursue every road to glory. It is somewhat\nastonishing that, with the spirit of order which he showed in his court,\nin his finances, and in the conduct of state affairs, he had a sort of\nrelish for ancient chivalry, which led him to the performance of\ngenerous and brilliant actions, even approaching the romantic. It is\ncertain that Louis inherited from his mother a deal of that Spanish\ngallantry, at once noble and delicate, with much of that greatness of\nsoul--that passion for glory--that lofty pride, so conspicuous in old\nromances. He talked of fighting the emperor Leopold, like a knight\nseeking adventures. The erection of the pyramid at Rome, the assertion\nof his right of precedence, and the idea of having a port near Algiers\nto curb the pirates, were likewise of this class. To this latter attempt\nhe was moreover excited by Pope Alexander VII., and by Cardinal Mazarin\nbefore his death. He had for some time debated with himself whether he\nshould go on this expedition in person, like Charles the Fifth; but he\nhad not vessels to execute so great an enterprise, whether in person or\nby his generals. The attempt was therefore fruitless, and it could not\nbe otherwise.\n\nIt was, however, of service in exercising the French marine, and\nprepared the world to expect some of those noble and heroic actions\nwhich are out of the ordinary line of policy, such as the disinterested\naid lent to the Venetians besieged in Candia, and to the Germans pressed\nby the Ottoman arms at St. Gothard.\n\nThe details of the African expedition are lost in the number of\nsuccessful or unsuccessful wars, waged justly or unjustly, with good or\nbad policy. We shall merely give the following letter, which was written\nsome years ago on the subject of the Algerine piracies:\n\n\"It is to be lamented, sire, that the proposals of the order of Malta\nwere not acceded to, when they offered, on consideration of a moderate\nsubsidy from each Christian power, to free the seas from the pirates of\nAlgiers, Morocco, and Tunis. The knights of Malta would then have been\ntruly the defenders of Christianity. The actual force of the Algerines\nis but two fifty-gun ships, five of about forty, and four of thirty\nguns; the rest are not worth mentioning.\n\n\"It is shameful to see their little barks seizing our merchant vessels\nevery day throughout the Mediterranean. They even cruise as far as the\nCanaries and the Azores.\n\n\"Their soldiery, composed of a variety of nations--ancient\nMauritanians, ancient Numidians, Arabs, Turks, and even negroes, set\nsail, almost without provisions, in tight vessels carrying from eighteen\nto twenty guns, and infest all our seas like vultures seeking their\nprey. When they see a man of war, they fly; when they see a merchant\nvessel they seize it. Our friends and our relatives, men and women, are\nmade slaves; and we must humbly supplicate the barbarians to deign to\nreceive our money for restoring to us their captives.\n\n\"Some Christian states have had the shameful prudence to treat with\nthem, and send them arms wherewith to attack others, bargaining with\nthem as _merchants_, while they negotiate as _warriors_.\n\n\"Nothing would be more easy than to put down these marauders; yet it is\nnot done. But how many other useful and easy things are entirely\nneglected! The necessity of reducing these pirates is acknowledged in\nevery prince's cabinet; yet no one undertakes their reduction. When the\nministers of different courts accidently talk the matter over, they do\nbut illustrate the fable of _tying the bell round the cat's neck_.\n\n\"The order of the Redemption of Captives is the finest of all monastic\ninstitutions, but it is a sad reproach to us. The kingdoms of Fez,\nAlgiers, and Tunis have no _marabous_ of the Redemption of Captives;\nbecause, though they take many Christians from us, we take scarcely any\nMussulmans from them.\n\n\"Nevertheless, they are more attached to their religion than we are to\nours; for no Turk or Arab ever turns Christian, while they have hundreds\nof renegadoes among them, who even serve in their expeditions. An\nItalian named _Pelegini_, was, in 1712, captain-general of the Algerine\ngalleys. The miramolin, the bey, the dey, all have Christian females in\ntheir seraglios, but there are only two Turkish girls who have found\nlovers in Paris.\n\n\"The Algerine land force consists of twelve thousand regular soldiers\nonly; but all the rest of the men are trained to arms; and it is this\nthat renders the conquest of the country so difficult. The Vandals,\nhowever, easily subdued it; yet we dare not attack it.\"\n\n\n\n\nALLEGORIES.\n\n\nJupiter, Neptune, and Mercury, travelling one day in Thrace, called on a\ncertain king named Hyreus, who entertained them very handsomely. After\neating a good dinner, they asked him if they could render him any\nservice. The good man, who was past the age at which it is usual for men\nto have children, told them he should be very much obliged to them if\nthey would make him a boy. The three gods then urinated on the skin of a\nnew flayed ox; and from these sprang Orion, who became one of the\nconstellations known to the most remote antiquity. This constellation\nwas named Orion by the ancient Chald\u00e6ans; it is spoken of in the Book of\nJob. It would be hard to discover a rational allegory in this pretty\nstory, unless we are to infer from it that nothing was impossible to the\ngods.\n\nThere were in Greece two young rakes, who were told by the oracle to\nbeware of the _melampygos_ or _sable posteriors_. One day Hercules took\nthem and tied them by the feet to the end of his club, so that they hung\ndown his back with their heads downward, like a couple of rabbits,\nhaving a full view of his person. \"Ah!\" said they; \"the oracle is\naccomplished; this is the _melampygos_.\" Hercules fell alaughing, and\nlet them go. Here again it would be rather difficult to divine the moral\nsense.\n\nAmong the fathers of mythology there were some who had only imagination;\nbut the greater part of them possessed understandings of no mean order.\nNot all our academies, not all our makers of devices, not even they who\ncompose the legends for the counters of the royal treasury, will ever\ninvent allegories more true, more pleasing, or more ingenious, than\nthose of the Nine Muses, of Venus, the Graces, the God of Love, and so\nmany others, which will be the delight and instruction of all ages.\n\nThe ancients, it must be confessed, almost always spoke in allegories.\nThe earlier fathers of the church, the greater part of whom were\nPlatonists, imitated this method of Plato's. They have, indeed, been\nreproached with having carried this taste for allegories and allusions a\nlittle too far.\n\nSt. Justin, in his \"Apology,\" says that the sign of the cross is marked\nin the limbs and features of man; that when he extends his arms there is\na perfect cross; and that his nose and eyes form a cross upon his face.\n\nAccording to Origen's explanation of Leviticus, the _fat_ of the victims\nsignifies _the Church_, and the _tail_ is a symbol of _perseverance_.\n\nSt. Augustine, in his sermon on the difference and agreement of the two\ngenealogies of Christ, explains to his auditors why St. Matthew,\nalthough he reckons forty-two generations, enumerates only forty-one. It\nis, says he, because _Jechonias_ must be reckoned twice, Jechonias\nhaving gone from Jerusalem to Babylon. This journey is to be considered\nas the corner-stone; and if the corner-stone is the first of one side of\na building, it is also the first of the other side; consequently this\nstone must be reckoned twice; and therefore Jechonias must be reckoned\ntwice. He adds that, in the forty-two generations, we must dwell on the\nnumber _forty_, because that number signifies _life_. The number _ten_\ndenotes _blessedness_, and _ten_ multiplied by _four_, which represents\nthe four elements and the four seasons, produces _forty_.\n\nIn his fifty-third sermon, the dimensions of matter have astonishing\nproperties. Breadth _is the dilation of the heart_, length is\n_long-suffering_, height is _hope_, and depth is _faith_. So that,\nbesides the allegory, we have four dimensions of matter instead of\nthree.\n\nIt is clear and indubitable (says he in his sermon on the 6th psalm)\nthat the number _four_ denotes the human body, because of the four\nelements, and the four qualities of _hot_, _cold_, _moist_, and _dry_;\nand as _four_ relates to the body, so _three_ relates to the soul; for\nwe must love God with a triple love--with all our _hearts_ with all our\n_souls_, and with all our _minds_. _Four_ also relates to the Old\nTestament, and _three_ to the New. _Four_ and _three_ make up the number\nof _seven_ days, and the _eight_ is the _day of judgment_.\n\nOne cannot but feel that there is in these allegories an affectation but\nlittle compatible with true eloquence. The fathers, who sometimes made\nuse of these figures, wrote in times and countries in which nearly all\nthe arts were degenerating. Their learning and fine genius were warped\nby the imperfections of the age in which they lived. St. Augustine is\nnot to be respected the less for having paid this tribute to the bad\ntaste of Africa and the fourth century.\n\nThe discourses of our modern preachers are not disfigured by similar\nfaults. Not that we dare prefer them to the fathers; but the present age\nis to be preferred to the ages in which they wrote. Eloquence, which\nbecame more and more corrupted, and was not revived until later times,\nfell, after them, into still greater extravagances; and the languages of\nall barbarous nations were alike ridiculous until the age of Louis XIV.\nLook at all the old collections of sermons; they are far below the\ndramatic pieces of the Passion, which used to be played at the H\u00f4tel de\nBourgogne. But the spirit of allegory, which has never been lost, may be\ntraced throughout these barbarous discourses. The celebrated _M\u00e9not_,\nwho lived in the reign of Francis I., did more honor, perhaps, than any\nother to the allegorical style. \"The worthy administrators of justice,\"\nsaid he, \"are like a cat set to take care of a cheese, lest it should be\ngnawed by the mice. One bite of the cat does more damage to the cheese\nthan twenty mice can do.\"\n\nHere is another very curious passage: \"The woodmen, in a forest, cut\nlarge and small branches, and bind them in faggots; just so do our\necclesiastics, with dispensations from Rome, heap together great and\nsmall benefices. The cardinal's hat is garnished with bishoprics, the\nbishoprics are garnished with abbeys and priories, and the whole is\ngarnished with devils. All these church possessions must pass through\nthe three links of the _Ave Maria_; for _benedicta tu_ stands for fat\nabbeys of Benedictines, _in mulieribus_ for _monsieur_ and _madame_, and\n_fructus ventris_ for banquets and gormandizers.\"\n\nThe sermons of Barlet and Maillard are all framed after this model, and\nwere delivered half in bad Latin, and half in bad French. The Italian\nsermons were in the same taste; and the German were still worse. This\nmonstrous medley gave birth to the _macaroni_ style, the very climax of\nbarbarism. The species of oratory, worthy only of the Indians on the\nbanks of the Missouri, prevailed even so lately as the reign of Louis\nXIII. The Jesuit Garasse, one of the most distinguished enemies of\ncommon sense, never preached in any other style. He likened the\ncelebrated _Theophile_ to a calf, because Theophile's family name was\n_Viaud_, something resembling _veau_ (a calf). \"But,\" said he, \"the\nflesh of a calf is good to roast and to boil, whereas thine is good for\nnothing but to _burn_.\"\n\nAll these allegories, used by our barbarians, fall infinitely short of\nthose employed by Homer, Virgil, and Ovid, which proves that if there be\nstill some Goths and Vandals who despise ancient fable they are not\naltogether in the right.\n\n\n\n\nALMANAC.\n\n\nIt is of little moment to know whether we have the word _almanac_ from\nthe ancient Saxons, who could not write, or from the Arabs, who are\nknown to have been astronomers, and to have had some acquaintance with\nthe courses of the planets, while the western nations were still wrapped\nin an ignorance as great as their barbarism. I shall here confine myself\nto one short observation.\n\nLet an Indian philosopher, who has embarked at Meliapour, come to\nBayonne. I shall suppose this philosopher to be a man of sense, which,\nyou will say, is rare among the learned of India; to be divested of all\nscholastic prejudices--a thing that was rare everywhere not long\nago--and I shall suppose him to meet with a blockhead in our part of the\nworld--which is not quite so great a rarity.\n\nOur blockhead, in order to make him conversant with our arts and\nsciences, presents him with a Li\u00e8ge almanac, composed by _Matthew\nLansberg_, and the Lame Messenger (_Messager boiteux_) by _Anthony\nSouci, astrologer and historian_, printed every year at Basle, and sold\nto the number of 20,000 copies in eight days. There you behold the fine\nfigure of a man, surrounded by the signs of the Zodiac, with certain\nindications most clearly demonstrating that the _scales_ preside over\nthe _posteriors_, the _ram_ over the _head_, the _fishes_ over the\n_feet_, etc.\n\nEach day of the moon informs you when you must take _Le Li\u00e8vre's_ balm\nof life, or _Keiser's_ pills; when you must be bled, have your nails\ncut, wean your children, plant, sow, go a journey, or put on a pair of\nnew shoes. The Indian, when he hears these lessons, will do well to say\nto his guide that he will have none of his almanac.\n\nSo soon as our simpleton shall have shown the philosopher a few of our\nceremonies, which every wise man disapproves, but which are tolerated in\norder to amuse the populace, through pure contempt for that populace,\nthe traveller, seeing these mummeries, followed by a tambourine dance,\nwill not fail to pity and take us for madmen, who are, nevertheless,\nvery amusing and not absolutely cruel. He will write home to the\npresident of the Grand College of Benares that we have not common sense;\nbut that if _His Paternity_ will send enlightened and discreet persons\namong us, something may, _with the blessing of God_, be made of us.\n\nIt was precisely in this way that our first missionaries, especially St.\nFrancis Xavier, spoke of the people inhabiting the peninsula of India.\nThey even fell into still grosser mistakes respecting the customs of the\nIndians, their sciences, their opinions, their manners, and their\nworship. The accounts which they sent to Europe were extremely curious.\nEvery statue was a devil; every assembly a sabbath; every symbolical\nfigure a talisman; every Brahmin a sorcerer; and these are made the\nsubject of never-ending lamentations. They hope that _the harvest will\nbe abundant_; and add, by a rather incongruous metaphor, that _they will\nlabor effectually in the vineyard of the Lord_, in a country where wine\nhas always been unknown. Thus, or nearly thus, have every people judged,\nnot only of distant nations, but of their neighbors.\n\nThe Chinese are said to be the most ancient almanac-makers. The finest\nof their emperor's privileges is that of sending his calendar to his\nvassals and neighbors; their refusal of which would be considered as a\nbravado, and war would forthwith be made upon them, as it used to be in\nEurope on feudal lords who refused their homage.\n\nIf we have only _twelve_ constellations, the Chinese have\n_twenty-eight_, the names of which have not the least affinity with\nours--a sufficient proof that they have taken nothing from the Chald\u00e6an\nZodiac, that we have adopted. But though they have had a complete\nsystem of astrology for more than four thousand years, they resemble\n_Matthew Lansberg_ and _Anthony Souci_ in the fine predictions and\nsecrets of health with which they stuff their _Imperial Almanac_. They\ndivide the day into ten thousand minutes, and know, with the greatest\nprecision, what minute is favorable or otherwise. When the Emperor Kamhi\nwished to employ the Jesuit missionaries in making the almanac, they are\nsaid to have excused themselves, at first, on account of the extravagant\nsuperstitions with which it must be filled. \"I have much less faith than\nyou in the superstitions,\" replied the emperor; \"only make me a good\ncalendar, and leave it for my learned men to fill up the book with their\nfoolery.\"\n\nThe ingenious author of the \"Plurality of Worlds\" ridicules the Chinese,\nbecause, says he, they see a thousand stars fall at once into the sea.\nIt is very likely that the Emperor Kamhi ridiculed this notion as well\nas Fontenelle. Some Chinese almanac-maker had, it would seem, been\ngood-natured enough to speak of these meteors after the manner of the\npeople, and to take them for stars. Every country has its foolish\nnotions. All the nations of antiquity made the sun lie down in the sea,\nwhere for a long time we sent the stars. We have believed that the\nclouds touched the firmament, that the firmament was a hard substance,\nand that it supported a reservoir of water. It has not long been known\nin our towns that the Virgin-thread (_fil de la vierge_) so often found\nin the country, is nothing more than the thread spun by a spider. Let us\nnot laugh at any people. Let us reflect that the Chinese had astrolabes\nand spheres before we could read, and that if they have made no great\nprogress in astronomy, it is through that same respect for the ancients\nwhich we have had for Aristotle.\n\nIt is consoling to know that the Roman people, _populus late rex_, were,\nin this particular, far behind Matthew Lansberg, and the Lame Messenger,\nand the astrologers of China, until the period when Julius C\u00e6sar\nreformed the Roman year, which we have received from him and still call\nby his name--the _Julian Calendar_, although we have no _calends_, and\nhe was obliged to reform it himself.\n\nThe primitive Romans had, at first, a year of ten months, making three\nhundred and four days; this was neither _solar_ nor _lunar_, nor\nanything except barbarous. The Roman year was afterwards composed of\nthree hundred and fifty-five days--another mistake, which was corrected\nso imperfectly that, in C\u00e6sar's time, the summer festivals were held in\nwinter. The Roman generals always triumphed, but never knew _on what\nday_ they triumphed.\n\nC\u00e6sar reformed everything; he seemed to rule both heaven and earth. I\nknow not through what complaisance for the Roman customs it was that he\nbegan the year at a time when it does not begin--that is, eight days\nafter the winter solstice. All the nations composing the Roman Empire\nsubmitted to this innovation; even the Egyptians, who had until then\ngiven the law in all that related to almanacs, received it; but none of\nthese different nations altered anything in the distribution of their\nfeasts. The Jews, like the rest, celebrated their _new moons_; their\n_phase_ or _pascha_, the fourteenth day of the moon of March, called\n_the red-haired moon_, which day often fell in April; their _Pentecost_,\nfifty days after the _pascha_; the _feast of horns_ or _trumpets_, the\nfirst day of July; that of _tabernacles_ on the fifteenth of the same\nmonth, and that of _the great sabbath_, seven days afterwards.\n\nThe first Christians followed the computations of the empire, and\nreckoned by _calends_, _nones_, and _ides_, like their masters; they\nlikewise received the Bissextile, which we have still, although it was\nfound necessary to correct it in the fifteenth century, and it must some\nday be corrected again; but they conformed to the Jewish methods in the\ncelebration of their great feasts. They fixed their _Easter_ for the\nfourteenth day of the _red moon_, until the Council of Nice determined\nthat it should be the Sunday following. Those who celebrated it on the\nfourteenth were declared heretics; and both were mistaken in their\ncalculation.\n\nThe feasts of the Blessed Virgin were, as far as possible, substituted\nfor the new moons. The author of the \"Roman Calendar\" (_Le Calendrier\nRomain_) says the reason of this is drawn from the verse of the\nCanticle, _pulchra ut luna_, \"fair as the moon\"; but, by the same rule,\nthese feasts should be held on a Sunday, for in the same verse we find\n_electa ut sol_, \"chosen like the sun.\" The Christians also kept the\nfeast of Pentecost; it was fixed, like that of the Jews, precisely fifty\ndays after Easter. The same author asserts that _saint-days_ took the\nplace of the feasts of _tabernacles_. He adds that St. John's day was\nfixed for the 24th of June, only because the days then begin to shorten,\nand St. John had said, when speaking of Jesus Christ, \"He must grow, and\nI must become less\"--_Oportet ilium crescere, me autem minui._ There is\nsomething very singular in the ancient ceremony of lighting a great fire\non St. John's day, in the hottest period of the year. It has been said\nto be a very old custom, originally designed to commemorate the ancient\nburning of the world, which awaited a second conflagration. The same\nwriter assures us that the feast of the Assumption is kept on the 15th\nof August because the sun is then in the sign of the Virgin. He also\ncertifies that St. Mathias' day is in the month of February, because he\nwas, as it were, _intercalated_ among the twelve apostles, as a day is\nadded to February every leap-year. There would, perhaps, be something in\nthese astronomical imaginings to make our Indian philosopher smile;\nnevertheless, the author of them was mathematical master to the Dauphin,\nson of Louis XIV., and moreover, an engineer and a very worthy officer.\n\n\n\n\nALTARS, TEMPLES, RITES, SACRIFICES, ETC.\n\n\nIt is universally acknowledged that the first Christians had neither\ntemples, nor altars, nor tapers, nor incense, nor holy water, nor any of\nthose rites which the prudence of pastors afterwards instituted, in\nconformity with times and places, but more especially with the various\n_wants of the faithful_.\n\nWe have ample testimony in Origen, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin, and\nTertullian, that the primitive Christians held temples and altars in\nabomination; and that not merely because they could not in the beginning\nobtain permission from the government to build temples, but because they\nhad a real aversion for everything that seemed to apply any affinity\nwith other religions. This abhorrence existed among them for two hundred\nand fifty years, as is proved by the following passage of Minutius\nFelix, who lived in the third century. Addressing the Romans, he says:\n\n     _\"Putatis autem nos occultare quod colimus, si delubra et aras non\n     habemus. Quod enim simulacrum Deo fingam, quum, si recte existimes,\n     sit Dei homo ipse simulacrum? quod templum ei exstruam, quum totus\n     hic mundus, ejus opere fabricatus, eum capere non possit? et quum\n     homo latius maneam, intra unam \u00e6diculum vim tant\u00e6 majestatis\n     includam? nonne melius in nostra dedicandus est mente, in nostro\n     imo consecrandus est pectore?\"_\n\n\"You think that we conceal what we adore, because we have neither\ntemples nor altars. But what shall we erect like to God, since man\nhimself is God's image? What temple shall we build for Him, when the\nwhole world, which is the work of His hands, cannot contain Him? How\nshall we enclose the power of such majesty in one dwelling-place? Is it\nnot better to consecrate a temple to Him in our minds and in our\nhearts?\"\n\nThe Christians, then, had no temples until about the beginning of the\nreign of Diocletian. The Church had then become very numerous; and it\nwas found necessary to introduce those decorations and rites which, at\nan earlier period, would have been useless and even dangerous to a\nslender flock, long despised, and considered as nothing more than a\nsmall sect of dissenting Jews.\n\nIt is manifest that, while they were confounded with the Jews, they\ncould not obtain permission to erect temples. The Jews, who paid very\ndear for their synagogues, would themselves have opposed it; for they\nwere mortal enemies to the Christians, and they were rich. We must not\nsay, with Toland, that the Christians, who at that time made a show of\ndespising temples and altars, were like the fox that said the grapes\nwere sour. This comparison appears as unjust as it is impious, since all\nthe primitive Christians in so many different countries, agreed in\nmaintaining that there was no need of raising temples or altars to the\ntrue God.\n\nProvidence, acting by second causes, willed that they should erect a\nsplendid temple at Nicomedia, the residence of the Emperor Diocletian,\nas soon as they had obtained that sovereign's protection. They built\nothers in other cities; but still they had a horror of tapers, lustral\nwater, pontifical habits, etc. All this pomp and circumstance was in\ntheir eyes no other than a distinctive mark of paganism. These customs\nwere adopted under Constantine and his successors, and have frequently\nchanged.\n\nOur good women of the present day, who every Sunday hear a Latin mass,\nat which a little boy attends, imagine that this rite has been observed\nfrom the earliest ages, that there never was any other, and that the\ncustom in other countries of assembling to offer up prayers to God in\ncommon is diabolical and quite of recent origin. There is, undeniably,\nsomething very respectable in a mass, since it has been authorized by\nthe Church; it is not at all an ancient usage, but is not the less\nentitled to our veneration.\n\nThere is not, perhaps, a single ceremony of this day which was in use in\nthe time of the apostles. The Holy Spirit has always conformed himself\nto the times. He inspired the first disciples in a mean apartment; He\nnow communicates His inspirations in St. Peter's at Rome, which cost\nseveral millions--equally divine, however, in the wretched room, and in\nthe superb edifice of Julius II., Leo X., Paul III., and Sixtus V.\n\n\n\n\nAMAZONS.\n\n\nBold and vigorous women have been often seen to fight like men. History\nmakes mention of such; for, without reckoning Semiramis, Tomyris, or\nPenthesilea--who, perhaps, existed only in fable--it is certain that\nthere were many women in the armies of the first caliphs. In the tribe\nof the Homerites, especially, it was a sort of law, dictated by love and\ncourage, that in battle wives should succor and avenge their husbands,\nand mothers their children.\n\nWhen the famous chief Derar was fighting in Syria against the generals\nof the Emperor Heraclius, in the time of the caliph Abubeker, successor\nto Mahomet, Peter, who commanded at Damascus, took thither several\nwomen, whom he had captured, together with some booty, in one of his\nexcursions; among the prisoners was the sister of Derar. Alvakedi's\n\"Arabian History,\" translated by Ockley, says that she was a perfect\nbeauty, and that Peter became enamored of her, paid great attention to\nher on the way, and indulged her and her fellow-prisoners with short\nmarches. They encamped in an extensive plain, under tents, guarded by\ntroops posted at a short distance. _Caulah_ (so this sister of Derar's\nwas named) proposed to one of her companions, called _Oserra_, that they\nshould endeavor to escape from captivity, and persuaded her rather to\ndie than be a victim to the lewd desires of the Christians. The same\nMahometan enthusiasm seized all the women; they armed themselves with\nthe iron-pointed staves that supported their tents, and with a sort of\ndagger which they wore in their girdles; they then formed a circle, as\nthe cows do when they present their horns to attacking wolves. Peter\nonly laughed at first; he advanced toward the women, who gave him hard\nblows with the staves; after hesitating for some time, he at length\nresolved to use force; the sabres of his men were already drawn, when\nDerar arrived, put the Greeks to flight, and delivered his sister and\nthe other captives.\n\nNothing can more strongly resemble those times called _heroic_, sung by\nHomer. Here are the same single combats at the head of armies, the\ncombatants frequently holding a long conversation before they commence\nfighting; and this, no doubt, justifies Homer.\n\nThomas, governor of Syria, Heraclius's son-in-law, made a sally from\nDamascus, and attacked Sergiabil, having first prayed to Jesus Christ.\n\"Unjust aggressor,\" said he to Sergiabil, \"thou canst not resist Jesus,\nmy God, who will fight for the champions of His religion.\" \"Thou tellest\nan impious lie,\" answered Sergiabil; \"Jesus is not greater before God\nthan Adam. God raised Him from the dust; He gave life to Him as to\nanother man, and, after leaving Him for some time on earth, took Him up\ninto heaven.\" After some more verbal skirmishing the fight began. Thomas\ndischarged an arrow, which wounded young Aban, the son of Saib, by the\nside of the valiant Sergiabil; Aban fell and expired; the news of his\ndeath reached his young wife, to whom he had been united but a few days\nbefore; she neither wept nor complained, but ran to the field of battle,\nwith a quiver at her back, and a couple of arrows in her hand; with the\nfirst of these she killed the Christian standard-bearer, and the Arabs\nseized the trophy, crying, _Allah achar!_ With the other she shot Thomas\nin the eye, and he retired, bleeding, into the town.\n\nArabian history is full of similar examples, but they do not tell us\nthat these warlike women burned their right breast, that they might draw\nthe bow better, nor that they lived without men; on the contrary, they\nexposed themselves in battle for their husbands or their lovers; from\nwhich very circumstance we must conclude that, so far from reproaching\nAriosto and Tasso for having introduced so many enamored warriors into\ntheir poems, we should praise them for having delineated real and\ninteresting manners.\n\nWhen the crusading mania was at its height there were some Christian\nwomen who shared the fatigues and dangers of their husbands. To such a\npitch, indeed, was this enthusiasm carried that the Genoese women\nundertook a crusade of their own, and were on the point of setting out\nfor Palestine to form petticoat battalions; they had made a vow so to\ndo, but were absolved from it by a pope, who was a little wiser than\nthemselves.\n\nMargaret of Anjou, wife of the unfortunate Henry VI. of England,\nevinced, in a juster war, a valor truly heroic; she fought in ten\nbattles to deliver her husband. History affords no authenticated example\nof greater or more persevering courage in a woman. She had been\npreceded by the celebrated Countess de Montfort, in Brittany. \"This\nprincess,\" says d'Argentr\u00e9, \"was virtuous beyond the nature of her sex,\nand valiant beyond all men; she mounted her horse, and managed him\nbetter than any esquire; she fought hand to hand, or charged a troop of\narmed men like the most valiant captain; she fought on sea and land with\nequal bravery,\" etc. She went, sword in hand, through her states, which\nwere invaded by her competitor, Charles de Blois. She not only sustained\ntwo assaults, armed cap-\u00e0-pie, in the breach of Hennebon, but she made a\nsortie with five hundred men, attacked the enemy's camp, set fire to it,\nand reduced it to ashes.\n\nThe exploits of Joan of Arc, better known as the _Maid of Orleans_, are\nless astonishing than those of Margaret of Anjou and the Countess de\nMontfort. These two princesses having been brought up in the luxury of\ncourts, and Joan of Arc in the rude exercises of country life, it was\nmore singular, as well as more noble, to quit a _palace_ for the field\nthan a _cottage_.\n\nThe heroine who defended Beauvais was, perhaps, superior to her who\nraised the siege of Orleans, for she fought quite as well, and neither\nboasted of being _a maid_, nor of being _inspired_. It was in 1472, when\nthe Burgundian army was besieging Beauvais, that Jeanne Hachette, at the\nhead of a number of women, sustained an assault for a considerable time,\nwrested the standard from one of the enemy who was about to plant it on\nthe breach, threw the bearer into the trench, and gave time for the\nking's troops to arrive and relieve the town. Her descendants have been\nexempted from the _taille_ (poll tax)--a mean and shameful recompense!\nThe women and girls of Beauvais are more flattered by their walking\nbefore the men in the procession on the anniversary day. Every public\nmark of honor is an encouragement of merit; but the exemption from the\n_taille_ is but a proof that the persons so exempted were subjected to\nthis servitude by the misfortune of their birth.\n\nThere is hardly any nation which does not boast of having produced such\nheroines; the number of these, however, is not great; nature seems to\nhave designed women for other purposes. Women have been known but rarely\nto exhibit themselves as soldiers. In short, every people have had their\nfemale warriors; but the kingdom of the Amazons, on the banks of the\nThermodon, is, like most other ancient stories, nothing more than a\npoetic fiction.\n\n\n\n\nAMBIGUITY--EQUIVOCATION.\n\n\nFor want of defining terms, and especially for want of a clear\nunderstanding, almost all laws, that should be as plain as arithmetic\nand geometry, are as obscure as logogriphs. The melancholy proof of this\nis that nearly all processes are founded on the sense of the laws,\nalways differently understood by the pleaders, the advocates, and the\njudges.\n\nThe whole public law of Europe had its origin in equivocal expressions,\nbeginning with the Salique law. _She shall not inherit Salique land._\nBut what is _Salique land_? And shall not a girl inherit money, or a\nnecklace, left to her, which may be worth more than the land?\n\nThe citizens of Rome saluted Karl, son of the Austrasian Pepin le Bref,\nby the name of _imperator_. Did they understand thereby: _We confer on\nyou all the prerogatives of Octavius, Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius?\nWe give you all the country which they possessed?_ However, they could\nnot give it; for so far were they from being masters of it that they\nwere scarcely masters of their own city. There never was a more\nequivocal expression; and such as it was then it still is.\n\nDid Leo III., the bishop of Rome who is said to have saluted Charlemagne\nemperor, comprehend the meaning of the words which he pronounced? The\nGermans assert that he understood by them that Charles should be his\nmaster. The Datary has asserted that he meant he should be master over\nCharlemagne.\n\nHave not things the most venerable, the most sacred, the most divine,\nbeen obscured by the ambiguities of language? Ask two Christians of what\nreligion they are. Each will answer, _I am a Catholic_. You think they\nare both of the same communion; yet one is of the Greek, the other of\nthe Latin church; and they are irreconcilable. If you seek to be further\ninformed, you will find that by the word _Catholic_ each of them\nunderstands _universal_, in which case _universal_ signifies _a part_.\n\nThe soul of St. Francis is in _heaven_--is in _paradise_. One of these\nwords signifies _the air_; the other means _a garden_. The word _spirit_\nis used alike to express _extract_, _thought_, _distilled liquor_,\n_apparition_. Ambiguity has been so necessary a vice in all languages,\nformed by what is called _chance_ and by custom, that the author of all\nclearness and truth Himself condescended to speak after the manner of\nHis people; whence is it that _Elohim_ signifies in some places\n_judges_, at other times _gods_, and at others _angels_. _\"Tu es Petrus,\net super hunc petrum \u00e6dificabo ecclesiam meam,\"_ would be equivocal in a\nprofane tongue, and on profane subject; but these words receive a divine\nsense from the mouth which utters them, and the subject to which they\nare applied.\n\n\"I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob; now God is\nnot the God of the dead, but of the living.\" In the ordinary sense these\nwords might signify: \"I am the same God that was worshipped by Abraham,\nIsaac and Jacob; as the earth, which bore Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,\nlikewise bears their descendants; the sun which shines to-day is the sun\nthat shone on Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the law of their children was\ntheir law.\" This does not, however, signify that Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob are still living. But when the Messiah speaks, there is no longer\nany ambiguity; the sense is as clear as it is divine. It is evident\nthat Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not among the dead, but live in\nglory, since this oracle is pronounced by the Messiah; but it was\nnecessary that He and no one else should utter it.