{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35622/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35622","id":"gutenberg_35622","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35622","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME II\n\nBy\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\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 VI\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS--LONDON--NEW YORK--CHICAGO\n\n1901\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\n\nLIST OF PLATES--VOL. II\n\nTHE BASTILLE--_Frontispiece_\n\nAN ASTROLOGER\n\nA TYPE OF BEAUTY\n\nALEXANDER'S TRIUMPH\n\n\n\n[Illustration: The Bastille.--\"For four hundred years the symbol of\noppression. Within its walls the noblest had perished. It was a\nperpetual threat, it was the last and often the first argument of king\nand priest.\"]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL II.\n\nAPPEARANCE--CALENDS\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nAPPEARANCE.\n\n\nAre all appearances deceitful? Have our senses been given us only to\nkeep us in continual delusion? Is everything error? Do we live in a\ndream, surrounded by shadowy chimeras? We see the sun setting when he is\nalready below the horizon; before he has yet risen we see him appear. A\nsquare tower seems to be round. A straight stick, thrust into the water,\nseems to be bent.\n\nYou see your face in a mirror and the image appears to be behind the\nglass: it is, however, neither behind nor before it. This glass, which\nto the sight and the touch is so smooth and even, is no other than an\nunequal congregation of projections and cavities. The finest and fairest\nskin is a kind of bristled network, the openings of which are\nincomparably larger than the threads, and enclose an infinite number of\nminute hairs. Under this network there are liquors incessantly passing,\nand from it there issue continual exhalations which cover the whole\nsurface. What we call large is to an elephant very small, and what we\ncall small is to insects a world. The same motion which would be rapid\nto a snail would be very slow in the eye of an eagle. This rock, which\nis impenetrable by steel, is a sieve consisting of more pores than\nmatter, and containing a thousand avenues of prodigious width leading to\nits centre, in which are lodged multitudes of animals, which may, for\naught we know, think themselves the masters of the universe.\n\nNothing is either as it appears to be, or in the place where we believe\nit to be. Several philosophers, tired of being constantly deceived by\nbodies, have in their spleen pronounced that bodies do not exist, and\nthat there is nothing real but our minds. As well might they have\nconcluded that, all appearances being false, and the nature of the soul\nbeing as little known as that of the matter, there is no reality in\neither body or soul. Perhaps it is this despair of knowing anything\nwhich has caused some Chinese philosophers to say that nothing is the\nbeginning and the end of all things. This philosophy, so destructive to\nbeing, was well known in Moli\u00e8re's time. Doctor Macphurius represents\nthe school; when teaching Sganarelle, he says, \"You must not say, 'I am\ncome,' but 'it seems to me that I am come'; for it may seem to you,\nwithout such being really the case.\" But at the present day a comic\nscene is not an argument, though it is sometimes better than an\nargument; and there is often as much pleasure in seeking after truth as\nin laughing at philosophy.\n\nYou do not see the network, the cavities, the threads, the inequalities,\nthe exhalations of that white and delicate skin which you idolize.\nAnimals a thousand times less than a mite discern all these objects\nwhich escape your vision; they lodge, feed, and travel about in them, as\nin an extensive country, and those on the right arm are perfectly\nignorant that there are creatures of their own species on the left. If\nyou were so unfortunate as to see what they see, your charming skin\nwould strike you with horror.\n\nThe harmony of a concert, to which you listen with delight, must have on\ncertain classes of minute animals the effect of terrible thunder; and\nperhaps it kills them. We see, touch, hear, feel things only in the way\nin which they ought to be seen, touched, heard, or felt by ourselves.\n\nAll is in due proportion. The laws of optics, which show you an object\nin the water where it is not, and break a right line, are in entire\naccordance with those which make the sun appear to you with a diameter\nof two feet, although it is a million times larger than the earth. To\nsee it in its true dimensions would require an eye collecting his rays\nat an angle as great as his disk, which is impossible. Our senses, then,\nassist much more than they deceive us.\n\nMotion, time, hardness, softness, dimensions, distance, approximation,\nstrength, weakness, appearances, of whatever kind, all is relative. And\nwho has created these relations?\n\n\n\n\nAPROPOS.\n\n\nAll great successes, of whatever kind, are founded upon things done or\nsaid apropos.\n\nArnold of Brescia, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague did not come quite\napropos; the people were not then sufficiently enlightened; the\ninvention of printing had not then laid the abuses complained of before\nthe eyes of every one. But when men began to read--when the populace,\nwho were solicitous to escape purgatory, but at the same time wished not\nto pay too dear for indulgences, began to open their eyes, the reformers\nof the sixteenth century came quite apropos, and succeeded.\n\nIt has been elsewhere observed that Cromwell under Elizabeth or Charles\nthe Second, or Cardinal de Retz when Louis XIV. governed by himself,\nwould have been very ordinary persons.\n\nHad C\u00e6sar been born in the time of Scipio Africanus he would not have\nsubjugated the Roman commonwealth; nor would Mahomet, could he rise\nagain at the present day, be more than sheriff of Mecca. But if\nArchimedes and Virgil were restored, one would still be the best\nmathematician, the other the best poet of his country.\n\n\n\n\nARABS;\n\nAND, OCCASIONALLY, ON THE BOOK OF JOB.\n\n\nIf any one be desirous of obtaining a thorough knowledge of the\nantiquities of Arabia, it may be presumed that he will gain no more\ninformation than about those of Auvergne and Poitou. It is, however,\ncertain, that the Arabs were of some consequence long before Mahomet.\nThe Jews themselves say that Moses married an Arabian woman, and his\nfather-in-law Jethro seems to have been a man of great good sense.\n\nMecca is considered, and not without reason, as one of the most ancient\ncities in the world. It is, indeed, a proof of its antiquity that\nnothing but superstition could occasion the building of a town on such a\nspot, for it is in a sandy desert, where the water is brackish, so that\nthe people die of hunger and thirst. The country a few miles to the east\nis the most delightful upon earth, the best watered and the most\nfertile. There the Arabs should have built, and not at Mecca. But it was\nenough for some charlatan, some false prophet, to give out his reveries,\nto make of Mecca a sacred spot and the resort of neighboring nations.\nThus it was that the temple of Jupiter Ammon was built in the midst of\nsands. Arabia extends from northeast to southwest, from the desert of\nJerusalem to Aden or Eden, about the fiftieth degree of north latitude.\nIt is an immense country, about three times as large as Germany. It is\nvery likely that its deserts of sand were brought thither by the waters\nof the ocean, and that its marine gulfs were once fertile lands.\n\nThe belief in this nation's antiquity is favored by the circumstance\nthat no historian speaks of its having been subjugated. It was not\nsubdued even by Alexander, nor by any king of Syria, nor by the Romans.\nThe Arabs, on the contrary, subjugated a hundred nations, from the Indus\nto the Garonne; and, having afterwards lost their conquests, they\nretired into their own country and did not mix with any other people.\n\nHaving never been subject to nor mixed with other nations it is more\nthan probable that they have preserved their manners and their language.\nIndeed, Arabic is, in some sense, the mother tongue of all Asia as far\nas the Indus; or rather, the prevailing tongue, for mother tongues have\nnever existed. Their genius has never changed. They still compose their\n\"Nights' Entertainments,\" as they did when they imagined one Bac or\nBacchus, who passed through the Red Sea with three millions of men,\nwomen, and children; who stopped the sun and moon, and made streams of\nwine issue forth with a blow of his rod, which, when he chose, he\nchanged into a serpent.\n\nA nation so isolated, and whose blood remains unmixed, cannot change its\ncharacter. The Arabs of the desert have always been given to robbery,\nand those inhabiting the towns been fond of fables, poetry, and\nastronomy. It is said, in the historical preface to the Koran, that when\nany one of their tribes had a good poet the other tribes never failed to\nsend deputies to that one on which God had vouchsafed to bestow so great\na gift.\n\nThe tribes assembled every year, by representatives, in an open place\nnamed Ocad, where verses were recited, nearly in the same way as is now\ndone at Rome in the garden of the academy of the Arcadii, and this\ncustom continued until the time of Mahomet. In his time, each one posted\nhis verses on the door of the temple of Mecca. Labid, son of Rabia, was\nregarded as the Homer of Mecca; but, having seen the second chapter of\nthe Koran, which Mahomet had posted, he fell on his knees before him,\nand said, \"O Mahomet, son of Abdallah, son of Motalib, son of Achem,\nthou art a greater poet than I--thou art doubtless the prophet of God.\"\n\nThe Arabs of Maden, Na\u00efd, and Sanaa were no less generous than those of\nthe desert were addicted to plunder. Among them, one friend was\ndishonored if he had refused his assistance to another. In their\ncollection of verses, entitled _\"Tograid\",_ it is related that, \"one\nday, in the temple of Mecca, three Arabs were disputing on generosity\nand friendship, and could not agree as to which, among those who then\nset the greatest examples of these virtues, deserved the preference.\nSome were for Abdallah, son of Giafar, uncle to Mahomet; others for\nKais, son of Saad; and others for Arabad, of the tribe of As. After a\nlong dispute they agreed to send a friend of Abdallah to him, a friend\nof Kais to Kais, and a friend of Arabad to Arabad, to try them all\nthree, and to come and make their report to the assembly.\n\n\"Then the friend of Abdallah went and said to him, 'Son of the uncle of\nMahomet, I am on a journey and am destitute of everything.' Abdallah was\nmounted on his camel loaded with gold and silk; he dismounted with all\nspeed, gave him his camel, and returned home on foot.\n\n\"The second went and made application to his friend Kais, son of Saad.\nKais was still asleep, and one of his domestics asked the traveller what\nhe wanted. The traveller answered that he was the friend of Kais, and\nneeded his assistance. The domestic said to him, 'I will not wake my\nmaster; but here are seven thousand pieces of gold, which are all that\nwe at present have in the house. Take also a camel from the stable, and\na slave; these will, I think, be sufficient for you until you reach your\nown house.' When Kais awoke, he chid the domestic for not having given\nmore.\n\n\"The third repaired to his friend Arabad, of the tribe of As. Arabad was\nblind, and was coming out of his house, leaning on two slaves, to pray\nto God in the temple of Mecca. As soon as he heard his friend's voice,\nhe said to him, 'I possess nothing but my two slaves; I beg that you\nwill take and sell them; I will go to the temple as well as I can, with\nmy stick.'\n\n\"The three disputants, having returned to the assembly, faithfully\nrelated what had happened. Many praises were bestowed on Abdallah, son\nof Giafar--on Kais, son of Saad--and on Arabad, of the tribe of As, but\nthe preference was given to Arabad.\"\n\nThe Arabs have several tales of this kind, but our western nations have\nnone. Our romances are not in this taste. We have, indeed, several which\nturn upon trick alone, as those of Boccaccio, _\"Guzman d'Alfarache,\"_\n\"Gil Bias,\" etc.\n\n_On Job, the Arab._\n\nIt is clear that the Arabs at least possessed noble and exalted ideas.\nThose who are most conversant with the oriental languages think that the\nBook of Job, which is of the highest antiquity, was composed by an Arab\nof Idumaea. The most clear and indubitable proof is that the Hebrew\ntranslator has left in his translation more than a hundred Arabic words,\nwhich, apparently, he did not understand.\n\nJob, the hero of the piece, could not be a Hebrew, for he says, in the\nforty-second chapter, that having been restored to his former\ncircumstances, he divided his possessions equally among his sons and\ndaughters, which is directly contrary to the Hebrew law.\n\nIt is most likely that, if this book had been composed after the period\nat which we place Moses, the author--who speaks of so many things and is\nnot sparing of examples--would have mentioned some one of the\nastonishing prodigies worked by Moses, which were, doubtless, known to\nall the nations of Asia.\n\nIn the very first chapter Satan appears before God and asks permission\nto tempt Job. _Satan_ was unknown in the Pentateuch; it was a Chald\u00e6an\nword; a fresh proof that the Arabian author was in the neighborhood of\nChald\u00e6a.\n\nIt has been thought that he might be a Jew because the Hebrew\ntranslator has put Jehovah instead of El, or Bel, or Sadai. But what man\nof the least information does not know that the word Jehovah was common\nto the Ph\u0153nicians, the Syrians, the Egyptians, and every people of\nthe neighboring countries?\n\nA yet stronger proof--one to which there is no reply--is the knowledge\nof astronomy which appears in the Book of Job. Mention is here made of\nthe constellations which we call Arcturus, Orion, the Pleiades, and even\nof those of \"the chambers of the south.\" Now, the Hebrews had no\nknowledge of the sphere; they had not even a term to express astronomy;\nbut the Arabs, like the Chald\u00e6ans, have always been famed for their\nskill in this science.\n\nIt does, then, seem to be thoroughly proved that the Book of Job cannot\nhave been written by a Jew, and that it was anterior to all the Jewish\nbooks, Philo and Josephus were too prudent to count it among those of\nthe Hebrew canon. It is incontestably an Arabian parable or allegory.\n\nThis is not all. We derive from it some knowledge of the customs of the\nancient world, and especially of Arabia. Here we read of trading with\nthe Indies; a commerce which the Arabs have in all ages carried on, but\nwhich the Jews never even heard of.\n\nHere, too, we see that the art of writing was in great cultivation, and\nthat they already made great books.\n\nIt cannot be denied that the commentator Calmet, profound as he is,\nviolates all the rules of logic in pretending that Job announces the\nimmortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body, when he says:\n\n\"For I know that my Redeemer liveth. And though after my skin--worms\ndestroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God. But ye should say,\nWhy persecute we him?--seeing the root of the matter is found in me. Be\nye afraid of the sword; for wrath bringeth the punishment of the sword,\nthat ye may know there is a judgment.\"\n\nCan anything be understood by those words, other than his hope of being\ncured? The immortality of the soul, and the resurrection of the body at\nthe last day, are truths so indubitably announced in the New Testament,\nand so clearly proved by the fathers and the councils, that there is no\nneed to attribute the first knowledge of them to an Arab. These great\nmysteries are not explained in any passage of the Hebrew Pentateuch; how\nthen can they be explained in a single verse of Job and that in so\nobscure a manner? Calmet has no better reason for seeing in the words of\nJob the immortality of the soul, and the general resurrection, than he\nwould have for discovering a disgraceful disease in the malady with\nwhich he was afflicted. Neither physics nor logic take the part of this\ncommentator.\n\nAs for this allegorical Book of Job: it being manifestly Arabian, we are\nat liberty to say that it has neither justness, method, nor precision.\nYet it is perhaps the most ancient book that has been written, and the\nmost valuable monument that has been found on this side the Euphrates.\n\n\n\n\nARARAT.\n\n\nThis is a mountain of Armenia, on which the ark rested. The question has\nlong been agitated, whether the deluge was universal--whether it\ninundated the whole earth without exception, or only the portion of the\nearth which was then known. Those who have thought that it extended only\nto the tribes then existing, have founded their opinion on the inutility\nof flooding unpeopled lands, which reason seems very plausible. As for\nus, we abide by the Scripture text, without pretending to explain it.\nBut we shall take greater liberty with Berosus, an ancient Chald\u00e6an\nwriter, of whom there are fragments preserved by Abydenus, quoted by\nEusebius, and repeated word for word by George Syncellus. From these\nfragments we find that the Orientals of the borders of the Euxine, in\nancient times, made Armenia the abode of their gods. In this they were\nimitated by the Greeks, who placed their deities on Mount Olympus. Men\nhave always confounded human with divine things. Princes built their\ncitadels on mountains; therefore they were also made the dwelling place\nof the gods, and became sacred. The summit of Mount Ararat is concealed\nby mists; therefore the gods hid themselves in those mists, sometimes\nvouchsafing to appear to mortals in fine weather.\n\nA god of that country, believed to have been Saturn, appeared one day to\nXixuter, tenth king of Chald\u00e6a, according to the computation of\nAfricanus, Abydenus, and Apollodorus, and said to him:\n\n\"On the fifteenth day of the month Oesi, mankind shall be destroyed by a\ndeluge. Shut up close all your writings in Sipara, the city of the sun,\nthat the memory of things may not be lost. Build a vessel; enter it with\nyour relatives and friends; take with you birds and beasts; stock it\nwith provisions, and, when you are asked, 'Whither are you going in that\nvessel?' answer, 'To the gods, to beg their favor for mankind.'\"\n\nXixuter built his vessel, which was two stadii wide, and five long; that\nit, its width was two hundred and fifty geometrical paces, and its\nlength six hundred and twenty-five. This ship, which was to go upon the\nBlack Sea, was a slow sailer. The flood came. When it had ceased Xixuter\nlet some of his birds fly out, but, finding nothing to eat, they\nreturned to the vessel. A few days afterwards he again set some of his\nbirds at liberty, and they returned with mud in their claws. At last\nthey went and returned no more. Xixuter did likewise: he quitted his\nship, which had perched upon a mountain of Armenia, and he was seen no\nmore; the gods took him away.\n\nThere is probably something historic in this fable. The Euxine\noverflowed its banks, and inundated some portions of territory, and the\nking of Chald\u00e6a hastened to repair the damage. We have in Rabelais tales\nno less ridiculous, founded on some small portion of truth. The ancient\nhistorians are, for the most part, serious Rabelais.\n\nAs for Mount Ararat, it has been asserted that it was one of the\nmountains of Phrygia, and that it was called by a name answering that of\nark, because it was enclosed by three rivers.\n\nThere are thirty opinions respecting this mountain. How shall we\ndistinguish the true one? That which the monks now call Ararat, was,\nthey say, one of the limits of the terrestrial paradise--a paradise of\nwhich we find but few traces. It is a collection of rocks and\nprecipices, covered with eternal snows. Tournefort went thither by order\nof Louis XIV. to seek for plants. He says that the whole neighborhood is\nhorrible, and the mountain itself still more so; that he found snow four\nfeet thick, and quite crystallized, and that there are perpendicular\nprecipices on every side.\n\nThe Dutch traveller, John Struys, pretends that he went thither also. He\ntells us that he ascended to the very top, to cure a hermit afflicted\nwith a rupture.\n\n\"His hermitage,\" says he, \"was so distant from the earth that we did not\nreach it until the close of the seventh day, though each day we went\nfive leagues.\" If, in this journey, he was constantly ascending, this\nMount Ararat must be thirty-five leagues high. In the time of the\nGiants' war, a few Ararats piled one upon another would have made the\nascent to the moon quite easy. John Struys, moreover, assures us that\nthe hermit whom he cured presented him with a cross made of the wood of\nNoah's ark. Tournefort had not this advantage.\n\n\n\n\nARIANISM.\n\n\nThe great theological disputes, for twelve hundred years, were all\nGreek. What would Homer, Sophocles, Demosthenes, Archimedes, have said,\nhad they witnessed the subtle cavillings which have cost so much blood.\n\nArius has, even at this day, the honor of being regarded as the inventor\nof his opinion, as Calvin is considered to have been the founder of\nCalvinism. The pride in being the head of a sect is the second of this\nworld's vanities; for that of conquest is said to be the first. However,\nit is certain that neither Arius nor Calvin is entitled to the\nmelancholy glory of invention. The quarrel about the Trinity existed\nlong before Arius took part in it, in the disputatious town of\nAlexandria, where it had been beyond the power of Euclid to make men\nthink calmly and justly. There never was a people more frivolous than\nthe Alexandrians; in this respect they far exceeded even the Parisians.\n\nThere must already have been warm disputes about the Trinity; since the\npatriarch, who composed the \"Alexandrian Chronicle,\" preserved at\nOxford, assures us that the party embraced by Arius was supported by two\nthousand priests.\n\nWe will here, for the reader's convenience, give what is said of Arius\nin a small book which every one may not have at hand: Here is an\nincomprehensible question, which, for more than sixteen hundred years,\nhas furnished exercise for curiosity, for sophistic subtlety, for\nanimosity, for the spirit of cabal, for the fury of dominion, for the\nrage of persecution, for blind and sanguinary fanaticism, for barbarous\ncredulity, and which has produced more horrors than the ambition of\nprinces, which ambition has occasioned very many. Is Jesus the Word? If\nHe be the Word, did He emanate from God in time or before time? If He\nemanated from God, is He coeternal and consubstantial with Him, or is He\nof a similar substance? Is He distinct from Him, or is He not? Is He\nmade or begotten? Can He beget in his turn? Has He paternity? or\nproductive virtue without paternity? Is the Holy Ghost made? or\nbegotten? or produced? or proceeding from the Father? or proceeding from\nthe Son? or proceeding from both? Can He beget? can He produce? is His\nhypostasis consubstantial with the hypostasis of the Father and the Son?\nand how is it that, having the same nature--the same essence as the\nFather and the Son, He cannot do the same things done by these persons\nwho are Himself?\n\nThese questions, so far above reason, certainly needed the decision of\nan infallible church. The Christians sophisticated, cavilled, hated, and\nexcommunicated one another, for some of these dogmas inaccessible to\nhuman intellect, before the time of Arius and Athanasius. The Egyptian\nGreeks were remarkably clever; they would split a hair into four, but on\nthis occasion they split it only into three. Alexandros, bishop of\nAlexandria, thought proper to preach that God, being necessarily\nindividual--single--a monad in the strictest sense of the word, this\nmonad is triune.\n\nThe priest Arius, whom we call Arius, was quite scandalized by\nAlexandros's monad, and explained the thing in quite a different way. He\ncavilled in part like the priest Sabellius, who had cavilled like the\nPhrygian Praxeas, who was a great caviller. Alexandros quickly assembled\na small council of those of his own opinion, and excommunicated his\npriest. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, took the part of Arius. Thus the\nwhole Church was in a flame.\n\nThe Emperor Constantine was a villain; I confess it--a parricide, who\nhad smothered his wife in a bath, cut his son's throat, assassinated his\nfather-in-law, his brother-in-law, and his nephew; I cannot deny it--a\nman puffed up with pride and immersed in pleasure; granted--a detestable\ntyrant, like his children; _transeat_--but he was a man of sense. He\nwould not have obtained the empire, and subdued all his rivals, had he\nnot reasoned justly.\n\nWhen he saw the flames of civil war lighted among the scholastic brains,\nhe sent the celebrated Bishop Osius with dissuasive letters to the two\nbelligerent parties. \"You are great fools,\" he expressly tells them in\nthis letter, \"to quarrel about things which you do not understand. It is\nunworthy the gravity of your ministry to make so much noise about so\ntrifling a matter.\"\n\nBy \"so trifling a matter,\" Constantine meant not what regards the\nDivinity, but the incomprehensible manner in which they were striving to\nexplain the nature of the Divinity. The Arabian patriarch, who wrote the\nhistory of the Church of Alexandria, makes Osius, on presenting the\nemperor's letter, speak in nearly the following words:\n\n\"My brethren, Christianity is just beginning to enjoy the blessings of\npeace, and you would plunge it into eternal discord. The emperor has but\ntoo much reason to tell you that you quarrel about a very trifling\nmatter. Certainly, had the object of the dispute been essential, Jesus\nChrist, whom we all acknowledge as our legislator, would have mentioned\nit. God would not have sent His Son on earth, to return without teaching\nus our catechism. Whatever He has not expressly told us is the work of\nmen and error is their portion. Jesus has commanded you to love one\nanother, and you begin by hating one another and stirring up discord in\nthe empire. Pride alone has given birth to these disputes, and Jesus,\nyour Master, has commanded you to be humble. Not one among you can know\nwhether Jesus is made or begotten. And in what does His nature concern\nyou, provided your own is to be just and reasonable? What has the vain\nscience of words to do with the morality which should guide your\nactions? You cloud our doctrines with mysteries--you, who were designed\nto strengthen religion by your virtues. Would you leave the Christian\nreligion a mass of sophistry? Did Christ come for this? Cease to\ndispute, humble yourselves, edify one another, clothe the naked, feed\nthe hungry, and pacify the quarrels of families, instead of giving\nscandal to the whole empire by your dissensions.\"\n\nBut Osius addressed an obstinate audience. The Council of Nice was\nassembled and the Roman Empire was torn by a spiritual civil war. This\nwar brought on others and mutual persecution has continued from age to\nage, unto this day.\n\nThe melancholy part of the affair was that as soon as the council was\nended the persecution began; but Constantine, when he opened it, did not\nyet know how he should act, nor upon whom the persecution should fall.\nHe was not a Christian, though he was at the head of the Christians.\nBaptism alone then constituted Christianity, and he had not been\nbaptized; he had even rebuilt the Temple of Concord at Rome. It was,\ndoubtless, perfectly indifferent to him whether Alexander of Alexandria,\nor Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the priest Arius, were right or wrong; it\nis quite evident, from the letter given above, that he had a profound\ncontempt for the dispute.\n\nBut there happened that which always happens and always will happen in\nevery court. The enemies of those who were afterwards named Arians\naccused Eusebius of Nicomedia of having formerly taken part with\nLicinius against the emperor. \"_I_ have proofs of it,\" said Constantine\nin his letter to the Church of Nicomedia, \"from the priests and deacons\nin his train whom I have taken,\" etc.\n\nThus, from the time of the first great council, intrigue, cabal, and\npersecution were established, together with the tenets of the Church,\nwithout the power to derogate from their sanctity. Constantine gave the\nchapels of those who did not believe in the consubstantiality to those\nwho did believe in it; confiscated the property of the dissenters to his\nown profit, and used his despotic power to exile Arius and his\npartisans, who were not then the strongest. It has even been said that\nof his own private authority he condemned to death whosoever should not\nburn the writings of Arius; but this is not true. Constantine, prodigal\nas he was of human blood, did not carry his cruelty to so mad and absurd\nan excess as to order his executioners to assassinate the man who should\nkeep an heretical book, while he suffered the heresiarch to live.\n\nAt court everything soon changes. Several non-consubstantial bishops,\nwith some of the eunuchs and the women, spoke in favor of Arius, and\nobtained the reversal of the _lettre de cachet_. The same thing has\nrepeatedly happened in our modern courts on similar occasions.\n\nThe celebrated Eusebius, bishop of C\u00e6sarea, known by his writings, which\nevince no great discernment, strongly accused Eustatius, bishop of\nAntioch, of being a Sabellian; and Eustatius accused Eusebius of being\nan Arian. A council was assembled at Antioch; Eusebius gained his cause;\nEustatius was displaced; and the See of Antioch was offered to Eusebius,\nwho would not accept it; the two parties armed against each other, and\nthis was the prelude to controversial warfare. Constantine, who had\nbanished Arius for not believing in the consubstantial Son, now banished\nEustatius for believing in Him; nor are such revolutions uncommon.\n\nSt. Athanasius was then bishop of Alexandria. He would not admit Arius,\nwhom the emperor had sent thither, into the town, saying that \"Arius was\nexcommunicated; that an excommunicated man ought no longer to have\neither home or country; that he could neither eat nor sleep anywhere;\nand that it was better to obey God than man.\" A new council was\nforthwith held at Tyre, and new _lettres de cachet_ were issued.\nAthanasius was removed by the Tyrian fathers and banished to Tr\u00e8ves.\nThus Arius, and Athanasius, his greatest enemy, were condemned in turn\nby a man who was not yet a Christian:\n\nThe two factions alike employed artifice, fraud, and calumny, according\nto the old and eternal usage. Constantine left them to dispute and\ncabal, for he had other occupations. It was at that time that this _good\nprince_ assassinated his son, his wife, and his nephew, the young\nLicinius, the hope of the empire, who was not yet twelve years old.\n\nUnder Constantine, Arius' party was constantly victorious. The opposite\nparty has unblushingly written that one day St. Macarius, one of the\nmost ardent followers of Athanasius, knowing that Arius was on the way\nto the cathedral of Constantinople, followed by several of his brethren,\nprayed so ardently to God to confound this heresiarch that God could not\nresist the prayer; and immediately all Arius' bowels passed through his\nfundament--which is impossible. But at length Arius died.\n\nConstantine followed him a year afterwards, and it is said he died of\nleprosy. Julian, in his \"C\u00e6sars,\" says that baptism, which this emperor\nreceived a few hours before his death, cured no one of this distemper.\n\nAs his children reigned after him the flattery of the Roman people, who\nhad long been slaves, was carried to such an excess that those of the\nold religion made him a god, and those of the new made him a saint. His\nfeast was long kept, together with that of his mother.\n\nAfter his death, the troubles caused by the single word \"consubstantial\"\nagitated the empire with renewed violence. Constantius, son and\nsuccessor to Constantine, imitated all his father's cruelties, and,\nlike him, held councils--which councils anathematized one another.\nAthanasius went over all Europe and Asia to support his party, but the\nEusebians overwhelmed him. Banishment, imprisonment, tumult, murder, and\nassassination signalized the close of the reign of Constantius. Julian,\nthe Church's mortal enemy, did his utmost to restore peace to the\nChurch, but was unsuccessful. Jovian, and after him Valentinian, gave\nentire liberty of conscience, but the two parties accepted it only as\nthe liberty to exercise their hatred and their fury.\n\nTheodosius declared for the Council of Nice, but the Empress Justina,\nwho reigned in Italy, Illyria, and Africa, as guardian of the young\nValentinian, proscribed the great Council of Nice; and soon after the\nGoths, Vandals, and Burgundians, who spread themselves over so many\nprovinces, finding Arianism established in them, embraced it in order to\ngovern the conquered nations by the religion of those nations.\n\nBut the Nic\u00e6an faith having been received by the Gauls, their conqueror,\nClovis, followed that communion for the very same reason that the other\nbarbarians had professed the faith of Arius.\n\nIn Italy, the great Theodoric kept peace between the two parties, and at\nlast the Nic\u00e6an formula prevailed in the east and in the west. Arianism\nreappeared about the middle of the sixteenth century, favored by the\nreligious disputes which then divided Europe; and it reappeared, armed\nwith new strength and a still greater incredulity. Forty gentlemen of\nVicenza formed an academy, in which such tenets only were established as\nappeared necessary to make men Christians. Jesus was acknowledged as the\nWord, as Saviour, and as Judge; but His divinity, His consubstantiality,\nand even the Trinity, were denied.\n\nOf these dogmatizers, the principal were L\u00e6lius Socinus, Ochin, Pazuta,\nand Gentilis, who were joined by Servetus. The unfortunate dispute of\nthe latter with Calvin is well known; they carried on for some time an\ninterchange of abuse by letter. Servetus was so imprudent as to pass\nthrough Geneva, on his way to Germany. Calvin was cowardly enough to\nhave him arrested, and barbarous enough to have him condemned to be\nroasted by a slow fire--the same punishment which Calvin himself had\nnarrowly escaped in France. Nearly all the theologians of that time were\nby turns persecuting and persecuted, executioners and victims.\n\nThe same Calvin solicited the death of Gentilis at Geneva. He found five\nadvocates to subscribe that Gentilis deserved to perish in the flames.\nSuch horrors were worthy of that abominable age. Gentilis was put in\nprison, and was on the point of being burned like Servetus, but he was\nbetter advised than the Spaniard; he retracted, bestowed the most\nridiculous praises on Calvin, and was saved. But he had afterwards the\nill fortune, through not having made terms with a bailiff of the canton\nof Berne, to be arrested as an Arian. There were witnesses who deposed\nthat he had said that the words _trinity, essence, hypostasis_ were not\nto be found in the Scriptures, and on this deposition the judges, who\nwere as ignorant of the meaning of _hypostasis_ as himself, condemned\nhim, without at all arguing the question, to lose his head.\n\nFaustus Socinus, nephew to L\u00e6lius Socinus, and his companions were more\nfortunate in Germany. They penetrated into Silesia and Poland, founded\nchurches there, wrote, preached, and were successful, but at length,\ntheir religion being divested of almost every mystery, and a\nphilosophical and peaceful, rather than a militant sect, they were\nabandoned; and the Jesuits, who had more influence, persecuted and\ndispersed them.\n\nThe remains of this sect in Poland, Germany, and Holland keep quiet and\nconcealed; but in England the sect has reappeared with greater strength\nand \u00e9clat. The great Newton and Locke embraced it. Samuel Clarke, the\ncelebrated rector of St. James, and author of an excellent book on the\nexistence of God, openly declared himself an Arian, and his disciples\nare very numerous. He would never attend his parish church on the day\nwhen the Athanasian Creed was recited. In the course of this work will\nbe seen the subtleties which all these obstinate persons, who were not\nso much Christians as philosophers, opposed to the purity of the\nCatholic faith.\n\nAlthough among the theologians of London there was a large flock of\nArians, the public mind there has been more occupied by the great\nmathematical truths discovered by Newton, and the metaphysical wisdom of\nLocke. Disputes on consubstantiality appear very dull to philosophers.\nThe same thing happened to Newton in England as to Corneille in France,\nwhose _\"Pertharite,\"_ \"_Th\u00e9odore,_\" and _\"Recueil de Vers\"_ were\nforgotten, while _\"Cinna\"_ was alone thought of. Newton was looked upon\nas God's interpreter, in the calculation of fluxions, the laws of\ngravitation, and the nature of light. On his death, his pall was borne\nby the peers and the chancellor of the realm, and his remains were laid\nnear the tombs of the kings--than whom he is more revered. Servetus, who\nis said to have discovered the circulation of the blood, was roasted by\na slow fire, in a little town of the Allobroges, ruled by a theologian\nof Picardy.\n\n\n\n\nARISTEAS.\n\n\nShall men forever be deceived in the most indifferent as well as the\nmost serious things? A pretended Aristeas would make us believe that he\nhad the Old Testament translated into Greek for the use of Ptolemy\nPhiladelphus--just as the Duke de Montausier had commentaries written on\nthe best Latin authors for the dauphin, who made no use of them.\n\nAccording to this Aristeas, Ptolemy, burning with desire to be\nacquainted with the Jewish books, and to know those laws which the\nmeanest Jew in Alexandria could have translated for fifty crowns,\ndetermined to send a solemn embassy to the high-priest of the Jews of\nJerusalem; to deliver a hundred and twenty thousand Jewish slaves, whom\nhis father, Ptolemy Soter, had made prisoners in Jud\u00e6a, and in order to\nassist them in performing the journey agreeably, to give them about\nforty crowns each of our money--amounting in the whole to fourteen\nmillions four hundred thousand of our livres, or about five hundred and\nseventy-six thousand pounds.\n\nPtolemy did not content himself with this unheard-of liberality. He sent\nto the temple a large table of massive gold, enriched all over with\nprecious stones, and had engraved upon it a chart of the Meander, a\nriver of Phrygia, the course of which river was marked with rubies and\nemeralds. It is obvious how charming such a chart of the Meander must\nhave been to the Jews. This table was loaded with two immense golden\nvases, still more richly worked. He also gave thirty other golden and an\ninfinite number of silver vases. Never was a book so dearly paid for;\nthe whole Vatican library might be had for a less amount.\n\nEleazar, the pretended high-priest of Jerusalem, sent ambassadors in his\nturn, who presented only a letter written upon fine vellum in characters\nof gold. It was an act worthy of the Jews, to give a bit of parchment\nfor about thirty millions of livres. Ptolemy was so much delighted with\nEleazar's style that he shed tears of joy.\n\nThe ambassador dined with the king and the chief priests of Egypt. When\ngrace was to be said, the Egyptians yielded the honor to the Jews. With\nthese ambassadors came seventy-two interpreters, six from each of the\ntwelve tribes, who had all learned Greek perfectly at Jerusalem. It is\nreally a pity that of these twelve tribes ten were entirely lost, and\nhad disappeared from the face of the earth so many ages before; but\nEleazar, the high-priest, found them again, on purpose to send\ntranslators to Ptolemy.\n\nThe seventy-two interpreters were shut up in the island of Pharos. Each\nof them completed his translation in seventy-two days, and all the\ntranslations were found to be word for word alike. This is called the\nSeptuagint or translation of the seventy, though it should have been\ncalled the translation of the seventy-two.\n\nAs soon as the king had received these books he worshipped them--he was\nso good a Jew. Each interpreter received three talents of gold, and\nthere were sent to the high-sacrificer--in return for his parchment--ten\ncouches of silver, a crown of gold, censers and cups of gold, a vase of\nthirty talents of silver--that is, of the weight of about sixty thousand\ncrowns--with ten purple robes, and a hundred pieces of the finest linen.\n\nNearly all this fine story is faithfully repeated by the historian\nJosephus, who never exaggerates anything. St. Justin improves upon\nJosephus. He says that Ptolemy applied to King Herod, and not to the\nhigh-priest Eleazar. He makes Ptolemy send two ambassadors to\nHerod--which adds much to the marvellousness of the tale, for we know\nthat Herod was not born until long after the reign of Ptolemy\nPhiladelphus.\n\nIt is needless to point out the profusion of anachronisms in these and\nall such romances, or the swarm of contradictions and enormous blunders\ninto which the Jewish author falls in every sentence; yet this fable was\nregarded for ages as an incontestable truth; and, the better to exercise\nthe credulity of the human mind, every writer who repeated it added or\nretrenched in his own way, so that, to believe it all, it was necessary\nto believe it in a hundred different ways. Some smile at these\nabsurdities which whole nations have swallowed, while others sigh over\nthe imposture. The infinite diversity of these falsehoods multiplies the\nfollowers of Democritus and Heraclitus.\n\n\n\n\nARISTOTLE.\n\n\nIt is not to be believed that Alexander's preceptor, chosen by Philip,\nwas wrong-headed and pedantic. Philip was assuredly a judge, being\nhimself well informed, and the rival of Demosthenes in eloquence.\n\n_Aristotle's Logic._\n\nAristotle's logic--his art of reasoning--is so much the more to be\nesteemed as he had to deal with the Greeks, who were continually holding\ncaptious arguments, from which fault his master Plato was even less\nexempt than others.\n\nTake, for example, the article by which, in the _\"Ph\u00e6don\"_ Plato proves\nthe immortality of the soul:\n\n\"Do you not say that death is the opposite of life? Yes. And that they\nspring from each other? Yes. What, then, is it that springs from the\nliving? The dead. And what from the dead? The living. It is, then, from\nthe dead that all living creatures arise. Consequently, souls exist\nafter death in the infernal regions.\"\n\nSure and unerring rules were wanted to unravel this extraordinary\nnonsense, which, through Plato's reputation, fascinated the minds of\nmen. It was necessary to show that Plato gave a loose meaning to all his\nwords.\n\nDeath does not spring from life, but the living man ceases to live. The\nliving springs not from the dead, but from a living man who subsequently\ndies. Consequently, the conclusion that all living things spring from\ndead ones is ridiculous.\n\nFrom this conclusion you draw another, which is no way included in the\npremises, that souls are in the infernal regions after death. It should\nfirst have been proved that dead bodies are in the infernal regions, and\nthat the souls accompany them.\n\nThere is not a correct word in your argument. You should have said--That\nwhich thinks has no parts; that which has no parts is indestructible:\ntherefore, the thinking faculty in us, having no parts, is\nindestructible. Or--the body dies because it is divisible; the soul is\nindivisible; therefore it does not die. Then you would at least have\nbeen understood.\n\nIt is the same with all the captious reasonings of the Greeks. A master\ntaught rhetoric to his disciple on condition that he should pay him\nafter the first cause that he gained. The disciple intended never to pay\nhim. He commenced an action against his master, saying: \"I will never\npay you anything, for, if I lose my cause I was not to pay you until I\nhad gained it, and if I gain it my demand is that I may not pay you.\"\n\nThe master retorted, saying: \"If you lose you must pay; if you gain you\nmust also pay; for our bargain is that you shall pay me after the first\ncause that you have gained.\"\n\nIt is evident that all this turns on an ambiguity. Aristotle teaches how\nto remove it, by putting the necessary terms in the argument:\n\nA sum is not due until the day appointed for its payment. The day\nappointed is that when a cause shall have been gained. No cause has yet\nbeen gained. Therefore the day appointed has not yet arrived. Therefore\nthe disciple does not yet owe anything.\n\nBut _not yet_ does not mean _never_. So that the disciple instituted a\nridiculous action. The master, too, had no right to demand anything,\nsince the day appointed had not arrived. He must wait until the disciple\nhad pleaded some other cause.\n\nSuppose a conquering people were to stipulate that they would restore to\nthe conquered only one-half of their ships; then, having sawed them in\ntwo, and having thus given back the exact half, were to pretend that\nthey had fulfilled the treaty. It is evident that this would be a very\ncriminal equivocation.\n\nAristotle did, then, render a great service to mankind by preventing all\nambiguity; for this it is which causes all misunderstandings in\nphilosophy, in theology, and in public affairs. The pretext for the\nunfortunate war of 1756 was an equivocation respecting Acadia.\n\nIt is true that natural good sense, combined with the habit of\nreasoning, may dispense with Aristotle's rules. A man who has a good ear\nand voice may sing well without musical rules, but it is better to know\nthem.\n\n_His Physics._\n\nThey are but little understood, but it is more than probable that\nAristotle understood himself, and was understood in his own time. We are\nstrangers to the language of the Greeks; we do not attach to the same\nwords the same ideas.\n\nFor instance, when he says, in his seventh chapter, that the principles\nof bodies are matter, privation, and form, he seems to talk egregious\nnonsense; but such is not the case. Matter, with him, is the first\nprinciple of everything--the subject of everything--indifferent to\neverything. Form is essential to its becoming any certain thing.\nPrivation is that which distinguishes any being from all those things\nwhich are not in it. Matter may, indifferently, become a rose or an\napple; but, when it is an apple or a rose it is deprived of all that\nwould make it silver or lead. Perhaps this truth was not worth the\ntrouble of repeating; but we have nothing here but what is quite\nintelligible, and nothing at all impertinent.\n\nThe \"act of that which is in power\" also seems a ridiculous phrase,\nthough it is no more so than the one just noticed. Matter may become\nwhatever you will--fire, earth, water, vapor, metal, mineral, animal,\ntree, flower. This is all that is meant by the expression, _act in\npower_. So that there was nothing ridiculous to the Greeks in saying\nthat motion was an act of power, since matter may be moved; and it is\nvery likely that Aristotle understood thereby that motion was not\nessential to matter.\n\nAristotle's physics must necessarily have been very bad in detail. This\nwas common to all philosophers until the time when the Galileos, the\nTorricellis, the Guerickes, the Drebels, and the Academy del Cimento\nbegan to make experiments. Natural philosophy is a mine which cannot be\nexplored without instruments that were unknown to the ancients. They\nremained on the brink of the abyss, and reasoned upon without seeing its\ncontents.\n\n_Aristotle's Treatise on Animals._\n\nHis researches relative to animals formed, on the contrary, the best\nbook of antiquity, because here Aristotle made use of his eyes.\nAlexander furnished him with all the rare animals of Europe, Asia, and\nAfrica. This was one fruit of his conquests. In this way that hero spent\nimmense sums, which at this day would terrify all the guardians of the\nroyal treasury, and which should immortalize Alexander's glory, of which\nwe have already spoken.\n\nAt the present day a hero, when he has the misfortune to make war, can\nscarcely give any encouragement to the sciences; he must borrow money of\na Jew, and consult other Jews in order to make the substance of his\nsubjects flow into his coffer of the Danaides, whence it escapes through\na thousand openings. Alexander sent to Aristotle elephants,\nrhinoceroses, tigers, lions, crocodiles, gazelles, eagles, ostriches,\netc.; and we, when by chance a rare animal is brought to our fairs, go\nand admire it for sixpence, and it dies before we know anything about\nit.\n\n_Of the Eternal World._\n\nAristotle expressly maintains, in his book on heaven, chap, xi., that\nthe world is eternal. This was the opinion of all antiquity, excepting\nthe Epicureans. He admitted a God--a first mover--and defined Him to be\n\"one, eternal, immovable, indivisible, without qualities.\"\n\nHe must, therefore, have regarded the world as emanating from God, as\nthe light emanates from the sun, and is co-existent with it. About the\ncelestial spheres he was as ignorant as all the rest of the\nphilosophers. Copernicus was not yet come.\n\n_His Metaphysics._\n\nGod being the first mover, He gives motion to the soul. But what is God,\nand what is the soul, according to him? The soul is an _entelechia_. \"It\nis,\" says he, \"a principle and an act--a nourishing, feeling, and\nreasoning power.\" This can only mean that we have the faculties of\nnourishing ourselves, of feeling, and of reasoning. The Greeks no more\nknew what an _entelechia_ was than do the South Sea islanders; nor have\nour doctors any more knowledge of what a soul is.\n\n_His Morals._\n\nAristotle's morals, like all others, are good, for there are not two\nsystems of morality. Those of Confucius, of Zoroaster, of Pythagoras, of\nAristotle, of Epictetus, of Antoninus, are absolutely the same. God has\nplaced in every breast the knowledge of good, with some inclination for\nevil.\n\nAristotle says that to be virtuous three things are necessary--nature,\nreason, and habit; and nothing is more true. Without a good disposition,\nvirtue is too difficult; reason strengthens it; and habit renders good\nactions as familiar as a daily exercise to which one is accustomed.\n\nHe enumerates all the virtues, and does not fail to place friendship\namong them. He distinguishes friendship between equals, between\nrelatives, between guests, and between lovers. Friendship springing from\nthe rights of hospitality is no longer known among us. That which, among\nthe ancients, was the sacred bond of society is, with us, nothing but an\ninnkeeper's reckoning; and as for lovers, it is very rarely nowadays\nthat virtue has anything to do with love. We think we owe nothing to a\nwoman to whom we have a thousand times promised everything.\n\nIt is a melancholy reflection that our first thinkers have never ranked\nfriendship among the virtues--have rarely recommended friendship; but,\non the contrary, have often seemed to breathe enmity, like tyrants, who\ndread all associations.\n\nIt is, moreover, with very good reason that Aristotle places all the\nvirtues between the two extremes. He was, perhaps, the first who\nassigned them this place. He expressly says that piety is the medium\nbetween atheism and superstition.\n\n_His Rhetoric._\n\nIt was probably his rules for rhetoric and poetry that Cicero and\nQuintilian had in view. Cicero, in his \"Orator\" says that \"no one had\nmore science, sagacity, invention, or judgment.\" Quintilian goes so far\nas to praise, not only the extent of his knowledge, but also the suavity\nof his elocution--_suavitatem eloquendi._\n\nAristotle would have an orator well informed respecting laws, finances,\ntreaties, fortresses, garrisons, provisions, and merchandise. The\norators in the parliaments of England, the diets of Poland, the states\nof Sweden, the _pregadi_ of Venice, etc., would not find these lessons\nof Aristotle unprofitable; to other nations, perhaps, they would be so.\nHe would have his orator know the passions and manners of men, and the\nhumors of every condition.\n\nI think there is not a single nicety of the art which has escaped him.\nHe particularly commends the citing of instances where public affairs\nare spoken of; nothing has so great an effect on the minds of men.\n\nWhat he says on this subject proves that he wrote his \"Rhetoric\" long\nbefore Alexander was appointed captain-general of the Greeks against the\ngreat king.\n\n\"If,\" says he, \"any one had to prove to the Greeks that it is to their\ninterest to oppose the enterprises of the king of Persia, and to prevent\nhim from making himself master of Egypt, he should first remind them\nthat Darius Ochus would not attack Greece until Egypt was in his power;\nhe should remark that Xerxes had pursued the same course; he should add\nthat it was not to be doubted that Darius Codomannus would do the same;\nand that, therefore, they must not suffer him to take possession of\nEgypt.\"\n\nHe even permits, in speeches delivered to great assemblies, the\nintroduction of parables and fables; they always strike the multitude.\nHe relates some ingenious ones, which are of the highest antiquity, as\nthe horse that implored the assistance of man to avenge himself on the\nstag, and became a slave through having sought a protector.\n\nIt may be remarked that, in the second book, where he treats of arguing\nfrom the greater to the less, he gives an example which plainly shows\nwhat was the opinion of Greece, and probably of Asia, respecting the\nextent of the power of the gods.\n\n\"If,\" says he, \"it be true that the gods themselves, enlightened as they\nare, cannot know everything, much less can men.\" This passage clearly\nproves that omniscience was not then attributed to the Divinity. It was\nconceived that the gods could not know what was not; the future was not,\ntherefore it seemed impossible that they should know it. This is the\nopinion of the Socinians at the present day.\n\nBut to return to Aristotle's \"Rhetoric.\" What I shall chiefly remark on\nin his book on elocution and diction is the good sense with which he\ncondemns those who would be poets in prose. He would have pathos, but he\nbanishes bombast, and proscribes useless epithets. Indeed, Demosthenes\nand Cicero, who followed his precepts, never affected the poetic style\nin their speeches. \"The style,\" says Aristotle, \"must always be\nconformable to the subject.\"\n\nNothing can be more misplaced than to speak of physics poetically, and\nlavish figure and ornament where there should be only method, clearness,\nand truth. It is the quackery of a man who would pass off false systems\nunder cover of an empty noise of words. Weak minds are caught by the\nbait, and strong minds disdain it.\n\nAmong us the funeral oration has taken possession of the poetic style in\nprose; but this branch of oratory, consisting almost entirely of\nexaggeration, seems privileged to borrow the ornaments of poetry.\n\nThe writers of romances have sometimes taken this licence. La Calpren\u00e8de\nwas, I think, the first who thus transposed the limits of the arts, and\nabused this facility. The author of \"Telemachus\" was pardoned through\nconsideration for Homer, whom he imitated, though he could not make\nverses, and still more in consideration of his morality, in which he\ninfinitely surpasses Homer, who has none at all. But he owed his\npopularity chiefly to the criticism on the pride of Louis XIV. and the\nharshness of Louvois, which, it was thought, were discoverable in\n\"Telemachus.\"\n\nBe this as it may, nothing can be a better proof of Aristotle's good\nsense and good taste than his having assigned to everything its proper\nplace.\n\n_Aristotle on Poetry._\n\nWhere, in our modern nations, shall we find a natural philosopher, a\ngeometrician, a metaphysician, or even a moralist who has spoken well on\nthe subject of poetry? They teem with the names of Homer, Virgil,\nSophocles, Ariosto, Tasso, and so many others who have charmed the world\nby the harmonious productions of their genius, but they feel not their\nbeauties; or if they feel them they would annihilate them.\n\nHow ridiculous is it in Pascal to say: \"As we say poetical beauty, we\nshould likewise say geometrical beauty, and medicinal beauty. Yet we do\nnot say so, and the reason is that we well know what is the object of\ngeometry, and what is the object of medicine, but we do not know in what\nthe peculiar charm--which is the object of poetry--consists. We know not\nwhat that natural model is which must be imitated; and for want of this\nknowledge we have invented certain fantastic terms, as age of gold,\nwonder of the age, fatal wreath, fair star, etc. And this jargon we call\npoetic beauty.\"\n\nThe pitifulness of this passage is sufficiently obvious. We know that\nthere is nothing beautiful in a medicine, nor in the properties of a\ntriangle; and that we apply the term \"beautiful\" only to that which\nraises admiration in our minds and gives pleasure to our senses. Thus\nreasons Aristotle; and Pascal here reasons very ill. Fatal wreath, fair\nstar, have never been poetic beauties. If he wished to know what is\npoetic beauty, he had only to read.\n\nNicole wrote against the stage, about which he had not a single idea;\nand was seconded by one Dubois, who was as ignorant of the _belles\nlettres_ as himself.\n\nEven Montesquieu, in his amusing \"Persian Letters,\" has the petty vanity\nto think that Homer and Virgil are nothing in comparison with one who\nimitates with spirit and success Dufr\u00e9noy's _\"Siamois,\"_ and fills his\nbook with bold assertions, without which it would not have been read.\n\"What,\" says he, \"are epic poems? I know them not. I despise the lyric\nas much as I esteem the tragic poets.\" He should not, however, have\ndespised Pindar and Horace quite so much. Aristotle did not despise\nPindar.\n\nDescartes did, it is true, write for Queen Christina a little\n_divertissement_ in verse, which was quite worthy of his _mati\u00e8re\ncannel\u00e9e_.\n\nMalebranche could not distinguish Corneille's _\"Qu'il mour\u00fbt\"_ from a\nline of Jod\u00e8le's or Garnier's.\n\nWhat a man, then, was Aristotle, who traced the rules of tragedy with\nthe same hand with which he had laid down those of dialectics, of\nmorals, of politics, and lifted, as far as he found it possible, the\ngreat veil of nature!\n\nTo his fourth chapter on poetry Boileau is indebted for these fine\nlines:\n\n     _Il n'est point de serpent, ni de monstre odieux_\n     _Qui, par l'art imit\u00e9, ne puisse plaire aux yeux._\n     _D'un pinceau d\u00e9licat l'artifice agr\u00e9able_\n     _Du plus affreux object fait un objet aimable;_\n     _Ainsi, pour nous charmer, la trag\u00e9die eut pleurs_\n     _D'\u0152dipe tout-sanglant fit parler les douleurs._\n\n     Each horrid shape, each object of affright,\n     Nice imitation teaches to delight;\n     So does the skilful painter's pleasing art\n     Attractions to the darkest form impart;\n     So does the tragic Muse, dissolved in tears.\n     With tales of woe and sorrow charm our ears.\n\nAristotle says: \"Imitation and harmony have produced poetry. We see\nterrible animals, dead or dying men, in a picture, with\npleasure--objects which in nature would inspire us only with fear and\nsorrow. The better they are imitated the more complete is our\nsatisfaction.\"\n\nThis fourth chapter of Aristotle's reappears almost entire in Horace and\nBoileau. The laws which he gives in the following chapters are at this\nday those of our good writers, excepting only what relates to the\nchoruses and music. His idea that tragedy was instituted to purify the\npassions has been warmly combated; but if he meant, as I believe he did,\nthat an incestuous love might be subdued by witnessing the misfortune of\nPh\u00e6dra, or anger be repressed by beholding the melancholy example of\nAjax, there is no longer any difficulty.\n\nThis philosopher expressly commands that there be always the heroic in\ntragedy and the ridiculous in comedy. This is a rule from which it is,\nperhaps, now becoming too customary to depart.\n\n\n\n\nARMS--ARMIES.\n\n\nIt is worthy of consideration that there have been and still are, upon\nthe earth societies without armies. The Brahmins, who long governed\nnearly all the great Indian Chersonesus; the primitives, called Quakers,\nwho governed Pennsylvania; some American tribes, some in the centre of\nAfrica, the Samoyedes, the Laplanders, the Kamchadales, have never\nmarched with colors flying to destroy their neighbors.\n\nThe Brahmins were the most considerable of all these pacific nations;\ntheir caste, which is so ancient, which is still existing, and compared\nwith which all other institutions are quite recent, is a prodigy which\ncannot be sufficiently admired. Their religion and their policy always\nconcurred in abstaining from the shedding of blood, even of that of the\nmeanest animal. Where such is the regime, subjugation is easy; they have\nbeen subjugated, but have not changed.\n\nThe Pennsylvanians never had an army; they always held war in\nabhorrence.\n\nSeveral of the American tribes did not know what an army was until the\nSpaniards came to exterminate them all. The people on the borders of the\nIcy Sea are ignorant alike of armies, of the god of armies, of\nbattalions, and of squadrons.\n\nBesides these populations, the priests and monks do not bear arms in\nany country--at least when they observe the laws of their institution.\n\nIt is only among Christians that there have been religious societies\nestablished for the purpose of fighting--as the Knights Templars, the\nKnights of St. John, the Knights of the Teutonic Order, the Knights\nSwordbearers. These religious orders were instituted in imitation of the\nLevites, who fought like the rest of the Jewish tribes.