\n\nThe discourses of the Jewish prophets might seem equivocal to men of\ngross intellects, who could not perceive their meaning; but they were\nnot so to minds illumined by the light of faith.\n\nAll the oracles of antiquity were equivocal. It was foretold to\nCr\u0153sus that a powerful empire was to fall; but was it to be his own?\nor that of Cyrus? It was also foretold to Pyrrhus that the Romans might\nconquer him, and that he might conquer the Romans. It was impossible\nthat this oracle should lie.\n\nWhen Septimius Severus, Pescennius Niger, and Clodius Albinus were\ncontending for the empire, the oracle of Delphos, being consulted\n(notwithstanding the assertion of the Jesuit Baltus that oracles had\nceased), answered that _the brown was very good, the white good for\nnothing, and the African tolerable_. It is plain that there are more\nways than one of explaining such an oracle.\n\nWhen Aurelian consulted the god of Palmyra (still in spite of Baltus),\nthe god said that _the doves fear the falcon_. Whatever might happen,\nthe god would not be embarrassed; the _falcon_ would be the _conqueror_,\nand _the doves_ the _conquered_.\n\nSovereigns, as well as gods, have sometimes made use of equivocation.\nSome tyrant, whose name I forget, having sworn to one of his captives\nthat he would not kill him, ordered that he should have nothing to eat,\nsaying that he had promised not to put him to death, but he had not\npromised to keep him alive.\n\n\n\n\nAMERICA.\n\n\nSince framers of systems are continually conjecturing on the manner in\nwhich America can have been peopled, we will be equally consistent in\nsaying that He who caused flies to exist in those regions caused men to\nexist there also. However pleasant it may be to dispute, it cannot be\ndenied that the Supreme Being, who lives in all nature, has created,\nabout the forty-eighth degree, two-legged animals without feathers, the\ncolor of whose skin is a mixture of white and carnation, with long\nbeards approaching to red; about the line, in Africa and its islands,\nnegroes without beards; and in the same latitude, other negroes with\nbeards, some of them having wool, and some hair, on their heads; and\namong them other animals quite white, having neither hair nor wool, but\na kind of white silk. It does not very clearly appear what should have\nprevented God from placing on another continent animals of the same\nspecies, of a copper color, in the same latitude in which, in Africa and\nAsia, they are found black; or even from making them without beards in\nthe very same latitude in which others possess them.\n\nTo what lengths are we carried by the rage for systems joined with the\ntyranny of prejudice! We see these animals; it is agreed that God has\nhad the power to place them where they are; yet it is not agreed that he\n_has_ so placed them. The same persons who readily admit that the\n_beavers_ of Canada are of Canadian origin, assert that the _men_ must\nhave come there in boats, and that Mexico must have been peopled by some\nof the descendants of _Magog_. As well might be said that if there be\nmen in the moon they must have been taken thither by Astolpho on his\nhippogriff, when he went to fetch Roland's senses, which were corked up\nin a bottle. If America had been discovered in his time, and there had\nthen been men in Europe _systematic_ enough to have advanced, with the\nJesuit Lafitau, that the Caribbees descended from the inhabitants of\nCaria, and the Hurons from the Jews, he would have done well to have\nbrought back the bottle containing the wits of these reasoners, which he\nwould doubtless have found in the moon, along with those of Angelica's\nlover.\n\nThe first thing done when an inhabited island is discovered in the\nIndian Ocean, or in the South Seas, is to inquire whence came these\npeople? But as for the trees and the tortoises, _they_ are, without any\nhesitation, pronounced to be indigenous; as if it was more difficult for\nNature to make men than to make tortoises. One thing, however, which\ntends to countenance this system is that there is scarcely an island in\nthe Eastern or in the Western Ocean which does not contain jugglers,\nquacks, knaves and fools. This, it is probable, gave rise to the opinion\nthat these animals are of the same race with ourselves.\n\n\n\n\nAMPLIFICATION.\n\n\nIt is pretended that _amplification_ is a fine figure of rhetoric;\nperhaps, however, it would be more reasonable to call it a _defect_. In\nsaying all that we should say, we do not amplify; and if after saying\nthis we amplify, we say too much. To place a good or bad action in every\nlight is not to amplify; but to go farther than this is to exaggerate\nand become wearisome.\n\nPrizes were formerly given in colleges for _amplification_. This was\nindeed teaching the art of being diffuse. It would, perhaps, have been\nbetter to have given the fewest words, and thus teach the art of\nspeaking with greater force and energy. But while we avoid\n_amplification_, let us beware of _dryness_.\n\nI have heard professors teach that certain passages in \"Virgil\" are\namplifications, as, for instance, the following:\n\n     _Nox erat, et placidum carpebant fessa soporem_\n     _Corpora per terras, silv\u00e6que et saeva quierunt_\n     _\u00c6quora; quum medio volvuntur sidera lapsu;_\n     _Quum tacet omnis ager, pecudes, pietaeque volucres;_\n     _Quaeque lacus late liquidos, quaeque aspera dumis_\n     _Rura tenant, somno positae sub node silenti_\n     _Lenibant curas, et corda oblita laborum:_\n     _At non infelix animi Ph\u0153nissa._\n\n     'Twas dead of night, when weary bodies close\n     Their eyes in balmy sleep and soft repose:\n     The winds no longer whisper through the woods,\n     Nor murmuring tides disturb the gentle floods;\n     The stars in silent order moved around,\n     And peace, with downy wings, was brooding on the ground.\n     The flocks and herds, and parti-colored fowl,\n     Which haunt the woods and swim the weedy pool.\n     Stretched on the quiet earth securely lay,\n     Forgetting the past labors of the day.\n     All else of Nature's common gift partake;\n     Unhappy Dido was alone awake.--DRYDEN.\n\nIf the long description of the reign of sleep throughout all nature did\nnot form an admirable contrast with the cruel inquietude of Dido, these\nlines would be no other than a puerile amplification; it is the words\n_At non infelix animi Ph\u0153nissa_--\"Unhappy Dido,\" etc., which give\nthem their charm.\n\nThat beautiful ode of Sappho's which paints all the symptoms of love,\nand which has been happily translated into every cultivated language,\nwould doubtless have been less touching had Sappho been speaking of any\nother than herself; it might then have been considered as an\namplification.\n\nThe description of the tempest in the first book of the \"\u00c6neid\" is not\nan amplification; it is a true picture of all that happens in a tempest;\nthere is no idea repeated, and _repetition_ is the vice of all which is\nmerely amplification.\n\nThe finest part on the stage in any language is that of _Ph\u00e8dre_\n(Ph\u00e6dra). Nearly all that she says would be tiresome amplification if\nany other was speaking of Ph\u00e6dra's passion.\n\n     _Athenes me montra mon superbe ennemie;_\n     _Je le vis, je rougis, je pla\u00ees, \u00e0 sa vue;_\n     _Un trouble s'\u00e9leva dans mon \u00e2me \u00e9perdue;_\n     _Mes yeux ne voyaient plus, je ne pouvais parler,_\n     _Je sentis tout mon corps et transir et br\u00fbler;_\n     _Je reconnus Venus et ses traits redoubtables,_\n     _D'un sang qu'elle poursuit tormens in\u00e9vitables._\n\n     _Yes;--Athens showed me my proud enemy;_\n     _I saw him--blushed--turned pale;--_\n     _A sudden trouble came upon my soul,--_\n     _My eyes grew dim--my tongue refused its office,--_\n     _I burned--and shivered;--through my trembling frame_\n     _Venus in all her dreadful power I felt,_\n     _Shooting through every vein a separate pang._\n\nIt is quite clear that since Athens showed her her proud enemy\nHippolytus, she _saw_ Hippolytus; if she blushed and turned pale, she\nwas doubtless _troubled_. It would have been a pleonasm, a redundancy,\nif a stranger had been made to relate the loves of Ph\u00e6dra; but it is\nPh\u00e6dra, enamored and ashamed of her passion--her heart is\nfull--everything escapes her:\n\n     _Ut vidi, lit perii, ut me malus abstulit error._\n     _Je le vis, je rougis, je p\u00e2lis, \u00e0 sa vue._\n\n     I saw him--blushed--turned pale.--\n\nWhat can be a better imitation of Virgil?\n\n     _Mes yeux ne voyaient plus, je ne pouvais parler;_\n     _Je sentis tout mon corps et transir et br\u00fbler;_\n\n     My eyes grew dim--my tongue refused its office;\n     I burned--and shivered;\n\nWhat can be a finer imitation of Sappho?\n\nThese lines, though imitated, flow as from their first source; each word\nmoves and penetrates the feeling heart; this is not amplification; it is\nthe perfection of nature and of art.\n\nThe following is, in my opinion, an instance of amplification, in a\nmodern tragedy, which nevertheless has great beauties. Tydeus is at the\ncourt of Argos; he is in love with a sister of Electra; he laments the\nfall of his friend Orestes and of his father; he is divided betwixt his\npassion for Electra and his desire of vengeance; while in this state of\ncare and perplexity he gives one of his followers a long description of\na tempest, in which he had been shipwrecked some time before.\n\n     _Tu sais ce qu'en ces lieux nous venions entreprendre;_\n     _Tu sais que Palam\u00e8de, avant que de s'y rendre,_\n     _Ne voulut point tenter son retour dans Argos,_\n     _Qu'il n'e\u00fbt interroge l'oracle de D\u00e9los._\n     _A de si justes soins on souscrivit sans peine;_\n     _Nous part\u00eemes, combl\u00e9s des bienfaits de Thyrr\u00e8ne;_\n     _Tout nous favorisait; nous voyage\u00e2mes longtems_\n     _Au gr\u00e9 de nos d\u00e9sirs, bien plus qu'au gr\u00e9 des vents;_\n     _Mais, signalant bient\u00f4t toute son inconstance,_\n     _Le mer en un moment se mutine et s'\u00e9lance;_\n     _L'air mugit, le jour fuit, une \u00e9paisse vapeur_\n     _Couvre d'un voile affreux les vagues en fureur;_\n     _La foudre, \u00e9clairante seule une nuit si profonde,_\n     _\u00c0 sillons redoubl\u00e9s ouvre le ciel et l'onde,_\n     _Et comme un tourbillon, embrassant nos vaisseaux,_\n     _Semble en sources de feu bouillonner sur les eaux;_\n     _Les vagues quelquefois, nous portant sur leurs cimes,_\n     _Nous font router apr\u00e8s sous de vastes ab\u00eemes,_\n     _O\u00f9 les \u00e9clairs press\u00e9s, p\u00e9n\u00e9trans avec nous,_\n     _Dans des gouffres de feu semblaient nous plonger tous;_\n     _Le pilote effray\u00e9, que la flamme environne,_\n     _Aux rochers qu'il fuyait lui-m\u00eame s'abandonne;_\n     _\u00c0 travers les \u00e9cueils notre vaisseau pousse,_\n     _Se brise, et nage enfin sur les eaux dispers\u00e9es._\n\n     Thou knowest what purpose brought us to these shores;\n     Thou knowest that Palamed would not attempt\n     Again to set his foot within these walls\n     Until he'd questioned Delos' oracle.\n     To his just care we readily subscribed;\n     We sailed, and favoring gales at first appeared\n     To announce a prosperous voyage;\n     Long time we held our course, and held it rather\n     As our desires than as the winds impelled;\n     But the inconstant ocean heaved at last\n     Its treacherous bosom; howling blasts arose;\n     The heavens were darkened; vapors black and dense\n     Spread o'er the furious waves a frightful veil,\n     Pierced only by the thunderbolts, which clove\n     The waters and the firmament at once,\n     And whirling round our ship, in horrid sport\n     Chased one another o'er the boiling surge;\n     Now rose we on some watery mountain's summit.\n     Now with the lightning plunged into a gulf\n     That seemed to swallow all. Our pilot, struck\n     Powerless by terror, ceased to steer, and left us\n     Abandoned to those rocks we dreaded most;\n     Soon did our vessel dash upon their points,\n     And swim in scattered fragments on the billows.\n\nIn this description we see the poet wishing to surprise his readers with\nthe relation of a shipwreck, rather than the man who seeks to avenge his\nfather and his friend--to kill the tyrant of Argos, but who is at the\nsame time divided between love and vengeance.\n\nSeveral men of taste, and among others the author of \"Telemachus,\" have\nconsidered the relation of the death of Hippolytus, in Racine, as an\namplification; long recitals were the fashion at that time. The vanity\nof actors make them wish to be listened to, and it was then the custom\nto indulge them in this way. The archbishop of Cambray says that\nTheramenes should not, after Hippolytus' catastrophe, have strength to\nspeak so long; that he gives too ample a description of the monster's\n_threatening horns_, his _saffron scales, etc._; that he should say in\nbroken accents, _Hippolytus is dead--a monster has destroyed him--I\nbeheld it._\n\nI shall not enter on a defence of the _threatening horns_, etc.; yet\nthis piece of criticism, which has been so often repeated, appears to me\nto be unjust. You would have Theramenes say nothing more than\n_Hippolytus is killed--I saw him die--all is over._ This is precisely\nwhat he does say; _Hippolyte n'est plus!_ (Hippolytus is no more!) His\nfather exclaims aloud; and Theramenes, on recovering his senses, says;\n\n     _J'ai vu des mortels p\u00e9rir le plus amiable,_\n\n     I have seen the most amiable of mortals perish,\n\nand adds this line, so necessary and so affecting yet so agonizing for\nTheseus:\n\n     _Et j'ose dire encore. Seigneur, le moins coupable._\n\n     And, Sire, I may truly add, the most innocent.\n\nThe gradations are fully observed; each shade is accurately\ndistinguished. The wretched father asks what God--what sudden\nthunder-stroke has deprived him of his son. He has not courage to\nproceed; he is mute with grief; he awaits the dreadful recital, and the\naudience awaits it also. Theramenes _must_ answer; he is asked for\nparticulars; he must give them.\n\nWas it for him who had made Mentor and all the rest of his personages\ndiscourse at such length, sometimes even tediously; was it for him to\nshut the mouth of Theramenes? Who among the spectators would not listen\nto him? Who would not enjoy the melancholy pleasure of hearing the\ncircumstance of Hippolytus' death? Who would have so much as three lines\nstruck out? This is no vain description of a storm unconnected with the\npiece; no ill-written amplification; it is the purest diction, the most\naffecting language; in short, it is Racine. Amplification, declamation,\nand exaggeration were at all times the faults of the Greeks, excepting\nDemosthenes and Aristotle.\n\nThere have been absurd pieces of poetry on which time has set the stamp\nof almost universal approbation, because they were mixed with brilliant\nflashes which threw a glare over their imperfections, or because the\npoets who came afterward did nothing better. The rude beginnings of\nevery art acquire a greater celebrity than the art in perfection; he who\nfirst played the fiddle was looked upon as a demi-god, while Rameau had\nonly enemies. In fine, men, generally going with the stream, seldom\njudge for themselves, and purity of taste is almost as rare as talent.\n\nAt the present day, most of our sermons, funeral orations, set\ndiscourses, and harangues in certain ceremonies, are tedious\namplifications--strings of commonplace expressions repeated again and\nagain a thousand times. These discourses are only supportable when\nrarely heard. Why speak when you have nothing new to say? It is high\ntime to put a stop to this excessive waste of words, and therefore we\nconclude our article.\n\n\n\n\nANCIENTS AND MODERNS.\n\n\nThe great cause of the ancients _versus_ the moderns is not yet disposed\nof; it has been at issue ever since the silver age, which succeeded the\ngolden one. Men have always pretended that the _good old times_ were\nmuch better than the present. Nestor, in the \"Iliad,\" wishing to\ninsinuate himself, like a wise mediator, into the good opinion of\nAchilles and Agamemnon, begins with saying: \"I have lived with better\nmen than you; never have I seen, nor shall I ever see again, such great\npersonages as Dryas, C\u00e6neus, Exadius, Polyphemus equal to the gods,\"\netc. Posterity has made ample amends to Achilles for Nestor's bad\ncompliment, so vainly admired by those who admire nothing but what is\nancient. Who knows anything about _Dryas_? We have scarcely heard of\n_Exadius_ or of _C\u00e6neus_; and as for _Polyphemus equal to the gods_, he\nhas no very high reputation, unless, indeed, there was something divine\nin his having a great eye in the middle of his forehead, and eating the\nraw carcasses of mankind.\n\nLucretius does not hesitate to say that nature has degenerated:\n\n     _Ipsa dedit dulces f\u0153tus et pabula l\u0153ta,_\n     _Qu\u00e6 nunc vix nostro grandescunt aucta labore;_\n     _Conterimusque boves, et vires agricolarum, etc._\n\nAntiquity is full of the praises of another antiquity still more remote:\n\n     _Les hommes, en tout tems, ont pens\u00e9 qu'autrefois,_\n     _De longs ruisseaux de lait serpentaient dans nos bois;_\n     _La lune \u00e9tait plus grande, et la nuit moins obscure;_\n     _L'hiver se couronnait de fleurs et de verdure;_\n     _Se contemplait \u00e0 l'aise, admirait son n\u00e9ant,_\n     _Et, form\u00e9 pour agir, se plaisait \u00e0 rien faire, etc._\n\n     Men have, in every age, believed that once\n     Long streams of milk ran winding through the woods;\n     The moon was larger and the night less dark;\n     Winter was crowned with flowers and trod on verdure;\n     Man, the world's king, had nothing else to do\n     Than contemplate his utter worthlessness,\n     And, formed for action, took delight in sloth, etc.\n\nHorace combats this prejudice with equal force and address in his fine\nepistle to Augustus. \"Must our poems, then,\" says he, \"be like our\nwines, of which the oldest are always preferred?\" He afterward says:\n\n     _Indignor quidquam reprehendi, non quia crasse_\n     _Compositum illepideve putetur, sed quia nuper;_\n     _Nec veniam antiquis, sed honorem et pr\u00e6mia posci._\n            *       *       *       *       *\n     _Ingeniis non ille favet plauditque sepultis,_\n     _Nostra sed impugnat, nos nostraque lividus odit._\n\n     I feel my honest indignation rise,\n     When, with affected air, a coxcomb cries:\n     \"The work, I own, has elegance and ease,\n     But sure no modern should presume to please\";\n     Thus for his favorite ancients dares to claim,\n     Not pardon only, but rewards and fame.\n            *       *       *       *       *\n     Not to the illustrious dead his homage pays,\n     But envious robs the living of their praise.--FRANCIS.\n\nOn this subject the learned and ingenious Fontenelle expresses himself\nthus:\n\n\"The whole of the question of pre-eminence between the ancients and\nmoderns, being once well understood, reduces itself to this: Were the\ntrees which formerly grew in the country larger than those of the\npresent day? If they were, Homer, Plato, and Demosthenes cannot be\nequalled in these latter ages; but if our trees are as large as those of\nformer times, then can we equal Homer, Plato, and Demosthenes.\n\n\"But to clear up the paradox: If the ancients had stronger minds than\nourselves, it must have been that the brains of those times were better\ndisposed, were formed of firmer or more delicate fibres, or contained a\nlarger portion of animal spirits. But how should the brains of those\ntimes have been better disposed? Had such been the case, the leaves\nwould likewise have been larger and more beautiful; for if nature was\nthen more youthful and vigorous, the trees, as well as the brains of\nmen, would have borne testimony to that youth and vigor.\"\n\nWith our illustrious academician's leave, this is by no means the state\nof the question. It is not asked whether nature can at the present day\nproduce as great geniuses, and as good works, as those of Greek and\nLatin antiquity, but whether we really have such. It is doubtless\npossible that there are oaks in the forest of Chantilly as large as\nthose of Dodona; but supposing that the oaks of Dodona could talk, it is\nquite clear that they had a great advantage over ours, which, it is\nprobable, will never talk.\n\nLa Motte, a man of wit and talent, who has merited applause in more than\none kind of writing, has, in an ode full of happy lines, taken the part\nof the moderns. We give one of his stanzas:\n\n     _Et pourquoi veut-on que j'encense_\n     _Ces pr\u00e9tendus Dieux dont je sors?_\n     _En moi la m\u00eame intelligence_\n     _Fait mouvoir les m\u00eames ressorts._\n     _Croit-on la nature bizarre,_\n     _Pour nous aujourd'hui plus avare_\n     _Que pour les Grecs et les Romains?_\n     _De nos a\u00een\u00e9s mere idol\u00e2tre,_\n     _N'est-elle plus que la mar\u00e2tre_\n     _Dure et grossi\u00e8re des humains?_\n\n     And pray, why must I bend the knee\n     To these pretended Gods of ours?\n     The same intelligence in me\n     Gives vigor to the self-same powers.\n     Think ye that nature is capricious,\n     Or towards us more avaricious\n     Than to our Greek and Roman sires--\n     To them an idolizing mother,\n     While in their children she would smother\n     The sparks of intellectual fires?\n\nHe might be answered thus: _Esteem_ your ancestors, without _adoring_\nthem. You have intelligence and powers of invention, as Virgil and\nHorace had; but perhaps it is not absolutely the same intelligence.\nPerhaps their talents were superior to--yours; they exercised them, too,\nin a language richer and more harmonious than our modern tongues, which\nare a mixture of corrupted Latin, with the horrible jargon of the Celts.\n\nNature is not capricious; but it is possible that she had given the\nAthenians a soil and sky better adapted than Westphalia and the Limousin\nto the formation of geniuses of a certain order. It is also likely that,\nthe government of Athens, seconding the favorable climate, put ideas\ninto the head of Demosthenes which the air of Clamar and La Grenouillere\ncombined with the government of Cardinal de Richelieu, did _not_ put\ninto the heads of Omer Talon and Jerome Bignon.\n\nSome one answered La Motte's lines by the following:\n\n     _Cher la Motte, imite et rev\u00e8re_\n     _Ces Dieux dont tu ne descends pas;_\n     _Si tu crois qu'Horace est ton p\u00e8re,_\n     _Il a fait des enfans ingrats._\n     _La nature n'est point bizarre;_\n     _Pour Danchet elle est fort avare,_\n     _Mais Racine en fut bien trait\u00e9;_\n     _Tibulle \u00e9tait guide par elle,_\n     _Mais pour notre ami La Chapelle,_\n     _H\u00e9las! qu'elle a peu de bont\u00e9!_\n\n     Revere and imitate, La Motte,\n     Those Gods from whom thou'rt _not_ descended;\n     If thou by Horace _wert_ begot,\n     His children's manners might be mended.\n     Nature is not at all capricious;\n     To Danchet she is avaricious,\n     But she was liberal to Racine;\n     She used Tibullus very well,\n     Though to our good friend La Chapelle,\n     Alas! she is extremely mean!\n\nThis dispute, then, resolves itself into a question of fact. Was\nantiquity more fertile in great monuments of genius of every kind, down\nto the time of Plutarch, than modern ages have been, from that of the\nhouse of Medicis to that of Louis XIV., inclusively?\n\nThe Chinese, more than two hundred years before our Christian era, built\ntheir great wall, which could not save them from invasion by the\nTartars. The Egyptians had, four thousand years before, burdened the\nearth with their astonishing pyramids, the bases of which covered ninety\nthousand square feet. No one doubts that, if it were thought advisable\nto undertake such useless works at the present day, they might be\naccomplished by lavishing plenty of money. The great wall of China is a\nmonument of fear; the pyramids of Egypt are monuments of vanity and\nsuperstition; both testify the great patience of the two people, but no\nsuperior genius. Neither the Chinese nor the Egyptians could have made\na single statue like those formed by our living sculptors.\n\nSir William Temple, who made a point of degrading the moderns, asserts\nthat they have nothing in architecture that can be compared to the\ntemples of Greece and Rome; but, Englishman as he was, he should have\nadmitted that St. Peter's at Rome is incomparably more beautiful than\nthe capitol.\n\nThere is something curious in the assurance with which he asserts that\nthere is nothing new in our astronomy, nor in our knowledge of the human\nbody, _except_, says he, _it be the circulation of the blood._ The love\nof his opinion, founded on his extreme self-love, makes him forget the\ndiscovery of Jupiter's satellites, of Saturn's five moons and ring, of\nthe sun's rotation on his axis, the calculation of the positions of\nthree thousand stars, the development by Kepler and Newton of the law by\nwhich the heavenly bodies are governed, and the knowledge of a thousand\nother things of which the ancients did not even suspect the possibility.\nThe discoveries in anatomy have been no less numerous. A new universe in\nminiature, discovered by the microscope, went as nothing with Sir\nWilliam Temple; he closed his eyes to the wonders of his contemporaries,\nand opened them only to admire ancient ignorance.\n\nHe even goes so far as to regret that we have nothing left of the magic\nof the Indians, Chald\u00e6ans, and Egyptians. By this magic, he understands\na profound knowledge of nature, which enabled them to work miracles--of\nwhich, however, he does not mention one, because the truth is that they\nnever worked any. \"What,\" says he, \"has become of the charms of that\nmusic which so often enchanted men and beasts, fishes, birds, and\nserpents, and even changed their nature?\" This enemy to his own times\nbelieved implicitly in the fable of \"Orpheus,\" and, it should seem, had\nnever heard of the fine music of Italy, nor even of that of France,\nwhich _do not_ charm serpents, it is true, but which _do_ charm the ears\nof the connoisseur.\n\nIt is still more strange that, having all his life cultivated the\nbelles-lettres, he reasons no better on our good authors than on our\nphilosophers. He considers Rabelais a great man, and speaks of _\"les\nAmours des Gaules\"_ (\"The Loves of the Gauls\"), as one of his best\nworks. He was, nevertheless, a learned man, a courtier, a man of\nconsiderable wit, and an ambassador, who had made profound reflections\non all that he had seen; he possessed great knowledge; one prejudice\nsufficed to render all this merit unavailing.\n\nBoileau and Racine, when writing in favor of the ancients against\nPerrault, showed more address than Sir William Temple. They knew better\nthan to touch on astronomy and physical science. Boikau seeks only to\nvindicate Homer against Perrault, at the same time gliding adroitly over\nthe faults of the Greek poet, and the slumber with which Horace\nreproaches him. He strove to turn Perrault, the enemy of Homer, into\nridicule. Wherever Perrault misunderstands a passage, or renders\ninaccurately a passage which he understands, Boileau, seizing this\nlittle advantage, falls upon him like a redoubtable enemy, and beats him\nas an ignoramus--a dull writer. But it is not at all improbable that\nPerrault, though often mistaken, was frequently right in his remarks on\nthe contradictions, the repetitions, the uniformity of the combats, the\nlong harangues in the midst of them, the indecent and inconsistent\nconduct of the gods in the poem--in short, on all the errors into which\nthis great poet is asserted to have fallen. In a word, Boileau ridicules\nPerrault much more than he justifies Homer.\n\nRacine used the same artifice, for he was at least as malignant as\nBoileau. Although he did not, like the latter, make his fortune by\nsatire, he enjoyed the pleasure of confounding his enemies on the\noccasion of a small and very pardonable mistake into which they had\nfallen respecting Euripides, and, at the same time, of feeling much\nsuperior to Euripides himself. He rallies the same Perrault and his\npartisans upon their critique on the Alceste of Euripides, because these\ngentlemen had unfortunately been deceived by a faulty edition of\nEuripides, and had taken some replies of Admetus for those of Alceste;\nbut Euripides does not the less appear in all countries to have done\nvery wrong in making Admetus use such extraordinary language to his\nfather, whom he violently reproaches for not having died for him:\n\n\"How!\" replies the king, his father; \"whom, pray, are you addressing so\nhaughtily? Some Lydian or Phrygian slave? Know you not that I am free,\nand a Thessalian? (Fine language, truly, for a king and a father!) You\ninsult me as if I were the meanest of men. Where is the law which says\nfathers must die for their children? Each for himself here below. I have\nfulfilled all my obligations toward you. In what, then, do I wrong you?\nDo I ask you to die for me? The light is dear to you; is it less so to\nme? You accuse me of cowardice! Coward that you yourself are! You were\nnot ashamed to urge your wife to save you, by dying for you. After this,\ndoes it become you to treat as cowards those who refuse to do for you\nwhat you have not the courage to do yourself? Believe me, you ought\nrather to be silent. You love life; others love it no less. Be assured\nthat if you continue to abuse me, you shall have reproaches, and not\nfalse ones, in return.\"\n\nHe is here interrupted by the chorus, with: \"Enough! Too much on both\nsides! Old man, cease this ill language toward your son.\"\n\nOne would think that the chorus should rather give the son a severe\nreprimand for speaking in so brutal a manner to his father.\n\nAll the rest of the scene is in the same style:\n\n_Pheres (to his son)._--Thou speakest against thy father, without his\nhaving injured thee.\n\n_Admetus._--Oh! I am well aware that you wish to live as long as\npossible.\n\n_Pheres._--And art thou not carrying to the tomb her who died for thee?\n\n_Admetus._--Ah! most infamous of men! 'Tis the proof of thy cowardice!\n\n_Pheres._--At least, thou canst not say she died for me.\n\n_Admetus._--Would to heaven that thou wert in a situation to need my\nassistance!\n\n_Pheres._--Thou wouldst do better to think of marrying several wives,\nwho may die that thy life may be lengthened.\n\nAfter this scene a domestic comes and talks to himself about the arrival\nof Hercules.\n\n\"A stranger,\" says he, \"opens the door of his own accord; places himself\nwithout more ado at table; is angry because he is not served quick\nenough; fills his cup every moment with wine, and drinks long draughts\nof red and of white; constantly singing, or rather howling, bad songs,\nwithout giving himself any concern about the king and his wife, for whom\nwe are mourning. He is, doubtless, some cunning rogue, some vagabond, or\nassassin.\"\n\nIt seems somewhat strange that Hercules should be taken for a _cunning\nrogue_, and no less so that Hercules, the friend of Admetus, should be\nunknown to the household. It is still more extraordinary that Hercules\nshould be ignorant of Alceste's death, at the very time when they were\ncarrying her to her tomb.\n\nTastes must not be disputed, but such scenes as these would, assuredly,\nnot be tolerated at one of our country fairs.\n\nBrumoy, who has given us the _Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des Grecs_ (Greek Theatre), but\nhas not translated Euripides with scrupulous fidelity, does all he can\nto justify the scene of Admetus and his father: the argument he makes\nuse of is rather singular.\n\nFirst, he says, that \"there was nothing offensive to the Greeks in these\nthings which we regard as horrible and indecent, therefore it must be\nadmitted that they were not exactly what we take them to have been, in\nshort, ideas have changed.\" To this it may be answered that the ideas of\npolished nations on the respect due from children to their fathers have\nnever changed. He adds, \"Who can doubt that in different ages ideas have\nchanged relative to points of morality of still greater importance?\" We\nanswer, that there are scarcely any points of greater importance.\n\n\"A Frenchman,\" continues he, \"is insulted; the pretended good sense of\nthe French obliges him to run the risk of a duel, and to kill or be\nkilled, in order to recover his honor.\" We answer, that it is not the\npretended good sense of the French alone, but of all the nations of\nEurope without exception. He proceeds:\n\n\"The world in general cannot be fully sensible how ridiculous this maxim\nwill appear two thousand years hence, nor how it would have been scoffed\nat in the time of Euripides.\" This maxim is cruel and fatal, but it is\nnot _ridiculous_; nor would it have been in any way scoffed at in the\ntime of Euripides. There were many instances of duels among the\nAsiatics. In the very commencement of the first book of the \"Iliad,\" we\nsee Achilles half unsheathing his sword, and ready to fight Agamemnon,\nhad not Minerva taken him by the hair and made him desist.\n\nPlutarch relates that Heph\u00e6stion and Craterus were fighting a duel, but\nwere separated by Alexander. Quintus Curtius tells us that two other of\nAlexander's officers fought a duel in the presence of Alexander, one of\nthem armed at all points, the other, who was a wrestler, supplied only\nwith a staff, and that the latter overcame his adversary. Besides, what\nhas duelling to do with Admetus and his father Pheres, reproaching each\nother by turns, with having too great a love for life, and with being\ncowards?\n\nI shall give only this one instance of the blindness of translators and\ncommentators; for if Brumoy, the most impartial of all, has fallen into\nsuch errors, what are we to expect from others? I would, however, ask\nthe Brumoys and the Daciers, if they find much _salt_in the language\nwhich Euripides puts into the mouth of Polyphemus: \"I fear not the\nthunder of Jupiter; I know not that Jupiter is a prouder or a stronger\ngod than myself; I care very little about him. If he sends down rain, I\nshut myself up in my cavern; there I eat a roasted calf or some wild\nanimal, after which I lie down all my length, drink off a great potful\nof milk, and send forth a certain noise, which is as good as his\nthunder.\"\n\nThe schoolmen cannot have very fine noses if they are not disgusted with\nthe noise which Polyphemus makes when he has eaten heartily.\n\nThey say that the Athenian pit laughed at this pleasantry, and that the\nAthenians never laughed at anything stupid. So the whole populace of\nAthens had more wit than the court of Louis XIV., and the populace are\nnot the same everywhere!\n\nNevertheless, Euripides has beauties, and Sophocles still more; but they\nhave much greater defects. We may venture to say that the fine scenes of\nCorneille and the affecting tragedies of Racine are as much superior to\nthe tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides, as these two Greeks were to\nThespis. Racine was quite sensible of his great superiority over\nEuripides, but he praised the Greek poet for the sake of humbling\nPerrault.\n\nMoli\u00e8re, in his best pieces, is as superior to the pure but cold\nTerence, and to the buffoon Aristophanes, as to the merry-andrew\nDancourt.\n\nThus there are things in which the moderns are superior to the ancients;\nand others, though very few, in which we are their inferiors. The whole\nof the dispute reduces itself to this fact.\n\n_Certain Comparisons between Celebrated Works._\n\nBoth taste and reason seem to require that we should, in an ancient as\nwell as in a modern, discriminate between the good and the bad that are\noften to be found in contact with each other.\n\nThe warmest admiration must be excited by that line of Corneille's,\nunequalled by any in Homer, in Sophocles, or in Euripides:\n\n     _Que vouliez-vous qu'il f\u00fbt contre trois?_--_Qu'il mour\u00fbt._\n     What could he do against three weapons?--Die.\n\nAnd, with equal justice, the line that follows will be condemned.\n\nThe man of taste, while he admires the sublime picture, the striking\ncontrasts of character and strong coloring in the last scene of\nRodogyne, will perceive how many faults, how many improbabilities, have\nprepared the way for this terrible situation--how much Rodogyne has\nbelied her character, and by what crooked ways it is necessary to pass\nto this great and tragical catastrophe.\n\nThe same equitable judge will not fail to do justice to the fine and\nartful contexture of Racine's tragedies, the only ones, perhaps, that\nhave been well wrought from the time of \u00c6schylus down to the age of\nLouis XIV. He will be touched by that continued elegance, that purity of\nlanguage, that truth of character, to be found in him only; by that\ngrandeur without bombast, that fidelity to nature which never wanders in\nvain declamations, sophistical disputes, false and far-fetched images,\noften expressed in solecisms or rhetorical pleadings, fitter for\nprovincial schools than for a tragedy. The same person will discover\nweakness and uniformity in some of Racine's characters; and in others,\ngallantry and sometimes even coquetry; he will find declarations of\nlove breathing more of the idyl and the elegy, than of a great dramatic\npassion; and will complain that more than one well-written piece has\nelegance to please, but not eloquence to move him. Just so will he judge\nof the ancients; not by their names--not by the age in which they\nlived--but by their works themselves.\n\nSuppose Timanthes the painter were at this day to come and present to\nus, by the side of the paintings in the _Palais Royal_, his picture in\nfour colors of the \"Sacrifice of Iphigenia,\" telling us that men of\njudgment in Greece had assured him that it was an admirable artifice to\nveil the face of Agamemnon, lest his grief should appear to equal that\nof Clytemnestra, and the tears of the father dishonor the majesty of the\nmonarch. He would find connoisseurs who would reply--it is a stroke of\ningenuity, but not of painting; a veil on the head of your principal\npersonage has a frightful effect; your art has failed you. Behold the\nmasterpiece of Rubens, who has succeeded in expressing in the\ncountenance of Mary of Medicis the pain attendant on childbirth--the\njoy, the smile, the tenderness--not with four colors, but with every\ntint of nature. If you wished that Agamemnon should partly conceal his\nface, you should have made him hide a portion of it by placing his hands\nover his eyes and forehead; and not with a veil, which is as\ndisagreeable to the eye, and as unpicturesque, as it is contrary to all\ncostume. You should then have shown some falling tears that the hero\nwould conceal, and have expressed in his muscles the convulsions of a\ngrief which he struggles to suppress; you should have painted in this\nattitude majesty and despair. You are a Greek, and Rubens is a Belgian;\nbut the Belgian bears away the palm.\n\n_On a Passage in Homer._\n\nA Florentine, a man of letters, of clear understanding and cultivated\ntaste, was one day in Lord Chesterfield's library, together with an\nOxford professor and a Scotchman, who was boasting of the poem of\nFingal, composed, said he, in the Gaelic tongue, which is still partly\nthat of Lower Brittany. \"Ah!\" exclaimed he, \"how fine is antiquity; the\npoem of Fingal has passed from mouth to mouth for nearly two thousand\nyears, down to us, without any alteration. Such power has real beauty\nover the minds of men!\" He then read to the company the commencement of\nFingal:\n\n\"Cuthullin sat by Tara's wall; by the tree of the rustling sound. His\nspear leaned against a rock. His shield lay on the grass by his side.\nAmid his thoughts of mighty Carbar, a hero slain by the chief in war,\nthe scout of ocean comes, Moran, the son of Fithil!\n\n\"'Arise,' says the youth, 'Cuthullin, arise! I see the ships of the\nnorth! many, chief of men, are the foe; many the heroes of the sea-born\nSwaran!' 'Moran,' replied the blue-eyed chief, 'thou ever tremblest, son\nof Fithil! thy fears have increased the foe. It is Fingal, king of\ndeserts, with aid to green Erin of streams.' 'I beheld their chief,'\nsays Moran, 'tall as a glittering rock. His spear is a blasted pine. His\nshield the rising moon! He sat on the shore, like a cloud of mist on the\nsilent hill!'\" etc.\n\n\"That,\" said the Oxford professor, \"is the true style of Homer; but what\npleases me still more is that I find in it the sublime eloquence of the\nHebrews. I could fancy myself to be reading passages such as these from\nthose fine canticles:\n\n\"'Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in\npieces like a potter's vessel. Thou hast broken the teeth of the\nungodly. Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundation also of the\nhills moved and were shaken because he was wroth. The Lord also\nthundered in the heavens; and the Highest gave His voice hailstones and\ncoals of fire. In them hath He set a tabernacle for the sun. Which is as\na bridegroom coming out of his chamber.\n\n\"'Break their teeth in their mouth, O God; break the great teeth of the\nyoung lions, O Lord. Let them pass away as waters that run continually;\nwhen he bendeth his bow to shoot his arrows, let them be as cut in\npieces. As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away, like\nthe untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. Before\nyour pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them away as in a\nwhirlwind, both living, and in his wrath.\n\n\"'They return at evening; they make a noise like a dog. But Thou, O\nLord, shalt laugh at them; Thou shalt have all the heathen in derision.\nConsume them in wrath; consume them that they may not be.\n\n\"'The hill of God is as the hill of Bashan, a high hill as the hill of\nBashan. Why leap ye, ye high hills? The Lord said I will bring again\nfrom Bashan, I will bring up my people again from the depths of the sea;\nthat thy feet may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the\ntongue of thy dogs in the same.\n\n\"'Open thy mouth wide and I will fill it. O my God, make them like a\nwheel; as the stubble before the wind. As the fire burneth the wood, and\nas the flame setteth the mountains on fire; so persecute them with Thy\ntempest and make them afraid with Thy storm.\n\n\"'He shall judge among the heathen; he shall fill the places with dead\nbodies; He shall wound the heads over many countries. Happy shall he be\nthat taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones,'\" etc.\n\nThe Florentine, having listened with great attention to the verses of\nthe canticles recited by the doctor, as well as to the first lines of\nFingal bellowed forth by the Scotchman, confessed that he was not\ngreatly moved by all these Eastern figures, and that he liked the noble\nsimplicity of Virgil's style much better.\n\nAt these words the Scotchman turned pale with wrath, the Oxonian\nshrugged his shoulders with pity, but Lord Chesterfield encouraged the\nFlorentine by a smile of approbation.\n\nThe Florentine, becoming warm and finding himself supported, said to\nthem: \"Gentlemen, nothing is more easy than to do violence to nature;\nnothing more difficult than to imitate her. I know something of those\nwhom we in Italy call _improvisatori_; and I could speak in this\noriental style for eight hours together without the least effort, for it\nrequires none to be bombastic in negligent verse, overloaded with\nepithets almost continually repeated, to heap combat upon combat, and to\ndescribe chimeras.\"\n\n\"What!\" said the professor, \"_you_ make an epic poem _impromptu_!\" \"Not\na rational epic poem in correct verse, like Virgil,\" replied the\nItalian, \"but a poem in which I would abandon myself to the current of\nmy ideas, and not take the trouble to arrange them.\"\n\n\"I defy you to do it,\" said the Scotchman and the Oxford graduate at\nonce. \"Well,\" returned the Florentine, \"give me a subject.\" Lord\nChesterfield gave him as a subject the Black Prince, the conqueror of\nPoictiers, granting peace after the victory.\n\nThe Italian collected himself and thus began:\n\n\"Muse of Albion, genius that presidest over heroes, come sing with\nme--not the idle rage of men implacable alike to friends and foes--not\nthe deeds of heroes whom the gods have favored in turn, without any\nreason for so favoring them--not the siege of a town which is not\ntaken--not the extravagant exploits of the fabulous Fingal, but the real\nvictories of a hero modest as brave, who led kings captive and respected\nhis vanquished enemies.\n\n\"George, the Mars of England, had descended from on high on that\nimmortal charger before which the proudest coursers of Limousin flee as\nthe bleating sheep and the tender lambs crowd into the fold at the sight\nof a terrible wolf issuing from the forest with fiery eyes, with hair\nerect and foaming mouth, threatening the flock and the shepherd with the\nfury of his murderous jaws.\n\n\"Martin, the famed protector of them who dwell in fruitful Touraine,\nGenevieve, the mild divinity of them who drink the waters of the Seine\nand the Marne, Denis, who bore his head under his arm in the sight of\nman and of immortals, trembled as they saw George proudly traversing the\nvast fields of air. On his head was a golden helmet, glittering with\ndiamonds that once paved the squares of the heavenly Jerusalem, when it\nappeared to mortals during forty diurnal revolutions of the great\nluminary and his inconstant sister, who with her mild radiance\nenlightens the darkness of night.\n\n\"In his hand is the terrible and sacred lance with which, in the first\ndays of the world, the demi-god Michael, who executes the vengeance of\nthe Most High, overthrew the eternal enemy of the world and the\nCreator. The most beautiful of the plumage of the angels that stand\nabout the throne, plucked from their immortal backs, waved over his\ncasque; and around it hovered Terror, destroying War, unpitying Revenge,\nand Death, the terminator of man's calamities. He came like a comet in\nits rapid course, darting through the orbits of the wondering planets,\nand leaving far behind its rays, pale and terrible, announcing to weak\nmortals the fall of kings and nations.\n\n\"He alighted on the banks of the Charente, and the sound of his immortal\narms was echoed from the spheres of Jupiter and Saturn. Two strides\nbrought him to the spot where the son of the magnanimous Edward waited\nfor the son of the intrepid de Valois,\" etc.\n\nThe Florentine continued in this strain for more than a quarter of an\nhour. The words fell from his lips, as Homer says, more thickly and\nabundantly than the snows descend in winter; but his words were not\ncold; they were rather like the rapid sparks escaping from the furnace\nwhen the Cyclops forge the bolts of Jove on resounding anvil.\n\nHis two antagonists were at last obliged to silence him, by\nacknowledging that it was easier than they had thought it was, to string\ntogether gigantic images, and call in the aid of heaven, earth and hell;\nbut they maintained that to unite the tender and moving with the sublime\nwas the perfection of the art.\n\n\"For example,\" said the Oxonian, \"can anything be more moral, and at the\nsame time more voluptuous, than to see Jupiter reposing with his wife on\nMount Ida?\"\n\nHis lordship then spoke: \"Gentlemen,\" said he, \"I ask your pardon for\nmeddling in the dispute. Perhaps to the Greeks there was something very\ninteresting in a god's lying with his wife upon a mountain; for my own\npart, I see nothing in it refined or attractive. I will agree with you\nthat the handkerchief, which commentators and imitators have been\npleased to call _the girdle of Venus_, is a charming figure; but I never\nunderstood that it was a soporific, nor how Juno could receive the\ncaresses of the master of the gods for the purpose of putting him to\nsleep. A queer god, truly, to fall asleep so soon! I can swear that,\nwhen I was young, I was not so drowsy. It may, for aught I know, be\nnoble, pleasing, interesting, witty, and decorous to make Juno say to\nJupiter, 'If you are determined to embrace me, let us go to your\napartment in heaven, which is the work of Vulcan, and the door of which\ncloses so well that none of the gods can enter.\"\n\n\"I am equally at a loss to understand how the god of sleep, whom Juno\nprays to close the eyes of Jupiter, can be so brisk a divinity. He\narrives in a moment from the isles of Lemnos and Imbros; there is\nsomething fine in coming from two islands at once. He then mounts a pine\nand, is instantly among the Greek ships; he seeks Neptune, finds him,\nconjures him to give the victory to the Greeks, and returns with a\nrapid flight to Lemnos. I know of nothing so nimble as this god of\nsleep.\n\n\"In short, if in an epic poem there must be amorous matters, I own that\nI incomparably prefer the assignations of Alcina with Rogero, and of\nArmida with Rinaldo. Come, my dear Florentine, read me those two\nadmirable cantos of Ariosto and Tasso.\"\n\nThe Florentine readily obeyed, and his lordship was enchanted; during\nwhich time the Scotchman reperused Fingal, the Oxford professor\nreperused Homer; and every one was content. It was at last agreed that\nhappy is he who is sensible to the merits of the ancients and the\nmoderns, appreciates their beauties, knows their faults and pardons\nthem.\n\n\n\n\nANECDOTES.\n\n\nIf Suetonius could be confronted with the valets-de-chambre of the\ntwelve C\u00e6sars, think you that they would in every instance corroborate\nhis testimony? And in case of dispute, who would not back the\nvalets-de-chambre against the historian?\n\nIn our own times, how many books are founded on nothing more than the\ntalk of the town?--just as the science of physics was founded on\nchimeras which have been repeated from age to age to the present time.\nThose who take the trouble of noting down at night what they have heard\nin the day, should, like St. Augustine, write a book of retractions at\nthe end of the year.\n\nSome one related to the _grand-audiencier_ l'\u00c9toile that Henry IV.,\nhunting near Cr\u00e9teil, went alone into an inn where some Parisian lawyers\nwere dining in an upper room. The king, without making himself known,\nsent the hostess to ask them if they would admit him at their table or\nsell him a part of their dinner. They sent him for answer that they had\nprivate business to talk of and had but a short dinner; they therefore\nbegged that the stranger would excuse them.\n\nHenry called his guards and had the guests outrageously beaten, to teach\nthem, says de l'\u00c9toile, to show more courtesy to gentlemen. Some authors\nof the present day, who have taken upon them to write the life of Henry\nIV., copy this anecdote from de l'\u00c9toile without examination, and, which\nis worse, fail not to praise it as a fine action in Henry. The thing is,\nhowever, neither true nor likely; and were it true, Henry would have\nbeen guilty of an act at once the most ridiculous, the most cowardly,\nthe most tyrannical, and the most imprudent.\n\nFirst, it is not likely that, in 1502, Henry IV., whose physiognomy was\nso remarkable, and who showed himself to everybody with so much\naffability, was unknown at Cr\u00e9teil near Paris. Secondly, de l'\u00c9toile,\nfar from verifying his impertinent story, says he had it from a man who\nhad it from M. de Vitri; so that it is nothing more than an idle rumor.\nThirdly, it would have been cowardly and hateful to inflict a shameful\npunishment on citizens assembled together on business, who certainly\ncommitted no crime in refusing to share their dinner with a stranger\n(and, it must be admitted, with an indiscreet one) who could easily find\nsomething to eat in the same house. Fourthly, this action, so\ntyrannical, so unworthy not only of a king but of a man, so liable to\npunishment by the laws of every country, would have been as imprudent as\nridiculous and criminal; it would have drawn upon Henry IV. the\nexecrations of the whole commonalty of Paris, whose good opinion was\nthen of so much importance to him.\n\nHistory, then, should not have been disfigured by so stupid a story, nor\nshould the character of Henry IV. have been dishonored by so impertinent\nan anecdote.\n\nIn a book entitled _\"Anecdotes Litt\u00e9raires\"_, printed by Durand in 1752,\n_avec privil\u00e9ge_, there appears the following passage (vol. iii, page\n183): \"The Amours of Louis XIV., having been dramatized in England, that\nprince wished to have those of King William performed in France. The\nAbb\u00e9 Brueys was directed by M. de Torcy to compose the piece; but though\napplauded, it was never played, for the subject of it died in the\nmeantime.\"\n\nThere are almost as many absurd lies as there are words in these few\nlines. The Amours of Louis XIV. were never played on the London stage.\nLouis XIV. never lowered himself so far as to order a farce to be\nwritten on the amours of King William. King William never had a\nmistress; no one accused him of weakness of that sort. The Marquis de\nTorcy never spoke to the Abb\u00e9 Brueys; he was incapable of making to the\nabb\u00e9, or any one else, so indiscreet and childish a proposal. The Abb\u00e9\nBrueys never wrote the piece in question. So much for the faith to be\nplaced in anecdotes.\n\nThe same book says that \"Louis XIV. was so much pleased with the opera\nof _Isis_ that he ordered a decree to be passed in council by which men\nof rank were permitted to sing at the opera, and receive a salary for so\ndoing, without demeaning themselves. This decree was registered in the\nParliament of Paris.\"\n\nNo such declaration was ever registered in the Parliament of Paris. It\nis true that Lulli obtained in 1672, long before the opera of _Isis_ was\nperformed, letters permitting him to establish his opera, in which\nletters he got it inserted that \"ladies and gentlemen might sing in this\ntheatre without degradation.\" But no declaration was ever registered.\n\nOf all the _anas_, that which deserves to stand foremost in the ranks of\nprinted falsehood is the _Segraisiana_: It was compiled by the\namanuensis of Segrais, one of his domestics, and was printed long after\nthe master's death. The _Menagiana_, revised by La Monnoye, is the only\none that contains anything instructive. Nothing is more common than to\nfind in our new miscellanies old _bons mots_ attributed to our\ncontemporaries, or inscriptions and epigrams written on certain\nprinces, applied to others.\n\nWe are told in the _\"Histoire Philosophique et Politique du Commerce\ndans les deux Indes\"_ (the Philosophical and Political History of the\nCommerce of the two Indies), that the Dutch, having driven the\nPortuguese from Malacca, the Dutch captain asked the Portuguese\ncommander when he should return; to which he replied: _\"When your sins\nare greater than ours.\"_ This answer had before been attributed to an\nEnglishman in the time of Charles VII. of France, and before them to a\nSaracen emir in Sicily; after all, it is the answer rather of a Capuchin\nthan of a politician; it was not because the French were greater sinners\nthan the English that the latter deprived them of Canada.\n\nThe author of this same history relates, in a serious manner, a little\nstory invented by Steele, and inserted in the _Spectator_; and would\nmake it pass for one of the real causes of war between the English and\nthe savages. The tale which Steele opposes to the much pleasanter story\nof the widow of Ephesus, is as follows and is designed to prove that men\nare not more constant than women; but in Petronius the Ephesian matron\nexhibits only an amusing and pardonable weakness; while the merchant\nInkle, in the _Spectator_, is guilty of the most frightful ingratitude:\n\"This young traveller Inkle is on the point of being taken by the\nCaribbees on the continent of America, without it being said at what\nplace or on what occasion. Yarico, a pretty Caribbee, saves his life,\nand at length flies with him to Barbadoes. As soon as they arrive, Inkle\ngoes and sells his benefactress in the slave market. 'Ungrateful and\nbarbarous man!' says Yarico, 'wilt thou sell me, when I am with child by\nthee?' 'With child!' replied the English merchant, 'so much the better;\nI shall get more for thee!'\" And this is given us as a true story and as\nthe origin of a long war.\n\nThe speech of a woman of Boston to her judges, who condemned her to the\nhouse of correction for the fifth time for having brought to bed a fifth\nchild, was a pleasantry of the illustrious Franklin; yet it is related\nin the same work as an authentic occurrence. How many tales have\nembellished and disfigured every history?\n\nAn author, who has thought more correctly than he has quoted, asserts\nthat the following epitaph was made for Cromwell:\n\n     _Ci-g\u00eet le destructeur d'un pouvoir l\u00e9gitime,_\n       _Jusqu' \u00e0 son dernier jour favoris\u00e9 des cieux,_\n       _Dont les vertus m\u00e9ritaient mieux_\n     _Que le sceptre acquis par un crime._\n\n     _Par quel destin faut-il, par quel \u00e9trange loi_\n       _Qu' \u00e0 tous ceux qui sont n\u00e9s pour porter la couronne_\n       _Ce soil l'Usurpateur qui donne_\n     _L'exemple des vertus que doit avoir un Roi?_\n\n     Here lies the man who trod on rightful power,\n     Favored by heaven to his latest hour;\n     Whose virtues merited a nobler fate\n     Than that of ruling criminally great.\n\n     What wondrous destiny can so ordain,\n     That among all whose fortune is to reign,\n     The _usurper_ only to his sceptre brings\n     The virtues vainly sought in _lawful kings_.\n\nThese verses were never made for Cromwell, but for King William. They\nare not an epitaph, but were written under a portrait of that monarch.\nInstead of _Ci-g\u00eet_ (Here lies) it was:\n\n     _Tel fut le destructeur d'un pouvoir l\u00e9gitime._\n     _Such was_ the man who trod on rightful power.\n\nNo one in France was ever so stupid as to say that Cromwell had ever set\nan example of virtue. It is granted that he had valor and genius; but\nthe title of virtuous was not his due. A thousand stories--a thousand\n_facetic\u00e6_--have been travelling about the world for the last thirty\ncenturies. Our books are stuffed with maxims which come forth as new,\nbut are to be found in Plutarch, in Athen\u00e6us, in Seneca, in Plautus, in\nall the ancients.\n\nThese are only mistakes, as innocent as they are common; but wilful\nfalsehoods--historical lies which attack the glory of princes and the\nreputation of private individuals--are serious offences. Of all the\nbooks that are swelled with false anecdotes, that in which the most\nabsurd and impudent lies are crowded together, is the pretended\n_\"M\u00e9moires de Madame de Maintenon\"_. The foundation of it was true: the\nauthor had several of that lady's letters, which had been communicated\nto him by a person of consequence at St. Cyr; but this small quantity of\ntruth is lost in a romance of seven volumes.\n\nIn this work the author shows us Louis XIV. supplanted by one of his\nvalets-de-chambre. It supposes letters from Mdlle. Mancini (afterwards\nMadame Colonne) to Louis XIV., in one of which he makes this niece of\nCardinal Mazarin say to the king: \"You obey a priest--you are unworthy\nof me if you submit to serve another. I love you as I love the light of\nheaven, but I love your glory still better.\" Most certainly the author\nhad not the original of this letter.\n\n[Illustration: Louis at Mdlle de la Valli\u00e8re's feet.]\n\n\"Mdlle. de la Valli\u00e8re,\" he says, in another place, \"had thrown herself\non a sofa in a light dishabille, her thoughts employed on her lover.\nOften did the dawn of day find her still seated in a chair, her arm\nresting on a table, her eye fixed, her soul constantly attached to the\nsame object, in the ecstasy of love. The king alone occupied her mind;\nperhaps at that moment she was inwardly complaining of the vigilance of\nthe spies of Henriette, or the severity of the queen-mother. A slight\nnoise aroused her from her reverie--she shrunk back with surprise and\ndread; Louis was at her feet--she would have fled--he stopped her; she\nthreatened--he pacified; she wept--he wiped away her tears.\" Such a\ndescription would not now be tolerated in one of our most insipid\nnovels.\n\nDu Haillan asserts, in one of his small works, that Charles VIII. was\nnot the son of Louis XI. This would account for Louis having neglected\nhis education and always keeping him at a distance. Charles VIII. did\nnot resemble Louis XI. either in body or in mind; but dissimilarity\nbetween fathers and their children is still less a proof of illegitimacy\nthan resemblance is a proof of the contrary. That Louis XI. hated\nCharles VIII. brings us to no conclusion; so bad a son might well be a\nbad father. Though ten Du Haillans should tell me that Charles VIII.\nsprung from some other than Louis XI., I should not believe him\nimplicitly. I think a prudent reader should pronounce as the judges\ndo--_Pater est is quern nupti\u00e6 demonstrant._\n\nDid Charles V. intrigue with his sister Margaret, who governed the Low\nCountries? Was it by her that he had Don John of Austria, the intrepid\nbrother of the prudent Philip II.? We have no more proof of this than we\nhave of the secrets of Charlemagne's bed, who is said to have made free\nwith all his daughters. If the Holy Scriptures did not assure me that\nLot's daughters had children by their own father, and Tamar by her\nfather-in-law, I should hesitate to accuse them of it; one cannot be too\ndiscreet.\n\nIt has been written that the Duchess de Montpensier bestowed her favors\non the monk Jacques Clement, in order to encourage him to assassinate\nhis sovereign. It would have been more politic to have _promised_ them\nthan to have _given_ them. But a fanatical or parricide priest is not\nincited in this way; _heaven_ is held out to him, and not a woman. His\nPrior Bourgoing had much greater power in determining him to any act\nthan the greatest beauty upon earth. When he killed the king he had in\nhis pocket no love-letters, but the stories of Judith and Ehud, quite\ndog-eared and worn out with thumbing.\n\nJean Ch\u00e2tel and Ravaillac had no accomplices; their crime was that of\nthe age; their only accomplice was the cry of _religion_. It has been\nrepeatedly asserted that Ravaillac had taken a journey to Naples and\nthat the Jesuit Alagona had, in Naples, predicted the death of the king.\nThe Jesuits never were prophets; had they been so, they would have\nforetold their own destination; but, on the contrary, they, poor men,\nalways positively declared that they should endure to the end of time.\nWe should never be too sure of anything.\n\nIt is in vain that the Jesuit Daniel tells me, in his very dry and very\ndefective \"History of France,\" that Henry IV. was a Catholic long before\nhis abjuration. I will rather believe Henry IV. himself than the Jesuit\nDaniel. His letter to _La Belle Gabrielle: \"C'est demain que je fais le\nsaut p\u00e9rilleux\"_ (To-morrow I take the fatal leap) proves, at least,\nthat something different from Catholicism was still in his heart. Had\nhis great soul been long penetrated by the efficacy of grace, he would\nperhaps have said to his mistress: \"These bishops _edify_ me;\" but he\nsays: _\"Ces gens-l\u00e0 m'ennuient.\"_ (These people _weary_ me.) Are these\nthe words of a great catechumen?\n\nThis great man's letters to Corisande d'Andouin, Countess of Grammont,\nare not a matter of doubt; they still exist in the originals. The author\nof the _\"Essai sur les M\u0153urs et l'Esprit des Nations\"_ (Essay on the\nManners and Spirit of Nations) gives several of these interesting\nletters, in which there are the following curious passages: _\"Tous ces\nempoisonneurs sont tous Papistes. J'ai d\u00e9couvert un tueur pour moi. Les\npr\u00eacheurs Romains pr\u00eachent tout-haut qu'il n'y a plus qu'une mort \u00e0\nvoir; ils admonestent tout bon Catholique de prendre exemple.--Et vous\n\u00eates de cette religion! Si je n'\u00e9tais Huguenot, je me ferais Turc.\"_\n[These poisoners are all Papists. I have discovered an executioner for\nmyself. The Roman preachers exclaim aloud that there is only one more\ndeath to be looked for; they admonish all good Catholics to profit by\nthe example (of the poisoning of the prince of Cond\u00e9).--And you are of\nthis religion! If I were not a Huguenot, I would turn Turk.] It is\ndifficult, after seeing these testimonials in Henry IV.'s own hand, to\nbecome firmly persuaded that he was a Catholic in his heart.\n\nAnother modern historian accuses the duke of Lerma of the murder of\nHenry IV. \"This,\" says he, \"is the best established opinion.\" This\nopinion is evidently the worst established. It has never been heard of\nin Spain; and in France, the continuator of de Thou is the only one who\nhas given any credit to these vague and ridiculous suspicions. If the\nduke of Lerma, prime minister, employed Ravaillac, he paid him very ill;\nfor when the unfortunate man was seized, he was almost without money. If\nthe duke of Lerma either prompted him or caused him to be prompted to\nthe commission of the act, by the promise of a reward proportioned to\nthe attempt, Ravaillac would assuredly have named both him and his\nemissaries, if only to revenge himself. He named the Jesuit d'Aubigny,\nto whom he had only shown a knife--why, then, should he spare the duke\nof Lerma? It is very strange obstinacy not to believe what Ravaillac\nhimself declared when put to the torture. Is a great Spanish family to\nbe insulted without the least shadow of proof?\n\n_Et voil\u00e0 justement comme on \u00e9crit l'histoire._ (Yet this is how history\nis written.) The Spanish nation is not accustomed to resort to shameful\ncrimes; and the Spanish grandees have always possessed a generous pride\nwhich has prevented them from acting so basely. If Philip II. set a\nprice on the head of the prince of Orange, he had, at least, the pretext\nof punishing a rebellious subject, as the Parliament of Paris had when\nthey set fifty thousand crowns on the head of Admiral Coligni, and\nafterwards on that of Cardinal Mazarin. These political proscriptions\npartook of the horror of the civil wars; but how can it be supposed that\nthe duke of Lerma had secret communications with a poor wretch like\nRavaillac?\n\nThe same author says that Marshal D'Ancre and his wife were struck, as\nit were, by a thunderbolt. The truth is, that the one was struck by\npistol-balls, and the other burned as a witch. An assassination and a\nsentence of death passed on the wife of a marshal of France, an\nattendant on the queen, as a reputed sorceress, do very little honor\neither to the chivalry or to the jurisprudence of that day. But I know\nnot why the historian makes use of these words; \"If these two wretches\nwere not accomplices in the king's death, they at least deserved the\nmost rigorous chastisement; it is certain that, even during the king's\nlife, Concini and his wife had connections with Spain in opposition to\nthe king's designs.\"\n\nThis is not at all certain, nor is it even likely. They were\nFlorentines. The grand duke of Florence was the first to acknowledge\nHenry IV., and feared nothing so much as the power of Spain in Italy.\nConcini and his wife had no influence in the time of Henry IV. If they\nintrigued with the court of Madrid it could only be through the queen,\nwho must, therefore, have betrayed her husband. Besides, let it once\nmore be observed that we are not at liberty to bring forward such\naccusations without proofs. What! shall a writer pronounce a defamation\nfrom his garret, which the most enlightened judges in the kingdom would\ntremble to hear in a court of justice? Why are a marshal of France and\nhis wife, one of the queen's attendants, to be called two _wretches_?\nDoes Marshal d'Ancre, who raised an army against the rebels at his own\nexpense, merit an epithet suitable only to Ravaillac or Cartouche--to\npublic robbers, or public calumniators?\n\nIt is but too true that one fanatic is sufficient for the commission of\na parricide, without any accomplice. Damiens had none; he repeated four\ntimes, in the course of his interrogatory, that he committed his crime\nsolely through _a principle of religion_. Having been in the way of\nknowing the _convulsionaries_, I may say that I have seen twenty of them\ncapable of any act equally horrid, so excessive has been their\ninfatuation. Religion, ill-understood, is a fever which the smallest\noccurrence raises to frenzy. It is the property of fanaticism to heat\nthe imagination. When a few sparks from the lire that keeps their\nsuperstitious heads a-boiling, fall on some violent and wicked\nspirit--when some ignorant and furious man thinks he is imitating\nPhineas, Ehud, Judith, and other such personages, he has more\naccomplices than he is aware of. Many incite to murder without knowing\nit. Some persons drop a few indiscreet and violent words; a servant\nrepeats them, with additions and embellishments; a Ch\u00e2tel, a Ravaillac,\nor a Damiens listens to them, while they who pronounced them little\nthink what mischief they have done; they are involuntary accomplices,\nwithout there having been either plot or instigation. In short, he knows\nlittle of the human mind who does not know that fanaticism renders the\npopulace capable of anything.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe author of the _\"Si\u00e8cle de Louis XIV\"_ (\"Age of Louis the\nFourteenth\") is the first who has spoken of the Man in the Iron Mask in\nany authentic history. He was well acquainted with this circumstance,\nwhich is the astonishment of the present age, and will be that of\nposterity, but which is only too true. He had been deceived respecting\nthe time of the death of this unknown and singularly unfortunate person,\nwho was interred at the church of St. Paul March 3, 1703, and not in\n1704.\n\nHe was first confined at Pignerol, before he was sent to the Isles of\nSte. Marguerite, and afterwards to the Bastille, always under the care\nof the same man, that St. Marc, who saw him die. Father Griffet, a\nJesuit, has communicated to the public the journal of the Bastille,\nwhich certifies the dates. He had no difficulty in obtaining this\njournal, since he exercised the delicate office of confessor to the\nprisoners confined in the Bastille.\n\nThe Man in the Iron Mask is an enigma which each one attempts to solve.\nSome have said that he was the duke of Beaufort, but the duke of\nBeaufort was killed by the Turks in the defence of Candia, in 1669, and\nthe Man in the Iron Mask was at Pignerol in 1672. Besides, how should\nthe duke of Beaufort have been arrested in the midst of his army? How\ncould he have been transferred to France without some one's knowing\nsomething about it? and why should he have been imprisoned? and why\nmasked?\n\nOthers have imagined that he was Count Vermandois, natural son to Louis\nXIV., who, it is well known, died of smallpox when with the army, in\n1683, and was buried in the town of Arras.\n\nIt has since been supposed that the duke of Monmouth, who was publicly\nbeheaded by order of King James, in 1685, was the Man in the Iron Mask.\nBut either the duke must have come to life again, and afterwards changed\nthe order of time, putting the year 1662 for the year 1685, or King\nJames, who never pardoned any one, and therefore merited all his\nmisfortunes, must have pardoned the duke of Monmouth, and put to death\nin his stead some one who perfectly resembled him. In the latter case, a\nperson must have been found kind enough to have his head publicly cut\noff to save the duke of Monmouth. All England must have been deceived in\nthe person; then King James must have begged of Louis XIV. that he would\nbe so good as to become his jailer. Louis XIV., having granted King\nJames this small favor, could not have refused to show the same regard\nfor King William and Queen Anne, with whom he was at war; but would have\nbeen careful to maintain the dignity of jailer--with which King James\nhad honored him--to the end of the chapter.\n\nAll these illusions being dissipated, it remains to be known who this\nconstantly-masked prisoner was, at what age he died, and under what name\nhe was buried. It is clear that, if he was not permitted to walk in the\ncourt of the Bastille, nor to see his physician--except in a mask--it\nwas for fear that some very striking resemblance would be discovered in\nhis features. He was permitted to show his tongue, but never his face.\nAs for his age, he himself told the apothecary of the Bastille, a little\nbefore his death, that he believed he was about sixty. The apothecary's\nson-in-law, Marsolam, surgeon to Marshal de Richelieu, and afterwards to\nthe duke of Orleans the regent, has repeated this to me several times.\nTo conclude: Why was an Italian name given to him? He was always called\n_Marchiali_ The writer of this article, perhaps, knows more on the\nsubject than Father Griffet, though he will not say more.\n\nIt is true that Nicholas Fouquet, superintendent of the finances, had\nmany friends in his disgrace, and that they persevered even until\njudgment was passed on him. It is true that the chancellor, who presided\nat that judgment, treated the illustrious captive with too much rigor.\nBut it was not Michel Letellier, as stated in some editions of the\n_\"Si\u00e8cle de Louis XIV.\"_, it was Pierre Seguier. This inadvertency of\nhaving placed one for the other is a fault which must be corrected.