\n\nNeither armies nor arms were the same in antiquity as at present. The\nEgyptians hardly ever had cavalry. It would have been of little use in a\ncountry intersected by canals, inundated during five months of the year,\nand miry during five more. The inhabitants of a great part of Asia used\nchariots of war.\n\nThey are mentioned in the annals of China. Confucius says that in his\ntime each governor of a province furnished to the emperor a thousand war\nchariots, each drawn by four horses. The Greeks and Trojans fought in\nchariots drawn by two horses.\n\nCavalry and chariots were unknown to the Jews in a mountainous tract,\nwhere their first king, when he was elected, had nothing but she-asses.\nThirty sons of Jair, princes of thirty cities, according to the text\n(Judges, x, 4), rode each upon an ass. Saul, afterwards king of Judah,\nhad only she-asses; and the sons of David all fled upon mules when\nAbsalom had slain his brother Amnon. Absalom was mounted on a mule in\nthe battle which he fought against his father's troops; which proves,\naccording to the Jewish historians, either that mares were beginning to\nbe used in Palestine, or that they were already rich enough there to buy\nmules from the neighboring country.\n\nThe Greeks made but little use of cavalry. It was chiefly with the\nMacedonian phalanx that Alexander gained the battles which laid Persia\nat his feet. It was the Roman infantry that subjugated the greater part\nof the world. At the battle of Pharsalia, C\u00e6sar had but one thousand\nhorsemen.\n\nIt is not known at what time the Indians and the Africans first began to\nmarch elephants at the head of their armies. We cannot read without\nsurprise of Hannibal's elephants crossing the Alps, which were much\nharder to pass then than they are now.\n\nThere have long been disputes about the disposition of the Greek and\nRoman armies, their arms, and their evolutions. Each one has given his\nplan of the battles of Zama and Pharsalia.\n\nThe commentator Calmet, a Benedictine, has printed three great volumes\nof his \"Dictionary of the Bible,\" in which, the better to explain God's\ncommandments, are inserted a hundred engravings, where you see plans of\nbattles and sieges in copper-plate. The God of the Jews was the God of\narmies, but Calmet was not His secretary; he cannot have known, but by\nrevelation, how the armies of the Amalekites, the Moabites, the Syrians,\nand the Philistines were arranged on the days of general murder. These\nplates of carnage, designed at a venture, made his hook five or six\nlouis dearer, but made it no better.\n\nIt is a great question whether the Franks, whom the Jesuit Daniel calls\nFrench by anticipation, used bows and arrows in their armies, and\nwhether they had helmets and cuirasses.\n\nSupposing that they went to combat almost naked, and armed, as they are\nsaid to have been, with only a small carpenter's ax, a sword, and a\nknife, we must infer that the Romans, masters of Gaul, so easily\nconquered by Clovis, had lost all their ancient valor, and that the\nGauls were as willing to be subject to a small number of Franks as to a\nsmall number of Romans. Warlike accoutrements have since changed, as\neverything else changes.\n\nIn the days of knights, squires, and varlets, the armed forces of\nGermany, France, Italy, England, and Spain consisted almost entirely of\nhorsemen, who, as well as their horses, were covered with steel. The\ninfantry performed the functions rather of pioneers than of soldiers.\nBut the English always had good archers among their foot, which\ncontributed, in a great measure, to their gaining almost every battle.\n\nWho would believe that armies nowadays do but make experiments in\nnatural philosophy? A soldier would be much astonished if some learned\nman were to say to him:\n\n\"My friend, you are a better machinist than Archimedes. Five parts of\nsaltpetre, one of sulphur, and one of _carbo ligneus_ have been\nseparately prepared. Your saltpetre dissolved, well filtered, well\nevaporated, well crystallized, well turned, well dried, has been\nincorporated with the yellow purified sulphur. These two ingredients,\nmixed with powdered charcoal, have, by means of a little vinegar, or\nsolution of sal-ammoniac, or urine, formed large balls, which balls have\nbeen reduced _in pulverem pyrium_ by a mill. The effect of this mixture\nis a dilatation, which is nearly as four thousand to unity; and the lead\nin your barrel exhibits another effect, which is the product of its bulk\nmultiplied by its velocity.\n\n\"The first who discovered a part of this mathematical secret was a\nBenedictine named Roger Bacon. The invention was perfected, in Germany,\nin the fourteenth century, by another Benedictine named Schwartz. So\nthat you owe to two monks the art of being an excellent murderer, when\nyou aim well, and your powder is good.\n\n\"Du Cange has in vain pretended that, in 1338, the registers of the\n_Chambre des Comptes_, at Paris, mention a bill paid for gunpowder. Do\nnot believe it. It was artillery which is there spoken of--a name\nattached to ancient as well as to modern warlike machines.\n\n\"Gunpowder entirely superseded the Greek fire, of which the Moors still\nmade use. In fine, you are the depositary of an art, which not only\nimitates the thunder, but is also much more terrible.\"\n\nThere is, however, nothing but truth in this speech. Two monks have, in\nreality, changed the face of the earth.\n\nBefore cannon were known, the northern nations had subjugated nearly the\nwhole hemisphere, and could come again, like famishing wolves, to seize\nupon the lands as their ancestors had done.\n\nIn all armies, the victory, and consequently the fate of kingdoms, was\ndecided by bodily strength and agility--a sort of sanguinary fury--a\ndesperate struggle, man to man. Intrepid men took towns by scaling their\nwalls. During the decline of the Roman Empire there was hardly more\ndiscipline in the armies of the North than among carnivorous beasts\nrushing on their prey.\n\nNow a single frontier fortress would suffice to stop the armies of\nGenghis or Attila. It is not long since a victorious army of Russians\nwere unavailably consumed before Custrin, which is nothing more than a\nlittle fortress in a marsh.\n\nIn battle, the weakest in body may, with well-directed artillery,\nprevail against the stoutest. At the battle of Fontenoy a few cannon\nwere sufficient to compel the retreat of the whole English column,\nthough it had been master of the field.\n\nThe combatants no longer close. The soldier has no longer that ardor,\nthat impetuosity, which is redoubled in the heat of action, when the\nfight is hand to hand. Strength, skill, and even the temper of the\nweapons, are useless. Rarely is a charge with the bayonet made in the\ncourse of a war, though the bayonet is the most terrible of weapons.\n\nIn a plain, frequently surrounded by redoubts furnished with heavy\nartillery, two armies advance in silence, each division taking with it\nflying artillery. The first lines lire at one another and after one\nanother: they are victims presented in turn to the bullets. Squadrons at\nthe wings are often exposed to a cannonading while waiting for the\ngeneral's orders. They who first tire of this man\u0153uvre, which gives\nno scope for the display of impetuous bravery, disperse and quit the\nfield; and are rallied, if possible, a few miles off. The victorious\nenemies besiege a town, which sometimes costs them more men, money, and\ntime than they would have lost by several battles. The progress made is\nrarely rapid; and at the end of five or six years, both sides, being\nequally exhausted, are compelled to make peace.\n\nThus, at all events, the invention of artillery and the new mode of\nwarfare have established among the respective powers an equality which\nsecures mankind from devastations like those of former times, and\nthereby renders war less fatal in its consequences, though it is still\nprodigiously so.\n\nThe Greeks in all ages, the Romans in the time of Sulla, and the other\nnations of the west and south, had no standing army; every citizen was a\nsoldier, and enrolled himself in time of war. It is, at this day,\nprecisely the same in Switzerland. Go through the whole country, and\nyou will not find a battalion, except at the time of the reviews. If it\ngoes to war, you all at once see eighty thousand men in arms.\n\nThose who usurped the supreme power after Sulla always had a permanent\nforce, paid with the money of the citizens, to keep the citizens in\nsubjection, much more than to subjugate other nations. The bishop of\nRome himself keeps a small army in his pay. Who, in the time of the\napostles, would have said that the servant of the servants of God should\nhave regiments, and have them in Rome?\n\nNothing is so much feared in England as a great standing army. The\njanissaries have raised the sultans to greatness, but they have also\nstrangled them. The sultans would have avoided the rope, if instead of\nthese large bodies of troops, they had established small ones.\n\n\n\n\nAROT AND MAROT.\n\nWITH A SHORT REVIEW OF THE KORAN.\n\n\nThis article may serve to show how much the most learned men may be\ndeceived, and to develop some useful truths. In the _\"Dictionnaire\nEncyclop\u00e9dique\"_ there is the following passage concerning Arot and\nMarot:\n\n\"These are the names of two angels, who, the impostor Mahomet said, had\nbeen sent from God to teach man, and to order him to abstain from\nmurder, false judgments, and excesses of every kind. This false prophet\nadds that a very beautiful woman, having invited these two angels to her\ntable, made them drink wine, with which being heated, they solicited her\nas lovers; that she feigned to yield to their passion, provided they\nwould first teach her the words by pronouncing which they said it was\neasy to ascend to heaven; that having obtained from them what she asked,\nshe would not keep her promise; and that she was then taken up into\nheaven, where, having related to God what had passed, she was changed\ninto the morning star called Lucifer or Aurora, and the angels were\nseverely punished. Hence it was, according to Mahomet, that God took\noccasion to forbid wine to men.\"\n\nIt would be in vain to seek in the Koran for a single word of this\nabsurd story and pretended reason for Mahomet's forbidding his followers\nthe use of wine. He forbids it only in the second and fifth chapters.\n\n\"They will question thee about wine and strong liquors: thou shalt\nanswer, that it is a great sin. The just, who believe and do good works,\nmust not be reproached with having drunk, and played at games of chance,\nbefore games of chance were forbidden.\"\n\nIt is averred by all the Mahometans that their prophet forbade wine and\nliquors solely to preserve their health and prevent quarrels, in the\nburning climate of Arabia. The use of any fermented liquor soon affects\nthe head, and may destroy both health and reason.\n\nThe fable of Arot and Marot descending from heaven, and wanting to lie\nwith an Arab woman, after drinking wine with her, is not in any\nMahometan author. It is to be found only among the impostures which\nvarious Christian writers, more indiscreet than enlightened, have\nprinted against the Mussulman religion, through a zeal which is not\naccording to knowledge. The names of Arot and Marot are in no part of\nthe Koran. It is one Sylburgius who says, in an old book which nobody\nreads, that he anathematizes the angels Arot, Marot, Safah, and Merwah.\n\nObserve, kind reader, that Safah and Merwah are two little hills near\nMecca; so that our learned Sylburgius has taken two hills for two\nangels. Thus it was with every writer on Mahometanism among us, almost\nwithout exception, until the intelligent Reland gave us clear ideas of\nthe Mussulman belief, and the learned Sale, after living twenty-four\nyears in and about Arabia, at length enlightened us by his faithful\ntranslation of the Koran, and his most instructive preface.\n\nGagnier himself, notwithstanding his Arabic professorship at Oxford, has\nbeen pleased to put forth a few falsehoods concerning Mahomet, as if we\nhad need of lies to maintain the truth of our religion against a false\nprophet. He gives us at full length Mahomet's journey through the seven\nheavens on the mare Alborac, and even ventures to cite the fifty-third\nsura or chapter; but neither in this fifty-third sura, nor in any other,\nis there so much as an allusion to this pretended journey through the\nheavens.\n\nThis strange story is related by Abulfeda, seven hundred years after\nMahomet. It is taken, he says, from ancient manuscripts which were\ncurrent in Mahomet's time. But it is evident that they were not\nMahomet's; for, after his death, Abubeker gathered together all the\nleaves of the Koran, in the presence of all the chiefs of tribes, and\nnothing was inserted in the collection that did not appear to be\nauthentic.\n\nBesides, the chapter concerning the journey to heaven, not only is not\nin the Koran, but is in a very different style, and is at least four\ntimes as long as any of the received chapters. Compare all the other\nchapters of the Koran with this, and you will find a prodigious\ndifference. It begins thus:\n\n\"One night, I fell asleep between the two hills of Safah and Merwah.\nThat night was very dark, but so still that the dogs were not heard to\nbark, nor the cocks to crow. All at once, the angel Gabriel appeared\nbefore me in the form in which the Most High God created him. His skin\nwas white as snow. His fair hair, admirably disposed, fell in ringlets\nover his shoulders; his forehead was clear, majestic, and serene, his\nteeth beautiful and shining, and his legs of a saffron hue; his garments\nwere glittering with pearls, and with thread of pure gold. On his\nforehead was a plate of gold, on which were written two lines, brilliant\nand dazzling with light; in the first were these words, 'There is no God\nbut God'; and in the second these, 'Mahomet is God's Apostle.' On\nbeholding this, I remained the most astonished and confused of men. I\nobserved about him seventy thousand little boxes or bags of musk and\nsaffron. He had five hundred pairs of wings; and the distance from one\nwing to another was five hundred years' journey.\n\n\"Thus did Gabriel appear before me. He touched me, and said, 'Arise,\nthou sleeper!' I was seized with fear and trembling, and starting up,\nsaid to him, 'Who art thou?' He answered, 'God have mercy upon thee! I\nam thy brother Gabriel.' 'O my dearly beloved Gabriel,' said I, 'I ask\nthy pardon; is it a revelation of something new, or is it some\nafflicting threat that thou bringest me?' 'It is something new,'\nreturned he; 'rise, my dearly beloved, and tie thy mantle over thy\nshoulders; thou wilt have need of it, for thou must this night pay a\nvisit to thy Lord.' So saying, Gabriel, taking my hand, raised me from\nthe ground, and having mounted me on the mare Alborac, led her himself\nby the bridle.\"\n\nIn fine, it is averred by the Mussulmans that this chapter, which has no\nauthenticity, was imagined by Abu-Hora\u00efrah, who is said to have been\ncontemporary with the prophet. What should we say of a Turk who should\ncome and insult our religion by telling us that we reckon among our\nsacred books the letters of St. Paul to Seneca, and Seneca's letters to\nSt. Paul; the acts of Pilate; the life of Pilate's wife; the letters of\nthe pretended King Abgarus to Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ's answer to\nthe same; the story of St. Peter's challenge to Simon the magician; the\npredictions of the sibyls; the testament of the twelve patriarchs; and\nso many other books of the same kind?\n\nWe should answer the Turk by saying that he was very ill informed and\nthat not one of these works was regarded as authentic. The Turk will\nmake the same answer to us, when to confound him we reproach him with\nMahomet's journey to the seven heavens. He will tell us that this is\nnothing more than a pious fraud of latter times, and that this journey\nis not in the Koran. Assuredly I am not here comparing truth with\nerror--Christianity with Mahometanism--the Gospel with the Koran; but\nfalse tradition with false tradition--abuse with abuse--absurdity with\nabsurdity.\n\nThis absurdity has been carried to such a length that Grotius charges\nMahomet with having said that God's hands are cold, for he has felt\nthem; that God is carried about in a chair; and that, in Noah's ark, the\nrat was produced from the elephant's dung, and the cat from the lion's\nbreath.\n\nGrotius reproaches Mahomet with having imagined that Jesus Christ was\ntaken up into heaven instead of suffering execution. He forgets that\nthere were entire heretical communions of primitive Christians who\nspread this opinion, which was preserved in Syria and Arabia until\nMahomet's time.\n\nHow many times has it been repeated that Mahomet had accustomed a pigeon\nto eat grain out of his ear, and made his followers believe that this\npigeon brought him messages from God?\n\nIs it not enough for us that we are persuaded of the falseness of his\nsect, and invincibly convinced by faith of the truth of our own, without\nlosing our time in calumniating the Mahometans, who have established\nthemselves from Mount Caucasus to Mount Atlas, and from the confines of\nEpirus to the extremities of India? We are incessantly writing bad books\nagainst them, of which they know nothing. We cry out that their religion\nhas been embraced by so many nations only because it flatters the\nsenses. But where is the sensuality in ordering abstinence from the wine\nand liquors in which we indulge to such excess; in pronouncing to every\none an indispensable command to give to the poor each year two and a\nhalf per cent, of his income, to fast with the greatest rigor, to\nundergo a painful operation in the earliest stage of puberty, to make,\nover arid sands a pilgrimage of sometimes five hundred leagues, and to\npray to God five times a day, even when in the field?\n\nBut, say you, they are allowed four wives in this world, and in the next\nthey will have celestial brides. Grotius expressly says: \"It must have\nrequired a great share of stupidity to admit reveries so gross and\ndisgusting.\"\n\nWe agree with Grotius that the Mahometans have been prodigal of\nreveries. The man who was constantly receiving the chapters of his Koran\nfrom the angel Gabriel was worse than a visionary; he was an impostor,\nwho supported his seductions by his courage; but certainly there is\nnothing either stupid or sensual in reducing to four the unlimited\nnumber of wives whom the princes, the satraps, the nabobs, and the\nomrahs of the East kept in their seraglios. It is said that Solomon had\nthree hundred wives and seven hundred concubines. The Arabs, like the\nJews, were at liberty to marry two sisters; Mahomet was the first who\nforbade these marriages. Where, then, is the grossness?\n\nAnd with regard to the celestial brides, where is the impurity? Certes,\nthere is nothing impure in marriage, which is acknowledged to have been\nordained on earth, and blessed by God Himself. The incomprehensible\nmystery of generation is the seal of the Eternal Being. It is the\nclearest mark of His power that He has created pleasure, and through\nthat very pleasure perpetuated all sensible beings.\n\nIf we consult our reason alone it will tell us that it is very likely\nthat the Eternal Being, who does nothing in vain, will not cause us to\nrise again with our organs to no purpose. It will not be unworthy of the\nDivine Majesty to feed us with delicious fruits if he cause us to rise\nagain with stomachs to receive them. The Holy Scriptures inform us\nthat, in the beginning, God placed the first man and the first woman in\na paradise of delights. They were then in a state of innocence and\nglory, incapable of experiencing disease or death. This is nearly the\nstate in which the just will be when, after their resurrection, they\nshall be for all eternity what our first parents were for a few days.\nThose, then, must be pardoned, who have thought that, having a body,\nthat body will be constantly satisfied. Our fathers of the Church had no\nother idea of the heavenly Jerusalem. St. Iren\u00e6us says, \"There each vine\nshall bear ten thousand branches, each branch ten thousand clusters, and\neach cluster ten thousand grapes.\"\n\nSeveral fathers of the Church have, indeed, thought that the blessed in\nheaven would enjoy all their senses. St. Thomas says that the sense of\nseeing will be infinitely perfect; that the elements will be so too;\nthat the surface of the earth will be transparent as glass, the water\nlike crystal, the air like the heavens, and the fire like the stars. St.\nAugustine, in his \"Christian Doctrine,\" says that the sense of hearing\nwill enjoy the pleasures of singing and of speech.\n\nOne of our great Italian theologians, named Piazza, in his \"Dissertation\non Paradise,\" informs us that the elect will forever sing and play the\nguitar: \"They will have,\" says he, \"three nobilities--three advantages,\nviz.: desire without excitement, caresses without wantonness, and\nvoluptuousness without excess\"--_\"tres nobilitates; illecebra sine\ntitillatione, blanditia sine mollitudine, et voluptas sine\nexuberantia.\"_\n\nSt. Thomas assures us that the smell of the glorified bodies will be\nperfect, and will not be diminished by perspiration. _\"Corporibus\ngloriosi serit odor ultima perfectione, nullo modo per humidum\nrepressus.\"_ This question has been profoundly treated by a great many\nother doctors.\n\nSuarez, in his \"Wisdom,\" thus expresses himself concerning taste: \"It is\nnot difficult for God purposely to make some rapid humor act on the\norgan of taste.\" _\"Non est Deo difficile facere ut sapidus humor sit\nintra organum gustus, qui sensum illum intentionaliter afficere.\"_\n\nAnd, to conclude, St. Prosper, recapitulating the whole, pronounces that\nthe blessed shall find gratification without satiety, and enjoy health\nwithout disease. _\"Saturitas sine fastidio, et tota sanitas sine\nmorbo._\"\n\nIt is not then so much to be wondered at that the Mahometans have\nadmitted the use of the five senses in their paradise. They say that the\nfirst beatitude will be the union with God; but this does not exclude\nthe rest. Mahomet's paradise is a fable; but; once more be it observed,\nthere is in it neither contradiction nor impurity.\n\nPhilosophy requires clear and precise ideas, which Grotius had not. He\nquotes a great deal, and makes a show of reasoning which will not bear\na close examination. The unjust imputations cast on the Mahometans would\nsuffice to make a very large book. They have subjugated one of the\nlargest and most beautiful countries upon earth; to drive them from it\nwould have been a finer exploit than to abuse them.\n\nThe empress of Russia supplies a great example. She takes from them Azov\nand Tangarok, Moldavia, Wallachia, and Georgia; she pushes her conquests\nto the ramparts of Erzerum; she sends against them fleets from the\nremotest parts of the Baltic, and others covering the Euxine; but she\ndoes not say in her manifestos that a pigeon whispered in Mahomet's ear.\n\n\n\n\nART OF POETRY.\n\n\nA MAN\n\n\nA man of almost universal learning--a man even of genius, who joins\nphilosophy with imagination, uses, in his excellent article\n\"Encyclopedia,\" these remarkable words: \"If we except this Perrault, and\nsome others, whose merits the versifier Boileau was not capable of\nappreciating.\"\n\nThis philosopher is right in doing justice to Claude Perrault, the\nlearned translator of Vitruvius, a man useful in more arts than one, and\nto whom we are indebted for the fine front of the Louvre and for other\ngreat monuments; but justice should also be rendered to Boileau. Had he\nbeen only a versifier, he would scarcely have been known; he would not\nhave been one of the few great men who will hand down the age of Louis\nXIV. to posterity. His tart satires, his fine epistles, and above all,\nhis art of poetry, are masterpieces of reasoning as well as\npoetry--_\"sapere est principium et fons.\"_ The art of versifying is,\nindeed, prodigiously difficult, especially in our language, where\nalexandrines follow one another two by two; where it is rare to avoid\nmonotony; where it is absolutely necessary to rhyme; where noble and\npleasing rhymes are too limited in number; and where a word out of its\nplace, or a harsh syllable, is sufficient to spoil a happy thought. It\nis like dancing in fetters on a rope; the greatest success is of itself\nnothing.\n\nBoileau's art of poetry is to be admired, because he always says true\nand useful things in a pleasing manner, because he always gives both\nprecept and example, and because he is varied, passing with perfect\nease, and without ever failing in purity of language, \"From grave to\ngay, from lively to severe.\"\n\nHis reputation among men of taste is proved by the fact that his verses\nare known by heart; and to philosophers it must be pleasing to find that\nhe is almost always in the right.\n\nAs we have spoken of the preference which may sometimes be given to the\nmoderns over the ancients, we will here venture to presume that\nBoileau's art of poetry is superior to that of Horace. Method is\ncertainly a beauty in a didactic poem; and Horace has no method. We do\nnot mention this as a reproach; for his poem is a familiar epistle to\nthe Pisos, and not a regular work like the \"Georgics\": but there is this\nadditional merit in Boileau, a merit for which philosophers should give\nhim credit.\n\nThe Latin art of poetry does not seem nearly so finely labored as the\nFrench. Horace expresses himself, almost throughout, in the free and\nfamiliar tone of his other epistles. He displays an extreme clearness of\nunderstanding and a refined taste, in verses which are happy and\nspirited, but often without connection, and sometimes destitute of\nharmony; he has not the elegance and correctness of Virgil. His work is\ngood, but Boileau's appears to be still better: and, if we except the\ntragedies of Racine, which have the superior merit of treating the\npassions and surmounting all the difficulties of the stage, Despr\u00e9aux's\n\"Art of Poetry\" is, indisputably, the poem that does most honor to the\nFrench language.\n\nIt is lamentable when philosophers are enemies to poetry. Literature\nshould be like the house of M\u00e6cenas--_\"est locus unicuique suus.\"_ The\nauthor of the \"Persian Letters\"--so easy to write and among which some\nare very pretty, others very bold, others indifferent, and others\nfrivolous--this author, I say, though otherwise much to be recommended,\nyet having never been able to make verses, although he possesses\nimagination and often superiority of style, makes himself amends by\nsaying that \"contempt is heaped upon poetry,\" that \"lyric poetry is\nharmonious extravagance.\" Thus do men often seek to depreciate the\ntalents which they cannot attain.\n\n\"We cannot reach it,\" says Montaigne; \"let us revenge ourselves by\nspeaking ill of it.\" But Montaigne, Montesquieu's predecessor and master\nin imagination and philosophy, thought very differently of poetry.\n\nHad Montesquieu been as just as he was witty, he could not but have felt\nthat several of our fine odes and good operas are worth infinitely more\nthan the pleasantries of Rica to Usbeck, imitated from Dufr\u00e9noy's\n_\"Siamois,\"_ and the details of what passed in Usbeck's seraglio at\nIspahan.\n\nWe shall speak more fully of this too frequent injustice, in the article\non \"Criticism.\"\n\n\n\n\nARTS--FINE ARTS.\n\n[ARTICLE DEDICATED TO THE KING OF PRUSSIA.]\n\n\nSire: The small society of amateurs, a part of whom are laboring at\nthese rhapsodies at Mount Krapak, will say nothing to your majesty on\nthe art of war. It is heroic, or--it may be--an abominable art. If there\nwere anything fine in it, we would tell your majesty, without fear of\ncontradiction, that you are the finest man in Europe.\n\nYou know, sire, the four ages of the arts. Almost everything sprung up\nand was brought to perfection under Louis XIV.; after which many of\nthese arts, banished from France, went to embellish and enrich the rest\nof Europe, at the fatal period of the destruction of the celebrated\nedict of Henry IV.--pronounced _irrevocable_, yet so easily revoked.\nThus, the greatest injury which Louis XIV. could do to himself did good\nto other princes against his will: this is proved by what you have said\nin your history of Brandenburg.\n\nIf that monarch were known only from his banishment of six or seven\nhundred thousand useful citizens--from his irruption into Holland,\nwhence he was soon forced to retreat--from his greatness, which stayed\nhim at the bank, while his troops were swimming across the Rhine; if\nthere were no other monuments of his glory than the prologues to his\noperas, followed by the battle of Hochstet, his person and his reign\nwould go down to posterity with but little \u00e9clat. But the encouragement\nof all the fine arts by his taste and munificence; the conferring of so\nmany benefits on the literary men of other countries; the rise of his\nkingdom's commerce at his voice; the establishment of so many\nmanufactories; the building of so many fine citadels; the construction\nof so many admirable ports; the union of the two seas by immense labor,\netc., still oblige Europe to regard Louis XIV. and his age with respect.\n\nAnd, above all, those great men, unique in every branch of art and\nscience, whom nature then produced at one time, will render his reign\neternally memorable. The age was greater than Louis XIV., but it shed\nits glory upon him.\n\nEmulation in art has changed the face of the continent, from the\nPyrenees to the icy sea. There is hardly a prince in Germany who has not\nmade useful and glorious establishments.\n\nWhat have the Turks done for glory? Nothing. They have ravaged three\nempires and twenty kingdoms; but any one city of ancient Greece will\nalways have a greater reputation than all the Ottoman cities together.\n\nSee what has been done in the course of a few years at St. Petersburg,\nwhich was a bog at the beginning of the seventeenth century. All the\narts are there assembled, while in the country of Orpheus, Linus, and\nHomer, they are annihilated.\n\n_That the Recent Birth of the Arts does not Prove the Recent Formation\nof the Globe._\n\nAll philosophers have thought matter eternal; but the arts appear to be\nnew. Even the art of making bread is of recent origin. The first Romans\nate boiled grain; those conquerors of so many nations had neither\nwindmills nor watermills. This truth seems, at first sight, to\ncontrovert the doctrine of the antiquity of the globe as it now is, or\nto suppose terrible revolutions in it. Irruptions of barbarians can\nhardly annihilate arts which have become necessary. Suppose that an army\nof negroes were to come upon us, like locusts, from the mountains of\nsouthern Africa, through Monomotapa, Mono\u00ebmugi, etc., traversing\nAbyssinia, Nubia, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and all Europe, ravaging\nand overturning everything in its way; there would still be a few\nbakers, tailors, shoemakers, and carpenters left; the necessary arts\nwould revive; luxury alone would be annihilated. Such was the case at\nthe fall of the Roman Empire; even the art of writing became very rare;\nnearly all those arts which contributed to render life agreeable were\nfor a long time extinct. Now, we are inventing new ones every day.\n\nFrom all this, no well-grounded inference can be drawn against the\nantiquity of the globe. For, supposing that a flood of barbarians had\nentirely swept away the arts of writing and making bread; supposing even\nthat we had had bread, or pens, ink, and paper, only for ten years--the\ncountry which could exist for ten years without eating bread or writing\ndown its thoughts could exist for an age, or a hundred thousand ages,\nwithout these helps.\n\nIt is quite clear that man and the other animals can very well subsist\nwithout bakers, without romance-writers, and without divines, as witness\nAmerica, and as witness also three-fourths of our own continent. The\nrecent birth of the arts among us does not prove the recent formation of\nthe globe, as was pretended by Epicurus, one of our predecessors in\nreverie, who supposed that, by chance, the declination of atoms one day\nformed our earth. Pomponatius used to say: _\"Se il mondo non \u00e9 eterno,\nper tutti santi \u00e9 molto vecchio\"_--\"If this world be not eternal, by all\nthe saints, it is very old.\"\n\n_Slight Inconveniences Attached to the Arts._\n\nThose who handle lead and quicksilver are subject to dangerous colics,\nand very serious affections of the nerves. Those who use pen and ink are\nattacked by vermin, which they have continually to shake off; these\nvermin are some ex-Jesuits, who employ themselves in manufacturing\nlibels. You, Sire, do not know this race of animals; they are driven\nfrom your states, as well as from those of the empress of Russia, the\nking of Sweden, and the king of Denmark, my other protectors. The\nex-Jesuits Polian and Nonotte, who like me cultivate the fine arts,\npersecute me even unto Mount Krapak, crushing me under the weight of\ntheir reputation, and that of their genius, the specific gravity of\nwhich is still greater. Unless your majesty vouchsafe to assist me\nagainst these great men, I am undone.\n\n\n\n\nASMODEUS.\n\n\nNo one at all versed in antiquity is ignorant that the Jews knew nothing\nof the angels but what they gleaned from the Persians and Chald\u00e6ans,\nduring captivity. It was they, who, according to Calmet, taught them\nthat there are seven principal angels before the throne of the Lord.\nThey also taught them the names of the devils. He whom we call Asmodeus,\nwas named Hashmoda\u00ef or Chammada\u00ef. \"We know,\" says Calmet, \"that there\nare various sorts of devils, some of them princes and master-demons, the\nrest subalterns.\"\n\nHow was it that this Hashmoda\u00ef was sufficiently powerful to twist the\nnecks of seven young men who successively espoused the beautiful Sarah,\na native of Rages, fifteen leagues from Ecbatana? The Medes must have\nbeen seven times as great as the Persians. The good principle gives a\nhusband to this maiden; and behold! the bad principle, this king of\ndemons, Hashmoda\u00ef, destroys the work of the beneficent principle seven\ntimes in succession.\n\nBut Sarah was a Jewess, daughter of the Jew Raguel, and a captive in the\ncountry of Ecbatana. How could a Median demon have such power over\nJewish bodies? It has been thought that Asmodeus or Chammada\u00ef was a Jew\nlikewise; that he was the old serpent which had seduced Eve; and that he\nwas passionately fond of women, sometimes seducing them, and sometimes\nkilling their husbands through an excess of love and jealousy.\n\nIndeed the Greek version of the Book of Tobit gives us to understand\nthat Asmodeus was in love with Sarah--_\"oti daimonion philei autein.\"_\nIt was the opinion of all the learned of antiquity that the genii,\nwhether good or evil, had a great inclination for our virgins, and the\nfairies for our youths. Even the Scriptures, accommodating themselves to\nour weakness, and condescending to speak in the language of the vulgar,\nsay, figuratively, that \"the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that\nthey were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.\"\n\nBut the angel Raphael, the conductor of young Tobit, gives him a reason\nmore worthy of his ministry, and better calculated to enlighten the\nperson whom he is guiding. He tells him that Sarah's seven husbands were\ngiven up to the cruelty of Asmodeus, only because, like horses or mules,\nthey had married her for their pleasure alone. \"Her husband,\" says the\nangel, \"must observe continence with her for three days, during which\ntime they must pray to God together.\"\n\nThis instruction would seem to have been quite sufficient to keep off\nAsmodeus; but Raphael adds that it is also necessary to have the heart\nof a fish grilled over burning coals. Why, then, was not this infallible\nsecret afterwards resorted to in order to drive the devil from the\nbodies of women? Why did the apostles, who were sent on purpose to cast\nout devils never lay a fish's heart upon the gridiron? Why was not this\nexpedient made use of in the affair of Martha Brossier; that of the nuns\nof Loudun; that of the mistresses of Urban Gandier; that of La Cadi\u00e8re;\nthat of Father Girard; and those of a thousand other demoniacs in the\ntimes when there were demoniacs?\n\nThe Greeks and Romans, who had so many philters wherewith to make\nthemselves beloved, had others to cure love; they employed herbs and\nroots. The _agnus castus_ had great reputation. The moderns have\nadministered it to young nuns, on whom it has had but little effect.\nApollo, long ago, complained to Daphne that, physician as he was, he\nhad never yet met with a simple that would cure love:\n\n     _Heu mihi! quod nullis amor est medicabilis herbis._\n     What balm can heal the wounds that love has made?\n\nThe smoke of sulphur was tried; but Ovid, who was a great master,\ndeclares that this recipe was useless:\n\n     _Nec fugiat viro sulphure victus amor._\n     Sulphur--believe me--drives not love away.\n\nThe smoke from the heart or liver of a fish was more efficacious against\nAsmodeus. The reverend father Calmet is consequently in great trouble,\nbeing unable to comprehend how this fumigation could act upon a pure\nspirit. But he might have taken courage from the recollection that all\nthe ancients gave bodies to the angels and demons. They were very\nslender bodies; as light as the small particles that rise from a broiled\nfish; they were like smoke; and the smoke from a fried fish acted upon\nthem by sympathy.\n\nNot only did Asmodeus flee, but Gabriel went and chained him in Upper\nEgypt, where he still is. He dwells in a grotto near the city of Saata\nor Taata. Paul Lucas saw and spoke to him. They cut this serpent in\npieces, and the pieces immediately joined again. To this fact Calmet\ncites the testimony of Paul Lucas, which testimony I must also cite. It\nis thought that Paul Lucas's theory may be joined with that of the\nvampires, in the next compilation of the Abb\u00e9 Guyon.\n\n\n\n\nASPHALTUS.\n\nASPHALTIC LAKE.--SODOM.\n\n\nAsphaltus is a Chald\u00e6an word, signifying a species of bitumen. There is\na great deal of it in the countries watered by the Euphrates; it is also\nto be found in Europe, but of a bad quality. An experiment was made by\ncovering the tops of the watch-houses on each side of one of the gates\nof Geneva; the covering did not last a year, and the mine has been\nabandoned. However, when mixed with rosin, it may be used for lining\ncisterns; perhaps it will some day be applied to a more useful purpose.\n\nThe real asphaltus is that which was obtained in the vicinity of\nBabylon, and with which it is said that the Greek fire was fed. Several\nlakes are full of asphaltus, or a bitumen resembling it, as others are\nstrongly impregnated with nitre. There is a great lake of nitre in the\ndesert of Egypt, which extends from lake M\u0153ris to the entrance of the\nDelta; and it has no other name than the Nitre Lake.\n\nThe Lake Asphaltites, known by the name of Sodom, was long famed for its\nbitumen; but the Turks now make no use of it, either because the mine\nunder the water is diminished, because its quality is altered, or\nbecause there is too much difficulty in drawing it from under the water.\nOily particles of it, and sometimes large masses, separate and float on\nthe surface; these are gathered together, mixed up, and sold for balm of\nMecca.\n\nFlavius Josephus, who was of that country, says that, in his time, there\nwere no fish in the lake of Sodom, and the water was so light that the\nheaviest bodies would not go to the bottom. It seems that he meant to\nsay so heavy instead of so light. It would appear that he had not made\nthe experiment. After all, a stagnant water, impregnated with salts and\ncompact matter, its specific matter being then greater than that of the\nbody of a man or a beast, might force it to float. Josephus's error\nconsists in assigning a false cause to a phenomenon which may be\nperfectly true.\n\nAs for the want of fish, it is not incredible. It is, however, likely\nthat this lake, which is fifty or sixty miles long, is not all\nasphaltic, and that while receiving the waters of the Jordan it also\nreceives the fishes of that river; but perhaps the Jordan, too, is\nwithout fish, and they are to be found only in the upper lake of\nTiberias.\n\nJosephus adds, that the trees which grow on the borders of the Dead Sea\nbear fruits of the most beautiful appearance, but which fall into dust\nif you attempt to taste them. This is less probable; and disposes one to\nbelieve that Josephus either had not been on the spot, for has\nexaggerated according to his own and his countrymen's custom. No soil\nseems more calculated to produce good as well as beautiful fruits than a\nsalt and sulphurous one, like that of Naples, of Catania, and of Sodom.\n\nThe Holy Scriptures speak of five cities being destroyed by fire from\nheaven. On this occasion natural philosophy bears testimony in favor of\nthe Old Testament, although the latter has no need of it, and they are\nsometimes at variance. We have instances of earthquakes, accompanied by\nthunder and lightning, which have destroyed much more considerable towns\nthan Sodom and Gomorrah.\n\nBut the River Jordan necessarily discharging itself into this lake\nwithout an outlet, this Dead Sea, in the same manner as the Caspian,\nmust have existed as long as there has been a River Jordan; therefore,\nthese towns could never stand on the spot now occupied by the lake of\nSodom. The Scripture, too, says nothing at all about this ground being\nchanged into a lake; it says quite the contrary: \"Then the Lord rained\nupon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord out of\nheaven. And Abraham got up early in the morning, and he looked toward\nSodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld;\nand lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.\"\n\nThese five towns, Sodom, Gomorrah, Zeboin, Adamah, and Segor, must then\nhave been situated on the borders of the Dead Sea. How, it will be\nasked, in a desert so uninhabitable as it now is, where there are to be\nfound only a few hordes of plundering Arabs, could there be five cities,\nso opulent as to be immersed in luxury, and even in those shameful\npleasures which are the last effect of the refinement of the debauchery\nattached to wealth?\n\nIt may be answered that the country was then much better.\n\nOther critics will say--how could five towns exist at the extremities of\na lake, the water of which, before their destruction, was not potable?\nThe Scripture itself informs us that all this land was asphaltic before\nthe burning of Sodom: \"And the vale of Sodom was full of slime-pits; and\nthe kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled and fell there.\"\n\nAnother objection is also stated. Isaiah and Jeremiah say that Sodom and\nGomorrah shall never be rebuilt; but Stephen, the geographer, speaks of\nSodom and Gomorrah on the coast of the Dead Sea; and the \"History of the\nCouncils\" mentions bishops of Sodom and Segor. To this it may be\nanswered that God filled these towns, when rebuilt, with less guilty\ninhabitants; for at that time there was no bishop _in partibus_.\n\nBut, it will be said, with what water could these new inhabitants quench\ntheir thirst? All the wells are brackish; you find asphaltus and\ncorrosive salt on first striking a spade into the ground.\n\nIt will be answered that some Arabs still subsist there, and may be\nhabituated to drinking very bad water; that the Sodom and Gomorrah of\nthe Eastern Empire were wretched hamlets, and that at that time there\nwere many bishops whose whole diocese consisted in a poor village. It\nmay also be said that the people who colonized these villages prepared\nthe asphaltus, and carried on a useful trade in it.\n\nThe arid and burning desert, extending from Segor to the territory of\nJerusalem, produces balm and aromatic herbs for the same reason that it\nsupplies naphtha, corrosive salt and sulphur.\n\nIt is said that petrifaction takes place in this desert with astonishing\nrapidity; and this, according to some natural philosophers, makes the\npetrifaction of Lot's wife Edith a very plausible story.\n\nBut it is said that this woman, \"having looked back, became a pillar of\nsalt.\" This, then, was not a natural petrifaction, operated by asphaltus\nand salt, but an evident miracle. Flavius Josephus says that he saw this\npillar. St. Justin and St. Iren\u00e6us speak of it as a prodigy, which in\ntheir time was still existing.\n\nThese testimonies have been looked upon as ridiculous fables. It would,\nhowever, be very natural for some Jews to amuse themselves with cutting\na heap of asphaltus into a rude figure, and calling it Lot's wife. I\nhave seen cisterns of asphaltus, very well made, which may last a long\ntime. But it must be owned that St. Iren\u00e6us goes a little too far when\nhe says that Lot's wife remained in the country of Sodom no longer in\ncorruptible flesh, but as a permanent statue of salt, her feminine\nnature still producing the ordinary effect: _\"Uxor remansit in Sodomis,\njam non caro corruptibilis sed statua salis semper manens, et per\nnaturalia ea qu\u00e6sunt consuetudmis hominis ostendens.\"_\n\nSt. Iren\u00e6us does not seem to express himself with all the precision of\na good naturalist when he says Lot's wife is no longer of corruptible\nflesh, but still retains her feminine nature.\n\nIn the poem of Sodom, attributed to Tertullian, this is expressed with\nstill greater energy:\n\n     _Dicitur et vivens alio sub corpore se us,_\n     _Mirifice solito dispungere sanguine menses._\n\nThis was translated by a poet of the time of Henry II., in his Gallic\nstyle:\n\n     _La femme \u00e0 Loth, quoique sel devenue,_\n     _Est femme encore; car elle a sa menstrue._\n\nThe land of aromatics was also the land of fables. Into the deserts of\nArabia Petr\u00e6a the ancient mythologists pretend that Myrrha, the\ngranddaughter of a statue, fled after committing incest with her father,\nas Lot's daughters did with theirs, and that she was metamorphosed into\nthe tree that bears myrrh. Other profound mythologists assure us that\nshe fled into Arabia Felix; and this opinion is as well supported as the\nother.\n\nBe this as it may, not one of our travellers has yet thought fit to\nexamine the soil of Sodom, with its asphaltus, its salt, its trees and\ntheir fruits, to weigh the water of the lake, to analyze it, to\nascertain whether bodies of greater specific gravity than common water\nfloat upon its surface, and to give us a faithful account of the natural\nhistory of the country. Our pilgrims to Jerusalem do not care to go and\nmake these researches; this desert has become infested by wandering\nArabs, who range as far as Damascus, and retire into the caverns of the\nmountains, the authority of the pasha of Damascus having hitherto been\ninadequate to repress them. Thus the curious have but little information\nabout anything concerning the Asphaltic Lake.\n\nAs to Sodom, it is a melancholy reflection for the learned that, among\nso many who may be deemed natives, not one has furnished us with any\nnotion whatever of this capital city.\n\n\n\n\nASS.\n\n\nWe will add a little to the article \"Ass\" in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\"\nconcerning Lucian's ass, which became golden in the hands of Apuleius.\nThe pleasantest part of the adventure, however, is in Lucian: That a\nlady fell in love with this gentleman while he was an ass, but would\nhave nothing more to say to him when he was but a man. These\nmetamorphoses were very common throughout antiquity. Silenus's ass had\nspoken; and the learned had thought that he explained himself in Arabic;\nfor he was probably a man turned into an ass by the power of Bacchus,\nand Bacchus, we know, was an Arab.\n\nVirgil speaks of the transformation of M\u0153ris into a wolf, as a thing\nof very ordinary occurrence:\n\n     _Saepe lupum fieri M\u0153rim, et se condere silvis._\n     Oft changed to wolf, he seeks the forest shade.\n\nWas this doctrine of metamorphoses derived from the old fables of Egypt,\nwhich gave out that the gods had changed themselves into animals in the\nwar against the giants?\n\nThe Greeks, great imitators and improvers of the Oriental fables,\nmetamorphosed almost all the gods into men or into beasts, to make them\nsucceed the better in their amorous designs. If the gods changed\nthemselves into bulls, horses, swans, doves, etc., why should not men\nhave undergone the same operation?\n\nSeveral commentators, forgetting the respect due to the Holy Scriptures,\nhave cited the example of Nebuchadnezzar changed into an ox; but this\nwas a miracle--a divine vengeance--a thing quite out of the course of\nnature, which ought not to be examined with profane eyes, and cannot\nbecome an object of our researches.\n\nOthers of the learned, perhaps with equal indiscretion, avail themselves\nof what is related in the Gospel of the Infancy. An Egyptian maiden\nhaving entered the chamber of some women, saw there a mule with a silken\ncloth over his back, and an ebony pendant at his neck.\n\nThese women were in tears, kissing him and giving him to eat. The mule\nwas their own brother. Some sorceresses had deprived him of the human\nfigure; but the Master of Nature soon restored it.\n\nAlthough this gospel is apocryphal, the very name that it bears prevents\nus from examining this adventure in detail; only it may serve to show\nhow much metamorphoses were in vogue almost throughout the earth. The\nChristians who composed their gospel were undoubtedly honest men. They\ndid not seek to fabricate a romance; they related with simplicity what\nthey had heard. The church, which afterwards rejected their gospel,\ntogether with forty-nine others, did not accuse its authority of impiety\nand prevarication; those obscure individuals addressed the populace in\nlanguage comformable with the prejudices of the age in which they lived.\nChina was perhaps the only country exempt from these superstitions.\n\nThe adventure of the companions of Ulysses, changed into beasts by\nCirce, was much more ancient than the dogma of the metempsychosis,\nbroached in Greece and Italy by Pythagoras.\n\nOn what can the assertion be founded that there is no universal error\nwhich is not the abuse of some truth; that there have been quacks only\nbecause there have been true physicians; and that false prodigies have\nbeen believed only because there have been true ones?\n\nWere there any certain testimonies that men had become wolves, oxen,\nhorses, or asses? This universal error had for its principle only the\nlove of the marvellous and the natural inclination to superstition.\n\nOne erroneous opinion is enough to fill the whole world with fables. An\nIndian doctor sees that animals have feeling and memory. He concludes\nthat they have a soul. Men have one likewise. What becomes of the soul\nof man after death? What becomes of that of the beast? They must go\nsomewhere. They go into the nearest body that is beginning to be formed.\nThe soul of a Brahmin takes up its abode in the body of an elephant, the\nsoul of an ass is that of a little Brahmin. Such is the dogma of the\nmetempsychosis, which was built upon simple deduction.\n\nBut it is a wide step from this dogma to that of metamorphosis. We have\nno longer a soul without a tenement, seeking a lodging; but one body\nchanged into another, the soul remaining as before. Now, we certainly\nhave not in nature any example of such legerdemain.\n\nLet us then inquire into the origin of so extravagant yet so general an\nopinion. If some father had characterized his son, sunk in ignorance and\nfilthy debauchery, as a hog, a horse, or an ass, and afterwards made him\ndo penance with an ass's cap on his head, and some servant girl of the\nneighborhood gave it out that this young man had been turned into an ass\nas a punishment for his faults, her neighbors would repeat it to other\nneighbors, and from mouth to mouth this story, with a thousand\nembellishments, would make the tour of the world. An ambiguous\nexpression would suffice to deceive the whole earth.\n\nHere then let us confess, with Boileau, that ambiguity has been the\nparent of most of our ridiculous follies. Add to this the power of\nmagic, which has been acknowledged as indisputable in all nations, and\nyou will no longer be astonished at anything.\n\nOne word more on asses. It is said that in Mesopotamia they are warlike\nand that Mervan, the twenty-first caliph, was surnamed \"the Ass\" for his\nvalor.\n\nThe patriarch Photius relates, in the extract from the Life of Isidorus,\nthat Ammonius had an ass which had a great taste for poetry, and would\nleave his manger to go and hear verses. The fable of Midas is better\nthan the tale of Photius.\n\n_Machiavelli's Golden Ass._\n\nMachiavelli's ass is but little known. The dictionaries which speak of\nit say that it was a production of his youth; it would seem, however,\nthat he was of mature age; for he speaks in it of the misfortunes which\nhe had formerly and for a long time experienced. The work is a satire on\nhis contemporaries. The author sees a number of Florentines, of whom one\nis changed into a cat, another into a dragon, a third into a dog that\nbays the moon, a fourth into a fox who does not suffer himself to be\ncaught; each character is drawn under the name of an animal. The\nfactions of the house of Medicis and their enemies are doubtless figured\ntherein; and the key to this comic apocalypse would admit us to the\nsecrets of Pope Leo and the troubles of Florence. This poem is full of\nmorality and philosophy. It ends with the very rational reflections of\na large hog, which addresses man in nearly the following terms:\n\n     Ye naked bipeds, without beaks or claws.\n       Hairless, and featherless, and tender-hided,\n     Weeping ye come into the world--because\n       Ye feel your evil destiny decided;\n     Nature has given you industrious paws;\n       You, like the parrots, are with speech provided;\n     But have ye honest hearts?--Alas! alas!\n     In this we swine your bipedships surpass!\n\n     Man is far worse than we--more fierce, more wild--\n       Coward or madman, sinning every minute;\n     By frenzy and by fear in turn beguiled,\n       He dreads the grave, yet plunges headlong in it;\n     If pigs fall out, they soon are reconciled;\n       Their quarrel's ended ere they well begin it.\n     If crime with manhood always must combine,\n     Good Lord! let me forever be a swine.\n\nThis is the original of Boileau's \"Satire on Man,\" and La Fontaine's\nfable of the \"Companions of Ulysses\"; but it is quite likely that\nneither La Fontaine nor Boileau had ever heard of Machiavelli's ass.\n\n_The Ass of Verona._\n\nI must speak the truth, and not deceive my readers. I do not very\nclearly know whether the Ass of Verona still exists in all his splendor;\nbut the travellers who saw him forty or fifty years ago agree in saying\nthat the relics were enclosed in the body of an artificial ass made on\npurpose, which was in the keeping of forty monks of Our Lady of the\nOrgan, at Verona, and was carried in procession twice a year. This was\none of the most ancient relics of the town. According to the tradition,\nthis ass, having carried our Lord in his entry into Jerusalem, did not\nchoose to abide any longer in that city, but trotted over the sea--which\nfor that purpose became as hard as his hoof--by way of Cyprus, Rhodes,\nCandia, Malta, and Sicily. There he went to sojourn at Aquilea; and at\nlast he settled at Verona, where he lived a long while.\n\nThis fable originated in the circumstance that most asses have a sort of\nblack cross on their backs. There possibly might be an old ass in the\nneighborhood of Verona, on whose back the populace remarked a finer\ncross than his brethren could boast of; some good old woman would be at\nhand to say that this was the ass on which Christ rode into Jerusalem;\nand the ass would be honored with a magnificent funeral. The feast\nestablished at Verona passed into other countries, and was especially\ncelebrated in France. In the mass was sung:\n\n     _Orientis partibus_\n     _Adventabit asinus,_\n     _Pulcher et fortissimus._\n\nThere was a long procession, headed by a young woman with a child in her\narms, mounted on an ass, representing the Virgin Mary going into Egypt.\nAt the end of the mass the priest, instead of saying _Ite missa est_,\nbrayed three times with all his might, and the people answered in\nchorus.\n\nWe have books on the feast of the ass, and the feast of fools; they\nfurnish material towards a universal history of the human mind.\n\n\n\n\nASSASSIN--ASSASSINATION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nA name corrupted from the word Ehissessin. Nothing is more common to\nthose who go into a distant country than to write, repeat, and\nunderstand incorrectly in their own language what they have\nmisunderstood in a language entirely foreign to them, and afterwards to\ndeceive their countrymen as well as themselves. Error flies from mouth\nto mouth, from pen, to pen, and to destroy it requires ages.\n\nIn the time of the Crusades there was a wretched little people of\nmountaineers inhabiting the caverns near the road to Damascus. These\nbrigands elected a chief, whom they named Cheik Elchassissin. It is said\nthat this honorific title of _cheik_ originally signified _old_, as with\nus the title of _seigneur_ comes from _senior_, elder, and the word\n_graf_, a count, signifies _old_ among the Germans; for, in ancient\ntimes almost every people conferred the civil command upon the old men.\nAfterwards, the command having become hereditary, the title of _cheik,\ngraf, seigneur, or count_ has been given to children; and the Germans\ncall a little master of four years old, _the count_--that is, the _old\ngentleman_.\n\nThe Crusaders named the old man of the Arabian mountains, the Old Man of\nthe Hill, and imagined him to be a great prince, because he had caused a\ncount of Montserrat and some other crusading nobles to be robbed and\nmurdered on the highway. These people were called _the assassins_, and\ntheir cheik the king of the vast country of _the assassins_. This vast\nterritory is five or six leagues long by two or three broad, being part\nof Anti-Libanus, a horrible country, full of rocks, like almost all\nPalestine, but intersected by pleasant meadowlands, which feed numerous\nflocks, as is attested by all who have made the journey from Aleppo to\nDamascus.\n\nThe cheik or senior of these _assassins_ could be nothing more than a\nchief of banditti; for there was at that time a sultan of Damascus who\nwas very powerful.\n\nOur romance-writers of that day, as fond of chimeras as the Crusaders,\nthought proper to relate that in 1236 this great prince of the\nassassins, fearing that Louis IX., of whom he had never heard, would put\nhimself at the head of a crusade, and come and take from him his\nterritory, sent two great men of his court from the caverns of\nAnti-Libanus to Paris to assassinate that king; but that having the next\nday heard how generous and amiable a prince Louis was, he immediately\nsent out to sea two more great men to countermand the assassination. I\nsay out to sea, for neither the two emissaries sent to kill Louis, nor\nthe two others sent to save him, could make the voyage without embarking\nat Joppa, which was then in the power of the Crusaders, which rendered\nthe enterprise doubly marvellous. The two first must have found a\nCrusaders' vessel ready to convey them in an amicable manner, and the\ntwo last must have found another.\n\nHowever, a hundred authors, one after another, have related this\nadventure, though Joinville, a contemporary, who was on the spot, says\nnothing about it--_\"Et voil\u00e0 justement comme on \u00e9crit l'histoire.\"_\n\nThe Jesuit Maimbourg, the Jesuit Daniel, twenty other Jesuits, and\nM\u00e9zeray--though he was not a Jesuit--have repeated this absurdity. The\nAbb\u00e9 V\u00e9li, in his history of France, tells it over again with perfect\ncomplaisance, without any discussion, without any examination, and on\nthe word of one William of Nangis, who wrote about sixty years after\nthis fine affair is said to have happened at a time when history was\ncomposed from nothing but town talk.\n\nIf none but true and useful things were recorded, our immense historical\nlibraries would be reduced to a very narrow compass; but we should know\nmore, and know it better.\n\nFor six hundred years the story has been told over and over again, of\nthe Old Man of the Hill--_le vieux de la montagne_--who, in his\ndelightful gardens, intoxicated his young elect with voluptuous\npleasures, made them believe that they were in paradise, and sent them\nto the ends of the earth to assassinate kings in order to merit an\neternal paradise.\n\n     Near the Levantine shores there dwelt of old\n     An aged ruler, feared in every land;\n     Not that he owned enormous heaps of gold,\n     Not that vast armies marched at his command,--\n     But on his people's minds he things impressed,\n     Which filled with desperate courage every breast\n     The boldest of his subjects first he took,\n     Of paradise to give them a foretaste--\n     The paradise his lawgiver had painted;\n     With every joy the lying prophet's book\n     Within his falsely-pictured heaven had placed,\n     They thought their senses had become acquainted.\n     And how was this effected? 'Twas by wine--\n     Of this they drank till every sense gave way,\n     And, while in drunken lethargy they lay,\n     Were borne, according to their chief's design,\n     To sports of pleasantness--to sunshine glades,\n     Delightful gardens and inviting shades.\n     Young tender beauties were abundant there,\n     In earliest bloom, and exquisitely fair;\n     These gayly thronged around the sleeping men,\n     Who, when at length they were awake again,\n     Wondering to see the beauteous objects round,\n     Believed that some way they'd already found\n     Those fields of bliss, in every beauty decked,\n     The false Mahomet promised his elect.