\n\nIt is very remarkable that no one knows where this celebrated minister\ndied. Not that it is of any importance to know it, for his death not\nhaving led to any event whatever, is like all other indifferent\noccurrences; but this serves to prove how completely he was forgotten\ntowards the close of life, how worthless that worldly consideration is\nwhich is so anxiously sought for, and how happy they are who have no\nhigher ambition than to live and die unknown. This knowledge is far more\nuseful than that of dates.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nFather Griffet does his utmost to persuade us that Cardinal Richelieu\nwrote a bad book. Well, many statesmen have done the same. But it is\nvery fine to see him strive so hard to prove that, according to\nCardinal Richelieu, \"our allies, the Spaniards,\" so happily governed by\na Bourbon, \"are tributary to hell, and make the Indies tributary to\nhell!\" Cardinal Richelieu's \"Political Testament\" is not that of a\npolite man. He alleges:\n\nThat France had more good ports on the Mediterranean than the whole\nSpanish monarchy (this is an exaggeration); that to keep up an army of\nfifty thousand men it is best to raise a hundred thousand (this throws\nmoney away); that when a new tax is imposed the pay of the soldiers is\nincreased (which has never been done either in France or elsewhere);\nthat the parliaments and other superior courts should be made to pay the\n_taille_ (an infallible means of gaining their hearts and making the\nmagistracy respectable); that the noblesse should be forced to serve and\nto enroll themselves in the cavalry (the better to preserve their\nprivileges); that Genoa was the richest city in Italy (which I wish it\nwere); that we must be very chaste (the testator _might_ add--like\ncertain preachers--_\"Do what I say, not what I do\"_); that an abbey\nshould be given to the holy chapel at Paris (a thing of great importance\nat the crisis in which your friend stood); that Pope Benedict XI. gave a\ngreat deal of trouble to the cordeliers, who were piqued on the subject\nof poverty (that is to say, the revenues of the order of St Francis);\nthat they were exasperated against him to such a degree that they made\nwar upon him by their writings (more important still and more\nlearned!--especially when John XXII. is taken for Benedict XI. and when\nin a \"Political Testament\" nothing is said of the manner in which the\nwar against Spain and the empire was to be conducted, nor of the means\nof making peace, nor of present dangers, nor of resources, nor of\nalliances, nor of the generals and ministers who were to be employed,\nnor even of the dauphin, whose education was of so much importance to\nthe State, nor, in short, of any one object of the ministry).\n\nI consent with all my heart, since it must be so, that Cardinal\nRichelieu's memory shall be reproached with this unfortunate work, full\nof anachronisms, ignorance, ridiculous calculations, and acknowledged\nfalsities. Let people strive as hard as they please to persuade\nthemselves that the greatest minister was the most ignorant and tedious,\nas well as the most extravagant of writers; it may afford some\ngratification to those who detest his tyranny. It is also a fact worth\npreserving in the history of the human mind that this despicable work\nwas praised for more than thirty years, while it was believed to be that\ngreat minister's, and quite as true that the pretended \"Testament\" made\nno noise in the world until thirty years after the Cardinal's death;\nthat it was not printed until forty-two years after that event; that the\noriginal, signed by him, has never been seen; that the book is very bad;\nand that it scarcely deserves to be mentioned.\n\nDid Count de Moret, son of Henry IV., who was wounded in the little\nskirmish at Castelnaudari, live until the year 1693 under the name of\n_the hermit Jean Baptiste_? What proof have we that this hermit was the\nson of Henry IV.? None.\n\nDid Jeanne d'Albret de Navarre, mother of Henry IV., after the death of\nAntoine, marry a gentleman named Guyon, who was killed in the massacre\nof St. Bartholomew? Had she a son by him, who preached at Bordeaux?\nThese facts are detailed at great length in the \"Remarks on Bayle's\nAnswers to the Questions of a Provincial,\" folio, page 689. Was Margaret\nof Valois, wife to Henry IV., brought to bed of two children secretly\nafter her marriage?\n\nWe might fill volumes with inquiries like these. But how much pains\nshould we be taking to discover things of no use to mankind! Let us\nrather seek cures for the scrofula, the gout, the stone, the gravel, and\na thousand other chronic or acute diseases. Let us seek remedies for the\ndistempers of the mind, no less terrible and no less mortal. Let us\nlabor to bring the arts to perfection, and to lessen the miseries of the\nhuman race; and let us not waste our time over the _anas_, the\n_anecdotes_, and _curious stories_ of our day, the collections of\npretended bons mots, etc.\n\nI read in a book lately published that Louis XIV. exempted all\nnew-married men from the _taille_ for five years. I have not found this\nfact in any collection of edicts, nor in any memoir of that time. I read\nin the same book that the king of Prussia has fifty livres given to\nevery girl with child. There is, in truth, no better way of laying out\nmoney, nor of encouraging propagation, but I do not believe that this\nroyal munificence is true; at least I have never witnessed it.\n\nAn anecdote of greater antiquity has just fallen under my eye, and\nappears to me to be a very strange one. It is said in a chronological\nhistory of Italy that the great Arian, Theodoric--he who is represented\nto have been so wise--had amongst his ministers a Catholic, for whom he\nhad a great liking, and who proved worthy of all his confidence. This\nminister thought he should rise still higher in his master's favor by\nembracing Arianism; but Theodoric had him immediately beheaded, saying:\n_\"If a man is not faithful to God, how can he be faithful to me, who am\nbut a man?\"_ The compiler remarks that \"this trait does great honor to\nTheodoric's manner of thinking with respect to religion.\"\n\nI pique myself on thinking, in matters of religion, better than\nOstrogoth, Theodoric, the assassin of Symmachus, and Bo\u00ebtius, because I\nam a good Catholic, and he was an Arian. But I declare this king worthy\nof being confined as a madman if he were so atrociously besotted. What!\nhe immediately cut off his minister's head because that minister had at\nlast come over to his own way of thinking. How was a worshipper of God,\nwho passed from the opinion of Athanasius to that of Arius and Eusebius,\nunfaithful to God? He was at most unfaithful only to Athanasius and his\nparty, at a time when the world was divided between the Athanasians and\nthe Eusebians; but Theodoric could not regard him as a man unfaithful to\nGod, because he had rejected the term _consubstantial_, after admitting\nit at first. To cut off his favorite's head for such a reason could\ncertainly be the act of none but the wickedest fool and most barbarous\nblockhead that ever existed. What would you say of Louis XIV. if he had\nbeheaded the duke de la Force because the duke de la Force had quitted\nCalvinism for the religion of Louis XIV.?\n\nI have just opened a history of Holland, in which I find that, in 1672,\nMarshal de Luxembourg harangued his troops in the following manner: \"Go,\nmy children, plunder, rob, kill, ravish; and if there be anything more\nabominable fail not to do it, that I may find I have not been mistaken\nin selecting you as the bravest of men.\" This is certainly a very pretty\nharangue. It is as true as those given us by Livy, but it is not in his\nstyle. To complete the dishonor of typography, this fine piece is\ninserted in several new dictionaries, which are no other than impostures\nin alphabetical order.\n\nIt is a trifling error in the _\"Abr\u00e9g\u00e9 Chronologique de l'Histoire de\nFrance\"_ (\"Chronological Abridgment of the History of France\") to\nsuppose that Louis XIV., after the Peace of Utrecht, for which he was\nindebted to the English, after nine years of misfortune, and after the\nmany great victories which the English had gained, said to the English\nambassador: \"I have always been master at home, and sometimes abroad;\ndo not remind me of it.\" This speech would have been very ill-timed,\nvery false as it regarded the English, and would have exposed the king\nto a most galling reply.\n\nThe author himself confessed to me that the Marquis de Torcy, who was\npresent at all the earl of Stair's audiences, had always given the lie\nto this anecdote. It is assuredly neither true nor likely, and has\nremained in the later editions of this book only because it was put in\nthe first. This error, however, does not at all disparage this very\nuseful work, in which all the great events, arranged in the most\nconvenient order, are perfectly authenticated.\n\nAll these little tales, designed to embellish history, do but dishonor\nit, and unfortunately almost all ancient histories are little else than\ntales. Malebranche was right when, speaking on this subject, he said: \"I\nthink no more of history than I do of the news of my parish.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn 1723, Father Fouquet, a Jesuit, returned to France from China, where\nhe had passed twenty-five years. Religious disputes had embroiled him\nwith his brethren. He had carried with him to China a gospel different\nfrom theirs, and now brought back to France memorials against them. Two\nChinese literati made the voyage with him; one of them died on the way,\nthe other came with Father Fouquet to Paris. The Jesuit was to take the\nChinese to Rome secretly, as a witness of the conduct of the good\nfathers in China, and in the meantime Fouquet and his companion lodged\nat the house of _the Professed_, Rue St. Antoine.\n\nThe reverend fathers received advice of their reverend brother's\nintentions. Fouquet was no less quickly informed of the designs of the\nreverend fathers. He lost not a moment, but set off the same night for\nRome. The reverend fathers had interest enough to get him pursued, but\nthe Chinese only was taken. This poor fellow did not understand a word\nof French. The good fathers went to Cardinal Dubois, who at that time\nneeded their support, and told him that they had among them a young man\nwho had gone mad, and whom it was necessary to confine. The cardinal\nimmediately granted a _lettre de cachet_, than which there is sometimes\nnothing which a minister is more ready to grant. The lieutenant of\npolice went to take this madman, who was pointed out to him. He found a\nman making reverences in a way different from the French, speaking in a\nsinging tone, and looking quite astonished. He expressed great pity for\nhis derangement, ordered his hands to be tied behind him, and sent him\nto Charenton, where, like the Abb\u00e9 Desfontaines, he was flogged twice a\nweek. The Chinese did not at all understand this method of receiving\nstrangers. He had passed only two or three days in Paris, and had found\nthe manners of the French very odd. He had lived two years on bread and\nwater, amongst madmen and keepers, and believed that the French nation\nconsisted of these two species, the one part dancing while the other\nflogged them.\n\nAt length, when two years had elapsed, the ministry changed and a new\nlieutenant of police was appointed. This magistrate commenced his\nadministration by visiting the prisons. He also saw the lunatics at\nCharenton. After conversing with them he asked if there were no other\npersons for him to see. He was told that there was one more unfortunate\nman, but that he spoke a language which nobody understood. A Jesuit, who\naccompanied the magistrate, said it was the peculiarity of this man's\nmadness that he never gave an answer in French; nothing would be gotten\nfrom him, and he thought it would be better not to take the trouble of\ncalling him. The minister insisted. The unfortunate man was brought, and\nthrew himself at his feet. The lieutenant sent for the king's\ninterpreters, who spoke to him in Spanish, Latin, Greek, and English,\nbut he constantly said _Kanton, Kanton_, and nothing else. The Jesuit\nassured them he was possessed. The magistrate, having at some time heard\nit said that there was a province in China called _Kanton_, thought this\nman might perhaps have come from thence. An interpreter to the foreign\nmissions was sent for, who could murder Chinese. All was discovered. The\nmagistrate knew not what to do, nor the Jesuit what to say. The Duke de\nBourbon was then prime minister. The circumstance having been related to\nhim, he ordered money and clothes to be given to the Chinese, and sent\nhim back to his own country, whence it is not thought that many literati\nwill come and see us in the future. It would have been more politic to\nhave kept this man and treated him well, than to have sent him to give\nhis countrymen the very worst opinion of the French.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAbout thirty years ago the French Jesuits sent secret missionaries to\nChina, who enticed a child from his parents in Canton, and brought him\nto Paris, where they educated him in their convent of La Rue St.\nAntoine. This boy became a Jesuit at the age of fifteen, after which he\nremained ten years in France. He knows both French and Chinese\nperfectly, and is very learned. M. Bertin, comptroller-general, and\nafterwards secretary of state, sent him back to China in 1763, after the\nabolition of the Jesuits. He calls himself Ko, and signs himself _Ko,\nJesuit_.\n\nIn 1772 there were fourteen Jesuits in Pekin, amongst whom was Brother\nKo, who still lives in their house. The Emperor Kien-Long has kept these\nmonks of Europe about him in the positions of painters, engravers,\nwatch-makers, and mechanics, with an express prohibition from ever\ndisputing on religion, or causing the least trouble in the empire.\n\nThe Jesuit Ko has sent manuscripts of his own composition from Pekin to\nParis entitled: \"Memoirs Relative to the History, Arts and Sciences of\nthe Chinese by the Missionaries at Pekin.\" This book is printed, and is\nnow selling at Paris by Nyon, the bookseller. The author attacks all\nthe philosophers of Europe. He calls a prince of the Tartar race, whom\nthe Jesuits had seduced, and the late emperor, Yong-Chin, had banished,\nan illustrious martyr to Jesus Christ. This Ko boasts of making many\nneophytes, who are ardent spirits, capable of troubling China even more\nthan the Jesuits formerly troubled Japan. It is said that a Russian\nnobleman, indignant at this Jesuitical insolence, which reaches the\nfarthest corners of the earth even after the extinction of the\norder--has resolved to find some means of sending to the president of\nthe tribunal of rites at Pekin an extract in Chinese from these memoirs,\nwhich may serve to make the aforesaid Ko, and the Jesuits who labor with\nhim, better known.\n\n\n\n\nANGELS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Angels of the Indians, Persians, etc._\n\nThe author of the article \"Angel\" in the Encyclop\u00e6dia says that all\nreligions have admitted the existence of angels, although it is not\ndemonstrated by natural reason.\n\nWe understand by this word, ministers of God, supernatural is beyond\nreason. If I mistake not it should have been _several_ religions (and\nnot _all_) have acknowledged the existence of angels. That of Numa, that\nof Sabaism, that of the Druids, that of the Scythians, and that of the\nPh\u0153nicians and ancient Egyptians did not admit their existence.\n\nWe understand by this word, ministers of God, deputies, beings of a\nmiddle order between God and man, sent to make known to us His orders.\n\nAt the present time--in 1772--the Brahmins boast of having possessed in\nwriting, for just four thousand eight hundred and seventy-eight years,\ntheir first sacred law, entitled the Shastah, fifteen hundred years\nbefore their second law, called Veidam, signifying the word of God. The\nShastah contains five chapters; the first, of God and His attributes;\nthe second, of the creation of the angels; the third, of the fall of the\nangels; the fourth, of their punishment; the fifth, of their pardon, and\nthe creation of man.\n\nIt is good, in the first place, to observe the manner in which this book\nspeaks of God.\n\n_First Chapter of the Shastah._\n\nGod is one; He has created all; it is a perfect sphere, without\nbeginning or end. God conducts the whole creation by a general\nprovidence, resulting from a determined principle. Thou shalt not seek\nto discover the nature and essence of the Eternal, nor by what laws He\ngoverns; such an undertaking would be vain and criminal. It is enough\nfor thee to contemplate day and night in His works, His wisdom, His\npower, and His goodness.\n\nAfter paying to this opening of the Shastah the tribute of admiration\nwhich is due to it, let us pass to the creation of the angels.\n\n_Second Chapter of the Shastah._\n\nThe Eternal, absorbed in the contemplation of His own existence,\nresolved, in the fulness of time, to communicate His glory and His\nessence to beings capable of feeling and partaking His beatitude as well\nas of contributing to His glory. The Eternal willed it, and they were.\nHe formed them partly of His own essence, capable of perfection or\nimperfection, according to their will.\n\nThe Eternal first created Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva, then Mozazor, and\nall the multitude of the angels. The Eternal gave the pre-eminence to\nBrahma, Vishnu, and Siva. Brahma was the prince of the angelic army;\nVishnu and Siva were His coadjutors. The Eternal divided the angelic\narmy into several bands, and gave to each a chief. They adored the\nEternal, ranged around His throne, each in the degree assigned him.\nThere was harmony in heaven. Mozazor, chief of the first band, led the\ncanticle of praise and adoration to the Creator, and the song of\nobedience to Brahma, his first creature; and the Eternal rejoiced in His\nnew creation.\n\n_Chapter III.--The Fall of a Part of the Angels._\n\nFrom the creation of the celestial army, joy and harmony surrounded the\nthrone of the Eternal for a thousand years multiplied by a thousand, and\nwould have lasted until the end of time had not envy seized Mozazor and\nother princes of the angelic bands, among whom was Raabon, the next in\ndignity to Mozazor. Forgetful of the blessing of their creation, and of\ntheir duty, they rejected the power of perfection, and exercised the\npower of imperfection. They did evil in the sight of the Eternal; they\ndisobeyed Him; they refused to submit to God's lieutenant and his\ncoadjutors Vishnu and Siva, saying: \"We will govern,\" and, without\nfearing the power and the anger of their Creator, disseminated their\nseditious principles in the celestial army. They seduced the angels, and\npersuaded a great multitude of them to rebel; and they forsook the\nthrone of the Eternal; and sorrow came upon the faithful angelic\nspirits; and for the first time grief was known in heaven.\n\n_Chapter IV.--Punishment of the Guilty Angels._\n\nThe Eternal, whose omniscience, prescience, and influence extend over\nall things except the action of the beings whom He has created free,\nbeheld with grief and anger the defection of Mozazor, Raabon, and the\nother chiefs of the angels.\n\nMerciful in his wrath, he sent Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva to reproach them\nwith their crime, and bring them back to their duty; but, confirmed in\ntheir spirit of independence, they persisted in their revolt. The\nEternal then commanded Siva to march against them, armed with almighty\npower, and hurl them down from the high place to the place of\n_darkness_, into the _Ondera_, there to be punished for a thousand years\nmultiplied by a thousand.\n\n_Abstract of the Fifth Chapter._\n\nAt the end of a thousand years Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva implored the\nclemency of the Eternal in favor of the delinquents. The Eternal\nvouchsafed to deliver them from the prison of the _Ondera_, and place\nthem in a state of probation during a great number of solar revolutions.\nThere were other rebellions against God during this time of penitence.\n\nIt was at one of these periods that God created the earth, where the\npenitent angels underwent several metempsychoses, one of the last of\nwhich was their transformation into cows. Hence it was that cows became\nsacred in India. Lastly, they were metamorphosed into men.\n\nSo that the Indian system of angels is precisely that of the Jesuit\nBougeant, who asserts that the bodies of beasts are inhabited by sinful\nangels. What the Brahmins had invented seriously, Bougeant, more than\nfour thousand years after, imagined in jest--if, indeed, this pleasantry\nof his was not a remnant of superstition, combined with the spirit of\nsystem-making, as is often the case.\n\nSuch is the history of the angels among the ancient Brahmins, which,\nafter the lapse of about fifty centuries, they still continue to teach.\nNeither our merchants who have traded in India, nor our missionaries,\nhave ever been informed of it; for the Brahmins, having never been\nedified by their science or their manners, have not communicated to them\ntheir secrets. It was left for an Englishman, named Holwell, to reside\nfor thirty years at Benares, on the Ganges, an ancient school of the\nBrahmins, to learn the ancient Sanscrit tongue, in order at length to\nenrich our Europe with this singular knowledge; just as Mr. Sale lived a\nlong time in Arabia to give us a faithful translation of the Koran and\ninformation relative to ancient Sabaism, which has been succeeded by the\nMussulman religion; and as Dr. Hyde continued for twenty years his\nresearches into everything concerning the religion of the Magi.\n\n_Angels of the Persians._\n\nThe Persians had thirty-one angels. The first of all, who is served by\nfour other angels, is named Bahaman. He has the inspection of all\nanimals except man, over whom God has reserved to himself an immediate\njurisdiction.\n\nGod presides over the day on which the sun enters the Ram, and this day\nis a Sabbath, which proves that the feast of the Sabbath was observed\namong the Persians in the ancient times. The second angel presides over\nthe seventh day, and is called Debadur. The third is Kur, which probably\nwas afterwards converted into Cyrus. He is the angel of the sun. The\nfourth is called Mah, and presides over the moon. Thus each angel has\nhis province. It was among the Persians that the doctrine of the\nguardian angel and the evil angel was first adopted. It is believed that\nRaphael was the guardian angel of the Persian Empire.\n\n_Angels of the Hebrews._\n\nThe Hebrews knew nothing of the fall of the angels until the\ncommencement of the Christian era. This secret doctrine of the ancient\nBrahmins must have reached them at that time, for it was then that the\nbook attributed to Enoch, relative to the sinful angels driven from\nheaven, was fabricated.\n\nEnoch must have been a very ancient writer, since, according to the\nJews, he lived in the seventh generation before the deluge. But as Seth,\nstill more ancient than he, had left books to the Hebrews, they might\nboast of having some from Enoch also. According to them Enoch wrote as\nfollows:\n\n\"It happened, after the sons of men had multiplied in those days, that\ndaughters were born to them, elegant and beautiful. And when the angels,\nthe sons of heaven, beheld them they became enamored of them, saying to\neach other: 'Come, let us select for ourselves wives from the progeny of\nmen, and let us beget children.' Then their leader, Samyaza, said to\nthem: 'I fear that you may perhaps be indisposed to the performance of\nthis enterprise, and that I alone shall suffer for so grievous a crime.'\nBut they answered him and said: 'We all swear, and bind ourselves by\nmutual execrations, that we will not change our intention, but execute\nour projected undertaking.'\n\n\"Then they swore all together, and all bound themselves by mutual\nexecrations. Their whole number was two hundred, who descended upon\nArdis, which is the top of Mount Armon. That mountain, therefore, was\ncalled Armon, because they had sworn upon it, and bound themselves by\nmutual execrations. These are the names of their chiefs: Samyaza, who\nwas their leader; Urakabarameel, Akabeel, Tamiel, Ramuel, Danel, Azkeel,\nSarakuyal, Asael, Armers, Batraal, Anane, Zavebe, Samsaveel, Ertael,\nTurel, Yomyael, Arazyal. These were the prefects of the two hundred\nangels, and the remainder were all with them.\n\n\"Then they took wives, each choosing for himself, whom they began to\napproach, and with whom they cohabited, teaching them sorcery,\nincantations, and the dividing of roots and trees. And the women,\nconceiving, brought forth giants, whose stature was each three hundred\ncubits,\" etc.\n\nThe author of this fragment writes in the style which seems to belong to\nthe primitive ages. He has the same simplicity. He does not fail to name\nthe persons, nor does he forget the dates; here are no reflections, no\nmaxims. It is the ancient Oriental manner.\n\nIt is evident that this story is founded on the sixth chapter of\nGenesis: \"There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after\nthat, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they\nbear children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men\nof renown.\" Genesis and the Book of Enoch perfectly agree respecting\nthe coupling of the angels with the daughters of men, and the race of\ngiants which sprung from this union; but neither this Enoch, nor any\nbook of the Old Testament, speaks of the war of the angels against God,\nor of their defeat, or of their fall into hell, or of their hatred to\nmankind.\n\nNearly all the commentators on the Old Testament unanimously say that\nbefore the Babylonian captivity, the Jews knew not the name of any\nangel. The one that appeared to Manoah, father of Samson, would not tell\nhis name.\n\nWhen the three angels appeared to Abraham, and he had a whole calf\ndressed to regale them, they did not tell him their names. One of them\nsaid: \"I will come to see thee next year, if God grant me life; and\nSarah thy wife shall have a son.\"\n\nCalmet discovers a great affinity between this story and the fable which\nOvid relates in his _\"Fasti\"_, of Jupiter, Neptune, and Mercury, who,\nhaving supped with old Hyreus, and finding that he was afflicted with\nimpotence, urinated upon the skin of a calf which he had served up to\nthem, and ordered him to bury this hide watered with celestial urine in\nthe ground, and leave it there for nine months. At the end of the nine\nmonths, Hyreus uncovered his hide, and found in it a child, which was\nnamed Orion, and is now in the heavens. Calmet moreover says that the\nwords which the angels used to Abraham may be rendered thus: A child\nshall be born of your calf.\n\nBe this as it may, the angels did not tell Abraham their names; they did\nnot even tell them to Moses; and we find the name of Raphael only in\nTobit, at the time of the captivity. The other names of angels are\nevidently taken from the Chald\u00e6ans and the Persians. _Raphael_,\n_Gabriel_, and _Uriel_, are Persian or Babylonian. The name of _Israel_\nitself is Chald\u00e6an, as the learned Jew Philo expressly says, in the\naccount of his deputation to Caligula.\n\nWe shall not here repeat what has been elsewhere said of angels.\n\n_Whether the Greeks and the Romans admitted the Existence of Angels._\n\nThey had gods and demi-gods enough to dispense with all other subaltern\nbeings. Mercury executed the commissions of Jupiter, and Iris those of\nJuno; nevertheless, they admitted genii and demons. The doctrine of\nguardian angels was versified by Hesiod, who was contemporary with\nHomer. In his poem of \"The Works and Days\" he thus explains it:\n\n     When gods alike and mortals rose to birth,\n     A golden race the immortals formed on earth\n     Of many-languaged men; they lived of old,\n     When Saturn reigned in heaven--an age of gold.\n     Like gods they lived, with calm, untroubled mind,\n     Free from the toil and anguish of our kind.\n     Nor sad, decrepit age approaching nigh,\n     Their limbs misshaped with swoln deformity.\n     Strangers to ill, they Nature's banquet proved,\n     Rich in earth's fruits, and of the blest beloved:\n     They sank to death, as opiate slumber stole\n     Soft o'er the sense, and whelmed the willing soul.\n     Theirs was each good: the grain-exuberant soil\n     Poured the full harvest, uncompelled by toil;\n     The virtuous many dwelt in common, blest,\n     And all unenvying shared what all in peace possessed.\n     When on this race the verdant earth had lain,\n     By Jove's high will they rose a Genii train:\n     Earth-wandering d\u00e6mons, they their charge began,\n     The ministers or good and guards of man:\n     Veiled with a mantle of aerial night,\n     O'er earth's wide space they wing their hovering flight;\n     Dispense the fertile treasures of the ground,\n     And bend their all-observant glance around;\n     To mark the deed unjust, the just approve,\n     Their kingly office, delegate from Jove.\n                                   ELTON'S _Translation_.\n\nThe farther we search into antiquity, the more we see how modern nations\nhave by turns explored these now almost abandoned mines. The Greeks, who\nso long passed for inventors, imitated Egypt, which had copied from the\nChald\u00e6ans, who owed almost everything to the Indians. The doctrine of\nthe guardian angels, so well sung by Hesiod, was afterwards\nsophisticated in the schools: it was all that they were capable of\ndoing. Every man had his good and his evil genius, as each one had his\nparticular star--\n\n_Est genius natale comes qui temper at astrum._\n\nSocrates, we know, had his good angel; but his bad angel must have\ngoverned him. No angel but an evil one could prompt a philosopher to run\nfrom house to house, to tell people, by question and answer, that father\nand mother, preceptor and pupil, were all ignorant and imbecile. A\nguardian angel in that event will find it very difficult to save his\nprotege from the hemlock.\n\nWe are acquainted only with the _evil angel_ of Marcus Brutus, which\nappeared to him before the battle of Philippi.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThe doctrine of angels is one of the oldest in the world. It preceded\nthat of the immortality of the soul. This is not surprising; philosophy\nis necessary to the belief that the soul of mortal man is immortal; but\nimagination and weakness are sufficient for the invention of beings\nsuperior to ourselves, protecting or persecuting us. Yet it does not\nappear that the ancient Egyptians had any notion of these celestial\nbeings, clothed with an ethereal body and administering to the orders of\na God. The ancient Babylonians were the first who admitted this\ntheology. The Hebrew books employ the angels from the first book of\nGenesis downwards: but the Book of Genesis was not written before the\nChald\u00e6ans had become a powerful nation: nor was it until the captivity\nof Babylon that the Jews learned the names of _Gabriel_, _Raphael_,\n_Michael_, _Uriel_, etc., which were given to the angels. The Jewish and\nChristian religions being founded on the fall of Adam, and this fall\nbeing founded on the temptation by the evil angel, the devil, it is very\nsingular that not a word is said in the Pentateuch of the existence of\nthe bad angels, still less of their punishment and abode in hell.\n\nThe reason of this omission is evident: the evil angels were unknown to\nthe Jews until the Babylonian captivity; then it is that Asmodeus\nbegins to be talked of, whom Raphael went to bind in Upper Egypt; there\nit is that the Jews first hear of Satan. This word _Satan_ was Chald\u00e6an;\nand the Book of Job, an inhabitant of Chald\u00e6a, is the first that makes\nmention of him.\n\nThe ancient Persians said Satan was an angel or genius who had made war\nupon the _Dives_ and the _Peris_, that is, the fairest of the East.\n\nThus, according to the ordinary rules of probability, those who are\nguided by reason alone might be permitted to think that, from this\ntheology, the Jews and Christians at length took the idea that the evil\nangels had been driven out of heaven, and that their prince had tempted\nEve, in the form of a serpent.\n\nIt has been pretended that Isaiah, in his fourteenth chapter, had this\nallegory in view when he said: _\"Quornodo occidisti de c\u0153lo, Lucifer,\nqui mane oriebaris?\"_ \"How hast thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son\nof the morning?\"\n\nIt was this same Latin verse, translated from Isaiah, which procured for\nthe devil the name of Lucifer. It was forgotten that Lucifer signifies\n\"that which sheds light.\" The words of Isaiah, too, have received a\nlittle attention; he is speaking of the dethroned king of Babylon; and\nby a common figure of speech, he says to him: \"How hast thou fallen from\nheaven, thou brilliant star?\"\n\nIt does not at all appear that Isaiah sought, by this stroke of\nrhetoric, to establish the doctrine of the angels precipitated into\nhell. It was scarcely before the time of the primitive Christian church\nthat the fathers and the rabbis exerted themselves to encourage this\ndoctrine, in order to save the incredibility of the story of a serpent\nwhich seduced the mother of men, and which, condemned for this bad\naction to crawl on its belly, has ever since been an enemy to man, who\nis always striving to crush it, while it is always endeavoring to bite\nhim. There seemed to be somewhat more of sublimity in celestial\nsubstances precipitated into the abyss, and issuing from it to persecute\nmankind.\n\nIt cannot be proved by any reasoning that these celestial and infernal\npowers exist; neither can it be proved that they do not exist. There is\ncertainly no contradiction in acknowledging the existence of beneficent\nand malignant substances which are neither of the nature of God nor of\nthe nature of man: but a thing, to be believed, must be more than\npossible.\n\nThe angels who, according to the Babylonians and the Jews, presided over\nnations, were precisely what the gods of Homer were--celestial beings,\nsubordinate to a supreme being. The imagination which produced the one\nprobably produced the other. The number of the inferior gods increased\nwith the religion of Homer. Among the Christians, the number of the\nangels was augmented in the course of time.\n\nThe writers known by the names of Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory\nI. fixed the number of angels in nine choirs, forming three hierarchies;\nthe first consisting of the seraphim, cherubim, and thrones; the second\nof the dominations, virtues and powers; and the third of the\nprincipalities, archangels, and, lastly, the angels, who give their\ndomination to all the rest. It is hardly permissible for any one but a\npope thus to settle the different ranks in heaven.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nAngel, in Greek, is envoy. The reader will hardly be the wiser for being\ntold that the Persians had their _peris_, the Hebrews their _malakim_,\nand the Greeks their _demonoi_.\n\nBut it is perhaps better worth knowing that, one of the first of man's\nideas has always been to place intermediate beings between the Divinity\nand himself; such were those demons, those genii, invented in the ages\nof antiquity. Man always made the gods after his own image; princes were\nseen to communicate their orders by messengers; therefore, the Divinity\nhad also his couriers. Mercury, Iris, were couriers or messengers.\n\nThe Jews, the only people under the conduct of the Divinity Himself, did\nnot at first give names to the angels whom God vouchsafed to send them;\nthey borrowed the names given them by the Chald\u00e6ans when the Jewish\nnation was captive in Babylon; Michael and Gabriel are named for the\nfirst time by Daniel, a slave among those people. The Jew Tobit, who\nlived at Ninevah, knew the angel Raphael, who travelled with his son to\nassist him in recovering the money due to him from the Jew Gaba\u00ebl.\n\nIn the laws of the Jews, that is, in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not the\nleast mention is made of the existence of the angels--much less of the\nworship of them. Neither did the Sadducees believe in the angels.\n\nBut in the histories of the Jews, they are much spoken of. The angels\nwere corporeal; they had wings at their backs, as the Gentiles feigned\nthat Mercury had at his heels; sometimes they concealed their wings\nunder their clothing. How could they be without bodies, since they all\nate and drank, and the inhabitants of Sodom wanted to commit the sin of\npederasty with the angels who went to Lot's house?