\n     Acquaintance quickly made, the Turks advance;\n     The maidens join them in a sprightly dance;\n     Sweet music charms them as they trip along;\n     And every feathered warbler adds his song.\n     The joys that could for every sense suffice.\n     Were found within this earthly paradise.\n     Wine, too, was there--and its effects the same;\n     These people drank, till they could drink no more,\n     Were earned to the place from whence they came.\n     And what resulted from this trickery?\n     These men believed that they should surely be\n     Again transported to that place of pleasure,\n     If, without fear of suffering or of death,\n     They showed devotion to Mahomet's faith,\n     And to their prince obedience without measure.\n     Thus might their sovereign with reason say,\n     And that, now his device had made them so,\n     His was the mightiest empire here below....\n\nAll this might be very well in one of La Fontaine's tales--setting apart\nthe weakness of the verse; and there are a hundred historical anecdotes\nwhich could be tolerated there only.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n\nAssassination being, next to poisoning, the crime most cowardly and most\ndeserving of punishment, it is not astonishing that it has found an\napologist in a man whose singular reasoning is, in some things, at\nvariance with the reason of the rest of mankind.\n\nIn a romance entitled \"Emilius,\" he imagines that he is the guardian of\na young man, to whom he is very careful to give an education such as is\nreceived in the military school--teaching him languages, geometry,\ntactics, fortification, and the history of his country. He does not seek\nto inspire him with love for his king and his country, but contents\nhimself with making him a joiner. He would have this gentleman-joiner,\nwhen he has received a blow or a challenge, instead of returning it and\nfighting, \"prudently assassinate the man.\" Moli\u00e8re does, it is true, say\njestingly, in _\"L'Amour Peintre,\"_ \"assassination is the safest\"; but\nthe author of this romance asserts that it is the most just and\nreasonable. He says this very seriously, and, in the immensity of his\nparadoxes, this is one of the three or four things which he first says.\nThe same spirit of wisdom and decency which makes him declare that a\npreceptor should often accompany his pupil to a place of prostitution,\nmakes him decide that this disciple should be an assassin. So that the\neducation which Jean Jacques would give to a young man consists in\nteaching him how to handle the plane, and in fitting him for salivation\nand the rope.\n\nWe doubt whether fathers of families will be eager to give such\npreceptors to their children. It seems to us that the romance of Emilius\ndeparts rather too much from the maxims of Mentor in \"Telemachus\"; but\nit must also be acknowledged that our age has in all things very much\nvaried from the great age of Louis XIV.\n\nHappily, none of these horrible infatuations are to be found in the\n\"Encyclop\u00e6dia.\" It often displays a philosophy seemingly bold, but never\nthat atrocious and extravagant babbling which two or three fools have\ncalled philosophy, and two or three ladies, eloquence.\n\n\n\n\nASTROLOGY.\n\n\nAstrology might rest on a better foundation than magic. For if no one\nhas seen farfadets, or lemures, or dives, or peris, or demons, or\ncacodemons, the predictions of astrologers have often been found true.\nLet two astrologers be consulted on the life of an infant, and on the\nweather; if one of them say that the child shall five to the age of man,\nthe other that he shall not; if one foretell rain and the other fair\nweather, it is quite clear that there will be a prophet.\n\nThe great misfortune of astrologers is that the heavens have changed\nsince the rules of the art were laid down. The sun, which at the equinox\nwas in the Ram in the time of the Argonauts, is now in the Bull; and\nastrologers, most unfortunately for their art, now attribute to one\nhouse of the sun that which visibly belongs to another. Still, this is\nnot a demonstrative argument against astrology. The masters of the art\nare mistaken; but it is not proved that the art cannot exist.\n\nThere would be no absurdity in saying, \"Such a child was born during the\nmoon's increase, in a stormy season, at the rising of a certain star;\nits constitution was bad, and its life short and miserable, which is the\nordinary lot of weak temperaments; another, on the contrary, was born\nwhen the moon was at the full, and the sun in all his power, in calm\nweather, at the rising of another particular star; his constitution was\ngood, and his life long and happy.\" If such observations had been\nfrequently repeated, and found just, experience might, at the end of a\nfew thousand centuries, have formed an art which it would have been\ndifficult to call in question; it would have been thought, not without\nsome appearance of truth, that men are like trees and vegetables, which\nmust be planted only in certain seasons. It would have been of no\nservice against the astrologers to say, \"My son was born in fine\nweather, yet he died in his cradle.\" The astrologer would have answered,\n\"It often happens that trees planted in the proper season perish\nprematurely; I will answer for the stars, but not for the particular\nconformation which you communicated to your child; astrology operates\nonly when there is no cause opposed to the good which they have power to\nwork.\"\n\n[Illustration: An Astrologer.]\n\nNor would astrology have suffered any more discredit from it being said:\n\"Of two children who were born in the same minute, one became a king,\nthe other nothing more than churchwarden of his parish;\" for a defence\nwould easily have been made by showing that the peasant made his fortune\nin becoming churchwarden, just as much as the prince did in becoming\nking.\n\nAnd if it were alleged that a bandit, hung up by order of Sixtus the\nFifth, was born at the same time as Sixtus, who, from being a swineherd,\nbecame pope, the astrologers would say that there was a mistake of a few\nseconds, and that, according to the rules, the same star could not\nbestow the tiara and the gallows. It was, then, only because\nlong-accumulated experience gave the lie to the predictions that men at\nlength perceived that the art was illusory; but their credulity was of\nlong duration.\n\nOne of the most famous mathematicians of Europe, named Stoffler, who\nflourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, foretold a\nuniversal deluge for the year 1524. This deluge was to happen in the\nmonth of February, and nothing can be more plausible, for Saturn,\nJupiter, and Mars were then in conjunction in the sign of the Fishes.\nEvery nation in Europe, Asia, and Africa that heard of the prediction\nwas in consternation. The whole world expected the deluge, in spite of\nthe rainbow. Several contemporary authors relate that the inhabitants of\nthe maritime provinces of Germany hastened to sell their lands, at any\nprice, to such as had more money and less credulity than themselves.\nEach one provided himself with a boat to serve as an ark. A doctor of\nToulouse, in particular, named Auriol, had an ark built for himself, his\nfamily, and friends; and the same precautions were taken in a great part\nof Italy. At last the month of February arrived, and not a drop of rain\nfell, never was a month more dry, never were the astrologers more\nembarrassed. However, we neither discouraged nor neglected them; almost\nall our princes continued to consult them.\n\nI have not the honor to be a prince; nevertheless, the celebrated Count\nde Boulainvilliers and an Italian, named Colonna, who had great\nreputation at Paris, both foretold to me that I should assuredly die at\nthe age of thirty-two. I have already been so malicious as to deceive\nthem thirty years in their calculation--for which I most humbly ask\ntheir pardon.\n\n\n\n\nASTRONOMY,\n\nWITH A FEW MORE REFLECTIONS ON ASTROLOGY.\n\n\nM. Duval, who, if I mistake not, was librarian to the Emperor Francis\nI., gives us an account of the manner in which, in his childhood, pure\ninstinct gave him the first ideas of astronomy. He was contemplating the\nmoon which, as it declined towards the west, seemed to touch the trees\nof a wood. He doubted not that he should find it behind the trees, and,\non running thither, was astonished to see it at the extremity of the\nhorizon.\n\nThe following days his curiosity prompted him to watch the course of\nthis luminary, and he was still more surprised to find that it rose and\nset at various hours. The different forms which it took from week to\nweek, and its total disappearance for some nights, also contributed to\nfix his attention. All that a child could do was to observe and to\nadmire, and this was doing much; not one in ten thousand has this\ncuriosity and perseverance.\n\nHe studied, as he could, for three years, with no other book than the\nheavens, no other master than his eyes. He observed that the stars did\nnot change their relative positions; but the brilliancy of the planet\nVenus having caught his attention, it seemed to him to have a particular\ncourse, like that of the moon. He watched it every night; it disappeared\nfor a long time; and at length he saw it become the morning instead of\nthe evening star. The course of the sun, which from month to month, rose\nand set in different parts of the heavens, did not escape him. He marked\nthe solstices with two staves, without knowing what the solstices were.\n\nIt appears to me that some profit might be derived from this example,\nin teaching astronomy to a child of ten or twelve years of age, and with\nmuch greater facility than this extraordinary child, of whom I have\nspoken, taught himself its first elements.\n\nIt is a very attractive spectacle for a mind disposed to the\ncontemplation of nature to see that the different phases of the moon are\nprecisely the same as those of a globe round which a lighted candle is\nmoved, showing here a quarter, here the half of its surface, and\nbecoming invisible when an opaque body is interposed between it and the\ncandle. In this manner it was that Galileo explained the true principles\nof astronomy before the doge and senators of Venice on St. Mark's tower;\nhe demonstrated everything to the eyes.\n\nIndeed, not only a child, but even a man of mature age, who has seen the\nconstellations only on maps or globes, finds it difficult to recognize\nthem in the heavens. In a little time the child will quite well\ncomprehend the causes of the sun's apparent course, and the daily\nrevolutions of the fixed stars.\n\nHe will, in particular, discover the constellations with the aid of\nthese four Latin lines, made by an astronomer about fifty years ago, and\nwhich are not sufficiently known:\n\n_Delta Aries, Perseum Taurus, Geminique Capellam; Nil Cancer, Plaustrum\nLeo, Virgo Coman, atque Bootem, Libra Anguem, Anguiferum fert Scorpios;\nAntinoum Arcus; Delphinum Caper, Amphora Equos, Cepheida Pisces._\n\nNothing should be said to him about the systems of Ptolemy and Tycho\nBrahe, because they are false; they can never be of any other service\nthan to explain some passages in ancient authors, relating to the errors\nof antiquity. For instance, in the second book of Ovid's\n_\"Metamorphoses\"_ the sun says to Pha\u00ebton:\n\n     _Adde, quod assidua rapitur vertigine c\u0153lum;_\n     _Nitor in adversum; nec me, qui c\u00e6tera, vincit_\n     _Impetus; et rapido contrarius evehor orbi._\n\n     A rapid motion carries round the heavens;\n     But I--and I alone--resist its force,\n     Marching secure in my opposing path.\n\nThis idea of a first mover turning the heavens round in twenty-four\nhours with an impossible motion, and of the sun, though acted upon by\nthis first motion, yet imperceptibly advancing from west to east by a\nmotion peculiar to itself, and without a cause, would but embarrass a\nyoung beginner.\n\nIt is sufficient for him to know that, whether the earth revolves on its\nown axis and round the sun, or the sun completes his revolution in a\nyear, appearances are nearly the same, and that, in astronomy, we are\nobliged to judge of things by our eyes before we examine them as natural\nphilosophers.\n\nHe will soon know the cause of the eclipses of the sun and the moon, and\nwhy they do not occur every night. It will at first appear to him that,\nthe moon being every month in opposition to and in conjunction with the\nsun, we should have an eclipse of the sun and one of the moon every\nmonth. But when he finds that these two luminaries are not in the same\nplane and are seldom in the same line with the earth, he will no longer\nbe surprised.\n\nHe will easily be made to understand how it is that eclipses have been\nforetold, by knowing the exact circle in which the apparent motion of\nthe sun and the real motion of the moon are accomplished. He will be\ntold that observers found by experience and calculation the number of\ntimes that these two bodies are precisely in the same line with the\nearth in the space of nineteen years and a few hours, after which they\nseem to recommence the same course; so that, making the necessary\nallowances for the little inequalities that occurred during those\nnineteen years, the exact day, hour, and minute of an eclipse of the sun\nor moon were foretold. These first elements are soon acquired by a child\nof clear conceptions.\n\nNot even the precession of the equinoxes will terrify him. It will be\nenough to tell him that the sun has constantly appeared to advance in\nhis annual course, one degree in seventy-two years, towards the east;\nand this is what Ovid meant to express: _\"Contrarius evehor\norbi\"_;--\"Marching secure in my opposing path.\"\n\nThus the Ram, which the sun formerly entered at the beginning of spring,\nis now in the place where the Bull was then. This change which has taken\nplace in the heavens, and the entrance of the sun into other\nconstellations than those which he formerly occupied, were the\nstrongest arguments against the pretended rules of judicial astrology.\nIt does not, however, appear that this proof was employed before the\npresent century to destroy this universal extravagance which so long\ninfected all mankind, and is still in great vogue in Persia.\n\nA man born, according to the almanac, when the sun was in the sign of\nthe Lion, was necessarily to be courageous; but, unfortunately, he was\nin reality born under the sign of the Virgin. So that Gauric and Michael\nMorin should have changed all the rules of their art.\n\nIt is indeed odd that all the laws of astrology were contrary to those\nof astronomy. The wretched charlatans of antiquity and their stupid\ndisciples, who have been so well received and so well paid by all the\nprinces of Europe, talked of nothing but Mars and Venus, stationary and\nretrograde. Such as had Mars stationary were always to conquer. Venus\nstationary made all lovers happy. Nothing was worse than to be born\nunder Venus retrograde. But the fact is that these planets have never\nbeen either retrograde or stationary, which a very slight knowledge of\noptics would have sufficed to show.\n\nHow, then, can it have been that, in spite of physics and geometry, the\nridiculous chimera of astrology is entertained even to this day, so that\nwe have seen men distinguished for their general knowledge, and\nespecially profound in history, who have all their lives been infatuated\nby so despicable an error? But the error was ancient, and that was\nenough.\n\nThe Egyptians, the Chald\u00e6ans, the Jews, foretold the future; therefore,\nit may be foretold now. Serpents were charmed and spirits were raised in\nthose days; therefore, spirits may be raised and serpents charmed now.\nIt is only necessary to know the precise formula made use of for the\npurpose. If predictions are at an end, it is the fault, not of the art,\nbut of the artist. Michael Morin and his secret died together. It is\nthus that the alchemists speak of the philosopher's stone; if, say they,\nwe do not now find it, it is because we do not yet know precisely how to\nseek it; but it is certainly in Solomon's collar-bone. And, with this\nglorious certainty, more than two hundred families in France and Germany\nhave ruined themselves.\n\nIt is not then to be wondered at that the whole world has been duped by\nastrology. The wretched argument, \"there are false prodigies, therefore\nthere are true ones,\" is neither that of a philosopher, nor of a man\nacquainted with the world. \"That is false and absurd, therefore it will\nbe believed by the multitude,\" is a much truer maxim.\n\nIt is still less astonishing that so many men, raised in other things so\nfar above the vulgar; so many princes, so many popes, whom it would have\nbeen impossible to mislead in the smallest affair of interest, have been\nso ridiculously seduced by this astrological nonsense. They were very\nproud and very ignorant. The stars were for them alone; the rest of the\nworld a rabble, with whom the stars had nothing to do. They were like\nthe prince who trembled at the sight of a comet, and said gravely to\nthose who did not fear it, \"You may behold it without concern; you are\nnot princes.\"\n\nThe famous German leader, Wallenstein, was one of those infatuated by\nthis chimera; he called himself a prince, and consequently thought that\nthe zodiac had been made on purpose for him. He never besieged a town,\nnor fought a battle, until he had held a council with the heavens; but,\nas this great man was very ignorant, he placed at the head of this\ncouncil a rogue of an Italian, named Seni, keeping him a coach and six,\nand giving him a pension of twenty thousand livres. Seni, however, never\nforesaw that Wallenstein would be assassinated by order of his most\ngracious sovereign, and that he himself would return to Italy on foot.\n\nIt is quite evident that nothing can be known of the future, otherwise\nthan by conjectures. These conjectures may be so well-founded as to\napproach certainty. You see a shark swallow a little boy; you may wager\nten thousand to one that he will be devoured; but you cannot be\nabsolutely sure of it, after the adventures of Hercules, Jonas, and\nOrlando Furioso, who each lived so long in a fish's belly.\n\nIt cannot be too often repeated that Albertus Magnus and Cardinal\nd'Ailli both made the horoscope of Jesus Christ. It would appear that\nthey read in the stars how many devils he would cast out of the bodies\nof the possessed, and what sort of death he was to die. But it was\nunfortunate that these learned astrologers _foretold_ all these things\nso long _after_ they happened.\n\nWe shall elsewhere see that in a sect which passes for Christian, it is\nbelieved to be impossible for the Supreme Intelligence to see the future\notherwise than by supreme conjecture; for, as the future does not exist,\nit is, say they, a contradiction in terms to talk of seeing at the\npresent time that which is not.\n\n\n\n\nATHEISM.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n\n_On the Comparison so Often Made between Atheism and Idolatry._\n\nIt seems to me that, in the _\"Dictionnaire Encyclop\u00e9dique,\"_ a more\npowerful refutation might have been brought against the Jesuit\nRicheome's opinion concerning atheists and idolaters--an opinion\nformerly maintained by St. Thomas, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyprian,\nand Tertullian--an opinion which Arnobius placed in a strong light when\nhe said to the pagans, \"Do you not blush to reproach us with contempt\nfor your gods? Is it not better to believe in no god than to impute to\nthem infamous actions?\"--an opinion long before established by\nPlutarch, who stated that he would rather have it said that there was\nno Plutarch than that there was a Plutarch, inconstant, choleric, and\nvindictive--an opinion, too, fortified by all the dialectical efforts of\nBayle.\n\nSuch is the ground of dispute, placed in a very striking point of view\nby the Jesuit Richeome, and made still more specious by the way in which\nBayle sets it off:\n\n\"There are two porters at the door of a house. You ask to speak to the\nmaster. He is not at home, answers one. He is at home, answers the\nother, but is busied in making false money, false contracts, daggers,\nand poisons, to destroy those who have only accomplished his designs.\nThe atheist resembles the former of these porters, the pagan the latter.\nIt is then evident that the pagan offends the Divinity more grievously\nthan the atheist.\"\n\nWith the permission of Father Richeome, and that of Bayle himself, this\nis not at all the state of the question. For the first porter to be like\nthe atheist, he must say, not \"My master is not here,\" but \"I have no\nmaster; he who you pretend is my master does not exist. My comrade is a\nblockhead to tell you that the gentleman is engaged in mixing poisons\nand wetting poniards to assassinate those who have executed his will.\nThere is no such being in the world.\"\n\nRicheome, therefore, has reasoned very ill; and Bayle, in his rather\ndiffuse discourses, has so far forgotten himself as to do Richeome the\nhonor of making a very lame comment upon him.\n\nPlutarch seems to express himself much better, in declaring that he\nprefers those who say there is no Plutarch to those who assert that\nPlutarch is unfit for society. Indeed, of what consequence to him was\nits being said that he was not in the world? But it was of great\nconsequence that his reputation should not be injured. With the Supreme\nBeing it is otherwise.\n\nStill Plutarch does not come to the real point in discussion. It is only\nasked who most offends the Supreme Being--he who denies Him, or he who\ndisfigures Him? It is impossible to know, otherwise than by revelation,\nwhether God is offended at the vain discourses which men hold about Him.\n\nPhilosophers almost always fall unconsciously into the ideas of the\nvulgar, in supposing that God is jealous of His glory, wrathful, and\ngiven to revenge, and in taking rhetorical figures for real ideas. That\nwhich interests the whole world is to know whether it is not better to\nadmit a rewarding and avenging God, recompensing hidden good actions,\nand punishing secret crimes, than to admit no God at all.\n\nBayle exhausts himself in repeating all the infamous things imputed to\nthe gods of antiquity. His adversaries answer him by unmeaning\ncommonplaces. The partisans and the enemies of Bayle have almost always\nfought without coming to close quarters. They all agree that Jupiter\nwas an adulterer, Venus a wanton, Mercury a rogue. But this, I conceive,\nought not to be considered; the religion of the ancient Romans should be\ndistinguished from Ovid's _\"Metamorphoses.\"_ It is quite certain that\nneither they nor even the Greeks ever had a temple dedicated to Mercury\nthe Rogue, Venus the Wanton, or Jupiter the Adulterer.\n\nThe god whom the Romans called _\"Deus optimus maximus\"_--most good, most\ngreat--was not believed to have encouraged Clodius to lie with C\u00e6sar's\nwife, nor C\u00e6sar to become the minion of King Nicomedes.\n\nCicero does not say that Mercury incited Verres to rob Sicily, though,\nin the fable, Mercury had stolen Apollo's cows. The real religion of the\nancients was that Jupiter, most good and just, with the secondary\ndivinities, punished perjury in the infernal regions. Thus, the Romans\nwere long the most religious observers of their oaths. It was in no wise\nordained that they should believe in Leda's two eggs, in the\ntransformation of Inachus's daughter into a cow, or in Apollo's love for\nHyacinthus. Therefore it must not be said that the religion of Numa was\ndishonoring to the Divinity. So that, as but too often happens, there\nhas been a long dispute about a chimera.\n\nThen, it is asked, can a people of atheists exist? I consider that a\ndistinction must be made between the people, properly so called, and a\nsociety of philosophers above the people. It is true that, in every\ncountry, the populace require the strongest curb; and that if Bayle had\nhad but five or six hundred peasants to govern, he would not have failed\nto announce to them a rewarding and avenging God. But Bayle would have\nsaid nothing about them to the Epicureans, who were people of wealth,\nfond of quiet, cultivating all the social virtues, and friendship in\nparticular, shunning the dangers and embarrassments of public\naffairs--leading, in short, a life of ease and innocence. The dispute,\nso far as it regards policy and society, seems to me to end here.\n\nAs for people entirely savage, they can be counted neither among the\ntheists nor among the atheists. To ask them what is their creed would be\nlike asking them if they are for Aristotle or Democritus. They know\nnothing; they are no more atheists than they are peripatetics.\n\nBut, it may be insisted, that they live in society, though they have no\nGod, and that, therefore, society may subsist without religion.\n\nIn this case I shall reply that wolves live so; and that an assemblage\nof barbarous cannibals, as you suppose them to be, is not a society.\nAnd, further, I will ask you if, when you have lent your money to any\none of your society, you would have neither your debtor, nor your\nattorney, nor your notary, nor your judge, believe in a God?\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Modern Atheists.--Arguments of the Worshippers of God._\n\nWe are intelligent beings, and intelligent beings cannot have been\nformed by a blind, brute, insensible being; there is certainly some\ndifference between a clod and the ideas of Newton. Newton's\nintelligence, then, came from some other intelligence.\n\nWhen we see a fine machine, we say there is a good machinist, and that\nhe has an excellent understanding. The world is assuredly an admirable\nmachine; therefore there is in the world, somewhere or other, an\nadmirable intelligence. This argument is old, but is not therefore the\nworse.\n\nAll animated bodies are composed of levers and pulleys, which act\naccording to the laws of mechanics; of liquors, which are kept in\nperpetual circulation by the laws of hydrostatics; and the reflection\nthat all these beings have sentiment which has no relation to their\norganization, fills us with wonder.\n\nThe motions of the stars, that of our little earth round the sun--all\nare operated according to the laws of the profoundest mathematics. How\ncould it be that Plato, who knew not one of these laws--the eloquent but\nchimerical Plato, who said that the foundation of the earth was an\nequilateral triangle, and that of water a right-angled triangle--the\nstrange Plato, who said there could be but five worlds, because there\nwere but five regular bodieshow, I say, was it that Plato, who was not\neven acquainted with spherical trigonometry, had nevertheless so fine a\ngenius, so happy an instinct, as to call God the Eternal\nGeometrician--to feel that there exists a forming Intelligence? Spinoza\nhimself confesses it. It is impossible to controvert this truth, which\nsurrounds us and presses us on all sides.\n\n_Argument of the Atheists._\n\nI have, however, known refractory individuals, who have said that there\nis no forming intelligence, and that motion alone has formed all that we\nsee and all that we are. They say boldly that the combination of this\nuniverse was possible because it exists; therefore it was possible for\nmotion of itself to arrange it. Take four planets only--Mars, Venus,\nMercury, and the Earth; let us consider them solely in the situations in\nwhich they now are; and let us see how many probabilities we have that\nmotion will bring them again to those respective places. There are but\ntwenty-four chances in this combination; that is, it is only twenty-four\nto one that these planets will not be found in the same situations with\nrespect to one another. To these four globes add that of Jupiter; and it\nis then only a hundred and twenty to one that Jupiter, Mars, Venus,\nMercury, and our globe will not be placed in the same positions in which\nwe now see them.\n\nLastly, add Saturn; and there will then be only seven hundred and twenty\nchances to one against putting these planets in their present\narrangement, according to their given distances. It is, then,\ndemonstrated that once, at least, in seven hundred and twenty cases,\nchance might place these planets in their present order.\n\nThen take all the secondary planets, all their motions, all the beings\nthat vegetate, live, feel, think, act, on all these globes; you have\nonly to increase the number of chances; multiply this number to all\neternity--to what our weakness calls _infinity_--there will still be an\nunit in favor of the formation of the world, such as it is, by motion\nalone; therefore it is possible that, in all eternity, the motion of\nmatter alone has produced the universe as it exists. Nay, this\ncombination must, in eternity, of necessity happen. Thus, say they, not\nonly it is possible that the world is as it is by motion alone, but it\nwas impossible that it should not be so after infinite combinations.\n\n_Answer._\n\nAll this supposition seems to me to be prodigiously chimerical, for two\nreasons: the first is, that in this universe there are intelligent\nbeings, and you cannot prove it possible for motion alone to produce\nunderstanding. The second is, that, by your own confession, the chances\nare infinity to unity, that an intelligent forming cause produced the\nuniverse. Standing alone against infinity, a unit makes but a poor\nfigure.\n\nAgain Spinoza himself admits this intelligence; it is the basis of his\nsystem. You have not read him, but you must read him. Why would you go\nfurther than he, and, through a foolish pride, plunge into the abyss\nwhere Spinoza dared not to descend? Are you not aware of the extreme\nfolly of saying that it is owing to a blind cause that the square of the\nrevolution of one planet is always to the squares of the others as the\ncube of its distance is to the cubes of the distances of the others from\nthe common centre? Either the planets are great geometricians, or the\nEternal Geometrician has arranged the planets.\n\nBut where is the Eternal Geometrician? Is He in one place, or in all\nplaces, without occupying space? I know not. Has He arranged all things\nof His own substance? I know not. Is He immense, without quantity and\nwithout quality? I know not. All I know is, that we must adore Him and\nbe just.\n\n_New Objection of a Modern Atheist._\n\nCan it be said that the conformation of animals is according to their\nnecessities? What are those necessities? Self-preservation and\npropagation. Now, is it astonishing that, of the infinite combinations\nproduced by chance, those only have survived which had organs adapted\nfor their nourishment and the continuation of their species? Must not\nall others necessarily have perished?