\n\nThe ancient Jewish tradition, according to Ben Maimon, admits ten\ndegrees, ten orders of angels:\n\n1. The _chaios ecodesh_, pure, holy. 2. The _ofamin_, swift. 3. The\n_oralim_, strong. 4. The _chasmalim_, flames. 5. The _seraphim_, sparks.\n6. The _malakim_, angels, messengers, deputies. 7. The _elohim_, gods or\njudges. 8. The _ben elohim_, sons of the gods. 9. The _cherubim_,\nimages. 10. The _ychim_, animated.\n\nThe story of the fall of the angels is not to be found in the books of\nMoses. The first testimony respecting it is that of Isaiah, who,\napostrophizing the king of Babylon, exclaims, \"Where is now the exacter\nof tributes? The pines and the cedars rejoice in his fall. How hast thou\nfallen from heaven, O Hellel, star of the morning?\" It has been already\nobserved that the word _Hellel_ has been rendered by the Latin word\nLucifer; that afterwards, in an allegorical sense, the name of Lucifer\nwas given to the prince of the angels, who made war in heaven; and that,\nat last, this word, signifying _Phosphorus_ and _Aurora_, has become the\nname of the devil.\n\nThe Christian religion is founded on the fall of the angels. Those who\nrevolted were precipitated from the spheres which they inhabited into\nhell, in the centre of the earth, and became devils. A devil, in the\nform of a serpent, tempted Eve, and damned mankind. Jesus came to redeem\nmankind, and to triumph over the devil, who tempts us still. Yet this\nfundamental tradition is to be found nowhere but in the apocryphal book\nof Enoch; and there it is in a form quite different from that of the\nreceived tradition.\n\nSt. Augustine, in his 109th letter, does not hesitate to give slender\nand agile bodies to the good and bad angels. Pope Gregory I. has reduced\nto nine choirs--to nine hierarchies or orders--the ten choirs of angels\nacknowledged by the Jews.\n\nThe Jews had in their temple two cherubs, each with two heads--the one\nthat of an ox, the other that of an eagle, with six wings. We paint them\nnow in the form of a flying head, with two small wings below the ears.\nWe paint the angels and archangels in the form of young men, with two\nwings at the back. As for the thrones and dominations, no one has yet\nthought of painting them.\n\nSt. Thomas, at question cviii. article 2, says that the thrones are as\nnear to God as the cherubim and the seraphim, because it is upon them\nthat God sits. Scot has counted a thousand million of angels. The\nancient mythology of the good and bad genii, having passed from the East\nto Greece and Rome, we consecrated this opinion, for admitting for each\nindividual a good and an evil angel, of whom one assists him and the\nother torments him, from his birth to his death; but it is not yet known\nwhether these good and bad angels are continually passing from one to\nanother, or are relieved by others. On this point, consult \"St. Thomas's\nDream.\"\n\nIt is not known precisely where the angels dwell--whether in the air, in\nthe void, or in the planets. It has not been God's pleasure that we\nshould be informed of their abode.\n\n\n\n\nANNALS.\n\n\nHow many nations have long existed, and still exist, without annals.\nThere were none in all America, that is, in one-half of our globe,\nexcepting those of Mexico and Peru, which are not very ancient. Besides,\nknotted cords are a sort of books which cannot enter into very minute\ndetails. Three-fourths of Africa never had annals; and, at the present\nday, in the most learned nations, in those which have even used and\nabused the art of writing the most, ninety-nine out of a hundred persons\nmay be regarded as not knowing anything that happened there farther back\nthan four generations, and as ignorant almost of the names of their\ngreat-grandfathers. Such is the case with nearly all the inhabitants of\ntowns and villages, very few families holding titles of their\npossessions. When a litigation arises respecting the limits of a field\nor a meadow, the judges decide according to the testimony of the old\nmen; and possession constitutes the title. Some great events are\ntransmitted from father to son, and are entirely altered in passing from\nmouth to mouth. They have no other annals.\n\nLook at all the villages of our Europe, so polished, so enlightened, so\nfull of immense libraries, and which now seem to groan under the\nenormous mass of books. In each village two men at most, on an average,\ncan read and write. Society loses nothing in consequence. All works are\nperformed--building, planting, sowing, reaping, as they were in the\nremotest times. The laborer has not even leisure to regret that he has\nnot been taught to consume some hours of the day in reading. This proves\nthat mankind had no need of historical monuments to cultivate the arts\nreally necessary to life.\n\nIt is astonishing, not that so many tribes of people are without annals,\nbut that three or four nations have preserved them for five thousand\nyears or thereabouts, through so many violent revolutions which the\nearth has undergone. Not a line remains of the ancient Egyptian,\nChald\u00e6an, or Persian annals, nor of those of the Latins and Etruscans.\nThe only annals that can boast of a little antiquity are the Indian, the\nChinese, and the Hebrew.\n\nWe cannot give the name of annals to vague and rude fragments of history\nwithout date, order, or connection. They are riddles proposed by\nantiquity to posterity, who understand nothing at all of them. We\nventure to affirm that Sanchoniathon, who is said to have lived before\nthe time of Moses, composed annals. He probably limited his researches\nto cosmogony, as Hesiod afterwards did in Greece. We advance this latter\nopinion only as a doubt; for we write only to be informed, and not to\nteach.\n\nBut what deserves the greatest attention is that Sanchoniathon quotes\nthe books of the Egyptian Thoth, who, he tells us, lived eight hundred\nyears before him. Now Sanchoniathon probably wrote in the age in which\nwe place Joseph's adventure in Egypt. We commonly place the epoch of the\npromotion of the Jew Joseph to the prime-ministry of Egypt at the year\nof the creation 2300.\n\nIf, then, the books of Thoth were written eight hundred years before,\nthey were written in the year 1500 of the creation. Therefore, their\ndate was a hundred and fifty-six years before the deluge. They must,\nthen, have been engraved on stone, and preserved in the universal\ninundation. Another difficulty is that Sanchoniathon does not speak of\nthe deluge, and that no Egyptian writer has ever been quoted who does\nspeak of it. But these difficulties vanish before the Book of Genesis,\ninspired by the Holy Ghost.\n\nWe have no intention here to plunge into the chaos which eighty writers\nhave sought to clear up, by inventing different chronologies; we always\nkeep to the Old Testament. We only ask whether in the time of Thoth they\nwrote in hieroglyphics, or in alphabetical characters? whether stone and\nbrick had yet been laid aside for vellum, or any other material? whether\nThoth wrote annals, or only a cosmogony? whether there were some\npyramids already built in the time of Thoth? whether Lower Egypt was\nalready inhabited? whether canals had been constructed to receive the\nwaters of the Nile? whether the Chald\u00e6ans had already taught the arts of\nthe Egyptians, and whether the Chald\u00e6ans had received them from the\nBrahmins? There are persons who have resolved all these questions; which\nonce occasioned a man of sense and wit to say of a grave doctor, \"That\nman must be very ignorant, for he answers every question that is asked\nhim.\"\n\n\n\n\nANNATS.\n\n\nThe epoch of the establishment of annats is uncertain, which is a proof\nthat the exaction of them is a usurpation--an extortionary custom.\nWhatever is not founded on an authentic law is an abuse. Every abuse\nought to be reformed, unless the reform is more dangerous than the\nabuse itself. Usurpation begins by small and successive encroachments;\nequity and the public interest at length exclaim and protest; then comes\npolicy, which does its best to reconcile usurpation with equity, and the\nabuse remains.\n\nIn several dioceses the bishops, chapters, and arch-deacons, after the\nexample of the popes, imposed annats upon the cur\u00e9s. In Normandy this\nexaction is called _droit de d\u00e9port_. Policy having no interest in\nmaintaining this pillage, it was abolished in several places; it still\nexists in others; so true is it that money is the first object of\nworship!\n\nIn 1409, at the Council of Pisa, Pope Alexander V. expressly renounced\nannats; Charles VII. condemned them by an edict of April, 1418; the\nCouncil of Basel declared that they came under the domination of simony,\nand the Pragmatic Sanction abolished them again.\n\nFrancis I., by a private treaty which he made with Leo X., and which was\nnot inserted in the concordat, allowed the pope to raise this tribute,\nwhich produced him annually, during that prince's reign, a hundred\nthousand crowns of that day, according to the calculation then made by\nJacques Capelle, advocate-general to the Parliament of Paris.\n\nThe parliament, the universities, the clergy, the whole nation,\nprotested against this exaction, and Henry II., yielding at length to\nthe cries of his people, renewed the law of Charles VII., by an edict of\nthe 3d of September, 1551.\n\nThe paying of annats was again forbidden by Charles IX., at the States\nof Orleans, in 1560: \"By the advice of our council, and in pursuance of\nthe decrees of the Holy Councils, the ancient ordinances of the kings,\nour predecessors, and the decisions of our courts of parliament, we\norder that all conveying of gold and silver out of our kingdom, and\npaying of money under the name of _annats_, vacant or otherwise, shall\ncease, on pain of a four-fold penalty on the offenders.\"\n\nThis law, promulgated in the general assembly of the nation, must have\nseemed irrevocable, but two years afterwards the same prince, subdued by\nthe court of Rome, at that time powerful, re-established what the whole\nnation and himself had abrogated.\n\nHenry IV., who feared no danger, but feared Rome, confirmed the annats\nby an edict of the 22d of January, 1596.\n\nThree celebrated jurisconsults, Dumoulin, Lannoy, and Duaren, have\nwritten strongly against annats, which they call a _real simony_. If, in\ndefault of their payment the pope refuses his bulls, Duaren advises the\nGallican Church to imitate that of Spain, which, in the twelfth Council\nof Toledo, charged the archbishop of that city, on the pope's refusal,\nto provide for the prelates appointed by the king.\n\nIt is one of the most certain maxims of French law, consecrated by\narticle fourteen of our liberties, that the bishop of Rome has no power\nover the temporalities of benefices, but enjoys the revenues of annats\nonly by the king's permission. But ought there not to be a term to this\npermission? What avails our enlightenment if we are always to retain,\nour abuses?\n\nThe amount of the sums which have been and still are paid to the pope is\ntruly frightful. The attorney-general, Jean de St. Romain, has remarked\nthat in the time of Pius II. twenty-two bishoprics having become vacant\nin France in the space of three years, it was necessary to carry to Rome\na hundred and twenty thousand crowns; that sixty-one abbeys having also\nbecome vacant, the like sum had been paid to the court of Rome; that\nabout the same time there had been paid to this court for provisions for\nthe priorships, deaneries, and other inferior dignities, a thousand\ncrowns; that for each curate there was at least a _gr\u00e2ce expectative_,\nwhich was sold for twenty-five crowns, besides an infinite number of\ndispensations, amounting to two millions of crowns. St. Romain lived in\nthe time of Louis XI. Judge then, what these sums would now amount to.\nJudge how much other states have given. Judge whether the Roman\ncommonwealth in the time of Lucullus drew more gold and silver from the\nnations conquered by its sword than the popes, the fathers of those same\nnations, have drawn from them by their pens.\n\nSupposing that St. Romain's calculation is too high by half, which is\nvery unlikely, does there not still remain a sum sufficiently\nconsiderable to entitle us to call the apostolical chamber to an\naccount and demand restitution, seeing that there is nothing at all\napostolical in such an amount of money?\n\n\n\n\nANTHROPOMORPHITES.\n\n\nThey are said to have been a small sect of the fourth century, but they\nwere rather the sect of every people that had painters and sculptors. As\nsoon as they could draw a little, or shape a figure, they made an image\nof the Divinity. If the Egyptians consecrated cats and gnats they also\nsculptured Isis and Osiris. Bel was carved at Babylon, Hercules at Tyre,\nBrahma in India.\n\nThe Mussulmans did not paint God as a man. The Guebres had no image of\nthe Great Being. The Sabean Arabs, did not give the human figure to the\nstars. The Jews did not give it to God in their temple. None of these\nnations cultivated the art of design, and if Solomon placed figures of\nanimals in his temple it is likely that he had them carved at Tyre; but\nall the Jews have spoken of God as of a man.\n\nAlthough they had no images they seem to have made God a man on all\noccasions. He comes down into the garden; He walks there every day at\nnoon; He talks to His creatures; He talks to the serpent; He makes\nHimself heard by Moses in the bush; He shows him only His back parts on\nthe mountain; He nevertheless talks to him, face to face, like one\nfriend to another.\n\nIn the Koran, too, God is always looked up to as a king. In the twelfth\nchapter, a throne is given Him above the waters. He had this Koran\nwritten by a secretary, as kings have their orders. He sent this same\nKoran to Mahomet by the angel Gabriel, as kings communicate their orders\nthrough the great officers of the crown. In short, although God is\ndeclared in the Koran to be neither begetting nor begotten, there is,\nnevertheless a morsel of anthropomorphism. In the Greek and Latin\nChurches, God has always been painted with a great beard.\n\n\n\n\nANTI-LUCRETIUS.\n\n\nThe reading of the whole poem of the late Cardinal Polignac has\nconfirmed me in the idea which I formed of it when he read to me the\nfirst book. I am moreover astonished, that amidst the dissipations of\nthe world and the troubles in public life, he should have been able to\nwrite a long work in verse, in a foreign language; he, who could hardly\nhave made four good lines in his own tongue. It seems to me that he\noften united the strength of Lucretius and the elegance of Virgil. I\nadmire him, above all, for that facility with which he expresses such\ndifficult things.\n\nPerhaps, indeed, his \"Anti-Lucretius\" is too diffuse, and too little\ndiversified, but he is here to be examined as a philosopher, not as a\npoet. It appears to me that so fine a mind as his should have done more\njustice to the morals of Epicurus, who, though he was a very bad\nnatural philosopher, was, nevertheless, a very worthy man and always\ntaught mildness, temperance, moderation, and justice, virtues which his\nexample inculcated still more forcibly.\n\nIn the \"Anti-Lucretius,\" this great man is thus apostrophized:\n\n     _Si virtutis eras avidus, rectique bonique_\n     _Tam sitiens, quid relligio tibi sancta nocebat?_\n     _Aspera quippe nimis visa est. Asperrima certe_\n     _Gaudenti vitiis, sed non virtutis amanti._\n     _Ergo perfugium culpa, solisque benignus_\n     _Periuris ac f\u0153difragis, Epicure, parabas._\n     _So lam hominum faecem poteras, devotaque fureis_\n     _Corpora, etc._\n\n     If virtue, justice, goodness, were thy care,\n     Why didst thou tremble at Religion's call?--\n     Whose laws are harsh to vicious minds alone--\n     Not to the spirit that delights in virtue.\n     No, no--the worst of men, the worst of crimes\n     Has thy solicitude--thy dearest aim\n     To find a refuge for the guilty soul, etc.\n\nBut Epicurus might reply to the cardinal: \"If I had had the happiness of\nknowing, like you, the true God, of being born, like you, in a pure and\nholy religion, I should certainly not have rejected that revealed God,\nwhose tenets were necessarily unknown to my mind, but whose morality was\nin my heart. I could not admit the existence of such gods as were\nannounced to me by paganism. I was too rational to adore divinities,\nmade to spring from a father and a mother, like mortals, and like them,\nto make war upon one another. I was too great a friend to virtue not to\nhate a religion which now invited to crime by the example of those gods\nthemselves, and now sold for money the remission of the most horrible\nenormities. I beheld, on one hand, infatuated men, stained with vices,\nand seeking to purify themselves before impure gods; and on the other,\nknaves who boasted that they could justify the most perverse by\ninitiating them in mysteries, by dropping bullock's blood on their\nheads, or by dipping them in the waters of the Ganges. I beheld the most\nunjust wars undertaken with perfect sanctity, so soon as a ram's liver\nwas found unspotted, or a woman, with hair dishevelled and rolling eyes,\nuttered words of which neither she nor any one else knew the meaning. In\nshort, I beheld all the countries of the earth stained with the blood of\nhuman victims, sacrificed by barbarous pontiffs to barbarous gods. I\nconsider that I did well to detest such religions. Mine is virtue. I\nexhorted my disciples not to meddle with the affairs of this world,\nbecause they were horribly governed. A true Epicurean was mild,\nmoderate, just, amiable--a man of whom no society had to complain--one\nwho did not pay executioners to assassinate in public those who thought\ndifferently from himself. From hence to the holy religion in which you\nhave been bred there is but one step. I destroyed the false gods, and,\nhad I lived in your day, I would have recognized the true ones.\"\n\nThus might Epicurus justify himself concerning his error. He might even\nentitle himself to pardon respecting the dogma of the immortality of the\nsoul, by saying: \"Pity me for having combated a truth which God revealed\nfive hundred years after my birth. I thought like all the first Pagan\nlegislators of the world; and they were all ignorant of this truth.\"\n\nI wish, then, that Cardinal Polignac had pitied while he condemned\nEpicurus; it would have been no detriment to fine poetry. With regard to\nphysics it appears to me that the author has lost much time and many\nverses in refuting the declination of atoms and the other absurdities\nwhich swarm in the poem of Lucretius. This is employing artillery to\ndestroy a cottage. Besides, why remove Lucretius' reveries to substitute\nthose of Descartes?\n\nCardinal Polignac has inserted in his poem some very fine lines on the\ndiscoveries of Newton; but in these, unfortunately for himself, he\ncombats demonstrated truths. The philosophy of Newton is not to be\ndiscussed in verse; it is scarcely to be approached in prose. Founded\naltogether on geometry, the genius of poetry is not fit to assail it.\nThe surface of these truths may be decorated with fine verses but to\nfathom them, calculation is requisite, and not verse.\n\n\n\n\nANTIQUITY.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nHave you not sometimes seen, in a village, Pierre Aoudri and his wife\nPeronelle striving to go before their neighbors in a procession? \"Our\ngrandfathers,\" say they, \"rung the bells before those who elbow us now\nhad so much as a stable of their own.\"\n\nThe vanity of Pierre Aoudri, his wife, and his neighbors knows no\nbetter. They grow warm. The quarrel is an important one, for honor is in\nquestion. Proofs must now be found. Some learned churchsinger discovers\nan old rusty iron pot, marked with an A, the initial of the brazier's\nname who made the pot. Pierre Aoudri persuades himself that it was the\nhelmet of one of his ancestors. So C\u00e6sar descended from a hero and from\nthe goddess Venus. Such is the history of nations; such is, very nearly,\nthe knowledge of early antiquity.\n\nThe learned of Armenia demonstrate that the terrestrial paradise was in\ntheir country. Some profound Swedes demonstrate that it was somewhere\nabout Lake Wenner, which exhibits visible remains of it. Some Spaniards,\ntoo, demonstrate that it was in Castile. While the Japanese, the\nChinese, the Tartars, the Indians, the Africans, and the Americans, are\nso unfortunate as not even to know that a terrestrial paradise once\nexisted at the sources of the Pison, the Gihon, the Tigris, and the\nEuphrates, or, which is the same thing, at the sources of the\nGuadalquivir, the Guadiana, the Douro, and the Ebro. For of Pison we\neasily make Ph\u00e6ris, and of Ph\u00e6ris we easily make the B\u00e6tis, which is the\nGuadalquivir. The Gihon, it is plain, is the Guadiana, for they both\nbegin with a G. And the Ebro, which is in Catalonia, is unquestionably\nthe Euphrates, both beginning with an E.\n\nBut a Scotchman comes, and in his turn demonstrates that the garden of\nEden was at Edinburgh, which has retained its name; and it is not\nunlikely that, in a few centuries, this opinion will prevail.\n\nThe whole globe was once burned, says a man conversant with ancient and\nmodern history; for I have read in a journal that charcoal quite black\nhas been found a hundred feet deep, among mountains covered with wood.\nAnd it is also suspected that there were charcoal-burners in this place.\n\nPhaeton's adventure sufficiently shows that everything has been boiled,\neven to the bottom of the sea. The sulphur of Mount Vesuvius\nincontrovertibly proves that the banks of the Rhine, the Danube, the\nGanges, the Nile, and the Great Yellow River, are nothing but sulphur,\nnitre, and oil of guiacum, which only wait for the moment of explosion\nto reduce the earth to ashes, as it has already once been. The sand on\nwhich we walk is an evident proof that the universe has vitrified, and\nthat our globe is nothing but a ball of glass--like our ideas.\n\nBut if fire has changed our globe, water has produced still more\nwonderful revolutions. For it is plain that the sea, the tides of which\nin our latitudes rise eight feet, has produced the mountains, which are\nsixteen to seventeen thousand feet high. This is so true that some\nlearned men, who never were in Switzerland, found a large vessel there,\nwith all its rigging, petrified, either on Mount St. Gothard or at the\nbottom of a precipice--it is not positively known which; but it is quite\ncertain that it was there. Therefore, men were originally\nfishes--Q.E.D.\n\nComing down to antiquity less ancient let us speak of the times when\nmost barbarous nations quitted their own countries to seek others which\nwere not much better. It is true, if there be anything true in ancient\nhistory, that there were Gaulish robbers who went to plunder Rome in the\ntime of Camillus. Other robbers from Gaul had, it is said, passed\nthrough Illyria to sell their services as murderers to other murderers\nin the neighborhood of Thrace: they bartered their blood for bread, and\nat length settled in Galatia. But who were these Gauls? Were they\nnatives of Berry and Anjou? They were, doubtless, some of those\nGauls whom the Romans called Cisalpine, and whom we call\nTransalpine--famishing mountaineers, inhabiting the Alps and the\nApennines. The Gauls of the Seine and the Marne did not then know that\nRome existed, and could not resolve to cross Mont Cenis, as was\nafterwards done by Hannibal, to steal the wardrobes of the Roman\nsenators, whose only movables were a gown of bad grey cloth, decorated\nwith a band, the color of bull's blood, two small knobs of ivory, or\nrather dog's bone, fixed to the arms of a wooden chair, and a piece of\nrancid bacon in their kitchens.\n\nThe Gauls, who were dying of hunger, finding nothing to eat at home,\nwent to try their fortune farther off; as the Romans afterwards did when\nthey ravaged so many countries, and as the people of the North did at a\nlater period when they destroyed the Roman Empire.\n\nAnd whence have we received our vague information respecting these\nemigrations? From some lines written at a venture by the Romans; for, as\nfor the Celts, Welsh, or Gauls, whom some would have us believe to have\nbeen eloquent, neither they nor their bards could at that time read or\nwrite.\n\nBut, to infer from these that the Gauls or Celts, afterwards conquered\nby a few of C\u00e6sar's legions, then by a horde of Goths, then by a horde\nof Burgundians, and lastly by a horde of Sicambri, under one Clodovic,\nhad before subjugated the whole earth, and given their names and their\nlaws to Asia, seems to me to be inferring a great deal. The thing,\nhowever, is not mathematically impossible; and if it be demonstrated, I\nassent: it would be very uncivil to refuse to the Welsh what is granted\nto the Tartars.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_On the Antiquity of Usages._\n\nWho have been the greatest fools, and who the most ancient fools?\nOurselves or the Egyptians, or the Syrians or some other people? What\nwas signified by our mistletoe? Who first consecrated a cat? It must have\nbeen he who was the most troubled with mice. In what nation did they\nfirst dance under the boughs of trees in honor of the gods? Who first\nmade processions, and placed fools, with caps and bells, at the head of\nthem? Who first carried a priapus through the streets, and fixed one\nlike a knocker at the door? What Arab first took it into his head to\nhang his wife's drawers out at the window, the day after his marriage?\n\nAll nations have formerly danced at the time of the new moon. Did they\nthen give one another the word? No; no more than they did to rejoice at\nthe birth of a son, or to mourn, or seem to mourn, at the death of a\nfather. Every one is very glad to see the moon again, after having lost\nher for several nights. There are a hundred usages so natural to all\nmen, that it cannot be said the Biscayans taught them to the Phrygians,\nor the Phrygians to the Biscayans.\n\nFire and water have been used in temples. This custom needed no\nintroduction. A priest did not choose always to have his hands dirty.\nFire was necessary to cook the immolated carcasses, and to burn slips of\nresinous wood and spices, in order to combat the odor of the sacerdotal\nshambles.\n\nBut the mysterious ceremonies which it is so difficult to understand,\nthe usages which nature does not teach--in what place, when, where, how,\nwhy, were they invented? Who communicated them to other nations? It is\nnot likely that it should, at the same time, have entered the head of an\nArab and of an Egyptian to cut off one end of his son's prepuce; nor\nthat a Chinese and a Persian should, both at once, have resolved to\ncastrate little boys.\n\nIt can never have been that two fathers, in different countries, have,\nat the same moment, formed the idea of cutting their sons' throats to\nplease God. Some nations must have communicated to others their follies,\nserious, ridiculous, or barbarous. In this antiquity men love to search,\nto discover, if possible, the first madman and the first scoundrel who\nperverted human nature.\n\nBut how are we to know whether Jehu, in Ph\u0153nicia, by immolating his\nson, was the inventor of sacrifices of human blood? How can we be\nassured that Lycaon was the first who ate human flesh, when we do not\nknow who first began to eat fowls?\n\nWe seek to know the origin of ancient feasts. The most ancient and the\nfinest is that of the emperors of China tilling and sowing the ground,\ntogether with their first mandarins. The second is that of the\nThesmophoria at Athens. To celebrate at once agriculture and justice, to\nshow men how necessary they both are, to unite the curb of law with the\nart which is the source of all wealth--nothing is more wise, more pious,\nor more useful.\n\nThere are old allegorical feasts to be found everywhere, as those of the\nreturn of the seasons. It was not necessary that one nation should come\nfrom afar off to teach another that marks of joy and friendship for\none's neighbors may be given on the first day of the year. This custom\nhas been that of every people. The Saturnalia of the Romans are better\nknown than those of the Allobroges and the Picts; because there are\nmany Roman writings and monuments remaining, but there are none of the\nother nations of western Europe.\n\nThe feast of Saturn was the feast of Time. He had four wings; time flies\nquickly--his two faces evidently signifying the concluded and the\ncommencing year. The Greeks said that he had devoured his father and\nthat he devoured his children. No allegory is more reasonable. Time\ndevours the past and the present, and will devour the future.\n\nWhy seek for vain and gloomy explanations of a feast so universal, so\ngay, and so well known? When I look well into antiquity, I do not find a\nsingle annual festival of a melancholy character; or, at least, if they\nbegin with lamentations, they end in dancing and revelry. If tears are\nshed for Adoni or Adonai, whom we call Adonis, he is soon resuscitated,\nand rejoicing takes place. It is the same with the feasts of Isis,\nOsiris, and Horus. The Greeks, too, did as much for Ceres as for\nProsperine. The death of the serpent Python was celebrated with gayety.\nA feast day and a day of joy were one and the same thing. At the feasts\nof Bacchus this joy was only carried too far.\n\nI do not find one general commemoration of an unfortunate event. The\ninstitutors of the feasts would have shown themselves to be devoid of\ncommon sense if they had established at Athens a celebration of the\nbattle lost at Ch\u00e6ronea, and at Rome another of the battle of Cannae.\n\nThey perpetuated the remembrance of what might encourage men, and not of\nthat which might fill them with cowardice or despair. This is so true\nthat fables were invented for the purpose of instituting feasts. Castor\nand Pollux did not fight for the Romans near Lake Regillus; but, at the\nend of three or four hundred years, some priests said so, and all the\npeople danced. Hercules did not deliver Greece from a hydra with seven\nheads; but Hercules and his hydra were sung.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Festivals Founded on Chimeras._\n\nI do not know that there was, in all antiquity, a single festival\nfounded on an established fact. It has been elsewhere remarked how\nextremely ridiculous those schoolmen appear who say to you, with a\nmagisterial air: \"Here is an ancient hymn in honor of Apollo, who\nvisited Claros; therefore Apollo went to Claros; a chapel was erected to\nPerseus; therefore he delivered Andromeda.\" Poor men! You should rather\nsay, therefore there was no Andromeda.\n\nBut what, then, will become of that learned antiquity which preceded the\nolympiads? It will become what it is--an unknown time, a time lost, a\ntime of allegories and lies, a time regarded with contempt by the wise,\nand profoundly discussed by blockheads, who like to float in a _void_,\nlike Epicurus' atoms.\n\nThere were everywhere days of penance, days of expiation in the temples;\nbut these days were never called by a name answering to that of\n_feasts_. Every feast-day was sacred to diversion; so true is this that\nthe Egyptian priests fasted on the eve in order to eat the more on the\nmorrow--a custom which our monks have preserved. There were, no doubt,\nmournful ceremonies. It was not customary to dance the Greek brawl while\ninterring or carrying to the funeral pile a son or a daughter; this was\na public ceremony, but certainly not a feast.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_On the Antiquity of Feasts, Which, It has been Asserted, were Always\nMournful._\n\nMen of ingenuity, profound searchers into antiquity, who would know how\nthe earth was made a hundred thousand years ago, if genius could\ndiscover it, have asserted that mankind, reduced to a very small number\nin both continents, and still terrified at the innumerable revolutions\nwhich this sad globe had undergone, perpetuated the remembrance of their\ncalamities by dismal and mournful commemorations.\n\n\"Every feast,\" say they, \"was a day of horror, instituted to remind men\nthat their fathers had been destroyed by the fires of the volcanoes, by\nrocks falling from the mountains, by eruptions of the sea, by the teeth\nand claws of wild beasts, by war, pestilence and famine.\"\n\nThen we are not made as men were then. There was never so much rejoicing\nin London as after the plague and the burning of the whole city in the\nreign of Charles II. We made songs while the massacres of Bartholomew\nwere still going on. Some pasquinades have been preserved which were\nmade the day after the assassination of Coligni; there was printed in\nParis, _Passio Domini nostri Gaspardi Colignii secundum Bartholom\u00e6um_.\n\nIt has a thousand times happened that the sultan who reigns in\nConstantinople has made his eunuchs and odalisks dance in apartments\nstained with the blood of his brothers and his viziers. What do the\npeople of Paris do on the very day that they are apprised of the loss of\na battle and the death of a hundred brave officers? They run to the play\nand the opera.\n\nWhat did they when the wife of Marshal d'Ancre was given up in the Gr\u00e8ve\nto the barbarity of her persecutors? When Marshal de Marillac was\ndragged to execution in a wagon, by virtue of a paper signed by robed\nlackeys in Cardinal de Richelieu's ante-chamber? When a\nlieutenant-general of the army, a foreigner, who had shed his blood for\nthe state, condemned by the cries of his infuriated enemies, was led to\nthe scaffold in a dung-cart, with a gag in his mouth? When a young man\nof nineteen, full of candor, courage and modesty, but very imprudent,\nwas carried to the most dreadful of punishments? They sang vaudevilles.\nSuch is man, at least man on the banks of the Seine. Such has he been\nat all times, for the same reason that rabbits have always had hair, and\nlarks feathers.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\n_On the Origin of the Arts._\n\nWhat! we would know the precise theology--of Thoth, Zerdusht, or\nSanchoniathon, although we know not who invented the shuttle. The first\nweaver, the first mason, the first smith were undoubtedly great\ngeniuses; yet no account has been made of them. And why? Because not one\nof them invented a perfect art. He who first hollowed the trunk of an\noak for the purpose of crossing a river did not build galleys; nor did\nthey who piled up unhewn stones, and laid pieces of wood across them,\ndream of the pyramids. Everything is done by degrees, and the glory\nbelongs to no one.\n\nAll was done in the dark, until philosophers, aided by geometry, taught\nmen to proceed with accuracy and safety.\n\nIt was left for Pythagoras, on his return from his travels, to show\nworkmen the way to make an exact square. He took three rules: one three,\none four, and one five feet long, and with these he made a right-angled\ntriangle. Moreover, it was found that the side 5 furnished a square just\nequal to the two squares produced by the sides 4 and 3; a method of\nimportance in all regular works.\n\nThis is the famous theorem which he had brought from India, and which\nwe have elsewhere said was known in China long before, according to the\nrelation of the Emperor Cam-hi. Long before Plato, the Greeks made use\nof a single geometrical figure to double the square.\n\nArchytas and Erastothenes invented a method of doubling the cube, which\nwas impracticable by ordinary geometry, and which would have done honor\nto Archimedes.\n\nThis Archimedes found the method of calculating exactly the quantity of\nalloy mixed with gold; for gold had been worked for ages before the\nfraud of the workers could be discovered. Knavery existed long before\nmathematics. The pyramids, built with the square, and corresponding\nexactly with the four cardinal points, sufficiently show that geometry\nwas known in Egypt from time immemorial; and yet it is proved that Egypt\nis quite a new country.\n\nWithout philosophy we should be little above the animals that dig or\nerect their habitations, prepare their food in them, take care of their\nlittle ones in their dwellings, and have besides the good fortune, which\nwe have not, of being born ready clothed. Vitruvius, who had travelled\nin Gaul and Spain, tells us that in his time the houses were built of a\nsort of mortar, covered with thatch or oak shingles, and that the people\ndid not make use of tiles. What was the time of Vitruvius? It was that\nof Augustus. The arts had scarcely yet reached the Spaniards, who had\nmines of gold and silver; or the Gauls, who had fought for ten years\nagainst C\u00e6sar.\n\nThe same Vitruvius informs us that in the opulent and ingenious town of\nMarseilles, which traded with so many nations, the roofs were only of a\nkind of clay mixed with straw.\n\nHe says that the Phrygians dug themselves habitations in the ground;\nthey stuck poles round the hollow, brought them together at the top, and\nlaid earth over them. The Hurons and the Algonquins are better lodged.\nThis gives us no very lofty idea of Troy, built by the gods, and the\npalace of Priam:\n\n     _Apparet domus intus, et atria longa patescunt;_\n     _Apparent Priami et veterum penetralia regum._\n\n     A mighty breach is made; the rooms concealed\n     Appear, and all the palace is revealed--\n     The halls of audience, and of public state.--DRYDEN.\n\nTo be sure, the people are not lodged like kings; huts are to be seen\nnear the Vatican and near Versailles. Besides, industry rises and falls\namong nations by a thousand revolutions:\n\n     _Et campus ubi Troja fuit._\n     ....the plain where Troy once stood.\n\nWe have our arts, the ancients had theirs. We could not make a galley\nwith three benches of oars, but we can build ships with a hundred pieces\nof cannon. We cannot raise obelisks a hundred feet high in a single\npiece, but our meridians are more exact. The byssus is unknown to us,\nbut the stuffs of Lyons are more valuable. The Capitol was worthy of\nadmiration, the church of St. Peter is larger and more beautiful. The\nLouvre is a masterpiece when compared with the palace of Persepolis, the\nsituation and ruins of which do but tell of a vast monument to barbaric\nwealth. Rameau's music is probably better than that of Timotheus; and\nthere is not a picture presented at Paris in the Hall of Apollo (salon\nd'Apollon) which does not excel the paintings dug out of Herculaneum.\n\n\n\n\nAPIS.\n\n\nWas the ox Apis worshipped at Memphis as a god, as a symbol, or as an\nox? It is likely that the fanatics regarded him as a god, the wise as\nmerely a symbol, and that the more stupid part of the people worshipped\nthe ox. Did Cambyses do right in killing this ox with his own hand? Why\nnot? He showed to the imbecile that their god might be put on the spit\nwithout nature's arming herself to avenge the sacrilege. The Egyptians\nhave been much extolled. I have not heard of a more miserable people.\nThere must always have been in their character, and in their government,\nsome radical vice which has constantly made vile slaves of them. Let it\nbe granted that in times almost unknown they conquered the earth; but in\nhistorical times they have been subjugated by all who have chosen to\ntake the trouble--by the Assyrians, by the Greeks, by the Romans, by the\nArabs, by the Mamelukes, by the Turks, by all, in short, but our\ncrusaders, who were even more ill-advised than the Egyptians were\ncowardly. It was the Mameluke militia that beat the French under St.\nLouis. There are, perhaps, but two things tolerable in this nation; the\nfirst is, that those who worshipped an ox never sought to compel those\nwho adored an ape to change their religion; the second, that they have\nalways hatched chickens in ovens.\n\n[Illustration: A vast monument to barbaric wealth.]\n\nWe are told of their pyramids; but they are monuments of an enslaved\npeople. The whole nation must have been set to work on them, or those\nunsightly masses could never have been raised. And for what use were\nthey? To preserve in a small chamber the mummy of some prince, or\ngovernor, or intendant, which his soul was to reanimate at the end of a\nthousand years. But if they looked forward to this resurrection of the\nbody, why did they take out the brains before embalming them? Were the\nEgyptians to be resuscitated without brains?\n\n\n\n\nAPOCALYPSE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nJustin the Martyr, who wrote about the year 270 of the Christian era,\nwas the first who spoke of the Apocalypse; he attributes it to the\napostle John the Evangelist. In his dialogue with Tryphon, that Jew asks\nhim if he does not believe that Jerusalem is one day to be\nre-established? Justin answers that he believes it, as all Christians do\nwho think aright. \"There was among us,\" says he, \"a certain person\nnamed John, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus; he foretold that the\nfaithful shall pass a thousand years in Jerusalem.\"\n\nThe belief in this reign of a thousand years was long prevalent among\nthe Christians. This period was also in great credit among the Gentiles.\nThe souls of the Egyptians returned to their bodies at the end of a\nthousand years; and, according to Virgil, the souls in purgatory were\nexorcised for the same space of time--_et mille per annos_. The New\nJerusalem of a thousand years was to have twelve gates, in memory of the\ntwelve apostles; its form was to be square; its length, breadth, and\nheight were each to be a thousand stadii--_i.e._, five hundred leagues;\nso that the houses were to be five hundred leagues high. It would be\nrather disagreeable to live in the upper story; but we find all this in\nthe twenty-first chapter of the Apocalypse.\n\nIf Justin was the first who attributed the Apocalypse to St. John, some\npersons have rejected his testimony; because in the same dialogue with\nthe Jew Tryphon he says that, according to the relation of the apostles,\nJesus Christ, when he went into the Jordan, made the water boil, which,\nhowever, is not to be found in any writing of the apostles.\n\nThe same St. Justin confidently cites the oracles of Sibyls; he moreover\npretends to have seen the remains of the places in which the seventy-two\ninterpreters were confined in the Egyptian pharos, in Herod's time. The\ntestimony of a man who had had the misfortune to see these places seems\nto indicate that he might possibly have been confined there himself.\n\nSt. Iren\u00e6us, who comes afterwards, and who also believed in the reign of\na thousand years, tells us that he learned from an old man that St. John\nwrote the Apocalypse. But St. Iren\u00e6us is reproached with having written\nthat there should be but four gospels, because there are but four\nquarters of the world, and four cardinal points, and Ezekiel saw but\nfour animals. He calls this reasoning a demonstration. It must be\nconfessed that Iren\u00e6us's method of demonstrating is quite worthy of\nJustin's power of sight.\n\nClement of Alexandria, in his _\"Electa\"_ mentions only an Apocalypse of\nSt. Peter, to which great importance was attached. Tertullian, a great\npartisan of the thousand years' reign, not only assures us that St. John\nforetold this resurrection and reign of a thousand years in the city of\nJerusalem, but also asserts that this Jerusalem was already beginning to\nform itself in the air, where it had been seen by all the Christians of\nPalestine, and even by the Pagans, at the latter end of the night, for\nforty nights successively; but, unfortunately, the city always\ndisappeared as soon as it was daylight.\n\nOrigen, in his preface to St. John's Gospel, and in his homilies, quotes\nthe oracles of the Apocalypse, but he likewise quotes the oracles of\nSibyls. And St. Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote about the middle of\nthe third century, says, in one of his fragments preserved by Eusebius,\nthat nearly all the doctors rejected the Apocalypse as a book devoid of\nreason, and that this book was composed, not by St. John, but by one\nCerinthus, who made use of a great name to give more weight to his\nreveries.\n\nThe Council of Laodicea, held in 360, did not reckon the Apocalypse\namong the canonical books. It is very singular that Laodicea, one of the\nchurches to which the Apocalypse was addressed, should have rejected a\ntreasure designed for itself, and that the bishop of Ephesus, who\nattended the council, should also have rejected this book of St. John,\nwho was buried at Ephesus.\n\nIt was visible to all eyes that St. John was continually turning about\nin his grave, causing a constant rising and falling of the earth. Yet\nthe same persons who were sure that St. John was not quite dead were\nalso sure that he had not written the Apocalypse. But those who were for\nthe thousand years' reign were unshaken in their opinion. Sulpicius\nSeverus, in his \"Sacred History,\" book xi., treats as mad and impious\nthose who did not receive the Apocalypse. At length, after numerous\noppositions of council to council, the opinion of Sulpicius Severus\nprevailed. The matter having been thus cleared up, the Church came to\nthe decision, from which there is no appeal, that the Apocalypse is\nincontestably St. John's.\n\nEvery Christian communion has applied to itself the prophecies contained\nin this book. The English have found in it the revolutions of Great\nBritain; the Lutherans, the troubles of Germany; the French reformers,\nthe reign of Charles IX., and the regency of Catherine de Medici, and\nthey are all equally right. Bossuet and Newton have both commented on\nthe Apocalypse, yet, after all, the eloquent declamations of the one,\nand the sublime discoveries of the other, have done them greater honor\nthan their commentaries.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nTwo great men, but very different in their greatness, have commented on\nthe Apocalypse in the seventeenth century: Newton, to whom such a study\nwas very ill suited, and Bossuet, who was better fitted for the\nundertaking. Both gave additional weapons to their enemies, by their\ncommentaries, and, as has elsewhere been said, the former consoled\nmankind for his superiority over them, while the latter made his enemies\nrejoice.\n\nThe Catholics and the Protestants have both explained the Apocalypse in\ntheir favor, and have each found in it exactly what has accorded with\ntheir interests. They have made wonderful commentaries on the great\nbeast with seven heads and ten horns, with the hair of a leopard, the\nfeet of a bear, the throat of a lion, the strength of a dragon, and to\nbuy and sell it was necessary to have the character and number of the\nbeast, which number was 666.\n\nBossuet finds that this beast was evidently the Emperor Diocletian, by\nmaking an acrostic of his name. Grotius believed that it was Trajan. A\ncurate of St. Sulpice, named La Ch\u00e9tardie, known from some strange\nadventures, proves that the beast was Julian. Jurieu proves that the\nbeast is the pope. One preacher has demonstrated that it was Louis XIV.\nA good Catholic has demonstrated that it was William, king of England.\nIt is not easy to make them all agree.\n\nThere have been warm disputes concerning the stars which fell from\nheaven to earth, and the sun and moon, which were struck with darkness\nin their third parts.\n\nThere are several opinions respecting the book that the angel made the\nauthor of the Apocalypse eat, which book was sweet to the mouth and\nbitter to the stomach. Jurieu asserted that the books of his adversary\nwere designated thereby, and his argument was retorted upon himself.\n\nThere have been disputes about this verse: \"And I heard a voice from\nheaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great\nthunder; and I heard the voice of harpers harping on their harps.\"\n\nIt is quite clear that it would have been better to have respected the\nApocalypse than to have commented upon it.\n\nCamus, bishop of Bellay, printed in the last century a large book\nagainst the monks, which an unfrocked monk abridged. It was entitled\n\"Apocalypse,\" because in it he exposed the dangers and defects of the\nmonastic life; and \"Melito's Apocalypse\" (_\"Apocalypse de M\u00e9liton?\"_),\nbecause Melito, bishop of Sardis, in the second century, had passed for\na prophet. This bishop's work has none of the obscurities of St. John's\nApocalypse. Nothing was ever clearer. The bishop is like a magistrate\nsaying to an attorney, \"You are a forger and a cheat--do you comprehend\nme?\"\n\nThe bishop of Bellay computes, in his Apocalypse or Revelations, that\nthere were in his time ninety-eight orders of monks endowed or\nmendicant, living at the expense of the people, without employing\nthemselves in the smallest labor. He reckoned six hundred thousand monks\nin Europe. The calculation was a little strained; but it is certain that\nthe real number of the monks was rather too large.\n\nHe assures us that the monks are enemies to the bishops, curates, and\nmagistrates; that, among the privileges granted to the Cordeliers, the\nsixth privilege is the certainty of being saved, whatever horrible crime\nyou may have committed, provided you belong to the Order of St. Francis;\nthat the monks are like apes; the higher they climb, the plainer you see\ntheir posteriors; that the name of _monk_ has become so infamous and\nexecrable that it is regarded by the monks themselves as a foul reproach\nand the most violent insult that can be offered them.\n\nMy dear reader, whoever you are, minister or magistrate, consider\nattentively the following short extract from our bishop's book:\n\n\"Figure to yourself the convent of the Escorial or of Monte Cassino,\nwhere the c\u0153nobites have everything necessary, useful, delightful,\nsuperfluous and superabundant--since they have their yearly revenue of a\nhundred and fifty thousand, four hundred thousand, or five hundred\nthousand crowns; and judge whether Monsieur l'Abb\u00e9 has wherewithal to\nallow himself and those under him to sleep after dinner.\n\n\"Then imagine an artisan or laborer, with no dependence except on the\nwork of his hands, and burdened with a large family, toiling like a\nslave every day and at all seasons, to feed them with the bread of\nsorrow and the water of tears; and say, which of the two conditions is\npre-eminent in poverty.\"\n\nThis is a passage from the \"Episcopal Apocalypse\" which needs no\ncommentary. All that is wanted is an angel to come and fill his cup with\nthe wine of the monks, to slake the thirst of the laborers who plow,\nsow, and reap, for the monasteries.\n\nBut this prelate, instead of writing a useful book, only composed a\nsatire. Consistently with his dignity, he should have stated the good as\nwell as evil. He should have acknowledged that the Benedictines have\nproduced many good works, and that the Jesuits have rendered great\nservices to literature. He might have blessed the brethren of La\nCharit\u00e9, and those of the Redemption of the Captives. Our first duty is\nto be just. Camus gave too much scope to his imagination. St. Fran\u00e7ois\nde Sales advised him to write moral romances; but he abused the advice.\n\n\n\n\nANTI-TRINITARIANS.\n\n\nThese are heretics who might pass for other than Christians. However,\nthey acknowledge Jesus as Saviour and Mediator; but they dare to\nmaintain that nothing is more contrary to right reason than what is\ntaught among Christians concerning the Trinity of persons in one only\ndivine essence, of whom the second is begotten by the first, and the\nthird proceeds from the other two; that this unintelligible doctrine is\nnot to be found in any part of Scripture; that no passage can be\nproduced which authorizes it; or to which, without in any wise departing\nfrom the spirit of the text, a sense cannot be given more clear, more\nnatural, or more conformable to common notions, and to primitive and\nimmutable truths; that to maintain, as the orthodox do, that in the\ndivine essence there are several distinct persons, and that the Eternal\nis not the only true God, but that the Son and the Holy Ghost must be\njoined with Him, is to introduce into the Church of Christ an error the\nmost gross and dangerous, since it is openly to favor polytheism; that\nit implies a contradiction, to say that there is but one God, and that,\nnevertheless, there are three _persons_, each of which is truly God;\nthat this distinction, of _one_ in _essence_, and _three_ in _person_,\nwas never in Scripture; that it is manifestly false, since it is certain\nthat there are no fewer essences than persons, nor persons than\nessences; that the three persons of the Trinity are either three\ndifferent substances, or accidents of the divine essence, or that\nessence itself without distinction; that, in the first place, you make\nthree Gods; that, in the second, God is composed of accidents; you adore\naccidents, and metamorphose accidents into persons; that, in the third,\nyou unfoundedly and to no purpose divide an indivisible subject, and\ndistinguish into _three_ that which within itself has no distinction;\nthat if it be said that the three personalities are neither different\nsubstances in the divine essence, nor accidents of that essence, it will\nbe difficult to persuade ourselves that they are anything at all; that\nit must not be believed that the most rigid and decided Trinitarians\nhave themselves any clear idea of the way in which the three\n_hypostases_ subsist in God, without dividing His substance, and\nconsequently without multiplying it; that St. Augustine himself, after\nadvancing on this subject a thousand reasonings alike dark and false,\nwas forced to confess that nothing intelligible could be said about the\nmatter; they then repeat the passage by this father, which is, indeed, a\nvery singular one: \"When,\" says he, \"it is asked what are _the three_,\nthe language of man fails and terms are wanting to express them.\"\n\"_Three persons_, has, however, been said--not for the purpose of\nexpressing anything, but in order to say something and not remain mute.\"\n_\"Dictum est tres person\u00e6, non ut aliquid diceretur, sed ne\ntaceretur\"._--De Trinit. lib. v. cap. 9; that modern theologians have\ncleared up this matter no better; that, when they are asked what they\nunderstand by the word _person_, they explain themselves only by saying\nthat it is a certain incomprehensible distinction by which are\ndistinguished in one nature only, a Father, a Son, and a Holy Ghost;\nthat the explanation which they give of the terms _begetting_ and\n_proceeding_, is no more satisfactory, since it reduces itself to saying\nthat these terms indicate certain incomprehensible relations existing\namong the three persons of the Trinity; that it may be hence gathered\nthat the state of the question between them and the orthodox is to know\nwhether there are in God three distinctions, of which no one has any\ndefinite idea, and among which there are certain relations of which no\none has any more idea.\n\nFrom all this they conclude that it would be wiser to abide by the\ntestimony of the apostles, who never spoke of the Trinity, and to banish\nfrom religion forever all terms which are not in the scriptures--as\n_trinity_, _person_, _essence_, _hypostasis_, _hypostatic_ and _personal\nunion_, _incarnation_, _generation_, _proceeding_, and many others of\nthe same kind; which being absolutely devoid of meaning, since they are\nrepresented by no real existence in nature, can excite in the\nunderstanding none but false, vague, obscure, and undefinable notions.\n\nTo this article let us add what Calmet says in his dissertation on the\nfollowing passage of the Epistle of John the Evangelist: \"For there are\nthree that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy\nGhost; and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness\nin earth, the spirit, the water and the blood; and these three are one.\"\nCalmet acknowledges that these two verses are not in any ancient bible;\nindeed, it would be very strange if St. John had spoken of the Trinity\nin a letter, and said not a word about it in his Gospel. We find no\ntrace of this dogma, either in the canonical or in the apocryphal\ngospels. All these reasons and many others might excuse the\nanti-trinitarians, if the councils had not decided. But as the heretics\npay no regard to councils, we know not what measures to take to confound\nthem. Let us content ourselves with believing and wishing them to\nbelieve.\n\n\n\n\nAPOCRYPHA--APOCRYPHAL.\n\n(FROM THE GREEK WORD SIGNIFYING _hidden_.)\n\n\nIt has been very well remarked that the divine writings might, at one\nand the same time, be sacred and apocryphal; sacred, because they had\nundoubtedly been dictated by God Himself; apocryphal, because they were\nhidden from the nations, and even from the Jewish people.\n\nThat they were hidden from the nations before the translation executed\nat Alexandria, under the Ptolemies, is an acknowledged truth. Josephus\ndeclares it in the answer to Appian, which he wrote after Appian's\ndeath; and his declaration has not less strength because he seeks to\nstrengthen it by a fable. He says in his history that the Jewish books\nbeing all-divine, no foreign historian or poet had ever dared to speak\nof them. And, immediately after assuring us that no one had ever dared\nto mention the Jewish laws, he adds that the historian Theopompus,\nhaving only intended to insert something concerning them in his history,\nGod struck him with madness for thirty days; but that, having been\ninformed in a dream that he was mad only because he had wished to know\ndivine things and make them known to the profane, he asked pardon of\nGod, who restored him to his senses.\n\nJosephus in the same passage also relates that a poet named Theodectes,\nhaving said a few words about the Jews in his tragedies, became blind,\nand that God did not restore his sight until he had done penance.\n\nAs for the Jewish people, it is certain that there was a time when they\ncould not read the divine writings; for it is said in the Second Book of\nKings (chap, xxii., ver. 8), and in the Second Book of Chronicles (chap,\nxxxiv., ver. 14), that in the reign of Josias they were unknown, and\nthat a single copy was accidentally found in the house of the high\npriest Hilkiah.\n\nThe twelve tribes which were dispersed by Shalmaneser have never\nre-appeared; and their books, if they had any, have been lost with them.\nThe two tribes which were in slavery at Babylon and allowed to return at\nthe end of seventy years, returned without their books, or at least they\nwere very scarce and very defective, since Esdras was obliged to\nrestore them. But although during the Babylonian captivity these books\nwere apocryphal, that is, hidden or unknown to the people, they were\nconstantly sacred--they bore the stamp of divinity--they were, as all\nthe world agrees, the only monument of truth upon earth.\n\nWe now give the name of apocrypha to those books which are not worthy of\nbelief; so subject are languages to change! Catholics and Protestants\nagree in regarding as apocryphal in this sense, and in rejecting, the\nprayer of Manasseh, king of Judah, contained in the Second Book of\nKings; the Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees; the Fourth Book of\nEsdras; although these books were incontestably written by Jews. But it\nis denied that the authors were inspired by God, like the Jews.\n\nThe other books, rejected by the Protestants only, and consequently\nconsidered by them as not inspired by God Himself, are the Book of\nWisdom, though it is written in the same style as the Proverbs;\nEcclesiasticus, though the style is still the same; the first two books\nof Maccabees, though written by a Jew, But they do not believe this Jew\nto have been inspired by God--Tobit--although the story is edifying. The\njudicious and profound Calmet affirms that a part of this book was\nwritten by Tobit the father, and a part by Tobit the son; and that a\nthird author added the conclusion of the last chapter, which says that\nTobit the younger expired at the age of one hundred and twenty-seven\nyears, and that he died rejoicing over the destruction of Nineveh.\n\nThe same Calmet, at the end of his preface, has these words: \"Neither\nthe story itself, nor the manner in which it is told, bears any fabulous\nor fictitious character. If all Scripture histories, containing anything\nof the marvellous or extraordinary, were to be rejected, where is the\nsacred book which is to be preserved?\"\n\nJudith is another book rejected by the Protestants, although Luther\nhimself declares that \"this book is beautiful, good, holy, useful, the\nlanguage of a holy poet and a prophet animated by the Holy Spirit, that\nhad been his instructor,\" etc.\n\nIt is indeed hard to discover at what time Judith's adventure happened,\nor where the town of Bethulia was. The degree of sanctity in Judith's\naction has also been disputed; but the book having been declared\ncanonical by the Council of Trent, all disputes are at an end.\n\nOther books are Baruch, although it is written in the style of all the\nother prophets; Esther, of which the Protestants reject only some\nadditions after the tenth chapter. They admit all the rest of the book;\nyet no one knows who King Ahasuerus was, although he is the principal\nperson in the story; Daniel, in which the Protestants retrench\nSusannah's adventure and that of the children in the furnace; but they\nretain Nebuchadnezzar's dream and his grazing with the beasts.\n\n_On the Life of Moses, an Apocryphal Book of the Highest Antiquity._\n\nThe ancient book which contains the life and death of Moses seems to\nhave been written at the time of the Babylonian captivity. It was then\nthat the Jews began to know the names given to the angels by the\nChald\u00e6ans and Persians.\n\nHere we see the names of Zinguiel, Samael, Tsakon, Lakah, and many\nothers of which the Jews had made no mention.\n\nThe book of the death of Moses seems to have been written later. It is\nknown that the Jews had several very ancient lives of Moses and other\nbooks, independently of the Pentateuch. In them he was called Moni, not\nMoses; and it is asserted that _mo_ signified _water_, and _ni_ the\nparticle _of_. He was called by the general name of Melk. He received\nthose of Joakim, Adamosi, Thetmosi; and it has been thought that he was\nthe same person whom Mane then calls Ozarziph.\n\nSome of these old Hebrew manuscripts were withdrawn from their covering\nof dust in the cabinets of the Jews about the year 1517. The learned\nGilbert Gaumin, who was a perfect master of their language, translated\nthem into Latin about the year 1535. They were afterwards printed and\ndedicated to Cardinal B\u00e9rule. The copies have become extremely scarce.\n\nNever were rabbinism, the taste for the marvellous and the imagination\nof the orientals displayed to greater excess.\n\n_Fragment of the Life of Moses._\n\nA hundred and thirty years after the settling of the Jews in Egypt, and\nsixty years after the death of the patriarch Joseph, Pharaoh, while\nsleeping, had a dream. He saw an old man holding a balance; in one scale\nwere all the inhabitants of Egypt; in the other was an infant, and this\ninfant weighed more than all the Egyptians together. Pharaoh forthwith\ncalled together his _shotim_, or sages. One of the wise men said: \"O\nking, this infant is a Jew who will one day do great evil to your\nkingdom. Cause all the children of the Jews to be slain; thus shalt thou\nsave thy empire, if, indeed, the decrees of fate can be opposed.\"\n\nPharaoh was pleased with this advice. He sent for the midwives and\nordered them to strangle all the male children of which the Jewesses\nwere delivered. There was in Egypt a man named Abraham, son of Keath,\nhusband to Jocabed, sister to his brother. This Jocabed bore him a\ndaughter named Mary, signifying \"persecuted,\" because the Egyptians,\nbeing descended from Ham, persecuted the Israelites, who were evidently\ndescended from Shem. Jocabed afterwards brought forth Aaron, signifying\n\"condemned to death,\" because Pharaoh had condemned all the Jewish\ninfants to death. Aaron and Mary were preserved by the angels of the\nLord, who nursed them in the fields and restored them to their parents\nwhen they had reached the period of adolescence.\n\nAt length Jocabed had a third child; this was Moses, who, consequently,\nwas fifteen years younger than his brother. He was exposed on the Nile.\nPharaoh's daughter found him while bathing, had him nursed and adopted\nhim as her son, although she was not married.\n\nThree years after, her father, Pharaoh, took a fresh wife, on which\noccasion he held a great feast. His wife was at his right hand, and at\nhis left was his daughter, with little Moses. The child, in sport, took\nthe crown and put it on his head. Balaam, the magician, the king's\neunuch, then recalled his majesty's dream. \"Behold,\" said he, \"the child\nwho is one day to do so much mischief! The spirit of God is in him. What\nhe has just now done is a proof that he has already formed the design of\ndethroning you. He must instantly be put to death.\" This idea pleased\nPharaoh much.\n\nThey were about to kill little Moses when the Lord sent his angel\nGabriel, disguised as one of Pharaoh's officers, to say to him: \"My\nlord, we should not put to death an innocent child, which is not yet\ncome to years of discretion; he put on your crown only because he wants\njudgment. You have only to let a ruby and a burning coal be presented to\nhim; if he choose the coal, it is clear that he is a blockhead who will\nnever do any harm; but if he take the ruby it will be a sign that he\nhas too much sense to burn his fingers; then let him be slain.\"\n\nA ruby and a coal were immediately brought. Moses did not fail to take\nthe ruby; but the angel Gabriel, by a sort of legerdemain, slipped the\ncoal into the place of the precious stone. Moses put the coal into his\nmouth and burned his tongue so horribly that he stammered ever after;\nand this was the reason that the Jewish lawgiver could never articulate.\n\nMoses was fifteen years old and a favorite with Pharaoh. A Hebrew came\nto complain to him that an Egyptian had beaten him after lying with his\nwife. Moses killed the Egyptian. Pharaoh ordered Moses' head to be cut\noff. The executioner struck him, but God instantly changed Moses' neck\ninto a marble column, and sent the angel Michael, who in three days\nconducted Moses beyond the frontiers.\n\nThe young Hebrew fled to Mecano, king of Ethiopia, who was at war with\nthe Arabs. Mecano made him his general-in-chief; and, after Mecano's\ndeath, Moses was chosen king and married the widow. But Moses, ashamed\nto have married the wife of his lord, dared not to enjoy her, but placed\na sword in the bed between himself and the queen. He lived with her\nforty years without touching her. The angry queen at length called\ntogether the states of the kingdom of Ethiopia, complained that Moses\nwas of no service to her, and concluded by driving him away and placing\non the throne the son of the late king.\n\nMoses fled into the country of Midian, to the priest Jethro. This priest\nthought his fortune would be made if he could put Moses into the hands\nof Pharaoh of Egypt, and began by confining him in a low cell and\nallowing him only bread and water. Moses grew fat in his dungeon, at\nwhich Jethro was quite astonished. He was not aware that his daughter\nSephora had fallen in love with the prisoner, and every day, with her\nown hands, carried him partridges and quails, with excellent wine. He\nconcluded that Moses was protected by God and did not give him up to\nPharaoh.\n\nHowever, Jethro the priest wished to have his daughter married. He had\nin his garden a tree of sapphire, on which was engraven the word _Jaho_\nor _Jehovah_. He caused it to be published throughout the country that\nhe would give his daughter to him who could tear up the sapphire tree.\nSephora's lovers presented themselves, but none of them could so much as\nbend the tree. Moses, who was only seventy-seven years old, tore it up\nat once without an effort. He married Sephora, by whom he soon had a\nfine boy named Gerson.\n\nAs he was one day walking in a small wood, he met God (who had formerly\ncalled Himself Sadai, and then called Himself Jehovah), and God ordered\nhim to go and work miracles at Pharaoh's court. He set out with his wife\nand son. On the way they met an angel (to whom no name is given), who\nordered Sephora to circumcise little Gerson with a knife made of stone.\nGod sent Aaron on the same errand, but Aaron thought his brother had\ndone wrong in marrying a Midianite; he called her a very coarse name,\nand little Gerson a bastard, and sent them the shortest way back to\ntheir own country.\n\nAaron and Moses then went to Pharaoh's palace by themselves. The gate of\nthe palace was guarded by two lions of an enormous size. Balaam, one of\nthe king's magicians, seeing the two brothers come, set the lions upon\nthem; but Moses touched them with his rod, and the lions, humbly\nprostrating themselves, licked the feet of Aaron and Moses. The king, in\nastonishment, had the two pilgrims brought into the presence of all his\nmagicians, that they might strive which could work the most miracles.\n\nThe author here relates the ten plagues of Egypt, nearly as they are\nrelated in Exodus. He only adds that Moses covered all Egypt with lice,\nto the depth of a cubit; and that he sent among all the Egyptians lions,\nwolves, bears, and tigers, which ran into all the houses,\nnotwithstanding that the doors were bolted, and devoured all the little\nchildren.\n\nAccording to this writer, it was not the Jews who fled through the Red\nSea; it was Pharaoh, who fled that way with his army: the Jews ran after\nhim; the waters separated right and left to see them fight; and all the\nEgyptians, except the king, were slain upon the sand. Then the king,\nfinding that his own was the weaker side, asked pardon of God. Michael\nand Gabriel were sent to him and conveyed him to the city of Nineveh,\nwhere he reigned four hundred years.\n\n_The Death of Moses._\n\nGod had declared to the people of Israel that they should not go out of\nEgypt until they had once more found the tomb of Joseph. Moses found it\nand carried it on his shoulders through the Red Sea. God told him that\nHe would bear in mind this good action and would assist him at the time\nof his death. When Moses had lived six score years, God came to announce\nto him that he must die and had but three hours more to live. The bad\nangel Samael was present at the conversation. As soon as the first hour\nhad passed he began to laugh for joy that he should so soon carry off\nthe soul of Moses; and Michael began to weep. \"Be not rejoiced, thou\nwicked beast,\" said the good to the bad angel; \"Moses is going to die,\nbut we have Joshua in his stead.\"\n\nWhen the three hours had elapsed God commanded Gabriel to take the dying\nman's soul. Gabriel begged to be excused. Michael did the same. These\ntwo angels having refused, God addressed Himself to Zinguiel. But this\nangel was no more willing to obey than the others. \"I,\" said he, \"was\nformerly his preceptor, and I will not kill my disciple.\" Then God,\nbeing angry, said to the bad angel Samael, \"Well, then, wicked one, thou\nmust take his soul.\" Samael joyfully drew his sword and ran up to Moses.\nThe dying man rose up in wrath, his eyes sparkling with fire. \"What!\nthou villain,\" said Moses, \"wouldst thou dare to kill me?--me, who when\na child, put on my head the crown of a Pharaoh; who have worked miracles\nat the age of eighty years; who have led sixty millions of men out of\nEgypt; who have cut the Red Sea in two; who have conquered two kings so\ntall that at the time of the flood they were not knee-deep in water?\nBegone, you rascal; leave my presence instantly.\"\n\nThis altercation lasted a few moments longer, during which time Gabriel\nprepared a litter to convey the soul of Moses, Michael a purple mantle,\nand Zinguiel a cassock. God then laid His hands on Moses' breast and\ntook away his soul.\n\nIt is to this history that St. Jude the apostle alludes in his epistle\nwhen he says that the archangel Michael contended with the devil for the\nbody of Moses. As this fact is to be found only in the book which I have\njust quoted, it is evident that St. Jude had read it, and that he\nconsidered it as a canonical book.\n\nThe second history of the death of Moses is likewise a conversation with\nGod. It is no less pleasant and curious than the first. A part of this\ndialogue is as follows:\n\n_Moses._--I pray Thee, O Lord, let me enter the land of promise, at\nleast for two or three years.\n\n_God._--No; My decree expressly saith that thou shalt not enter it.\n\n_Moses._--Grant, at least, that I may be carried thither after my\ndeath.\n\n_God._--No; neither dead nor alive.\n\n_Moses._--Alas! but, good Lord, thou showest such clemency to Thy\ncreatures; Thou pardonest them twice or three times; I have sinned but\nonce, and am not to be forgiven!\n\n_God._--Thou knowest not what thou sayest; thou hast committed six sins.\nI remember to have sworn thy death, or the destruction of Israel; one of\nthe two must be accomplished. If thou wilt live Israel must perish.\n\n_Moses._--O Lord, be not so hasty. All is in Thy hands. Let Moses\nperish, rather than one soul in Israel.\n\nAfter several discourses of this sort, the echo of the mountain says to\nMoses, \"Thou hast but five hours to live.\" At the end of five hours God\nsends for Gabriel, Zinguiel and Samael. He promises Moses that he shall\nbe buried and carries away his soul.\n\nWhen we reflect that nearly the whole earth has been infatuated by\nsimilar stories, and that they have formed the education of mankind, the\nfables of Pilpay, Lokman, or \u00c6sop appear quite reasonable.