\n\n_Answer._\n\nThis argument, taken from Lucretius, is sufficiently refuted by the\nsensation given to animals and the intelligence given to man. How, as\nhas just been said in the preceding paragraph, should combinations\nproduced by chance produce this sensation and this intelligence? Yes,\ndoubtless, the members of animals are made for all their necessities\nwith an incomprehensible art, and you have not the boldness to deny it.\nYou do not mention it. You feel that you can say nothing in answer to\nthis great argument which Nature brings against you. The disposition of\nthe wing of a fly, or of the feelers of a snail, is sufficient to\nconfound you.\n\n_An Objection of Maupertuis._\n\nThe natural philosophers of modern times have done nothing more than\nextend these pretended arguments; this they have sometimes done even to\nminuteness and indecency. They have found God in the folds of a\nrhinoceros's hide; they might, with equal reason, have denied His\nexistence on account of the tortoise's shell.\n\n_Answer._\n\nWhat reasoning! The tortoise and the rhinoceros, and all the different\nspecies, prove alike in their infinite varieties the same cause, the\nsame design, the same end, which are preservation, generation, and\ndeath. Unity is found in this immense variety; the hide and the shell\nbear equal testimony. What! deny God, because a shell is not like a\nskin! And journalists have lavished upon this coxcombry praises which\nthey have withheld from Newton and Locke, both worshippers of the\nDivinity from thorough examination and conviction!\n\n_Another of Maupertuis's Objections._\n\nOf what service are beauty and fitness in the construction of a serpent?\nPerhaps, you say, it has uses of which we are ignorant. Let us then, at\nleast, be silent, and not admire an animal which we know only by the\nmischief it does.\n\n_Answer._\n\nBe you silent, also, since you know no more of its utility than myself;\nor acknowledge that, in reptiles, everything is admirably proportioned.\nSome of them are venomous; you have been so too. The only subject at\npresent under consideration is the prodigious art which has formed\nserpents, quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and bipeds. This art is evident\nenough. You ask, Why is not the serpent harmless? And why have you not\nbeen harmless? Why have you been a persecutor? which, in a philosopher,\nis the greatest of crimes. This is quite another question; it is that of\nphysical and moral evil. It has long been asked, Why are there so many\nserpents, and so many wicked men worse than serpents? If flies could\nreason, they would complain to God of the existence of spiders; but they\nwould, at the same time, acknowledge what Minerva confessed to Arachne\nin the fable, that they arrange their webs in a wonderful manner.\n\nWe cannot, then, do otherwise than acknowledge an ineffable\nIntelligence, which Spinoza himself admitted. We must own that it is\ndisplayed as much in the meanest insect as in the planets. And with\nregard to moral and physical evil, what can be done or said? Let us\nconsole ourselves by the enjoyment of physical and moral good, and adore\nthe Eternal Being, who has ordained the one and permitted the other.\n\nOne word more on this topic. Atheism is the vice of some intelligent\nmen, and superstition is the vice of fools. And what is the vice of\nknaves?--Hypocrisy.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Unjust Accusation.--Justification of Vanini._\n\nFormerly, whoever was possessed of a secret in any art was in danger of\npassing for a sorcerer; every new sect was charged with murdering\ninfants in its mysteries; and every philosopher who departed from the\njargon of the schools was accused of atheism by knaves and fanatics, and\ncondemned by blockheads.\n\nAnaxagorus dares to assert that the sun is not conducted by Apollo,\nmounted in a chariot and four; he is condemned as an atheist, and\ncompelled to fly.\n\nAristotle is accused of atheism by a priest, and not being powerful\nenough to punish his accuser, he retires to Chalcis. But the death of\nSocrates is the greatest blot on the page of Grecian history.\n\nAristophanes--he whom commentators admire because he was a Greek,\nforgetting that Socrates was also a Greek--Aristophanes was the first\nwho accustomed the Athenians to regard Socrates as an atheist.\n\nThis comic poet, who is neither comic nor poetical, would not, among us,\nhave been permitted to exhibit his farces at the fair of St. Lawrence.\nHe appears to me to be much lower and more despicable than Plutarch\nrepresents him. Let us see what the wise Plutarch says of this buffoon:\n\"The language of Aristophanes bespeaks his miserable quackery; it is\nmade up of the lowest and most disgusting puns; he is not even pleasing\nto the people; and to men of judgment and honor he is insupportable; his\narrogance is intolerable, and all good men detest his malignity.\"\n\nThis, then, is the jack-pudding whom Madame Dacier, an admirer of\nSocrates, ventures to admire! Such was the man who, indirectly, prepared\nthe poison by which infamous judges put to death the most virtuous man\nin Greece.\n\nThe tanners, cobblers, and seamstresses of Athens applauded a farce in\nwhich Socrates was represented lifted in the air in a hamper, announcing\nthat there was no God, and boasting of having stolen a cloak while he\nwas teaching philosophy. A whole people, whose government sanctioned\nsuch infamous licences, well deserved what has happened to them, to\nbecome slaves to the Romans, and, subsequently, to the Turks. The\nRussians, whom the Greeks of old would have called barbarians, would\nneither have poisoned Socrates, nor have condemned Alcibiades to death.\n\nWe pass over the ages between the Roman commonwealth and our own times.\nThe Romans, much more wise than the Greeks, never persecuted a\nphilosopher for his opinions. Not so the barbarous nations which\nsucceeded the Roman Empire. No sooner did the Emperor Frederick II.\nbegin to quarrel with the popes, than he was accused of being an\natheist, and being the author of the book of \"The Three Impostors,\"\nconjointly with his chancellor De Vincis.\n\nDoes our high-chancellor, de l'H\u00f4pital, declare against persecution? He\nis immediately charged with atheism--_\"Homo doctus, sed vetus atheus.\"_\nThere was a Jesuit, as much beneath Aristophanes as Aristophanes is\nbeneath Homer--a wretch, whose name has become ridiculous even among\nfanatics--the Jesuit Garasse, who found atheists everywhere. He bestows\nthe name upon all who are the objects of his virulence. He calls\nTheodore Beza an atheist. It was he, too, that led the public into error\nconcerning Vanini.\n\nThe unfortunate end of Vanini does not excite our pity and indignation\nlike that of Socrates, because Vanini was only a foreign pedant, without\nmerit; however, Vanini was not, as was pretended, an atheist; he was\nquite the contrary.\n\nHe was a poor Neapolitan priest, a theologian and preacher by trade, an\noutrageous disputer on quiddities and universals, and _\"utrum chim\u00e6ra\nbombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas intentiones.\"_ But there was\nnothing in him tending to atheism. His notion of God is that of the\nsoundest and most approved theology: \"God is the beginning and the end,\nthe father of both, without need of either, eternal without time, in no\none place, yet present everywhere. To him there is neither past nor\nfuture; he is within and without everything; he has created all, and\ngoverns all; he is immutable, infinite without parts; his power is his\nwill.\" This is not very philosophical, but it is the most approved\ntheology.\n\nVanini prided himself on reviving Plato's fine idea, adopted by\nAverro\u00ebs, that God had created a chain of beings from the smallest to\nthe greatest, the last link of which was attached to his eternal throne;\nan idea more sublime than true, but as distant from atheism as being\nfrom nothing.\n\nHe travelled to seek his fortune and to dispute; but, unfortunately,\ndisputation leads not to fortune; a man makes himself as many\nirreconcilable enemies as he finds men of learning or of pedantry to\nargue against. Vanini's ill-fortune had no other source. His heat and\nrudeness in disputation procured him the hatred of some theologians; and\nhaving quarrelled with one Franconi, this Franconi, the friend of his\nenemies, charged him with being an atheist and teaching atheism.\n\nFranconi, aided by some witnesses, had the barbarity, when confronted\nwith the accused, to maintain what he had advanced. Vanini, on the\nstool, being asked what he thought of the existence of a God, answered\nthat he, with the Church, adored a God in three persons. Taking a straw\nfrom the ground, \"This,\" said he, \"is sufficient to prove that there is\na creator.\" He then delivered a very fine discourse on vegetation and\nmotion, and the necessity of a Supreme Being, without whom there could\nbe neither motion nor vegetation.\n\nThe president Grammont, who was then at Toulouse, repeats this discourse\nin his history of France, now so little known; and the same Grammont,\nthrough some unaccountable prejudice, asserts that Vanini said all this\n\"through vanity, or through fear, rather than from inward conviction.\"\n\nOn what could this atrocious, rash judgment of the president be founded?\nIt is evident, from Vanini's answer, that he could not but be acquitted\nof the charge of atheism. But what followed? This unfortunate foreign\npriest also dabbled in medicine. There was found in his house a large\nlive toad, which he kept in a vessel of water; he was forthwith accused\nof being a sorcerer. It was maintained that this toad was the god which\nhe adored. An impious meaning was attributed to several passages of his\nbooks, a thing which is both common and easy, by taking objections for\nanswers, giving some bad sense to a loose phrase, and perverting an\ninnocent expression. At last, the faction which oppressed him forced\nfrom his judges the sentence which condemned him to die.\n\nIn order to justify this execution it was necessary to charge the\nunfortunate man with the most enormous of crimes. The grey friar--the\n_very_ grey friar Marsenne, was so besotted as to publish that \"Vanini\nset out from Naples, with twelve of his apostles, to convert the whole\nworld to atheism.\" What a pitiful tale! How should a poor priest have\ntwelve men in his pay? How should he persuade twelve Neapolitans to\ntravel at great expense, in order to spread this revolting doctrine at\nthe peril of their lives? Would a king himself have it in his power to\npay twelve preachers of atheism? No one before Father Marsenne had\nadvanced so enormous an absurdity. But after him it was repeated; the\njournals and historical dictionaries caught it, and the world, which\nloves the extraordinary, has believed the fable without examination.\n\nEven Bayle, in his miscellaneous thoughts (_Pens\u00e9es Diverses_), speaks\nof Vanini as of an atheist. He cites his example in support of his\nparadox, that \"a society of atheists might exist.\" He assures us that\nVanini was a man of very regular morals, and that he was a martyr to\nhis philosophical opinions. On both these points he is equally mistaken.\nVanini informs us in his \"Dialogues,\" written in imitation of Erasmus,\nthat he had a mistress named Isabel. He was as free in his writings as\nin his conduct; but he was not an atheist.\n\nA century after his death, the learned Lacroze, and he who took the name\nof Philaletes, endeavored to justify him. But as no one cares anything\nabout the memory of an unfortunate Neapolitan, scarcely any one has read\nthese apologies.\n\nThe Jesuit Hardouin, more learned and no less rash than Garasse, in his\nbook entitled _\"Athei Detecti\"_ charges the Descartes, the Arnaulds, the\nPascals, the Malebranches, with atheism. Happily, Vanini's fate was not\ntheirs.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nA word on the question in morals, agitated by Bayle, \"Whether a society\nof atheists can exist.\" Here let us first observe the enormous\nself-contradictions of men in disputation. Those who have been most\nviolent in opposing the opinion of Bayle, those who have denied with the\ngreatest virulence the possibility of a society of atheists, are the\nvery men who have since maintained with equal ardor that atheism is the\nreligion of the Chinese government.\n\nThey have most assuredly been mistaken concerning the government of\nChina; they had only to read the edicts of the emperors of that vast\ncountry, and they would have seen that those edicts are sermons, in\nwhich a Supreme Being--governing, avenging, and rewarding--is\ncontinually spoken of.\n\nBut, at the same time, they are no less deceived respecting the\nimpossibility of a society of atheists; nor can I conceive how Bayle\ncould forget a striking instance which might have rendered his cause\nvictorious.\n\nIn what does the apparent impossibility of a society of atheists\nconsist? In this: It is judged that men without some restraint could not\nlive together; that laws have no power against secret crimes; and that\nit is necessary to have an avenging God--punishing, in this world or in\nthe next, such as escape human justice.\n\nThe laws of Moses, it is true, did not teach the doctrine of a life to\ncome, did not threaten with chastisements after death, nor even teach\nthe primitive Jews the immortality of the soul; but the Jews, far from\nbeing atheists, far from believing that they could elude the divine\nvengeance, were the most religious of men. They believed not only in the\nexistence of an eternal God, but that He was always present among them;\nthey trembled lest they should be punished in themselves, their wives,\ntheir children, their posterity to the fourth generation. This was a\nvery powerful check.\n\nBut among the Gentiles various sects had no restraint; the Skeptics\ndoubted of everything; the Academics suspended their judgment on\neverything; the Epicureans were persuaded that the Divinity could not\nmeddle in human affairs, and in their hearts admitted no Divinity. They\nwere convinced that the soul is not a substance, but a faculty which is\nborn and perishes with the body; consequently, they had no restraint but\nthat of morality and honor. The Roman senators and knights were in\nreality atheists; for to men who neither feared nor hoped anything from\nthem, the gods could not exist. The Roman senate, then, in the time of\nC\u00e6sar and Cicero, was in fact an assembly of atheists.\n\nThat great orator, in his oration for Cluentius, says to the whole\nassembled senate: \"What does he lose by death? We reject all the silly\nfables about the infernal regions. What, then, can death take from him?\nNothing but the susceptibility of sorrow.\"\n\nDoes not C\u00e6sar, wishing to save the life of his friend Catiline,\nthreatened by the same Cicero, object that to put a criminal to death is\nnot to punish him--that death is nothing--that it is but the termination\nof our ills--a moment rather fortunate than calamitous? Did not Cicero\nand the whole senate yield to this reasoning? The conquerors and\nlegislators of all the known world then, evidently, formed a society of\nmen who feared nothing from the gods, but were real atheists.\n\nBayle next examines whether idolatry is more dangerous than\natheism--whether it is a greater crime not to believe in the Divinity\nthan to have unworthy notions of it; in this he thinks with\nPlutarch--that it is better to have no opinion than a bad opinion; but,\nwithout offence to Plutarch, it was infinitely better that the Greeks\nshould fear Ceres, Neptune, and Jupiter than that they should fear\nnothing at all. It is clear that the sanctity of oaths is necessary; and\nthat those are more to be trusted who think a false oath will be\npunished, than those who think they may take a false oath with impunity.\nIt cannot be doubted that, in an organized society, it is better to have\neven a bad religion than no religion at all.\n\nIt appears then that Bayle should rather have examined whether atheism\nor fanaticism is the most dangerous. Fanaticism is certainly a thousand\ntimes the most to be dreaded; for atheism inspires no sanguinary\npassion, but fanaticism does; atheism does not oppose crime, but\nfanaticism prompts to its commission. Let us suppose, with the author of\nthe _\"Commentarium Return Gallicarum,\"_ that the High-Chancellor de\nl'H\u00f4pital was an atheist; he made none but wise laws; he recommended\nonly moderation and concord. The massacres of St. Bartholomew were\ncommitted by fanatics. Hobbes passed for an atheist; yet he led a life\nof innocence and quiet, while the fanatics of his time deluged England,\nScotland, and Ireland with blood. Spinoza was not only an atheist--he\ntaught atheism; but assuredly he had no part in the judicial\nassassination of Barneveldt; nor was it he who tore in pieces the two\nbrothers De Witt, and ate them off the gridiron.\n\nAtheists are, for the most part, men of learning, bold but bewildered,\nwho reason ill and, unable to comprehend the creation, the origin of\nevil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the\neternity of things and of necessity.\n\nThe ambitious and the voluptuous have but little time to reason; they\nhave other occupations than that of comparing Lucretius with Socrates.\nSuch is the case with us and our time.\n\nIt was otherwise with the Roman senate, which was composed almost\nentirely of theoretical and practical atheists, that is, believing\nneither in Providence nor in a future state; this senate was an assembly\nof philosophers, men of pleasure, and ambitious men, who were all very\ndangerous, and who ruined the commonwealth. Under the emperors,\nEpicureanism prevailed. The atheists of the senate had been factious in\nthe times of Sulla and of C\u00e6sar; in those of Augustus and Tiberius, they\nwere atheistical slaves.\n\nI should not wish to come in the way of an atheistical prince, whose\ninterest it should be to have me pounded in a mortar; I am quite sure\nthat I should be so pounded. Were I a sovereign, I would not have to do\nwith atheistical courtiers, whose interest it was to poison me; I should\nbe under the necessity of taking an antidote every day. It is then\nabsolutely necessary for princes and people that the idea of a Supreme\nBeing--creating, governing, rewarding, and punishing--be profoundly\nengraved on their minds.\n\nThere are, nations of atheists, says Bayle in his \"Thoughts on Comets.\"\nThe Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and many other small populations, have no\ngod; they neither affirm nor deny that there is one; they have never\nheard of Him; tell them that there is one, and they will easily believe\nit; tell them that all is done by the nature of things, and they will\nbelieve you just the same. To pretend that they are atheists would be\nlike saying they are anti-Cartesians. They are neither for Descartes nor\nagainst him; they are no more than children; a child is neither atheist\nnor deist; he is nothing.\n\nFrom all this, what conclusion is to be drawn? That atheism is a most\npernicious monster in those who govern; that it is the same in the men\nof their cabinet, since it may extend itself from the cabinet to those\nin office; that, although less to be dreaded than fanaticism, it is\nalmost always fatal to virtue. And especially, let it be added, that\nthere are fewer atheists now than ever--since philosophers have become\npersuaded that there is no vegetative being without a germ, no germ\nwithout a design, etc., and that the corn in our fields does not spring\nfrom rottenness.\n\nUnphilosophical geometricians have rejected final causes, but true\nphilosophers admit them; and, as it is elsewhere observed, a catechist\nannounces God to children, and Newton demonstrates Him to the wise.\n\nIf there be atheists, who are to blame? Who but the mercenary tyrants of\nour souls, who, while disgusting us with their knavery, urge some weak\nspirits to deny the God whom such monsters dishonor? How often have the\npeople's bloodsuckers forced overburdened citizens to revolt against the\nking!\n\nMen who have fattened on our substance, cry out to us: \"Be persuaded\nthat an ass spoke; believe that a fish swallowed a man, and threw him up\nthree days after, safe and sound, on the shore; doubt not that the God\nof the universe ordered one Jewish prophet to eat excrement, and another\nto buy two prostitutes, and have bastards by them;\" such are the words\nput into the mouth of the God of purity and truth! Believe a hundred\nthings either visibly abominable or mathematically impossible; otherwise\nthe God of Mercy will burn you in hell-fire, not only for millions of\nmillions of ages, but for all eternity, whether you have a body or have\nnot a body.\n\nThese brutal absurdities are revolting to rash and weak minds, as well\nas to firm and wise ones. They say: \"Our teachers represent God to us as\nthe most insensate and barbarous of all beings; therefore, there is no\nGod.\" But they ought to say, \"Our teachers represent God as furious and\nridiculous, therefore God is the reverse of what they describe Him; He\nis as wise and good as they say He is foolish and wicked.\" Thus do the\nwise decide. But, if a fanatic hears them, he denounces them to a\nmagistrate--a sort of priest's officer, which officer has them burned\nalive, thinking that he is therein imitating and avenging the Divine\nMajesty which he insults.\n\n\n\n\nATHEIST.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThere were once many atheists among the Christians; they are now much\nfewer. It at first appears to be a paradox, but examination proves it to\nbe a truth, that theology often threw men's minds into atheism, until\nphilosophy at length drew them out of it. It must indeed have been\npardonable to doubt of the Divinity, when His only announcers disputed\non His nature. Nearly all the first Fathers of the Church made God\ncorporeal, and others, after them, giving Him no extent, lodged Him in a\npart of heaven. According to some, He had created the world in Time;\nwhile, according to others, He had created Time itself. Some gave Him a\nSon like to Himself; others would not grant that the Son was like to the\nFather. It was also disputed in what way a third person proceeded from\nthe other two.\n\nIt was agitated whether the Son had been, while on earth, composed of\ntwo persons. So that the question undesignedly became, whether there\nwere five persons in the Divinity--three in heaven and two for Jesus\nChrist upon earth; or four persons, reckoning Christ upon earth as only\none; or three persons, considering Christ only as God. There were\ndisputes about His mother, His descent into hell and into limbo; the\nmanner in which the body of the God-man was eaten, and the blood of the\nGod-man was drunk; on grace; on the saints, and a thousand other\nmatters. When the confidants of the Divinity were seen so much at\nvariance among themselves anathematizing one another from age to age,\nbut all agreeing in an immoderate thirst for riches and grandeur--while,\non the other hand, were beheld the prodigious number of crimes and\nmiseries which afflicted the earth, and of which many were caused by the\nvery disputes of these teachers of souls--it must be confessed that it\nwas allowable for rational men to doubt the existence of a being so\nstrangely announced, and for men of sense to imagine that a God, who\ncould of His own free will make so many beings miserable, did not exist.\n\nSuppose, for example, a natural philosopher of the fifteenth century\nreading these words in \"St. Thomas's Dream\": _\"Virtus c\u0153li, loco\nspermatis, sufficit cum elementis et putrefactione ad generationem\nanimalium imperfectorum.\"_ \"The virtue of heaven instead of seed is\nsufficient, with the elements and putrefaction, for the generation of\nimperfect animals.\" Our philosopher would reason thus: \"If corruption\nsuffices with the elements to produce unformed animals, it would appear\nthat a little more corruption, with a little more heat, would also\nproduce animals more complete. The virtue of heaven is here no other\nthan the virtue of nature. I shall then think, with Epicurus and St.\nThomas, that men may have sprung from the slime of the earth and the\nrays of the sun--a noble origin, too, for beings so wretched and so\nwicked. Why should I admit a creating God, presented to me under so many\ncontradictory and revolting aspects?\" But at length physics arose, and\nwith them philosophy. Then it was clearly discovered that the mud of the\nNile produced not a single insect, nor a single ear of corn, and men\nwere found to acknowledge throughout, germs, relations, means, and an\nastonishing correspondence among all beings. The particles of light have\nbeen followed, which go from the sun to enlighten the globe and the ring\nof Saturn, at the distance of three hundred millions of leagues; then,\ncoming to the earth, form two opposite angles in the eye of the minutest\ninsect, and paint all nature on its retina. A philosopher was given to\nthe world who discovered the simple and sublime laws by which the\ncelestial globes move in the immensity of space. Thus the work of the\nuniverse, now that it is better known, bespeaks a workman, and so many\nnever-varying laws announce a lawgiver. Sound philosophy, therefore, has\ndestroyed atheism, to which obscure theology furnished weapons of\ndefence.\n\nBut one resource was left for the small number of difficult minds,\nwhich, being more forcibly struck by the pretended injustices of a\nSupreme Being than by his wisdom, were obstinate in denying this first\nmover. Nature has existed from all eternity; everything in nature is in\nmotion, therefore everything in it continually changes. And if\neverything is forever changing, all possible combinations must take\nplace; therefore the present combinations of all things may have been\nthe effect of this eternal motion and change alone. Take six dice, and\nit is 46,655 to one that you do not throw six times six. But still there\nis that one chance in 46,656. So, in the infinity of ages, any one of\nthe infinite number of combinations, as that of the present arrangement\nof the universe, is not impossible.\n\nMinds, otherwise rational, have been misled by these arguments; but they\nhave not considered that there is infinity against them, and that there\ncertainly is not infinity against the existence of God. They should,\nmoreover, consider that if everything were changing, the smallest things\ncould not remain unchanged, as they have so long done. They have at\nleast no reason to advance why new species are not formed every day. On\nthe contrary, it is very probable that a powerful hand, superior to\nthese continual changes, keeps all species within the bounds it, has\nprescribed them. Thus the philosopher, who acknowledges a God, has a\nnumber of probabilities on his side, while the atheist has only doubts.\n\nIt is evident that in morals it is much better to acknowledge a God than\nnot to admit one. It is certainly to the interest of all men that there\nshould be a Divinity to punish what human, justice cannot repress; but\nit is also clear that it were better to acknowledge no God than to\nworship a barbarous one, and offer Him human victims, as so many nations\nhave done.\n\nWe have one striking example, which places this truth beyond a doubt.\nThe Jews, under Moses, had no idea of the immortality of the soul, nor\nof a future state. Their lawgiver announced to them, from God, only\nrewards and punishments purely temporal; they, therefore, had only this\nlife to provide for. Moses commands the Levites to kill twenty-three\nthousand of their brethren for having had a golden or gilded calf. On\nanother occasion twenty-four thousand of them are massacred for having\nhad commerce with the young women of the country; and twelve thousand\nare struck dead because some few of them had wished to support the ark,\nwhich was near falling. It may, with perfect reverence for the decrees\nof Providence, be affirmed, humanly speaking, that it would have been\nmuch better for these fifty-nine thousand men, who believed in no future\nstate, to have been absolute atheists and have lived, than to have been\nmassacred in the name of the God whom they acknowledged.\n\nIt is quite certain that atheism is not taught in the schools of the\nlearned of China, but many of those learned men are atheists, for they\nare indifferent philosophers. Now it would undoubtedly be better to live\nwith them at Pekin, enjoying the mildness of their manners and their\nlaws, than to be at Goa, liable to groan in irons, in the prisons of the\ninquisition, until brought out in a brimstone-colored garment,\nvariegated with devils, to perish in the flames.\n\nThey who have maintained that a society of atheists may exist have then\nbeen right, for it is laws that form society, and these atheists, being\nmoreover philosophers, may lead a very wise and happy life under the\nshade of those laws. They will certainly live in society more easily\nthan superstitious fanatics. People one town with Epicureans such as\nSimonides, Protagoras, Des Barreux, Spinoza; and another with Jansenists\nand Molinists. In which do you think there will be the most quarrels and\ntumults? Atheism, considering it only with relation to this life, would\nbe very dangerous among a ferocious people, and false ideas of the\nDivinity would be no less pernicious. Most of the great men of this\nworld live as if they were atheists. Every man who has lived with his\neyes open knows that the knowledge of a God, His presence, and His\njustice, has not the slightest influence over the wars, the treaties,\nthe objects of ambition, interest or pleasure, in the pursuit of which\nthey are wholly occupied. Yet we do not see that they grossly violate\nthe rules established in society. It is much more agreeable to pass our\nlives among them than among the superstitious and fanatical. I do, it is\ntrue, expect more justice from one who believes in a God than from one\nwho has no such belief; but from the superstitious I look only for\nbitterness and persecution. Atheism and fanaticism are two monsters\nwhich may tear society in pieces; but the atheist preserves his reason,\nwhich checks his propensity to mischief, while the fanatic is under the\ninfluence of a madness which is constantly urging him on.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIn England, as everywhere else, there have been, and there still are,\nmany atheists by principle; for there are none but young, inexperienced\npreachers, very ill-informed of what passes in the world, who affirm\nthat there cannot be atheists. I have known some in France, who were\nquite good natural philosophers; and have, I own, been very much\nsurprised that men who could so ably develop the secret springs of\nnature should obstinately refuse to acknowledge the hand which so\nevidently puts those springs in action.\n\nIt appears to me that one of the principles which leads them to\nmaterialism is that they believe in the plentitude and infinity of the\nuniverse, and the eternity of matter. It must be this which misleads\nthem, for almost all the Newtonians whom I have met admit the void and\nthe termination of matter, and consequently admit a God.