\n\n_Apocryphal Books of the New Law._\n\nThere were fifty gospels, all very different from one another, of which\nthere remain only four entire--that of James, that of Nicodemus, that of\nthe infancy of Jesus, and that of the birth of Mary. Of the rest we have\nnothing more than fragments and slight notices.\n\nThe traveller Tournefort, sent into Asia by Louis XIV., informs us that\nthe Georgians have preserved the gospel of the Infancy, which was\nprobably communicated to them by the Azmenians.\n\nIn the beginning, several of these gospels, now regarded as apocryphal,\nwere cited as authentic, and were even the only gospels that were cited.\nIn the Acts of the Apostles we find these words uttered by St. Paul\n(chap. xx., ver. 35), \"And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how He\nsaid, it is more blessed to give than to receive.\"\n\nSt. Barnabas, in his Catholic Epistle (Nos. 4 and 7), makes Jesus Christ\nspeak thus: \"Let us resist all iniquity; let us hate it. Such as would\nsee Me enter into My kingdom must follow Me through pain and sorrow.\"\n\nSt. Clement, in his second Epistle to the Corinthians, puts these words\ninto the mouth of Jesus Christ: \"If you are assembled in My bosom and do\nnot follow My commandments, I shall reject you and say to you, 'Depart\nfrom Me; I know you not; depart from Me, ye workers of iniquity.'\"\n\nHe afterwards attributes to Jesus Christ these words: \"Keep your flesh\nchaste and the seal unspotted, in order that you may receive eternal\nlife.\"\n\nIn the Apostolical Constitutions, composed in the second century, we\nfind these words: \"Jesus Christ has said, 'Be ye honest exchange\nbrokers.'\"\n\nWe find many similar quotations, not one of which is taken from the four\ngospels recognized by the Church as the only canonical ones. They are,\nfor the most part, taken from the gospel according to the Hebrews, a\ngospel which was translated by St. Jerome, and is now considered as\napocryphal.\n\nSt. Clement the Roman says, in his second Epistle: \"The Lord, being\nasked when his reign should come, answered: 'When two shall make one,\nwhen that which is without shall be within, when the male shall be\nfemale, and when there shall be neither female nor male.'\"\n\nThese words are taken from the gospel according to the Egyptians; and\nthe text is repeated entire by St. Clement of Alexandria. But what could\nthe author of the Egyptian gospels, and what could St. Clement himself\nbe thinking of? The words which he quotes are injurious to Jesus Christ;\nthey give us to understand that He did not believe that His reign would\ncome at all. To say that a thing will take place when two shall make\none, when the male shall be female, is to say that it will never take\nplace. A passage like this is rabbinical, much rather than evangelical.\n\nThere were also two apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. They are quoted by\nSt. Epiphanius. In these Acts it is related that St. Paul was the son of\nan idolatrous father and mother, and turned Jew in order to marry the\ndaughter of Gamaliel; and that either being refused, or not finding her\na virgin, he took part with the disciples of Jesus. This is nothing less\nthan blasphemy against St. Paul.\n\n\n_The Other Apocryphal Books of the First and Second Centuries._\n\n\nI.\n\nThe Book of Enoch, the seventh man after Adam, which mentions the war of\nthe rebellious angels, under their captain, Samasia, against the\nfaithful angels led by Michael. The object of the war was to enjoy the\ndaughters of men, as has been said in the article on \"Angel.\"\n\n\nII.\n\nThe Acts of St. Thecla and St. Paul, written by a disciple named John,\nattached to St. Paul. In this history Thecla escapes from her\npersecutors to go to St. Paul, disguised as a man. She also baptizes a\nlion; but this adventure was afterwards suppressed. Here, too, we have\nthe portrait of Paul: _Statura brevi, calvastrum, cruribus curvis,\nsorosum, superciliis junctis, naso aquilino, plenum gratia Dei._\n\nAlthough this story was recommended by St. Gregory Nazianzen, St.\nAmbrose, St. John Chrysostom, and others, it had no reputation among the\nother doctors of the Church.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThe Preaching of Peter. This writing is also called the Gospel or\nRevelation of Peter. St. Clement of Alexandria speaks of it with great\npraise; but it is easy to perceive that some impostor had taken that\napostle's name.\n\nIV.\n\nThe Acts of Peter, a work equally supposititious.\n\n\nV.\n\nThe Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. It is doubted whether this book\nis by a Jew or a Christian of the primitive ages; for it is said in the\nTestament of Levi that at the end of the seventh week there shall come\npriests given to idolatry--_bellatores_, _avari_, _scrib\u00e6 iniqui_,\n_impudici_, _puerorum corrupt ores et pecorum_; that there shall then be\na new priesthood; that the heavens shall be opened; and that the glory\nof the Most High, and the spirit of intelligence and sanctification,\nshall descend upon this new priest; which seems to foretell Jesus\nChrist.\n\n\nVI.\n\nThe Letter of Abgarus, a pretended king of Edessa, to Jesus Christ, and\nJesus Christ's answer to King Abgarus. It is, indeed, believed that, in\nthe time of Tiberius, there was a toparch of Edessa who had passed from\nthe service of the Persians into that of the Romans, but his epistolary\ncorrespondence has been considered by all good critics as a chimera.\n\n\nVII.\n\nThe Acts of Pilate. Pilate's letter to Tiberius on the death of Jesus\nChrist The life of Procula, Pilate's wife.\n\n\nVIII.\n\nThe Acts of Peter and Paul, in which is the history of St. Peter's\nquarrel with Simon the magician. Abdias, Marcellus, and Hegesippus have\nall three written this story. St. Peter first disputed with Simon which\nshould resuscitate one of the Emperor Nero's relatives, who had just\ndied; Simon half restored him, and St. Peter finished the resurrection.\nSimon next flew up in the air, but Peter brought him down again, and the\nmagician broke his legs. The Emperor Nero, incensed at the death of his\nmagician, had St. Peter crucified with his head downwards, and St. Paul\ndecapitated, as one of St. Peter's party.\n\n\nIX.\n\nThe Acts of Blessed Paul the Apostle and Teacher of the Nations. In this\nbook St. Paul is made to live at Rome for two years after St. Peter's\ndeath. The author says that when St. Paul's head was cut off there\nissued forth milk instead of blood, and that Lucina, a devout woman, had\nhim buried twenty miles from Rome, on the way to Ostia, at her country\nhouse.\n\n\nX.\n\nThe Acts of the Blessed Apostle Andrew. The author relates that St.\nAndrew went to the city of the Myrmidons and that he baptized all the\ncitizens. A young man named Sostratus, of the town of Amarea, which is\nat least better known than that of the Myrmidons, came and said to the\nblessed Andrew: \"I am so handsome that my mother has conceived a passion\nfor me. I abhorred so execrable a crime, and have fled. My mother, in\nher fury, accuses me to the proconsul of the province of having\nattempted to violate her. I can make no answer, for I would rather die\nthan accuse my mother.\" While he was yet speaking, the guards of the\nproconsul came and seized him. St Andrew accompanied the son before the\njudge, and pleaded his cause. The mother, not at all disconcerted,\naccused St. Andrew himself of having instigated her son to the crime.\nThe proconsul immediately ordered St. Andrew to be thrown into the\nriver; but, the apostle having prayed to God, there came a great\nearthquake, and the mother was struck by a thunderbolt.\n\nAfter several adventures of the same sort the author has St. Andrew\ncrucified at Patras.\n\n\nXI.\n\nThe Acts of St. James the Greater. The author has him condemned to death\nat Jerusalem by the pontiff, and, before his crucifixion, he baptizes\nthe registrar.\n\n\nXII.\n\nThe Acts of St. John the Evangelist. The author relates that, at\nEphesus--of which place St. John wast bishop--Drusilla, being converted\nby him, desired no more of her husband Andronicus's company, but retired\ninto a tomb. A young man named Callimachus, in love with her, repeatedly\npressed her, even in her tomb, to consent to the gratification of his\npassion. Brasilia, being urged both by her husband and her lover, wished\nfor death, and obtained it. Callimachus, when informed of her loss, was\nstill more furious with love; he bribed one of Andronicus's domestics,\nwho had the keys of the tomb; he ran to it, stripped his mistress of her\nshroud, and exclaimed, \"What thou wouldst not grant me living, thou\nshalt grant me dead,\" A serpent instantly issued from the tomb; the\nyoung man fainted; the serpent killed him, as also the domestic who was\nhis accomplice, and coiled itself round his body. St. John arrives with\nthe husband, and, to their astonishment, they find Callimachus alive.\nSt. John orders the serpent to depart, and the serpent obeys. He asks\nthe young man how he has been resuscitated. Callimachus answered that an\nangel had appeared to him, saying, \"It was necessary that thou shouldst\ndie in order to revive a Christian.\" He immediately asked to be\nbaptized, and begged that John would resuscitate Drusilla. The apostle\nhaving instantly worked this miracle, Callimachus and Drusilla prayed\nthat he would also be so good as to resuscitate the domestic. The\nlatter, who was an obstinate pagan, being restored to life, declared\nthat he would rather die than be a Christian, and, accordingly, he\nincontinently died again; on which St. John said that a bad tree always\nbears bad fruit.\n\nAristodemus, high-priest of Ephesus, though struck by such a prodigy,\nwould not be converted; he said to St. John: \"Permit me to poison you;\nand, if you do not die, I will be converted.\" The apostle accepted the\nproposal; but he chose that Aristodemus should first poison two\nEphesians condemned to death. Aristodemus immediately presented to them\nthe poison, and they instantly expired. St. John took the same poison,\nwhich did him no harm. He resuscitated the two dead men, and the\nhigh-priest was converted.\n\nSt. John having attained the age of ninety-seven years, Jesus Christ\nappeared to him, and said, \"It is time for thee to come to My table, and\nfeast with thy brethren\"; and soon after the apostle slept in peace.\n\n\nXIII.\n\nThe History of the Blessed James the Less, and the brothers Simon and\nJude. These apostles went into Persia, and performed things as\nincredible as those related of St. Andrew.\n\n\nXIV.\n\nThe Acts of St. Matthew, apostle and evangelist. St. Matthew goes into\nEthiopia, to the great town of Nadaver, where he restores to life the\nson of Queen Candace, and founds Christian churches.\n\n\nXV.\n\nThe Acts of the Blessed Bartholomew in India. Bartholomew went first to\nthe temple of Astaroth. This goddess delivered oracles, and cured all\ndiseases. Bartholomew silenced her, and made sick all those whom she had\ncured. King Polimius disputed with him; the devil declared, before the\nking, that he was conquered, and St. Bartholomew consecrated King\nPolimius bishop of the Indies.\n\n\nXVI.\n\nThe Acts of the Blessed Thomas, apostle of India. St. Thomas entered\nIndia by another road, and worked more miracles than St. Bartholomew. He\nat last suffered martyrdom, and appeared to Xiphoro and Susani.\n\n\nXVII.\n\nThe Acts of the Blessed Philip. He went to preach in Scythia. They\nwished to make him a sacrifice to Mars, but he caused a dragon to issue\nfrom the altar and devour the children of the priests. He died at\nHierapolis, at the age of eighty-seven. It is not known what town this\nwas, for there were several of the name.\n\nAll these histories are supposed to have been written by Abdias, bishop\nof Babylon, and were translated by Julius Africanus.\n\n\nXVIII.\n\nTo these abuses of the Holy Scriptures was added one less revolting--one\nwhich did not fail in respect for Christianity, like those which have\njust been laid before the reader, viz., the Liturgies attributed to St\nJames, St. Peter, and St. Mark, the falsehood of which has been shown by\nthe learned Tillemont.\n\n\nXIX.\n\nFabricius places among the apocryphal writings the Homily (attributed to\nSt. Augustine) on the manner in which the Symbol was formed. But he\ncertainly does not mean to insinuate that this Symbol or Creed, which we\ncall the Apostles', is the less true and sacred. It is said in this\nHomily, in Rufinus, and afterwards in Isidorus, that ten days after the\nascension, the apostles, being shut up together for fear of the Jews,\nPeter said, \"I believe in God, the Father Almighty;\" Andrew, \"and in\nJesus Christ, His only son;\" James, \"who was conceived by the Holy\nGhost;\" and that thus, each apostle having repeated an article, the\nCreed was completed.\n\nThis story not being in the Acts of the Apostles, our belief in it is\ndispensed with--but not our belief in the Creed, of which the apostles\ntaught the substance. Truth must not suffer from the false ornaments in\nwhich it has been sought to array her.\n\n\nXX.\n\nThe Apostolical Constitutions. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles,\nwhich were formerly supposed to have been digested by St. Clement the\nRoman, are now ranked among the apocryphal writings. The reading of a\nfew chapters is sufficient to show that the apostles had no share in\nthis work. In the eleventh chapter, women are ordered not to rise before\nthe ninth hour. In the first chapter of the second book it is desired\nthat bishops should be learned, but in the time of the apostles there\nwas no hierarchy--no bishop attached to a single church. They went about\nteaching from town to town, from village to village; they were called\n_apostles_, not _bishops_; and, above all things, they did not pride\nthemselves on being learned.\n\nIn the second chapter of the second book it is said that a bishop should\nhave but one wife, to take great care of his household; which only goes\nto prove that at the close of the first and the commencement of the\nsecond century, when the hierarchy was beginning to be established, the\npriests were married.\n\nThrough almost the whole book the bishops are regarded as the judges of\nthe faithful; but it is well known that the apostles had no\njurisdiction.\n\nIt is said, in chapter xxi., that both parties must be heard; which\nsupposes an established jurisdiction. In chapter xxvi. it is said, \"The\nbishop is your prince, your king, your emperor, your God upon earth.\"\nThese expressions are somewhat at variance with the humility of the\napostles.\n\nIn chapter xxviii., \"At the feasts of the Agapae, there must be given to\nthe deacon double that which is given to an old woman, and to the priest\ndouble the gift to the deacon, because the priests are the counsellors\nof the bishops and the crown of the Church. The reader shall have a\nportion, in honor of the prophets, as also the chanter and the\ndoor-keeper. Such of the laity as wish to receive anything shall apply\nto the bishop through the deacon.\" The apostles never used any term\nanswering to _laity_, or marking the difference between the profane and\nthe priesthood.\n\nIn chapter xxxiv., \"You must reverence the bishop as a king, honor him\nas a master, and give him your fruits, the works of your hands, your\nfirst fruits, your tenths, your savings, the presents that are made to\nyou, your corn, your wine, your oil, your wool,\" etc. This is a strong\narticle.\n\nIn chapter lvii., \"Let the church be long; let it look towards the East;\nlet it resemble a ship; let the bishop's throne be in the middle; let\nthe reader read the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Chronicles,\nJob,\" etc.\n\nIn chapter xvii. of the third book, \"Baptism is administered for the\ndeath of Jesus; oil for the Holy Ghost. When we are plunged into the\nwater, we die; when we come out of it, we revive. The Father is the God\nof all. Christ is the only Son of God, his beloved Son, and the Lord of\nglory. The Holy Spirit is the Paraclete, sent by Christ the teacher,\npreaching Christ Jesus.\" This doctrine would now be explained in more\ncanonical terms.\n\nIn chapter vii. of the fifth book are quoted some verses of the Sibyls\non the coming of Jesus and the resurrection. This was the first time\nthat the Christians admitted the verses of the Sibyls, which they\ncontinued to do for more than three hundred years. In chapter v. of the\neighth book are these words: \"O God Almighty, give to the bishop,\nthrough Christ, the participation of the Holy Spirit.\" In chapter iv.,\n\"Commend yourself to God alone, through Jesus Christ\"; which does not\nsufficiently express the divinity of our Lord. In chapter xii. is the\nConstitution of James, the brother of Zebedee.\n\nIn chapter xv. the deacon is to say aloud, \"Incline yourselves before\nGod through Christ.\" At the present day these expressions are not very\ncorrect.\n\n\nXXI.\n\nThe Apostolical Canons. The sixth canon ordains that no bishop or priest\nshall separate himself from his wife on pretence of religion; if he do\nso, he is to be excommunicated, and if he persist he is to be driven\naway. The seventh--that no priest shall ever meddle with secular\naffairs. The nineteenth--that he who has married two sisters shall not\nbe admitted into the clergy. The twenty-first and twenty-second--that\neunuchs shall be admitted into the priesthood excepting such as have\ncastrated themselves. Yet Origen was a priest, notwithstanding this law.\nThe fifty-fifth--that if a bishop, a priest, a deacon, or a clerk eat\nflesh which is not clear of blood, he shall be displaced. It is quite\nevident that these canons could not be promulgated by the apostles.\n\n\nXXII.\n\nThe Confessions of St. Clement to James, brother of the Lord, in ten\nbooks, translated from Greek into Latin by Rufinus. This book commences\nwith a doubt respecting the immortality of the soul: _\"Utrumne sit mihi\naliqua vita post mortem, an nihil omnino postea sim futurus\"_. St.\nClement, disturbed by this doubt and wishing to know whether the world\nwas eternal or had been created---whether there were a Tartarus and a\nPhlegethon, an Ixion and a Tantalus, etc., resolved to go into Egypt to\nlearn necromancy, but having heard of St. Bartholomew, who was preaching\nChristianity, he went to him in the East, at the time when Barnabas was\ncelebrating a Jewish feast. He afterwards met St. Peter at C\u00e6sarea, with\nSimon the magician and Zacch\u00e6us. They disputed together, and St. Peter\nrelated to them all that had passed since the death of Jesus. Clement\nturned Christian, but Simon remained a magician.\n\nSimon fell in love with a woman named Luna, and, while waiting to marry\nher, he proposed to St. Peter, to Zacch\u00e6us, to Lazarus, to Nicodemus, to\nDositheus, and to several others, that they should become his disciples.\nDositheus answered him at once with a blow from a stick; but the stick\nhaving passed through Simon's body as if it had been smoke, Dositheus\nworshipped him and became his lieutenant, after which Simon married his\nmistress and declared that she was Luna herself, descended from heaven\nto marry him.\n\nBut enough of the Confessions of St. Clement. It must, however, be\nremarked that in the ninth book the Chinese are spoken of under the name\nof Seres as the justest and wisest of mankind. After them come the\nBrahmins, to whom the author does the justice that was rendered them by\nall antiquity. He cites them as models of soberness, mildness, and\njustice.\n\n\nXXIII.\n\nSt. Peter's Letter to St. James, and St. Clement's Letter to the same\nSt. James, brother of the Lord, governor of the Holy Church of the\nHebrews at Jerusalem, and of all churches. St. Peter's Letter contains\nnothing curious, but St. Clement's is very remarkable. He asserts that\nPeter declared him bishop of Rome before his death, and his coadjutor;\nthat he laid his hands upon his head, and made him sit in the episcopal\nchair in the presence of all the faithful; and that he said to him,\n\"Fail not to write to my brother James as soon as I am dead.\"\n\nThis letter seems to prove that it was not then believed that St. Peter\nhad suffered martyrdom, since it is probable that this letter,\nattributed to St. Clement, would have mentioned the circumstance. It\nalso proves that Cletus and Anacletus were not reckoned among the\nbishops of Rome.\n\n\nXXIV.\n\nSt. Clement's Homilies, to the number of nineteen. He says in his first\nhomily what he had already said in his confessions--that he went to St.\nPeter and St. Barnabas at C\u00e6sarea, to know whether the soul was\nimmortal, and the world eternal.\n\nIn the second homily, No. xxxviii., we find a much more extraordinary\npassage. St. Peter himself, speaking of the Old Testament, expresses\nhimself thus: \"The written law contains certain false things against the\nlaw of God, the Creator of heaven and earth; the devil has done this,\nfor good reasons; it has also come to pass through the judgments of God,\nin order to discover such as would listen with pleasure to what is\nwritten against Him,\" etc.\n\nIn the sixth homily St. Clement meets with Appian, the same who had\nwritten against the Jews in the time of Tiberius. He tells Appian that\nhe is in love with an Egyptian woman and begs that he will write a\nletter in his name to his pretended mistress to convince her, by the\nexample of all the gods, that love is a duty. Appian writes a letter and\nSt. Clement answers it in the name of his pretended mistress, after\nwhich they dispute on the nature of the gods.\n\n\nXXV.\n\nTwo Epistles of St. Clement to the Corinthians. It hardly seems just to\nhave ranked these epistles among the apocryphal writings. Some of the\nlearned may have declined to recognize them because they speak of \"the\nphoenix of Arabia, which lives five hundred years, and burns itself in\nEgypt in the city of Heliopolis.\" But there is nothing extraordinary in\nSt. Clement's having believed this fable which so many others believed,\nnor in his having written letters to the Corinthians.\n\nIt is known that there was at that time a great dispute between the\nchurch of Corinth and that of Rome. The church of Corinth, which\ndeclared itself to have been founded first, was governed in common;\nthere was scarcely any distinction between the priests and the\nseculars, still less between the priests and the bishop; all alike had a\ndeliberative voice, so, at least, several of the learned assert. St.\nClement says to the Corinthians in his first epistle: \"You have laid the\nfirst foundations of sedition; be subject to your priests, correct\nyourselves by penance, bend the knees of your hearts, learn to obey.\" It\nis not at all astonishing that a bishop of Rome should use these\nexpressions.\n\nIn the second epistle we again find that answer of Jesus Christ, on\nbeing asked when His kingdom of heaven should come: \"When two shall make\none, when that which is without shall be within, when the male shall be\nfemale, when there shall be neither male nor female.\"\n\n\nXXVI.\n\nLetter from St. Ignatius the martyr to the Virgin Mary, and the Virgin's\nanswer to St. Ignatius:\n\n\"To Mary the Mother of Christ, from her devoted Ignatius: You should\nconsole me, a neophyte, and a disciple of your John. I have heard\nseveral wonderful things of your Jesus, at which I have been much\nastonished. I desire with all my heart to be informed of them by you,\nwho always lived in familiarity with Him and knew all His secrets. Fare\nyou well. Comfort the neophytes, who are with me from you and through\nyou. Amen.\"\n\n\"The Holy Virgin's Answer to Her Dear Disciple Ignatius:\n\n\"The Humble Servant of Jesus Christ: All the things which you have\nlearned from John are true; believe in them; persevere in your belief;\nkeep your vow of Christianity. I will come and see you with John, you\nand those who are with you. Be firm in the faith; act like a man; let\nnot severity and persecution disturb you, but let your spirit be\nstrengthened and exalted in God your Saviour. Amen.\"\n\nIt is asserted that these letters were written in the year 116 of the\nChristian era, but they are not therefore the less false and absurd.\nThey would even have been an insult to our holy religion had they not\nbeen written in a spirit of simplicity, which renders everything\npardonable.\n\n\nXXVII.\n\nFragments of the Apostles. We find in them this passage: \"Paul, a man of\nshort stature, with an aquiline nose and an angelic face. Instructed in\nheaven, said to Plantilla, of Rome, before he died: 'Adieu, Plantilla,\nthou little plant of eternal salvation; know thy own nobility; thou art\nwhiter than snow; thou art registered among the soldiers of Christ; thou\nart an heiress to the kingdom of heaven.'\" This was not worthy to be\nrefuted.\n\n\nXXVIII.\n\nThere are eleven Apocalypses, which are attributed to the patriarchs and\nprophets, to St. Peter, Cerinthus, St. Thomas, St. Stephen the first\nmartyr, two to St. John, differing from the canonical one, and three to\nSt. Paul. All these Apocalypses have been eclipsed by that of St. John.\n\n\nXXIX.\n\nThe Visions, Precepts, and Similitudes of Hermas. Hermas seems to have\nlived about the close of the first century. They who regard his book as\napocryphal are nevertheless obliged to do justice to his morality. He\nbegins by saying that his foster-father had sold a young woman at Rome.\nHermas recognized this young woman after the lapse of several years, and\nloved her, he says, as if she had been his sister. He one day saw her\nbathing in the Tiber; he stretched forth his hand, drew her out of the\nriver and said in his heart, \"How happy should I be if I had a wife like\nher in beauty and in manners.\" Immediately the heavens opened, and he\nall at once beheld this same wife, who made him a courtesy from above,\nand said, \"Good morning, Hermas.\" This wife was the Christian Church;\nshe gave him much good advice.\n\nA year after, the spirit transported him to the same place where he had\nseen this beauty, who nevertheless was old; but she was fresh in her\nage, and was old only because she had been created from the beginning of\nthe world, and the world had been made for her.\n\nThe Book of Precepts contains fewer allegories, but that of Similitudes\ncontains many. \"One day,\" says Hennas, \"when I was fasting and was\nseated on a hill, giving thanks to God for all that he had done for me,\na shepherd came, sat down beside me, and said, 'Why have you come here\nso early?' 'Because I am going through the stations,' answered I. 'What\nis a station?' asked the shepherd. 'It is a fast.' 'And what is this\nfast?' 'It is my custom.' 'Ah!' replied the shepherd, 'you know not what\nit is to fast; all this is of no avail before God. I will teach you that\nwhich is true fasting and pleasing to the Divinity. Your fasting has\nnothing to do with justice and virtue. Serve God with a pure heart; keep\nHis commandments; admit into your heart no guilty designs. If you have\nalways the fear of God before your eyes--if you abstain from all evil,\nthat will be true fasting, that will be the great fast which is\nacceptable to God.'\"\n\nThis philosophical and sublime piety is one of the most singular\nmonuments of the first century. But it is somewhat strange that, at the\nend of the Similitudes, the shepherd gives him very good-natured\nmaidens--_valde affabiles_--to take care of his house and declares to\nhim that he cannot fulfil God's commandments without these maidens, who,\nit is plain, typify the virtues.\n\nThis list would become immense if we were to enter into every detail. We\nwill carry it no further, but conclude with the Sibyls.\n\n\nXXX.\n\nThe Sibyls.--What is most apocryphal in the primitive church is the\nprodigious number of verses in favor of the Christian religion\nattributed to the ancient sibyls. Diodorus Siculus knew of only one, who\nwas taken at Thebes by the Epigoni, and placed at Delphos before the\nTrojan war. Ten sibyls--that is, ten prophetesses, were soon made from\nthis one. She of Cuma had most credit among the Romans, and the sibyl\nErythrea among the Greeks.\n\nAs all oracles were delivered in verse, none of the sibyls could fail to\nmake verses; and to give them greater authority they sometimes made them\nin acrostics also. Several Christians who had not a zeal according to\nknowledge not only misinterpreted the ancient verses supposed to have\nbeen written by the sibyls, but also made some themselves, and which is\nworse, in acrostics, not dreaming that this difficult artifice of\nacrosticizing had no resemblance whatever to the inspiration and\nenthusiasm of a prophetess. They resolved to support the best of causes\nby the most awkward fraud. They accordingly made bad Greek verses, the\ninitials of which signified in Greek--Jesus, Christ, Son, Saviour, and\nthese verses said that with five loaves and two fishes He should feed\nfive thousand men in the desert and that with the fragments that\nremained He should fill twelve baskets.\n\nThe millennium and the New Jerusalem, which Justin had seen in the air\nfor forty nights, were, of course, foretold by the sibyls. In the fourth\ncentury Lactantius collected almost all the verses attributed to the\nsibyls and considered them as convincing proofs. The opinion was so\nwell authorized and so long held that we still sing hymns in which the\ntestimony of the sibyls is joined with the predictions of David:\n\n     _Solvet s\u00e6clum in favilla,_\n     _Teste David cum Sibylla._\n\nThis catalogue of errors and frauds has been carried quite far enough. A\nhundred might be repeated, so constantly has the world been composed of\ndeceivers and of people fond of being deceived.\n\nBut let us pursue no further so dangerous a research. The elucidation of\none great truth is worth more than the discovery of a thousand\nfalsehoods. Not all these errors, not all the crowd of apocryphal books\nhave been sufficient to injure the Christian religion, because, as we\nall know, it is founded upon immutable truths. These truths are\nsupported by a church militant and triumphant, to which God has given\nthe power of teaching and of repressing. In several countries it unites\ntemporal with spiritual authority. Prudence, strength, wealth are its\nattributes, and although it is divided, and its divisions have\nsometimes stained it with blood, it may be compared to the Roman\ncommonwealth--constantly torn by internal dissensions, but constantly\ntriumphant.\n\n\n\n\nAPOSTATE.\n\n\nIt is still a question among the learned whether the Emperor Julian was\nreally an apostate and whether he was ever truly a Christian. He was\nnot six years old when the Emperor Constantius, still more barbarous\nthan Constantine, had his father, his brother, and seven of his cousins\nmurdered. He and his brother Gallus with difficulty escaped from this\ncarnage, but he was always very harshly treated by Constantius. His life\nwas for a long time threatened, and he soon beheld his only remaining\nbrother assassinated by the tyrant's order. The most barbarous of the\nTurkish sultans have never, I am sorry to say it, surpassed in cruelty\nor in villainy the Constantine family. From his tenderest years study\nwas Julian's only consolation. He communicated in secret with the most\nillustrious of the philosophers, who were of the ancient religion of\nRome. It is very probable that he professed that of his uncle\nConstantius only to avoid assassination. Julian was obliged to conceal\nhis mental powers, as Brutus had done under Tarquin. He was less likely\nto be a Christian, as his uncle had forced him to be a monk and to\nperform the office of reader in the church. A man is rarely of the\nreligion of his persecutor, especially when the latter wishes to be\nruler of his conscience.\n\nAnother circumstance which renders this probable is that he does not say\nin any of his works that he had been a Christian. He never asks pardon\nfor it of the pontiffs of the ancient religion. He addresses them in his\nletters as if he had always been attached to the worship of the senate.\nIt is not even proved that he practised the ceremonies of the\nTaurobolium, which might be regarded as a sort of expiation, and that\nhe desired to wash out with bull's blood that which he so unfortunately\ncalled the stain of his baptism. However, this was a pagan form of\ndevotion, which is no more a proof than the assembling at the mysteries\nof Ceres. In short, neither his friends nor his enemies relate any fact,\nany words which can prove that he ever believed in Christianity, and\nthat he passed from that sincere belief to the worship of the gods of\nthe empire. If such be the case they who do not speak of him as an\napostate appear very excusable.\n\nSound criticism being brought to perfection, all the world now\nacknowledges that the Emperor Julian was a hero and a wise man--a stoic,\nequal to Marcus Aurelius. His errors are condemned, but his virtues are\nadmitted. He is now regarded, as he was by his contemporary, Prudentius,\nauthor of the hymn _\"Salvete flores martyrum\"_. He says of Julian:\n\n                    _Ductor fortissimus armis,_\n     _Conditor et legum celeberrimus; ore manuque_\n     _Consultor patri\u00e6; sed non consultor habendus_\n     _Religionis; amans tercentum millia divum_\n     _Perfidus ille Deo, sed non est perfidus orbi_.\n\n     Though great in arms, in virtues, and in laws,--\n     Though ably zealous in his country's cause,\n     He spurned religion in his lofty plan,\n     Rejecting God while benefiting man.\n\nHis detractors are reduced to the miserable expedient of striving to\nmake him appear ridiculous. One historian, on the authority of St.\nGregory Nazianzen, reproaches him with having worn too large a beard.\nBut, my friend, if nature gave him a long beard why should he wear it\nshort? He used to shake his head. Carry thy own better. His step was\nhurried. Bear in mind that the Abb\u00e9 d'Aubignac, the king's preacher,\nhaving been hissed at the play, laughs at the air and gait of the great\nCorneille. Could you hope to turn Marshal de Luxembourg into ridicule\nbecause he walked ill and his figure was singular? He could march very\nwell against the enemy. Let us leave it to the ex-Jesuit Patouillet, the\nex-Jesuit Nonotte, etc., to call the Emperor Julian--_the Apostate_.\nPoor creatures! His Christian successor, Jovian, called him _Divus_\nJulianus.\n\nLet us treat this mistaken emperor as he himself treated us. He said,\n\"We should pity and not hate them; they are already sufficiently\nunfortunate in erring on the most important of questions.\" Let us have\nthe same compassion for him, since we are sure that the truth is on our\nside. He rendered strict justice to his subjects, let us then render it\nto his memory. Some Alexandrians were incensed against a bishop, who, it\nis true, was a wicked man, chosen by a worthless cabal. His name was\nGeorge Biordos, and he was the son of a mason. His manners were lower\nthan his birth. He united the basest perfidy with the most brutal\nferocity, and superstition with every vice. A calumniator, a persecutor,\nand an impostor--avaricious, sanguinary, and seditious, he was detested\nby every party and at last the people cudgelled him to death. The\nfollowing is the letter which the Emperor Julian wrote to the\nAlexandrians on the subject of this popular commotion. Mark how he\naddresses them, like a father and a judge:\n\n\"What!\" said he, \"instead of reserving for me the knowledge of your\nwrongs you have suffered yourselves to be transported with anger! You\nhave been guilty of the same excesses with which you reproach your\nenemies! George deserved to be so treated, but it was not for you to be\nhis executioners. You have laws; you should have demanded justice,\" etc.\n\nSome have dared to brand Julian with the epithets intolerant and\npersecuting--the man who sought to extirpate persecution and\nintolerance! Peruse his fifty-second letter, and respect his memory. Is\nhe not sufficiently unfortunate in not having been a Catholic, and\nconsequently in being burned in hell, together with the innumerable\nmultitude of those who have not been Catholics, without our insulting\nhim so far as to accuse him of intolerance?\n\n\n_On the Globes of Fire said to have issued from the Earth to prevent the\nrebuilding of the Temple of Jerusalem under the Emperor Julian._\n\nIt is very likely that when Julian resolved to carry the war into Persia\nhe wanted money. It is also very likely that the Jews gave him some for\npermission to rebuild their temple, which Titus had partly destroyed,\nbut of which there still remained the foundations, an entire wall, and\nthe Antonine tower. But is it as likely that globes of fire burst upon\nthe works and the workmen and caused the undertaking to be relinquished.