\n\nIndeed, if matter be infinite, as so many philosophers, even including\nDescartes, pretend, it has of itself one of the attributes of the\nSupreme Being: if a void be impossible, matter exists of necessity; it\nhas existed from all eternity. With these principles, therefore, we may\ndispense with God, creating, modifying, and preserving matter.\n\nI am aware that Descartes, and most of the schools which have believed\nin the _plenum_, and the infinity of matter, have nevertheless admitted\na God; but this is only because men scarcely ever reason or act upon\ntheir principles.\n\nHad men reasoned, consequently, Epicurus and his apostle Lucretius must\nhave been the most religious assertors of the Providence which they\ncombated; for when they admitted the void and the termination of matter,\na truth of which they had only an imperfect glimpse, it necessarily\nfollowed that matter was the being of necessity, existing by itself,\nsince it was not indefinite. They had, therefore, in their own\nphilosophy, and in their own despite, a demonstration that there is a\nSupreme Being, necessary, infinite, the fabricator of the universe.\nNewton's philosophy, which admits and proves the void and finite matter,\nalso demonstratively proves the existence of a God.\n\nThus I regard true philosophers as the apostles of the Divinity. Each\nclass of men requires its particular ones; a parish catechist tells\nchildren that there is a God, but Newton proves it to the wise.\n\nIn London, under Charles II. after Cromwell's wars, as at Paris under\nHenry IV. after the war of the Guises, people took great pride in being\natheists; having passed from the excess of cruelty to that of pleasure,\nand corrupted their minds successively by war and by voluptuousness,\nthey reasoned very indifferently. Since then the more nature has been\nstudied the better its Author has been known.\n\nOne thing I will venture to believe, which is, that of all religions,\ntheism is the most widely spread in the world. It is the prevailing\nreligion of China; it is that of the wise among the Mahometans; and,\namong Christian philosophers, eight out of ten are of the same opinion.\nIt has penetrated even into the schools of theology, into the cloisters,\ninto the conclave; it is a sort of sect without association, without\nworship, without ceremonies, without disputes, and without zeal, spread\nthrough the world without having been preached. Theism, like Judaism, is\nto be found amidst all religions; but it is singular that the latter,\nwhich is the extreme of superstition, abhorred by the people and\ncontemned by the wise, is everywhere tolerated for money; while the\nformer, which is the opposite of superstition, unknown to the people,\nand embraced by philosophers alone, is publicly exercised nowhere but in\nChina. There is no country in Europe where there are more theists than\nin England. Some persons ask whether they have a religion or not.\n\nThere are two sorts of theists. The one sort think that God made the\nworld without giving man rules for good and evil. It is clear that these\nshould have no other name than that of philosophers.\n\nThe others believe that God gave to man a natural law. These, it is\ncertain, have a religion, though they have no external worship. They\nare, with reference to the Christian religion, peaceful enemies, which\nshe carries in her bosom; they renounce without any design of destroying\nher. All other sects desire to predominate, like political bodies, which\nseek to feed on the substance of others, and rise upon their ruin;\ntheism has always lain quiet. Theists have never been found caballing in\nany state.\n\nThere was in London a society of theists, who for some time continued to\nmeet together. They had a small book of their laws, in which religion,\non which so many ponderous volumes have been written, occupied only two\npages. Their principal axiom was this: \"Morality is the same among all\nmen; therefore it comes from God. Worship is various; therefore it is\nthe work of man.\"\n\nThe second axiom was: \"Men, being all brethren, and acknowledging the\nsame God, it is execrable that brethren should persecute brethren,\nbecause they testify their love for the common father in a different\nmanner. Indeed,\" said they, \"what upright man would kill his elder\nbrother because one of them had saluted their father after the Chinese\nand the other after the Dutch fashion, especially while it was undecided\nin what way the father wished their reverence to be made to him? Surely\nhe who should act thus would be a bad brother rather than a good son.\"\n\nI am well aware that these maxims lead directly to \"the abominable and\nexecrable dogma of toleration\"; but I do no more than simply relate the\nfact. I am very careful not to become a controversialist. It must,\nhowever, be admitted that if the different sects into which Christians\nhave been divided had possessed this moderation, Christianity would have\nbeen disturbed by fewer disorders, shaken by fewer revolutions, and\nstained with less blood.\n\nLet us pity the theists for combating our holy revelation. But whence\ncomes it that so many Calvinists, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Nestorians,\nArians, partisans of Rome, and enemies of Rome, have been so sanguinary,\nso barbarous, and so miserable, now persecuting, now persecuted? It is\nbecause they have been the multitude. Whence is it that theists, though\nin error, have never done harm to mankind? Because they have been\nphilosophers. The Christian religion has cost the human species\nseventeen millions of men, reckoning only one million per century, who\nhave perished either by the hands of the ordinary executioner, or by\nthose of executioners paid and led to battle--all for the salvation of\nsouls and the greater glory of God.\n\nI have heard men express astonishment that a religion so moderate, and\nso apparently conformable to reason, as theism, has not been spread\namong the people. Among the great and little vulgar may be found pious\nherb-women, Molinist duchesses, scrupulous seamstresses who would go to\nthe stake for anabaptism, devout hackney-coachmen, most determined in\nthe cause of Luther or of Arius, but no theists; for theism cannot so\nmuch be called a religion as a system of philosophy, and the vulgar,\nwhether great or little, are not philosophers.\n\nLocke was a declared theist. I was astonished to find, in that great\nphilosopher's chapter on innate ideas, that men have all different ideas\nof justice. Were such the case, morality would no longer be the same;\nthe voice of God would not be heard by man; natural religion would be at\nan end. I am willing to believe, with him, that there are nations in\nwhich men eat their fathers, and where to lie with a neighbor's wife is\nto do him a friendly office; but if this be true it does not prove that\nthe law, \"Do not unto others that which you would not have others do\nunto you,\" is not general. For if a father be eaten, it is when he has\ngrown old, is too feeble to crawl along, and would otherwise be eaten by\nthe enemy. And, I ask, what father would not furnish a good meal to his\nson rather than to the enemies of his nation? Besides, he who eats his\nfather hopes that he in turn shall be eaten by his children.\n\nIf a service be rendered to a neighbor by lying with his wife, it is\nwhen he cannot himself have a child, and is desirous of having one;\notherwise he would be very angry. In both these cases, and in all\nothers, the natural law, \"Do not to another that which you would not\nhave another do to you,\" remains unbroken. All the other rules, so\ndifferent and so varied, may be referred to this. When, therefore, the\nwise metaphysician, Locke, says that men have no innate ideas, that they\nhave different ideas of justice and injustice, he assuredly does not\nmean to assert that God has not given to all men that instinctive\nself-love by which they are of necessity guided.\n\n\n\n\nATOMS.\n\n\nEpicurus, equally great as a genius, and respectable in his morals; and\nafter him Lucretius, who forced the Latin language to express\nphilosophical ideas, and--to the great admiration of Rome--to express\nthem in verse--Epicurus and Lucretius, I say, admitted atoms and the\nvoid. Gassendi supported this doctrine, and Newton demonstrated it. In\nvain did a remnant of Cartesianism still combat for the plenum; in vain\ndid Leibnitz, who had at first adopted the rational system of Epicurus,\nLucretius, Gassendi, and Newton, change his opinion respecting the void\nafter he had embroiled himself with his master Newton. The plenum is now\nregarded as a chimera.\n\nIn this Epicurus and Lucretius appear to have been true philosophers,\nand their intermediaries, who have been so much ridiculed, were no other\nthan the unresisting space in which Newton has demonstrated that the\nplanets move round their orbits in times proportioned to their areas.\nThus it was not Epicurus' intermediaries, but his opponents, that were\nridiculous. But when Epicurus afterwards tells us that his atoms\ndeclined in the void by chance; that this declination formed men and\nanimals by chance; that the eyes were placed in the upper part of the\nhead and the feet at the end of the legs by chance; that ears were not\ngiven to hear, but that the declination of atoms having fortuitously\ncomposed ears, men fortuitously made use of them to hear with--this\nmadness, called physics, has been very justly turned into ridicule.\n\nSound philosophy, then, has long distinguished what is good in Epicurus\nand Lucretius, from their chimeras, founded on imagination and\nignorance. The most submissive minds have adopted the doctrine of\ncreation in time, and the most daring have admitted that of creation\nbefore all time. Some have received with faith a universe produced from\nnothing; others, unable to comprehend this doctrine in physics, have\nbelieved that all beings were emanations from the Great--the Supreme and\nUniversal Being; but all have rejected the fortuitous concurrence of\natoms; all have acknowledged that chance is a word without meaning. What\nwe call chance can be no other than the unknown cause of a known effect.\nWhence comes it then, that philosophers are still accused of thinking\nthat the stupendous and indescribable arrangement of the universe is a\nproduction of the fortuitous concurrence of atoms--an effect of chance?\nNeither Spinoza nor any one else has advanced this absurdity.\n\nYet the son of the great Racine says, in his poem on Religion:\n\n     _O toi! qui follement fais ton Dieu du hasard,_\n     _Viens me d\u00e9velopper ce nid qu'avec tant d'art,_\n     _Au m\u00eame ordre toujours architecte fid\u00e8le,_\n     _A l'aide de son bee ma\u00e7onne l'hirondelle;_\n     _Comment, pour \u00e9lever ce hardi b\u00e2timent,_\n     _A-t-elle en le broyant arrondi son ciment?_\n\n     Oh ye, who raise Creation out of chance,\n     As erst Lucretius from th' atomic dance!\n     Come view with me the swallow's curious nest,\n     Where beauty, art, and order, shine confessed.\n     How could rude chance, forever dark and blind,\n     Preside within the little builder's mind?\n     Could she, with accidents unnumbered crowned,\n     Its mass concentrate, and its structure round!\n\nThese lines are assuredly thrown away. No one makes chance his God; no\none has said that while a swallow \"tempers his clay, it takes the form\nof his abode by chance.\" On the contrary, it is said that \"he makes his\nnest by the laws of necessity,\" which is the opposite of chance.\n\nThe only question now agitated is, whether the author of nature has\nformed primordial parts unsusceptible of division, or if all is\ncontinually dividing and changing into other elements. The first system\nseems to account for everything, and the second, hitherto at least, for\nnothing.\n\nIf the first elements of things were not indestructible one element\nmight at last swallow up all the rest, and change them into its own\nsubstance. Hence, perhaps it was that Empedocles imagined that\neverything came from fire, and would be destroyed by fire.\n\nThis question of atoms involves another, that of the divisibility of\nmatter _ad infinitum_. The word _atom_ signifies _without parts--not to\nbe divided._ You divide it in thought, for if you were to divide it in\nreality it would no longer be an atom.\n\nYou may divide a grain of gold into eighteen millions of visible parts;\na grain of copper dissolved in spirit of sal ammoniac has exhibited\nupwards of twenty-two thousand parts; but when you have arrived at the\nlast element the atom escapes the microscope, and you can divide no\nfurther except in imagination.\n\nThe infinite divisibility of atoms is like some propositions in\ngeometry. You may pass an infinity of curves between a circle and its\ntangent, supposing the circle and the tangent to be lines without\nbreadth; but there are no such lines in nature.\n\nYou likewise establish that asymptotes will approach one another without\never meeting; but it is under the supposition that they are lines\nhaving length without breadth--things which have only a speculative\nexistence.\n\nSo, also, we represent unity by a line, and divide this line and this\nunity into as many fractions as you please; but this infinity of\nfractions will never be any other than our unity and our line.\n\nIt is not strictly demonstrated that atoms are indivisible, but it\nappears that they are not divided by the laws of nature.\n\n\n\n\nAVARICE.\n\n\nAvarities, _amor habendi_--desire of having, avidity, covetousness.\nProperly speaking, avarice is the desire of accumulating, whether in\ngrain, movables, money, or curiosities. There were avaricious men long\nbefore coin was invented.\n\nWe do not call a man avaricious who has four and twenty coach horses,\nyet will not lend one to his friend: or who, having two thousand bottles\nof Burgundy in his cellar, will not send you half a dozen, when he knows\nyou to be in want of them. If he show you a hundred thousand crowns'\nworth of diamonds you do not think of asking him to present you with one\nworth twenty livres; you consider him as a man of great magnificence,\nbut not at all avaricious.\n\nHe who in finance, in army contracts, and great undertakings gained two\nmillions each year, and who, when possessed of forty-three millions,\nbesides his houses at Paris and his movables, expended fifty thousand\ncrowns per annum for his table, and sometimes lent money to noblemen at\nfive per cent, interest, did not pass, in the minds of the people, for\nan avaricious man. He had, however, all his life burned with the thirst\nof gain; the demon of covetousness was perpetually tormenting him; he\ncontinued to accumulate to the last day of his life. This passion, which\nwas constantly gratified, has never been called avarice. He did not\nexpend a tenth part of his income, yet he had the reputation of a\ngenerous man, too fond of splendor.\n\nA father of a family who, with an income of twenty thousand livres,\nexpends only five or six, and accumulates his savings to portion his\nchildren, has the reputation among his neighbors of being avaricious,\nmean, stingy, a niggard, a miser, a grip-farthing; and every abusive\nepithet that can be thought of is bestowed upon him.\n\nNevertheless this good citizen is much more to be honored than the\nCr\u0153sus I have just mentioned; he expends three times as much in\nproportion. But the cause of the great difference between their\nreputations is this:\n\nMen hate the individual whom they call avaricious only because there is\nnothing to be gained by him. The physician, the apothecary, the\nwine-merchant, the draper, the grocer, the saddler, and a few girls gain\na good deal by our Croesus, who is truly avaricious. But with our close\nand economical citizen there is nothing to be done. Therefore he is\nloaded with maledictions.\n\nAs for those among the avaricious who deprive themselves of the\nnecessaries of life, we leave them to Plautus and Moli\u00e8re.\n\n\n\n\nAUGURY.\n\n\nMust not a man be very thoroughly possessed by the demon of etymology to\nsay, with Pezron and others, that the Roman word _augurium_ came from\nthe Celtic words _au_ and _gur_? According to these learned men _au_\nmust, among the Basques and Bas-Bretons, have signified _the liver_,\nbecause _asu_, which, (say they) signified _left_, doubtless stood for\nthe liver, which is on the _right_ side; and _gur_ meant _man_, or\n_yellow_, or _red_, in that Celtic tongue of which we have not one\nmemorial. Truly this is powerful reasoning.\n\nAbsurd curiosity (for we must call things by their right names) has been\ncarried so far as to seek Hebrew and Chaldee derivations from certain\nTeutonic and Celtic words. This, Bochart never fails to do. It is\nastonishing with what confidence these men of genius have proved that\nexpressions used on the banks of the Tiber were borrowed from the patois\nof the savages of Biscay. Nay, they even assert that this patois was one\nof the first idioms of the primitive language--the parent of all other\nlanguages throughout the world. They have only to proceed, and say that\nall the various notes of birds come from the cry of the two first\nparrots, from which every other species of birds has been produced.\n\nThe religious folly of auguries was originally founded on very sound and\nnatural observations. The birds of passage have always marked the\nprogress of the seasons. We see them come in flocks in the spring, and\nreturn in the autumn. The cuckoo is heard only in fine weather, which\nhis note seems to invite. The swallows, skimming along the ground,\nannounce rain. Each climate has its bird, which is in effect its augury.\n\nAmong the observing part of mankind there were, no doubt, knaves who\npersuaded fools that there was something divine in these animals, and\nthat their flight presaged our destinies, which were written on the\nwings of a sparrow just as clearly as in the stars.\n\nThe commentators on the allegorical and interesting story of Joseph sold\nby his brethren, and made Pharaoh's prime minister for having explained\nhis dreams, infer that Joseph was skilled in the science of auguries,\nfrom the circumstance that Joseph's steward is commanded to say to his\nbrethren, \"Is not this it (the silver cup) in which my lord drinketh?\nand whereby indeed he divineth?\" Joseph, having caused his brethren to\nbe brought back before him, says to them: \"What deed is this that ye\nhave done? Wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?\"\n\nJudah acknowledges, in the name of his brethren, that Joseph is a great\ndiviner, and that God has inspired him: \"God hath found out the iniquity\nof thy servants.\" At that time they took Joseph for an Egyptian lord. It\nis evident from the text that they believe the God of the Egyptians and\nof the Jews had discovered to this minister the theft of his cup.\n\nHere, then, we have auguries or divination clearly established in the\nBook of Genesis; so clearly that it is afterwards forbidden in\nLeviticus: \"Ye shall not eat anything with the blood; neither shall ye\nuse enchantment nor observe times. Ye shall not round the corners of\nyour heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.\"\n\nAs for the superstition of seeing the future in a cup, it still exists,\nand is called seeing in a glass. The individual must never have known\npollution; he must turn towards the east, and pronounce the words,\n_Abraxa per dominum nostrum_, after which he will see in a glass of\nwater whatever he pleases. Children were usually chosen for this\noperation. They must retain their hair; a shaven head, or one wearing a\nwig, can see nothing in a glass. This pastime was much in vogue in\nFrance during the regency of the duke of Orleans, and still more so in\nthe times preceding.\n\nAs for auguries, they perished with the Roman Empire. Only the bishops\nhave retained the augurial staff, called the crosier; which was the\ndistinctive mark of the dignity of augur; so that the symbol of\nfalsehood has become the symbol of truth.\n\nThere were innumerable kinds of divinations, of which several have\nreached our latter ages. This curiosity to read the future is a malady\nwhich only philosophy can cure, for the weak minds that still practise\nthese pretended arts of divination--even the fools who give themselves\nto the devils--all make religion subservient to these profanations, by\nwhich it is outraged.\n\nIt is an observation worthy of the wise, that Cicero, who was one of the\ncollege of augurs, wrote a book for the sole purpose of turning auguries\ninto ridicule; but they have likewise remarked that Cicero, at the end\nof his book, says that \"superstition should be destroyed, but not\nreligion. For,\" he adds, \"the beauty of the universe, and the order of\nthe heavenly bodies force us to acknowledge an eternal and powerful\nnature. We must maintain the religion which is joined with the knowledge\nof this nature, by utterly extirpating superstition, for it is a monster\nwhich pursues and presses us on every side. The meeting with a pretended\ndiviner, a presage, an immolated victim, a bird, a Chald\u00e6an, an\naruspice, a flash of lightning, a clap of thunder, an event accidentally\ncorresponding with what has been foretold to us, everything disturbs and\nmakes us uneasy; sleep itself, which should make us forget all these\npains and fears, serves but to redouble them by frightful images.\"\n\nCicero thought he was addressing only a few Romans, but he was speaking\nto all men and all ages.\n\nMost of the great men of Rome no more believed in auguries than\nAlexander VI., Julius II., and Leo X., believed in Our Lady of Loretto\nand the blood of St. Januarius. However, Suetonius relates that\nOctavius, surnamed Augustus, was so weak as to believe that a fish,\nwhich leaped from the sea upon the shore at Actium, foreboded that he\nshould gain the battle. He adds that, having afterwards met an\nass-driver, he asked him the name of his ass; and the man having\nanswered that his ass was named Nicholas, which signifies conqueror of\nnations, he had no longer any doubts about the victory; and that he\nafterwards had brazen statues erected to the ass-driver, the ass, and\nthe jumping fish. He further assures us that these statues were placed\nin the Capitol.\n\nIt is very likely that this able tyrant laughed at the superstitions of\nthe Romans, and that his ass, the driver, and the fish, were nothing\nmore than a joke. But it is no less likely that, while he despised all\nthe follies of the vulgar, he had a few of his own. The barbarous and\ndissimulating Louis XI. had a firm faith in the cross of St. Louis.\nAlmost all princes, excepting such as have had time to read, and read to\nadvantage, are in some degree infected with superstition.\n\n\n\n\nAUGUSTINE.\n\n\nAugustine, a native of Tagaste, is here to be considered, not as a\nbishop, a doctor, a father of the Church, but simply as a man. This is a\nquestion in physics, respecting the climate of Africa.\n\nWhen a youth, Augustine was a great libertine, and the spirit was no\nless quick in him than the flesh. He says that before he was twenty\nyears old he had learned arithmetic, geometry and music without a\nmaster.\n\nDoes not this prove that, in Africa, which we now call Barbary, both\nminds and bodies advance to maturity more rapidly than among us?\n\nThese valuable advantages of St. Augustine would lead one to believe\nthat Empedocles was not altogether in the wrong when he regarded fire as\nthe principle of nature. It is assisted, but by subordinate agents. It\nis like a king governing the actions of all his subjects, and sometimes\ninflaming the imaginations of his people rather too much. It is not\nwithout reason that Syphax says to Juba, in the Cato of Addison, that\nthe sun which rolls its fiery car over African heads places a deeper\ntinge upon the cheeks, and a fiercer flame within their hearts. That the\ndames of Zama are vastly superior to the pale beauties of the north:\n\n    The glowing dames of Zama's royal court\n    Have faces flushed with more exalted charms;\n    Were you with these, my prince, you'd soon forget\n    The pale unripened beauties of the north.\n\nWhere shall we find in Paris, Strasburg, Ratisbon, or Vienna young men\nwho have learned arithmetic, the mathematics and music without\nassistance, and who have been fathers at fourteen?\n\nDoubtless it is no fable that Atlas, prince of Mauritania, called by the\nGreeks the son of heaven, was a celebrated astronomer, and constructed a\ncelestial sphere such as the Chinese have had for so many ages. The\nancients, who expressed everything in allegory, likened this prince to\nthe mountain which bears his name, because it lifts its head above the\nclouds, which have been called the heavens by all mankind who have\njudged of things only from the testimony of their eyes.\n\nThese Moors cultivated the sciences with success, and taught Spain and\nItaly for five centuries. Things are greatly altered. The country of\nAugustine is now but a den of pirates, while England, Italy, Germany,\nand France, which were involved in barbarism, are greater cultivators of\nthe arts than ever the Arabians were.\n\nOur only object, then, in this article is to show how changeable a scene\nthis world is. Augustine, from a debauchee, becomes an orator and a\nphilosopher; he puts himself forward in the world; he teaches rhetoric;\nhe turns Manich\u00e6an, and from Manich\u00e6anism passes to Christianity. He\ncauses himself to be baptized, together with one of his bastards, named\nDeodatus; he becomes a bishop, and a father of the Church. His system of\ngrace has been reverenced for eleven hundred years as an article of\nfaith. At the end of eleven hundred years some Jesuits find means to\nprocure an anathema against Augustine's system, word for word, under the\nnames of Jansenius, St. Cyril, Arnaud, and Quesnel. We ask if this\nrevolution is not, in its kind, as great as that of Africa, and if there\nbe anything permanent upon earth?\n\n\n\n\nAUGUSTUS (OCTAVIUS).\n\n\n_The Morals of Augustus._\n\nManners can be known only from facts, which facts must be incontestable.\nIt is beyond doubt that this man, so immoderately praised as the\nrestorer of morals and of laws, was long one of the most infamous\ndebauchees in the Roman commonwealth. His epigram on Fulvia, written\nafter the horrors of the proscriptions, proves that he was no less a\ndespiser of decency in his language than he was a barbarian in his\nconduct. This abominable epigram is one of the strongest testimonies to\nAugustus' infamous immorality. Sextus Pompeius also reproached him with\nshameful weaknesses: _\"Effeminatum infectatus est.\"_ Antony, before the\ntriumvirate, declared that C\u00e6sar, great-uncle to Augustus, had adopted\nhim as his son only because he had been subservient to his pleasures;\n_\"Adopt ionem avunculi stupro meritum.\"_\n\nLucius C\u00e6sar charged him with the same crime, and even asserted that he\nhad been base enough to sell himself to Hirtius for a very considerable\nsum. He was so shameless as to take the wife of a consul from her\nhusband in the midst of a supper; he took her to a neighboring closet,\nstaid with her there for some time, and brought her back to table\nwithout himself, the woman, or her husband blushing at all at the\nproceeding.\n\nWe have also a letter from Antony to Augustus, couched in these terms:\n_\"Ita valeas ut hanc epistolam cum leges, non inieris Testullam, aut\nTerentillam, aut Russillam, aut Salviam, aut omnes. Anne refert ubi et\nin quam arrigas?\"_ We are afraid to translate this licentious letter.\n\nNothing is better known than the scandalous feast of five of the\ncompanions of his pleasures with five of the principal women of Rome.\nThey were dressed up as gods and goddesses, and imitated all the\nimmodesties invented in fable--_\"Bum nova Divorum c\u0153nat adulteria.\"_\nAnd on the stage he was publicly designated by this famous line:\n\n     _Videsne ut cinaedus orbem digito temperet?_\n\nAlmost every Latin author that speaks of Ovid asserts that Augustus had\nthe insolence to banish that Roman knight, who was a much better man\nthan himself, merely because the other had surprised him in an incest\nwith his own daughter Julia; and that he sent his daughter into exile\nonly through jealousy. This is the more likely, as Caligula published\naloud that his mother was born from the incest of Augustus with Julia.\nSo says Suetonius, in his life of Caligula.\n\nWe know that Augustus repudiated the mother of Julia the very day she\nwas brought to bed of her, and on the same day took Livia from her\nhusband when she was pregnant of Tiberius--another monster, who\nsucceeded him. Such was the man to whom Horace said: _\"Res Italas armis\ntuteris, moribus ornes, Legibus emendes....\"_\n\nIt is hard to repress our indignation at reading at the commencement of\nthe Georgics that Augustus is one of the greatest of divinities; and\nthat it is not known what place he will one day deign to occupy in\nheaven; whether he will reign in the air, or become the protector of\ncities, or vouchsafe to accept the empire of the seas:\n\n     _An Deus immensi venias maris, ac tua nauta_\n     _Numina sola celant tibi servial ultima Thule._\n\nAriosto speaks with much more sense as well as grace, when he says in\nhis fine thirty-fifth canto:\n\n     _Non fu si santo ne benigno Augusto_\n       _Come la tromba di Virgilio sonna;_\n     _L'aver avuto in poesia buon gusto_\n       _La proscriptione iniqua gli perdona._\n\n       Augustus was not quite so mild and chaste\n         As he's by honest Virgil represented;\n       But then, the tyrant had poetic taste;\n         With this the poet fully was contented.\n\n\n_The Cruelties of Augustus._\n\nIf Augustus was long abandoned to the most shameful and frantic\ndissipation, his cruelty was no less uniform and deliberate. His\nproscriptions were published in the midst of feasting and revelry; he\nproscribed more than three hundred senators, two thousand knights, and\none hundred obscure but wealthy heads of families, whose only crime was\ntheir being rich, Antony and Octavius had them killed, solely that they\nmight get possession of their money; in which they differed not the\nleast from highway robbers, who are condemned to the wheel.\n\nOctavius, immediately after the Persian war, gave his veterans all the\nlands belonging to the citizens of Mantua and Cremona, thus recompensing\nmurder by depredation.\n\nIt is but too certain that the world was ravaged, from the Euphrates to\nthe extremities of Spain, by this man without shame, without faith,\nhonor, or probity, knavish, ungrateful, avaricious, blood-thirsty, cool\nin the commission of crime, who, in any well-regulated republic, would\nhave been condemned to the greatest of punishments for the first of his\noffences.\n\nNevertheless, the government of Augustus is still admired, because under\nhim Rome tasted peace, pleasure and abundance. Seneca says of him:\n_\"Clementiam non voco lassam crudelitatem\"_--\"I do not call exhausted\ncruelty clemency.