\nIs there not a palpable contradiction in what the historians relate?\n\n1. How could it be that the Jews began by destroying (as they are said\nto have done) the foundations of the temple which it was their wish and\ntheir duty to rebuild on the same spot? The temple was necessarily to be\non Mount Moriah. There it was that Solomon had built it. There it was\nthat Herod had rebuilt it with greater solidity and magnificence, having\npreviously erected a fine theatre at Jerusalem, and a temple to Augustus\nat C\u00e6sarea. The foundations of this temple, enlarged by Herod, were,\naccording to Josephus, as much as twenty-five feet broad. Could the\nJews, in Julian's time, possibly be mad enough to wish to disarrange\nthese stones which were so well prepared to receive the rest of the\nedifice, and upon which the Mahometans afterwards built their mosque?\nWhat man was ever foolish and stupid enough thus to deprive himself at\ngreat cost and excessive labor of the greatest advantage that could\npresent itself to his hands and eyes? Nothing is more incredible.\n\n2. How could eruptions of flame burst forth from the interior of these\nstones? There might be an earthquake in the neighborhood, for they are\nfrequent in Syria, but that great blocks of stone should have vomited\nclouds of fire! Is not this story entitled to just as much credit as all\nthose of antiquity?\n\n3. If this prodigy, or if an earthquake, which is not a prodigy, had\nreally happened would not the Emperor Julian have spoken of it in the\nletter in which he says that he had intended to rebuild this temple?\nWould not his testimony have been triumphantly adduced? Is it not\ninfinitely more probable that he changed his mind? Does not this letter\ncontain these words:\n\n_\"Quid de templo sua dicent, quod, quum tertio sit eversum, nondum\nhodiernam usque diem instauratur? H\u00e6c ego, non ut illis exprobarem, in\nmedium adduxi, utpote qui templum illud tanto intervallo a ruinis\nexcitare voluerim; sed ideo commemoravi, ut ostenderem delirasse\nprophetas istos, quibus cum stolidis aniculis negotium erat\"._\n\n\"What will they (the Jews) say of their temple which has been destroyed\nfor the third time and is not yet restored? I speak of this, not for the\npurpose of reproaching them, for I myself had intended to raise it once\nmore from its ruins, but to show the extravagance of their prophets who\nhad none but old women to deal with.\"\n\nIs it not evident that the emperor having paid attention to the Jewish\nprophecies, that the temple should be rebuilt more beautiful than ever\nand that all the nations of the earth should come and worship in it,\nthought fit to revoke the permission to raise the edifice? The\nhistorical probability, then, from the emperor's own words, is, that\nunfortunately holding the Jewish books, as well as our own, in\nabhorrence, he at length resolved to make the Jewish prophets lie.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 de la Bl\u00e9trie, the historian of the Emperor Julian, does not\nunderstand how the temple of Jerusalem was destroyed three times. He\nsays that apparently Julian reckoned as a third destruction the\ncatastrophe which happened during his reign. A curious destruction this!\nthe non-removal of the stones of an old foundation. What could prevent\nthis writer from seeing that the temple, having been built by Solomon,\nreconstructed by Zorobabel, entirely destroyed by Herod, rebuilt by\nHerod himself with so much magnificence, and at last laid in ruins by\nTitus, manifestly made three destructions of the temple? The reckoning\nis correct. Julian should surely have escaped calumny on this point.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 de la Bl\u00e9trie calumniates him sufficiently by saying that all\nhis virtues were only seeming, while all his vices were real. But Julian\nwas not hypocritical, nor avaricious, nor fraudulent, nor lying, nor\nungrateful, nor cowardly, nor drunken, nor debauched, nor idle, nor\nvindictive. What then were his vices?\n\n4. Let us now examine the redoubtable argument made use of to persuade\nus that globes of fire issued from stones. Ammianus Marcellinus a pagan\nwriter, free from all suspicion, has said it. Be it so: but this\nAmmianus has also said that when the emperor was about to sacrifice ten\noxen to his gods for his first victory over the Persians, nine of them\nfell to the earth before they were presented to the altar. He relates a\nhundred predictions--a hundred prodigies. Are we to believe in them? Are\nwe to believe in all the ridiculous miracles related by Livy?\n\nBesides, who can say that the text of Ammianus Marcellinus has not been\nfalsified? Would it be the only instance in which this artifice has been\nemployed?\n\nI wonder that no mention is made of the little fiery crosses which all\nthe workmen found on their bodies when they went to bed. They would have\nmade an admirable figure along with the globes.\n\nThe fact is that the temple of the Jews was not rebuilt, and it may be\npresumed never will be so. Here let us hold, and not seek useless\nprodigies. _Globi Hammarum_--globes of fire, issue neither from stones\nnor from earth. Ammianus, and those who have quoted him, were not\nnatural philosophers. Let the abb\u00e9 de la Bl\u00e9trie only look at the fire\non St. John's day, and he will see that flame always ascends with a\npoint, or in a cloud, and never in a globe. This alone is sufficient to\noverturn the nonsense which he comes forward to defend with injudicious\ncriticism and revolting pride.\n\nAfter all, the thing is of very little importance. There is nothing in\nit that affects either faith or morals; and historical truth is all that\nis here sought for.\n\n\n\n\nAPOSTLES.\n\n\n_Their Lives, their Wives, their Children._\n\nAfter the article \"Apostle\" in the Encyclop\u00e6dia, which is as learned as\nit is orthodox, very little remains to be said. But we often hear it\nasked--Were the apostles married? Had they any children? if they had,\nwhat became of those children? Where did the apostles live? Where did\nthey write? Where did they die? Had they any appropriated districts? Did\nthey exercise any civil ministry? Had they any jurisdiction over the\nfaithful? Were they bishops? Had they a hierarchy, rites, or ceremonies?\n\n\nI.\n\n_Were the Apostles Married?_\n\nThere is extant a letter attributed to St. Ignatius the Martyr, in which\nare these decisive words: \"I call to mind your sanctity as I do that of\nElias, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, and the chosen disciples Timothy,\nTitus, Evadius, and Clement; yet I do not blame such other of the\nblessed as were bound in the bonds of marriage, but hope to be found\nworthy of God in following their footsteps in his kingdom, after the\nexample of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Isaiah, and the other\nprophets--of Peter and Paul, and the apostles who were married.\"\n\nSome of the learned assert that the name of St. Paul has been\ninterpolated in this famous letter: however, Turrian and all who have\nseen the letters of Ignatius in the library of the Vatican acknowledge\nthat St. Paul's name appears there. And Baronius does not deny that this\npassage is to be found in some Greek manuscripts: _Non negamus in\nquibusdam gr\u00e6cis codicibus._ But he asserts that these words have been\nadded by modern Greeks.\n\nIn the old Oxford library there was a manuscript of St. Ignatius's\nletters in Greek, which contained the above words; but it was, I\nbelieve, burned with many other books at the taking of Oxford by\nCromwell. There is still one in Latin in the same library, in which the\nwords _Pauli et apostolorum_ have been effaced, but in such a manner\nthat the old characters may be easily distinguished.\n\nIt is however certain that this passage exists in several editions of\nthese letters. This dispute about St. Paul's marriage is, after all, a\nvery frivolous one. What matters it whether he was married or not, if\nthe other apostles were married? His first Epistle to the Corinthians is\nquite sufficient to prove that he might be married, as well as the rest:\n\n\"Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about\na sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the\nLord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear\nworking? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?\"\n\nIt is clear from this passage that all the apostles were married, as\nwell as St. Peter. And St. Clement of Alexandria positively declares\nthat St. Paul had a wife. The Roman discipline has changed, which is no\nproof that the usage of the primitive ages was not different.\n\n\nII.\n\n_Children of the Apostles._\n\nVery little is known of their families. St. Clement of Alexandria says\nthat Peter had children, that Philip had daughters, and that he gave\nthem in marriage. The Acts of the Apostles specify St. Philip, whose\nfour daughters prophesied, of whom it is believed that one was married,\nand that this one was St. Hermione.\n\nEusebius relates that Nicholas, chosen by the apostles to co-operate in\nthe sacred ministry with St. Stephen, had a very handsome wife, of whom\nhe was jealous. The apostles having reproached him with his jealousy, he\ncorrected himself of it, brought his wife to them and said, \"I am ready\nto yield her up; let him marry her who will.\" The apostles, however, did\nnot accept his proposal. He had by his wife a son and several daughters.\n\nCleophas, according to Eusebius and St. Epiphanius, was brother to St.\nJoseph, and father of St. James the Less, and of St. Jude, whom he had\nby Mary, sister to the Blessed Virgin. So that St. Jude the apostle was\nfirst cousin to Jesus Christ.\n\nHegesippus, quoted by Eusebius, tells us that two grandsons of St. Jude\nwere informed against to the emperor Domitian as being descendants of\nDavid and having an incontestable right to the throne of Jerusalem.\nDomitian, fearing that they might avail themselves of this right, put\nquestions to them himself, and they acquainted him with their genealogy.\nThe emperor asked them what fortune they had. They answered that they\nhad thirty-nine acres of land, which paid tribute, and that they worked\nfor their livelihood. He then asked them when Jesus Christ's kingdom was\nto come, and they told him \"At the end of the world.\" After which\nDomitian permitted them to depart in peace; which goes far to prove that\nhe was not a persecutor. This, if I mistake not, is all that is known\nabout the children of the apostles.\n\n\nIII.\n\n_Where did the Apostles Live? Where did They Die?_\n\nAccording to Eusebius, James, sur named the Just, brother to Jesus\nChrist, was in the beginning placed first _on the episcopal throne_ of\nthe city of Jerusalem; these are his own words. So that, according to\nhim, the first bishopric was that of Jerusalem--supposing that the Jews\nknew even the name of _bishop_. It does, indeed, appear very likely that\nthe brother of Jesus Christ should have been the first after him, and\nthat the very city in which the miracle of our salvation was worked\nshould have become the metropolis of the Christian world. As for the\n_episcopal throne_, that is a term which Eusebius uses by anticipation.\nWe all know that there was then neither throne nor see.\n\nEusebius adds, after St. Clement, that the other apostles did not\ncontend with St. James for this dignity. They elected him immediately\nafter the Ascension. \"Our Lord,\" says he, \"after His resurrection, had\ngiven to James, surnamed the Just, to John and to Peter the gift of\nknowledge\"--very remarkable words. Eusebius mentions James first, then\nJohn, and Peter comes last. It seems but just that the brother and the\nbeloved disciple of Jesus should come before the man who had denied Him.\nNearly the whole Greek Church and all the reformers ask, Where is\nPeter's primacy? The Catholics answer--If he is not placed first by the\nfathers of the church, he is in the Acts of the Apostles. The Greeks and\nthe rest reply that he was not the first bishop; and the dispute will\nendure as long as the churches.\n\nSt. James, this first bishop of Jerusalem, always continued to observe\nthe Mosaic law. He was a Rechabite; he walked barefoot, and never\nshaved; went and prostrated himself in the Jewish temple twice a day,\nand was surnamed by the Jews _Oblia_, signifying the just. They at\nlength applied to him to know who Jesus Christ was, and having answered\nthat Jesus was the son of man, who sat on the right hand of God, and\nthat He should come in the clouds, he was beaten to death. This was St.\nJames the Less.\n\nSt. James the Greater was his uncle, brother to St. John the Evangelist,\nand son of Zebedee and Salome. It is asserted that Agrippa, king of the\nJews, had him beheaded at Jerusalem. St. John remained in Asia and\ngoverned the church of Ephesus, where, it is said, he was buried. St.\nAndrew, brother to St Peter, quitted the school of St. John for that of\nJesus Christ. It is not agreed whether he preached among the Tartars or\nin Argos; but, to get rid of the difficulty, we are told that it was in\nEpirus. No one knows where he suffered martyrdom, nor even whether he\nsuffered it at all. The _Acts_ of his martyrdom are more than suspected\nby the learned. Painters have always represented him on a saltier-cross,\nto which his name has been given. This custom has prevailed without its\norigin being known.\n\nSt. Peter preached to the Jews dispersed in Pontus, Bithynia,\nCappadocia, at Antioch, and at Babylon. The Acts of the Apostles do not\nspeak of his journey to Rome, nor does St. Paul himself make any mention\nof it in the letters which he wrote from that capital. St. Justin is the\nfirst accredited author who speaks of this journey, about which the\nlearned are not agreed. St. Iren\u00e6us, after St. Justin, expressly says\nthat St. Peter and St. Paul came to Rome, and that they entrusted its\ngovernment to St. Linus. But here is another difficulty: if they made\nSt. Linus inspector of the rising Christian society at Rome, it must be\ninferred that they themselves did not superintend it nor remain in that\ncity.\n\nCriticism has cast upon this matter a thousand uncertainties. The\nopinion that St. Peter came to Rome in Nero's reign and filled the\npontifical chair there for twenty-five years, is untenable, for Nero\nreigned only thirteen years. The wooden chair, so splendidly inlaid in\nthe church at Rome, can hardly have belonged to St. Peter: wood does not\nlast so long; nor is it likely that St. Peter delivered his lessons from\nthis chair as in a school thoroughly formed, since it is averred that\nthe Jews of Rome were violent enemies to the disciples of Jesus Christ.\n\nThe greatest difficulty perhaps is that St. Paul, in his epistle written\nto the Colossians from Rome, positively says that he was assisted only\nby Aristarchus, Marcus, and another bearing the name of Jesus. This\nobjection has, to men of the greatest learning, appeared to be\ninsurmountable.\n\nIn his letter to the Galatians he says that he obliged James, Cephas,\nand John, who seemed to be pillars, to acknowledge himself and Barnabas\nas pillars also. If he placed James before Cephas, then Cephas was not\nthe chief. Happily, these disputes affect not the foundation of our holy\nreligion. Whether St. Peter ever was at Rome or not, Jesus Christ is no\nless the Son of God and the Virgin Mary; He did not the less rise again;\nnor did He the less recommend humility and poverty; which are neglected,\nit is true, but about which there is no dispute.\n\nCallistus Nicephorus, a writer of the fourteenth century, says that\n\"Peter was tall, straight and slender, his face long and pale, his beard\nand hair short, curly, and neglected--his eyes black, his nose long,\nand rather flat than pointed.\" So Calmet translates the passage.\n\nSt. Bartholomew is a word corrupted from Bar. Ptolomaios, son of\nPtolemy. The Acts of the Apostles inform us that he was a Galilean.\nEusebius asserts that he went to preach in India, Arabia Felix, Persia,\nand Abyssinia. He is believed to have been the same as Nathanael. There\nis a gospel attributed to him; but all that has been said of his life\nand of his death is very uncertain. It has been asserted that Astyages,\nbrother to Polemon, king of Armenia, had him flayed alive; but all good\nwriters regard this story as fabulous.\n\nSt. Philip.--According to the apocryphal legends he lived eighty-seven\nyears, and died in peace in the reign of Trajan.\n\nSt. Thomas Didymus.--Origen, quoted by Eusebius, says that he went and\npreached to the Medes, the Persians, the Caramanians, the Baskerians,\nand the magi--as if the magi had been a people. It is added that he\nbaptized one of the magi, who had come to Bethlehem. The Manich\u00e6ans\nassert that a man who had stricken Thomas was devoured by a lion. Some\nPortuguese writers assure us that he suffered martyrdom at Meliapour, in\nthe peninsula of India. The Greek Church believes that he preached in\nIndia, and that from thence his body was carried to Edessa. Some monks\nare further induced to believe that he went to India, by the\ncircumstance that, about the end of the fifteenth century, there were\nfound, near the coast of Ormuz, some families of Nestorians, who had\nbeen established there by a merchant of Moussoul, named Thomas. The\nlegend sets forth that he built a magnificent palace for an Indian king\nnamed Gondaser: but all these stories are rejected by the learned.\n\nSt. Matthias.--No particulars are known of him. His life was not found\nuntil the twelfth century by a monk of the abbey of St. Matthias of\nTreves. He said he had it from a Jew, who translated it for him from\nHebrew into Latin.\n\nSt. Matthew.--According to Rufinus, Socrates, and Abdias, he preached\nand died in Ethiopia. Heracleon makes him live a long time and die a\nnatural death. But Abdias says that Hyrtacus, king of Ethiopia, brother\nto Eglypus, wishing to marry his niece Iphigenia, and finding that he\ncould not obtain St. Matthew's permission, had his head struck off and\nset fire to Iphigenia's house. He to whom we owe the most circumstantial\ngospel that we possess deserved a better historian than Abdias.\n\nSt. Simon the Canaanite, whose feast is commonly joined with that of St.\nJude.--Of his life nothing is known. The modern Greeks say that he went\nto preach in Libya, and thence into England. Others make him suffer\nmartyrdom in Persia.\n\nSt. Thadd\u00e6us or Lebb\u00e6us.--The same as St. Jude, whom the Jews in St.\nMatthew call brother to Jesus Christ, and who, according to Eusebius,\nwas his first cousin. All these relations, for the most part vague and\nuncertain, throw no light on the lives of the apostles. But if there is\nlittle to gratify our curiosity, there is much from which we may derive\ninstruction. Two of the four gospels, chosen from among the fifty-four\ncomposed by the first Christians, were not written by apostles.\n\nSt. Paul was not one of the twelve apostles, yet he contributed more\nthan any other to the establishment of Christianity. He was the only man\nof letters among them. He had studied under Gamaliel. Festus himself,\nthe governor of Jud\u00e6a, reproaches him with being too learned; and,\nunable to comprehend the sublimities of his doctrine, he says to him,\n_\"Insanis, Paule, mult\u00e6 te litter\u00e6 ad insaniam convertunt\"_. \"Paul, thou\nart beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.\"\n\nIn his first epistle to the Corinthians he calls himself _sent_. \"Am I\nnot an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?\nAre ye not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle unto others, yet,\ndoubtless, I am unto you,\" etc.\n\nHe might, indeed, have seen Jesus while he was studying at Jerusalem\nunder Gamaliel. Yet it may be said that this was not a reason which\ncould authorize his apostleship. He had not been one of the disciples of\nJesus; on the contrary, he had persecuted them, and had been an\naccomplice in the death of St. Stephen. It is astonishing that he does\nnot rather justify his voluntary apostleship by the miracle which Jesus\nChrist afterwards worked in his favor--by the light from heaven which\nappeared to him at midday and threw him from his horse, and by his being\ncarried up to the third heaven.\n\nSt. Epiphanius quotes Acts of the Apostles, believed to have been\ncomposed by those Christians called Ebionites, or poor, and which were\nrejected by the Church--acts very ancient, it is true, but full of abuse\nof St. Paul. In them it is said that St. Paul was born at Tarsus of\nidolatrous parents--_utroque parente gentili procreatus_--that, having\ncome to Jerusalem, where he remained some time, he wished to marry the\ndaughter of Gamaliel; that, with this design, he became a Jewish\nproselyte and got himself circumcised; but that, not obtaining this\nvirgin (or not finding her a virgin), his vexation made him write\nagainst circumcision, against the Sabbath, and against the whole law.\n\n_\"Quumque Hierosolymam accessisset, et ibidem aliquandiu mansisset,\npontificis filiam ducere in animum induxisse, et eam ab rem proselytum\nfactum, atque circumcisum esse; postea quod virginem eam non accepisset,\nsuccensuisse, et adversus circumcisionem, ac sabbathum totamque legem\nscripsisse.\"_\n\nThese injurious words show that these primitive Christians, under the\nname of the poor, were still attached to the Sabbath and to\ncircumcision, resting this attachment on the circumcision of Jesus\nChrist and his observance of the Sabbath; and that they were enemies to\nSt. Paul, regarding him as an intruder who sought to overturn\neverything. In short, they were heretics; consequently they strove to\ndefame their enemies, an excess of which party spirit and superstition\nare too often guilty. St. Paul, too, calls them \"false apostles,\ndeceitful workers,\" and loads them with abuse. In his letter to the\nPhilippians he calls them dogs.\n\nSt. Jerome asserts that he was born at Gisceala, a town of Galilee, and\nnot at Tarsus. Others dispute his having been a Roman citizen, because\nat that time there were no Roman citizens at Tarsus, nor at Galgala, and\nTarsus was not a Roman colony until about a hundred years after. But we\nmust believe the Acts of the Apostles, which were inspired by the Holy\nGhost, and therefore outweigh the testimony of St. Jerome, learned as he\nmight be.\n\nEvery particular relative to St. Peter and St. Paul is interesting. If\nNicephorus has given us a portrait of the one, the Acts of St. Thecla,\nwhich, though not canonical, are of the first century, have furnished us\nwith a portrait of the other. He was, say these acts, short in stature,\nhis head was bald, his thighs were crooked, his legs thick, his nose\naquiline, his eyebrows joined, and he was full of the grace of\nGod.--_Statura brevi, etc._\n\nThese Acts of St. Paul and St. Thecla were, according to Tertullian,\ncomposed by an Asiatic, one of Paul's own disciples, who at first put\nthem forth under the apostle's name; for which he was called to account\nand displaced--that is, excluded from the assembly; for the hierarchy,\nnot being then established, no one could, properly speaking, be\ndisplaced.\n\n\nIV.\n\n_Under What Discipline Did the Apostles and Primitive Disciples Live?_\n\nIt appears that they were all equal. Equality was the great principle of\nthe Essenians, the Rechabites, the Theraput\u00e6, the disciples of John, and\nespecially those of Jesus Christ, who inculcated it more than once.\n\nSt. Barnabas, who was not one of the twelve apostles, gave his voice\nalong with theirs. St. Paul, who was still less a chosen apostle during\nthe life of Jesus, not only was equal to them, but had a sort of\nascendancy; he rudely rebukes St. Peter.\n\nWhen they are together we find among them no superior. There was no\npresiding, not even in turn. They did not at first call themselves\nbishops. St. Peter gives the name of _bishop_, or the equivalent\nepithet, only to Jesus Christ, whom he calls _the inspector of souls_.\nThis name of _inspector_ or _bishop_ was afterwards given to the\nancients, whom we call _priests_; but with no ceremony, no dignity, no\ndistinctive mark of pre-eminence. It was the office of the ancients or\nelders to distribute the alms. The younger of them were chosen by a\nplurality of voices to serve the tables, and were seven in number; all\nwhich clearly verifies the reports in common. Of jurisdiction, of power,\nof command, not the least trace is to be found.\n\nIt is true that Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead for not giving all\ntheir money to St. Peter, but retaining a small part for their own\nimmediate wants without confessing it--for corrupting, by a trifling\nfalsehood, the sanctity of their gifts; but it is not St. Peter who\ncondemns them. It is true that he divines Ananias' fault; he reproaches\nhim with it and tells him that he has lied to the Holy Ghost; after\nwhich Ananias falls down dead. Then comes Sapphira; and Peter, instead\nof warning, interrogates her, which seems to be the action of a judge.\nHe makes her fall into the snare by saying, \"Tell me whether ye sold the\nland for so much.\" The wife made the same answer as her husband. It is\nastonishing that she did not, on reaching the place, learn of her\nhusband's death--that no one had informed her of it--that she did not\nobserve the terror and tumult which such a death must have occasioned,\nand above all, the mortal fear lest the officers of justice should take\ncognizance of it as of a murder. It is strange that this woman should\nnot have filled the house with her cries, but have been quietly\ninterrogated, as in a court of justice, where silence is rigidly\nenforced. It is still more extraordinary that Peter should have said to\nher, \"Behold the feet of them which have carried thy husband out at the\ndoor, and shall carry thee out\"--on which the sentence was instantly\nexecuted. Nothing can more resemble a criminal hearing before a despotic\njudge.\n\nBut it must be considered that St. Peter is here only the organ of\nJesus Christ and the Holy Ghost; that it is to them that Ananias and his\nwife have lied, and it is they who punish them with sudden death; that,\nindeed, this miracle was worked for the purpose of terrifying all such\nas, while giving their goods to the Church, and saying that they have\ngiven all, keep something back for profane uses. The judicious Calmet\nshows us how the fathers and the commentators differ about the salvation\nof these two primitive Christians, whose sin consisted in simple though\nculpable reticence.\n\nBe this as it may, it is certain that the apostles had no jurisdiction,\nno power, no authority, but that of persuasion, which is the first of\nall, and upon which every other is founded. Besides, it appears from\nthis very story that the Christians lived in common. When two or three\nof them were gathered together, Jesus Christ was in the midst of them.\nThey could all alike receive the Spirit. Jesus was their true, their\nonly superior; He had said to them:\n\n\"Be not ye called rabbi; for one is your master, even Christ; and all ye\nare brethren. And call no man your father upon earth; for one is your\nfather, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one is\nyour master, even Christ.\"\n\nIn the time of the apostles there was no ritual, no liturgy; there were\nno fixed hours for assembling, no ceremonies. The disciples baptized the\ncatechumens, and breathed the Holy Ghost into their mouths, as Jesus\nChrist had breathed on the apostles; and as, in many churches, it is\nstill the custom to breathe into the mouth of a child when administering\nbaptism. Such were the beginnings of Christianity. All was done by\ninspiration--by enthusiasm, as among the Therapeut\u00e6 and the Juda\u00eftes, if\nwe may for a moment be permitted to compare Jewish societies, now become\nreprobate, with societies conducted by Jesus Christ Himself from the\nhighest heaven, where He sat at the right hand of His Father. Time\nbrought necessary changes; the Church being extended, strengthened, and\nenriched, had occasion for new laws.\n\n\n\n\nAPPARITION.\n\n\nIt is not at all uncommon for a person under strong emotion to see that\nwhich is not. In 1726 a woman in London, accused of being an accomplice\nin her husband's murder, denied the fact; the dead man's coat was held\nup and shaken before her, her terrified imagination presented the\nhusband himself to her view; she fell at his feet and would have\nembraced him. She told the jury that she had seen her husband. It is not\nwonderful that Theodoric saw in the head of a fish, which was served up\nto him, that of Symmachus, whom he had assassinated--or unjustly\nexecuted; for it is precisely the same thing.\n\nCharles IX., after the massacre of St. Bartholomew, saw dead bodies and\nblood; not in his dreams, but in the convulsions of a troubled mind\nseeking for sleep in vain. His physician and his nurse bore witness to\nit. Fantastic visions are very frequent in hot fevers. This is not\nseeing in imagination; it is seeing in reality. The phantom exists to\nhim who has the perception of it. If the gift of reason vouchsafed to\nthe human machine were not at hand to correct these illusions, all\nheated imaginations would be in an almost continual transport, and it\nwould be impossible to cure them.\n\nIt is especially in that middle state between sleeping and waking that\nan inflamed brain sees imaginary objects and hears sounds which nobody\nutters. Fear, love, grief, remorse are the painters who trace the\npictures before unsettled imaginations. The eye which sees sparks in the\nnight, when accidentally pressed in a certain direction, is but a faint\nimage of the disorders of the brain.\n\nNo theologian doubts that with these natural causes the Master of nature\nhas sometimes united His divine influence. To this the Old and the New\nTestament bear ample testimony. Providence has deigned to employ these\napparitions--these visions--in favor of the Jews, who were then its\ncherished people.\n\nIt may be that, in the course of time, some really pious souls, deceived\nby their enthusiasm, have believed that they had received from an\nintimate communication with God that which they owed only to their\ninflamed imaginations. In such cases there is need of the advice of an\nhonest man, and especially of a good physician.\n\nThe stories of apparitions are innumerable. It is said to have been in\nconsequence of an apparition that St. Theodore, in the beginning of the\nfourth century, went and set fire to the temple of Amasia and reduced it\nto ashes. It is very likely that God did not command this action, in\nitself so criminal, by which several citizens perished, and which\nexposed all the Christians to a just revenge.\n\nGod might permit St. Potamienne to appear to St. Basilides; for there\nresulted no disturbance to the state. We will not deny that Jesus Christ\nmight appear to St. Victor. But that St. Benedict saw the soul of St.\nGermanus of Capua carried up to heaven by angels; and that two monks\nafterwards saw the soul of St. Benedict walking on a carpet extended\nfrom heaven to Mount Cassino--this is not quite so easy to believe.\n\nIt may likewise, without any offence to our august religion, be doubted\nwhether St. Eucherius was conducted by an angel into hell, where he saw\nCharles Mattel's soul; and whether a holy hermit of Italy saw the soul\nof Dagobert chained in a boat by devils, who were flogging it without\nmercy; for, after all, it is rather difficult to explain satisfactorily\nhow a soul can walk upon a carpet, how it can be chained in a boat, or\nhow it can be flogged.\n\nBut, it may very well be that heated brains have had such visions; from\nage to age we have a thousand instances of them. One must be very\nenlightened to distinguish, in this prodigious number of visions, those\nwhich came from God Himself from those which were purely the offspring\nof imagination.\n\nThe illustrious Bossuet relates, in his funeral oration over the\nPrincess Palatine, two visions which acted powerfully on that princess,\nand determined the whole conduct of her latter years. These heavenly\nvisions must be believed since they are regarded as such by the discreet\nand learned bishop of Meaux, who penetrated into all the depths of\ntheology and even undertook to lift the veil which covers the\nApocalypse.\n\nHe says, then, that the Princess Palatine, having lent a hundred\nthousand francs to her sister, the queen of Poland, sold the duchy of\nR\u00e9telois for a million, and married her daughters advantageously. Happy\naccording to the world, but unfortunately doubting the truths of the\nChristian religion, she was brought back to her conviction, and to the\nlove of these ineffable truths by two visions. The first was a dream in\nwhich a man born blind told her that he had no idea of light, and that\nwe must believe the word of others in things of which we cannot\nourselves conceive. The second arose from a violent shock of the\nmembranes and fibres of the brain in an attack of fever. She saw a hen\nrunning after one of her chickens, which a dog held in his mouth. The\nPrincess Palatine snatched the chick from the dog, on which a voice\ncried out: \"Give him back his chicken; if you deprive him of his food he\nwill not watch as he ought.\" But the princess exclaimed, \"No, I will\nnever give it back.\"\n\nThe chicken was the soul of Anne of Gonzaga, Princess Palatine; the hen\nwas the Church, and the dog was the devil. Anne of Gonzaga, who was\nnever to give back the chicken to the dog, was _efficacious grace_.\n\nBossuet preached this funeral oration to the Carmelite nuns of the\nFaubourg St. Jacques, at Paris, before the whole house of Cond\u00e9; he used\nthese remarkable words: \"Hearken, and be especially careful not to hear\nwith contempt the order of the Divine warnings, and the conduct of\nDivine grace.\"\n\nThe reader, then, must peruse this story with the same reverence with\nwhich its hearers listened to it. These extraordinary workings of\nProvidence are like the miracles of canonized saints, which must be\nattested by irreproachable witnesses. And what more lawful deponent can\nwe have to the apparitions and visions of the Princess Palatine than the\nman who employed his life in distinguishing truth from appearance? who\ncombated vigorously against the nuns of Port Royal on the formulary;\nagainst Paul Ferri on the catechism; against the minister Claude on the\nvariations of the Church; against Doctor Dupin on China; against Father\nSimon on the understanding of the sacred text; against Cardinal\nSfondrati on predestination; against the pope on the rights of the\nGallican Church; against the archbishop of Cambray on pure and\ndisinterested love. He was not to be seduced by the names, nor the\ntitles, nor the reputation, nor the dialectics of his adversaries. He\nrelated this fact; therefore he believed it. Let us join him in his\nbelief, in spite of the raillery which it has occasioned. Let us adore\nthe secrets of Providence, but let us distrust the wanderings of the\nimagination, which Malebranche called _la folle du logis_. For these two\nvisions accorded to the Princess Palatine are not vouchsafed to every\none.\n\nJesus Christ appeared to St. Catharine of Sienna; he espoused her and\ngave her a ring. This mystical apparition is to be venerated, for it is\nattested by Raymond of Capua, general of the Dominicans, who confessed\nher, as also by Pope Urban VI. But it is rejected by the learned Fleury,\nauthor of the \"Ecclesiastical History.\" And a young woman who should now\nboast of having contracted such a marriage might receive as a nuptial\npresent a place in a lunatic asylum.\n\nThe appearance of Mother Angelica, abbess of Port Royal, to Sister\nDorothy is related by a man of very great weight among the Jansenists,\nthe Sieur Dufoss\u00e9, author of the _\"M\u00e9moirs de Pontis\"_. Mother Angelica,\nlong after her death, came and seated herself in the church of Port\nRoyal, in her old place, with her crosier in her hand. She commanded\nthat Sister Dorothy should be sent for and to her she told terrible\nsecrets. But the testimony of this Dufoss\u00e9 is of less weight than that\nof Raymond of Capua, and Pope Urban VI., which, however, have not been\nformally received.\n\nThe writer of the above paragraphs has since read the Abb\u00e9 Langlet's\nfour volumes on \"Apparitions,\" and thinks he ought not to take anything\nfrom them. He is convinced of all the apparitions verified by the\nChurch, but he has some doubts about the others, until they are\nauthentically recognized. The Cordeliers and the Jacobins, the\nJansenists and the Molinists have all had their apparitions and their\nmiracles. _\"Iliacos inter muros peccatur et extra.\"_\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 01","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":78851}