\"\n\nIt is thought that Augustus became milder when crime was no longer\nnecessary to him; and that, being absolute master, he saw that he had no\nother interest than to appear just. But it appears to me that he still\nwas pitiless rather than clement; for, after the battle of Actium, he\nhad Antony's son murdered at the feet of C\u00e6sar's statue; and he was so\nbarbarous as to have young C\u00e6sarion, the son of C\u00e6sar and Cleopatra,\nbeheaded, though he had recognized him as king of Egypt.\n\nSuspecting one day that the pr\u00e6tor Quintus Gallius had come to an\naudience with a poinard under his robe, he had him put to the torture in\nhis presence; and, in his indignation at hearing that senator call him a\ntyrant, he tore out his eyes with his own hands; at least, so says\nSuetonius.\n\nWe know that C\u00e6sar, his adopted father, was great enough to pardon\nalmost all his enemies; but I do not find that Augustus pardoned one of\nhis. I have great doubts of his pretended clemency to Cinna. This affair\nis mentioned neither by Suetonius nor by Tacitus. Suetonius, who speaks\nof all the conspiracies against Augustus, would not have failed to\nmention the most memorable. The singularity of giving a consulship to\nCinna in return for the blackest perfidy would not have escaped every\ncontemporary historian. Dion Cassius speaks of it only after Seneca; and\nthis passage in Seneca has the appearance rather of declamation than of\nhistorical truth. Besides, Seneca lays the scene in Gaul, and Dion at\nRome; this contradiction deprives the occurrence of all remaining\nverisimilitude. Not one of our Roman histories, compiled in haste and\nwithout selection, has discussed this interesting fact. Lawrence\nEchard's History has appeared to enlightened men to be as faulty as it\nis mutilated; writers have rarely been guided by the spirit of\nexamination.\n\nCinna might be suspected, or convicted, by Augustus of some infidelity;\nand, when the affair had been cleared up, he might honor him with the\nvain title of consul; but it is not at all probable that Cinna sought by\na conspiracy to seize the supreme authority--he, who had never commanded\nan army, was supported by no party, and was a man of no consideration in\nthe empire. It is not very likely that a mere subordinate courtier would\nthink of succeeding a sovereign who had been twenty years firmly\nestablished on his throne, and had heirs; nor is it more likely that\nAugustus would make him consul immediately after the conspiracy.\n\nIf Cinna's adventure be true, Augustus pardoned him only because he\ncould not do otherwise, being overcome by the reasoning or the\nimportunities of Livia, who had acquired great influence over him, and\npersuaded him, says Seneca, that pardon would do him more service than\nchastisement. It was then only through policy that he, for once, was\nmerciful; it certainly was not through generosity.\n\nShall we give a robber credit for clemency, because, being enriched and\nsecure, enjoying in peace the fruits of his rapine, he is not every day\nassassinating the sons and grandsons of the proscribed, while they are\nkneeling to and worshipping him? After being a barbarian he was a\nprudent politician. It is worthy of remark that posterity never gave\nhim the title of virtuous, which was bestowed on Titus, on Trajan, and\nthe Antonines. It even became customary in the compliments paid to\nemperors on their accession, to wish that they might be more fortunate\nthan Augustus, and more virtuous than Trajan. It is now, therefore,\nallowable to consider Augustus as a clever and fortunate monster.\n\nLouis Racine, son of the great Racine, and heir to a part of his\ntalents, seems to forget himself when he says, in his \"Reflections on\nPoetry,\" that \"Horace and Virgil spoiled Augustus; they exhausted their\nart in poisoning the mind of Augustus by their praises.\" These\nexpressions would lead one to believe that the eulogies so meanly\nlavished by these two great poets, corrupted this emperor's fine\ndisposition. But Louis Racine very well knew that Augustus was an\nexceedingly bad man, regarding crime and virtue with indifference,\navailing himself alike of the horrors of the one and the appearances of\nthe other, attentive solely to his own interest, employing bloodshed and\npeace, arms and laws, religion and pleasure, only to make himself master\nof the earth, and sacrificing everything to himself. Louis Racine only\nshows us that Virgil and Horace had servile souls.\n\nHe is, unfortunately, too much in the right when he reproaches Corneille\nwith having dedicated _\"Cinna\"_ to the financier Montoron, and said to\nthat receiver. \"What you most especially have in common with Augustus\nis the generosity with which,\" etc., for, though Augustus was the most\nwicked of Roman citizens, it must be confessed that the first of the\nemperors, the master, the pacificator, the legislator of the then known\nworld, should not be placed absolutely on a level with a clerk to a\ncomptroller-general in Gaul.\n\nThe same Louis Racine, in justly condemning the mean adulation of\nCorneille, and the baseness of the aged Horace and Virgil, marvellously\nlays hold of this passage in Massillon's _\"Petit Car\u00eame!\"_ \"It is no\nless culpable to fail in truth towards monarchs than to be wanting in\nfidelity; the same penalty should be imposed on adulation as on revolt.\"\n\nI ask your pardon, Father Massillon; but this stroke of yours is very\noratorical, very preacher-like, very exaggerated. The League and the\nFronde have, if I am not deceived, done more harm than Quinault's\nprologues. There is no way of condemning Quinault as a rebel. _\"Est\nmodus in rebus.\"_ Father Massillon, which is wanting in all\nmanufacturers of sermons.\n\n\n\n\nAVIGNON.\n\n\nAvignon and its country are monuments of what the abuse of religion,\nambition, knavery, and fanaticism united can effect. This little\ncountry, after a thousand vicissitudes, had, in the twelfth century,\npassed into the hands of the counts of Toulouse, descended from\nCharlemagne by the female side.\n\nRaymond VI., count of Toulouse, whose forefathers had been the principal\nheroes in the crusades, was stripped of his states by a crusade which\nthe pope stirred up against him. The cause of the crusade was the desire\nof having his spoils; the pretext was that in several of his towns the\ncitizens thought nearly as has been thought for upwards of two hundred\nyears in England, Sweden, Denmark, three-fourths of Switzerland,\nHolland, and half of Germany.\n\nThis was hardly a sufficient reason for _giving_, in the name of God,\nthe states of the count of Toulouse to the first occupant, and for\ndevoting to slaughter and fire his subjects, crucifix in hand, and white\ncross on shoulder. All that is related of the most savage people falls\nfar short of the barbarities committed in this war, called holy. The\nridiculous atrocity of some religious ceremonies always, accompanied\nthese horrid excesses. It is known that Raymond VI. was dragged to a\nchurch of St. Giles's, before a legate, naked to the waist, without hose\nor sandals, with a rope about his neck, which was held by a deacon,\nwhile another deacon flogged him, and a third sung _miserere_ with some\nmonks--and all the while the legate was at dinner. Such was the origin\nof the right of the popes over Avignon.\n\nCount Raymond, who had submitted to the flagellation in order to\npreserve his states, underwent this ignominy to no purpose whatever. He\nhad to defend by arms what he had thought to preserve by suffering a few\nstripes; he saw his towns laid in ashes, and died in 1213 amid the\nvicissitudes of the most sanguinary war.\n\nHis son, Raymond VII., was not, like his father, suspected of heresy;\nbut he was the son of a heretic, and was to be stripped of all his\npossessions, by virtue of the Decretals; such was the law. The crusade,\ntherefore, was continued against him; he was excommunicated in the\nchurches, on Sundays and holidays, to the sound of bells and with tapers\nextinguished.\n\nA legate who was in France during the minority of St. Louis raised\ntenths there to maintain this war in Languedoc and Provence. Raymond\ndefended himself with courage; but the heads of the hydra of fanaticism\nwere incessantly reappearing to devour him.\n\nThe pope at last made peace because all his money had been expended in\nwar. Raymond VII. came and signed the treaty before the portal of the\ncathedral of Paris. He was forced to pay ten thousand marks of silver to\nthe legate, two thousand to the abbey of Citeaux, five hundred to the\nabbey of Clairvaux, a thousand to that of Grand-Selve, and three hundred\nto that of Belleperche---all for the salvation of his soul, as is\nspecified in the treaty. So it was that the Church always negotiated.\n\nIt is very remarkable that in this document the count of Toulouse\nconstantly puts the legate before the king: \"I swear and promise to the\nlegate and to the king faithfully to observe all these things, and to\ncause them to be observed by my vassals and subjects,\" etc.\n\nThis was not all. He ceded to Pope Gregory IX. the country of Venaissin\nbeyond the Rh\u00f4ne, and the sovereignty of seventy-three castles on this\nside the same river. The pope adjudged this fine to himself by a\nparticular act, desirous that, in a public instrument, the\nacknowledgment of having exterminated so many Christians for the purpose\nof seizing upon his neighbor's goods, should not appear in so glaring a\nlight. Besides, he demanded what Raymond could not grant, without the\nconsent of the Emperor Frederick II. The count's lands, on the left bank\nof the Rh\u00f4ne, were an imperial fief, and Frederick II. never sanctioned\nthis exaction.\n\nAlphonso, brother of St. Louis, having married this unfortunate prince's\ndaughter, by whom he had no children, all the states of Raymond VII. in\nLanguedoc, devolved to the crown of France, as had been stipulated in\nthe marriage contract.\n\nThe country of Venaissin, which is in Provence, had been magnanimously\ngiven up by the Emperor Frederick II. to the count of Toulouse. His\ndaughter Joan, before her death, had disposed of them by will in favor\nof Charles of Anjou, count of Provence, and king of Naples.\n\nPhilip the Bold, son of St. Louis, being pressed by Pope Gregory IX.,\ngave the country of Venaissin to the Roman church in 1274. It must be\nconfessed that Philip the Bold gave what in no way belonged to him; that\nthis cession was absolutely null and void, and that no act ever was more\ncontrary to all law.\n\nIt is the same with the town of Avignon. Joan of France, queen of\nNaples, descended from the brother of St. Louis, having been, with but\ntoo great an appearance of justice, accused of causing her husband to be\nstrangled, desired the protection of Pope Clement VI., whose see was\nthen the town of Avignon, in Joan's domains. She was countess of\nProvence. In 1347 the Provencals made her swear, on the gospel, that she\nwould sell none of her sovereignties. She had scarcely taken this oath\nbefore she went and sold Avignon to the pope. The authentic act was not\nsigned until June 14, 1348; the sum stipulated for was eighty thousand\nflorins of gold. The pope declared her innocent of her husband's murder,\nbut never paid her. Joan's receipt has never been produced. She\nprotested juridically four several times against this deceitful\npurchase.\n\nSo that Avignon and its country were never considered to have been\ndismembered from Provence, otherwise than by a rapine, which was the\nmore manifest, as it had been sought to cover it with the cloak of\nreligion.\n\nWhen Louis XI. acquired Provence he acquired it with all the rights\nappertaining thereto; and, as appears by a letter from John of Foix to\nthat monarch, had in 1464 resolved to enforce them. But the intrigues of\nthe court of Rome were always so powerful that the kings of France\ncondescended to allow it the enjoyment of this small province. They\nnever acknowledged in the popes a lawful possession, but only a simple\nenjoyment.\n\nIn the treaty of Pisa, made by Louis XIV. with Alexander VII., in 1664,\nit is said that, \"every obstacle shall be removed, in order that the\npope may enjoy Avignon as before.\" The pope, then, had this province\nonly as cardinals have pensions from the king, which pensions are\ndiscretional. Avignon and its country were a constant source of\nembarrassment to the French government; they afforded a refuge to all\nthe bankrupts and smugglers, though very little profit thence accrued to\nthe pope.\n\nLouis XIV. twice resumed his rights; but it was rather to chastise the\npope than to reunite Avignon and its country with his crown. At length\nLouis XV. did justice to his dignity and to his subjects. The gross and\nindecent conduct of Pope Rezzonico (Clement XIII.) forced him in 1768 to\nrevive the rights of his crown. This pope had acted as if he belonged\nto the fourteenth century. He was, however, with the applause of all\nEurope, convinced that he lived in the eighteenth.\n\nWhen the officer bearing the king's orders entered Avignon, he went\nstraight to the legate's apartment, without being announced, and said to\nhim, \"Sir, the king takes possession of his town.\" There is some\ndifference between this proceeding and a count of Toulouse being flogged\nby a deacon, while a legate is at dinner. Things, we see, change with\ntimes.\n\n\n\n\nAUSTERITIES.\n\nMORTIFICATIONS. FLAGELLATIONS.\n\n\nSuppose that some chosen individuals, lovers of study, united together\nafter a thousand catastrophes had happened to the world, and employed\nthemselves in worshipping God and regulating the time of the year, as is\nsaid of the ancient Brahmins and Magi; all this is perfectly good and\nhonest. They might, by their frugal life, set an example to the rest of\nthe world; they might abstain, during the celebration of their feasts,\nfrom all intoxicating liquors, and all commerce with their wives; they\nmight be clothed modestly and decently; if they were wise, other men\nconsulted them; if they were just, they were loved and reverenced. But\ndid not superstition, brawling, and vanity soon take the place of the\nvirtues?\n\nWas not the first madman that flogged himself publicly to appease the\ngods the original of the priests of the Syrian goddess, who flogged\nthemselves in her honor; of the priests of Isis, who did the same on\ncertain days; of the priests of Dodona, named Salii, who inflicted\nwounds on themselves; of the priests of Bellona, who struck themselves\nwith sabres; of the priests of Diana, who drew blood from their backs\nwith rods; of the priests of Cybele, who made themselves eunuchs; of the\nfakirs of India, who loaded themselves with chains? Has the hope of\nobtaining abundant alms nothing at all to do with the practice of these\nausterities?\n\nIs there not some similarity between the beggars, who make their legs\nswell by a certain application and cover their bodies with sores, in\norder to force a few pence from the passengers, and the impostors of\nantiquity, who seated themselves upon nails, and sold the holy nails to\nthe devout of their country?\n\nAnd had vanity never any share in promoting these public mortifications,\nwhich attracted the eyes of the multitude? \"I scourge myself, but it is\nto expiate your faults; I go naked, but it is to reproach you with the\nrichness of your garments; I feed on herbs and snails, but it is to\ncorrect in you the vice of gluttony; I wear an iron ring to make you\nblush at your lewdness. Reverence me as one cherished by the gods, and\nwho will bring down their favors upon you. When you shall be accustomed\nto reverence me, you will not find it hard to obey me; I will be your\nmaster, in the name of the gods; and then, if any one of you disobey my\nwill in the smallest particular, I will have you impaled to appease the\nwrath of heaven.\"\n\nIf the first fakirs did not pronounce these words, it is very probable\nthat they had them engraved at the bottom of their hearts.\n\nHuman sacrifices, perhaps, had their origin in these frantic\nausterities. Men who drew their blood in public with rods, and mangled\ntheir arms and thighs to gain consideration, would easily make imbecile\nsavages believe that they must sacrifice to the gods whatever was\ndearest to them; that to have a fair wind, they must immolate a\ndaughter; to avert pestilence, precipitate a son from a rock; to have\ninfallibly a good harvest, throw a daughter into the Nile.\n\nThese Asiatic superstitions gave rise to the flagellations which we have\nimitated from the Jews. Their devotees still flog themselves, and flog\none another, as the priests of Egypt and Syria did of old. Among us the\nabbots flogged their monks, and the confessors their penitents--of both\nsexes. St. Augustine wrote to Marcellinus, the tribune, that \"the\nDonatists must be whipped as schoolmasters whip their scholars.\"\n\nIt is said that it was not until the tenth century that monks and nuns\nbegan to scourge themselves on certain days of the year. The custom of\nscourging sinners as a penance was so well established that St. Louis's\nconfessor often gave him the whip. Henry II. was flogged by the monks\nof Canterbury (in 1207). Raymond, count of Toulouse, with a rope round\nhis neck, was flogged by a deacon, at the door of St. Giles's church, as\nhas before been said.\n\nThe chaplains to Louis VIII., king of France, were condemned by the\npope's legate to go at the four great feasts to the door of the\ncathedral of Paris, and present rods to the canons, that they might flog\nthem in expiation for the crime of the king, their master, who had\naccepted the crown of England, which the pope had taken from him by\nvirtue of the plenitude of his power. Indeed, the pope showed great\nindulgence in not having the king himself whipped, but contenting\nhimself with commanding him, on pain of damnation, to pay to the\napostolic chamber the amount of two years' revenue.\n\nFrom this custom is derived that which still exists, of arming all the\ngrand-penitentiaries in St. Peter's at Rome with long wands instead of\nrods, with which they give gentle taps to the penitents, lying all their\nlength on the floor. In this manner it was that Henry IV., of France,\nhad his posteriors flogged by Cardinal Ossat and Duperron. So true is it\nthat we have scarcely yet emerged from barbarism.\n\nAt the commencement of the thirteenth century fraternities of penitents\nwere formed at Perosia and Bologna. Young men almost naked, with a rod\nin one hand and a small crucifix in the other, flogged themselves in\nthe streets; while the women peeped through the window-blinds and\nwhipped themselves in their chambers.\n\nThese flagellators inundated Europe; there are many of them still to be\nfound in Italy, in Spain, and even in France, at Perpignan. At the\nbeginning of the sixteenth century it was very common for confessors to\nwhip the posteriors of their penitents. A history of the Low Countries,\ncomposed by Meteren, relates that a cordelier named Adriacem, a great\npreacher at Bruges, used to whip his female penitents quite naked.\n\nThe Jesuit Edmund Auger, confessor to Henry III., persuaded that\nunfortunate prince to put himself at the head of the flagellators.\n\nFlogging the posteriors is practised in various convents of monks and\nnuns; from which custom there have sometimes resulted strange\nimmodesties, over which _we_ must throw a veil, in order to spare the\nblushes of such as wear the _sacred_ veil, and whose sex and profession\nare worthy of our highest regard.\n\n\n\n\nAUTHORS.\n\n\nAuthor is a generic term, which, like the names of all other\nprofessions, may signify author of the good, or of the bad; of the\nrespectable, or of the ridiculous; of the useful, or the agreeable; or\nlastly, the producer of disgusting trash.\n\nThis name is also common to different things. We say equally the author\nof nature and the author of the songs of the Pont Neuf, or of the\nliterary age. The author of a good work should beware of three\nthings--title, dedication, and preface. Others should take care of the\nfourth, which is writing at all.\n\nAs to the title, if the author has the wish to put his name to it, which\nis often very dangerous, it should at least be under a modest form; it\nis not pleasant to see a pious work, full of lessons of humanity, by Sir\nor My Lord. The reader; who is always malicious, and who often is\nwearied, usually turns into ridicule a book that is announced with so\nmuch ostentation. The author of the \"Imitation of Jesus Christ\" did not\nput his name to it.\n\nBut the apostles, you will say, put their names to their works; that is\nnot true, they were too modest. The apostle Matthew never entitled his\nbook the Gospel of St. Matthew; it is a homage that has been paid to him\nsince. St. Luke himself, who collected all that he had heard said, and\nwho dedicated his book to Theophilus, did not call it the Gospel of St.\nLuke. St. John alone mentions himself in the Apocalypse; and it is\nsupposed that this book was written by Cerinthus, who took the name of\nJohn to give authority to his production.\n\nHowever it may have been in past ages, it appears to me very bold in\nauthors now to put names and titles at the head of their works. The\nbishops never fail to do so, and the thick quartos which they give us\nunder the title of mandaments are decorated with armorial bearings and\nthe insignia of their station; a word, no doubt, is said about Christian\nhumility, but this word is often followed by atrocious calumnies against\nthose who are of another communion or party. We only speak here,\nhowever, of poor profane authors. The duke de la Rochefoucauld did not\nannounce his thoughts as the production of _Monseigneur le dud de la\nRochefoucauld, pair de France_. Some persons who only make compilations\nin which there may be fine things, will find it injudicious to announce\nthem as the work of A.B., professor of the university of ----, doctor of\ndivinity, member of this or of that academy, and so on. So many\ndignities do not render the book better. It will still be wished that it\nwas shorter, more philosophical, less filled with old stories. With\nrespect to titles and quality, nobody cares about them.\n\nDedications are often only offerings from interested baseness to\ndisdainful vanity. Who would believe that Rohaut, _soi-disant_\nphysician, in his dedication to the duke of Guise, told him that his\nancestors had maintained, at the expense of their blood, political\ntruth, the fundamental laws of the state, and the rights of sovereigns?\nLe Balafr\u00e9 and the duke of Mayenne would be a little surprised if this\nepistle were read to them in the other world. And what would Henry IV.\nsay? Most of the dedications in England are made for money, just as the\ncapuchins present us with salad on condition of our giving them drink.\n\nMen of letters in France are ignorant of this shameful abasement, and\nhave never exhibited so much meanness, except some unfortunates, who\ncall themselves men of letters in the same sense that sign-daubers boast\nof being of the profession of Raphael, and that the coachman of\nVertamont was a poet.\n\nPrefaces are another rock. \"The _I_ is hateful,\" says Pascal. Speak of\nyourself as little as you can, for you ought to be aware that the\nself-love of the reader is as great as your own. He will never pardon\nyou for wishing to oblige him to esteem you. It is for your book to\nspeak to him, should it happen to be read among the crowd.\n\n\"The illustrious suffrages with which my piece has been honored will\nmake me dispense with answering my adversaries--the applauses of the\npublic.\" Erase all that, sir; believe me you have had no illustrious\nsuffrages; your piece is eternally forgotten.\n\n\"Some censors have pretended that there are too many events in the third\nact; and that in the fourth the princess is too late in discovering the\ntender sentiments of her heart for her lover. To that I answer--\" Answer\nnothing, my friend, for nobody has spoken-, or will speak of thy\nprincess. Thy piece has fallen because it is tiresome, and written in\nflat and barbarous verse; thy preface is a prayer for the dead, but it\nwill not revive them.\n\nOthers attest that all Europe has not understood their treatises on\ncompatibility--on the Supralapsarians--on the difference which should be\nmade between the Macedonian and Valentinian heresies, etc. Truly, I\nbelieve that nobody understands them, since nobody reads them.\n\nWe are inundated with this trash and with continual repetition; with\ninsipid romances which copy their predecessors; with new systems founded\non ancient reveries; and little histories taken from larger ones.\n\nDo you wish to be an author? Do you wish to make a book? Recollect that\nit must be new and useful, or at least agreeable. Why from your\nprovincial retreat would you assassinate me with another quarto, to\nteach me that a king ought to be just, and that Trajan was more virtuous\nthan Caligula? You insist upon printing the sermons which have lulled\nyour little obscure town to repose, and will put all our histories under\ncontributions to extract from them the life of a prince of whom you can\nsay nothing new.\n\nIf you have written a history of your own time, doubt not but you will\nfind some learned chronologist, or newspaper commentator, who will\nrelieve you as to a date, a Christian name, or a squadron which you have\nwrongly placed at the distance of three hundred paces from the place\nwhere if really stood. Be grateful, and correct these important errors\nforthwith.\n\nIf an ignoramus, or an empty fool, pretend to criticise this thing or\nthe other, you may properly confute him; but name him rarely, for fear\nof soiling your writings. If you are attacked on your style, never\nanswer; your work alone should reply.\n\nIf you are said to be sick, content yourself that you are well, without\nwishing to prove to the people that you are in perfect health; and,\nabove all, remember that the world cares very little whether you are\nwell or ill.\n\nA hundred authors compile to get their bread, and twenty fools extract,\ncriticise, apologize, and satirize these compilations to get bread also,\nbecause they have no profession. All these people repair on Fridays to\nthe lieutenant of the police at Paris to demand permission to sell their\ndrugs. They have audience immediately after the courtesans, who do not\nregard them, because they know that they are poor customers.\n\nThey return with a tacit permission to sell and distribute throughout\nthe kingdom their stories; their collection of bon-mots; the life of the\nunfortunate R\u00e9gis; the translation of a German poem; new discoveries on\neels; a new copy of verses; a treatise on the origin of bells, or on the\nloves of the toads. A bookseller buys their productions for ten crowns;\nthey give five of them to the journalist, on condition that he will\nspeak well of them in his newspaper. The critic takes their money, and\nsays all the ill he can of their books. The aggrieved parties go to\ncomplain to the Jew, who protects the wife of the journalist, and the\nscene closes by the critic being carried to Fort Ev\u00eaque; and these are\nthey who call themselves authors!\n\nThese poor people are divided into two or three bands, and go begging\nlike mendicant friars; but not having taken vows their society lasts\nonly for a few days, for they betray one another like priests who run\nafter the same benefice, though they have no benefice to hope for. But\nthey still call themselves authors!\n\nThe misfortune of these men is that their fathers did not make them\nlearn a trade, which is a great defect in modern policy. Every man of\nthe people who can bring up his son in a useful art, and does not,\nmerits punishment. The son of a mason becomes a Jesuit at seventeen; he\nis chased from society at four and twenty, because the levity of his\nmanners is too glaring. Behold him without bread! He turns journalist,\nhe cultivates the lowest kind of literature, and becomes the contempt\nand horror of even the mob. And such as these, again, call themselves\nauthors!\n\nThe only authors are they who have succeeded in a genuine art, be it\nepic poetry, tragedy, comedy, history, or philosophy, and who teach or\ndelight mankind. The others, of whom we have spoken, are, among men of\nletters, like bats among the birds. We cite, comment, criticise,\nneglect, forget, and, above all, despise an author who is an author\n_only_.\n\nApropos of citing an author, I must amuse myself with relating a\nsingular mistake of the reverend Father Viret, cordelier and professor\nof theology. He read in the \"Philosophy of History\" of the good abb\u00e9\nBazin that no author ever cited a passage of Moses before Longinus, who\nlived and died in the time of the Emperor Aurelian. Forthwith the zeal\nof St. Francis was kindled in him. Viret cries out that it is not true;\nthat several writers have said that there had been a Moses, that even\nJosephus had spoken at length upon him, and that the Abb\u00e9 Bazin is a\nwretch who would destroy the seven sacraments. But, dear Father Viret,\nyou ought to inform yourself of the meaning of the word, to _cite_.\nThere is a great deal of difference between mentioning an author and\nciting him. To speak, to make mention of an author, is to say that he\nhas lived--that he has written in such a time; to cite is to give one of\nhis passages--as Moses says in his Exodus--as Moses has written in his\nGenesis. Now the Abb\u00e9 Brazin affirms that no foreign writers--that none\neven of the Jewish prophets have ever quoted a single passage of Moses,\nthough he was a divine author. Truly, Father Viret, you are very\nmalicious, but we shall know at least, by this little paragraph, that\n_you_ have been an author.\n\nThe most voluminous authors that we have had in France are the\ncomptrollers-general of the finances. Ten great volumes might be made of\ntheir declarations, since the reign of Louis XIV. Parliaments have been\nsometimes the critics of these works, and have found erroneous\npropositions and contradictions in them. But where are the good authors\nwho have not been censured?\n\n\n\n\nAUTHORITY.\n\n\nMiserable human beings, whether in green robes or in turbans, whether in\nblack gowns or in surplices, or in mantles and bands, never seek to\nemploy authority where nothing is concerned but reason, or consent to be\nreviled in all ages as the most impertinent of men, as well as to endure\npublic hatred as the most unjust.\n\nYou have been told a hundred times of the insolent absurdity with which\nyou condemned Galileo, and I speak to you of it for the hundred and\nfirst. I would have it inscribed over the door of your holy office.\n\nSeven cardinals, assisted by certain minorite friars, threw into prison\nthe master of thinking in Italy, at the age of seventy; and made him\nlive upon bread and water because he instructed mankind in that of which\nthey were ignorant.\n\nHaving passed a decree in favor of the categories of Aristotle, the\nabove junta learnedly and equitably doomed to the penalty of the galleys\nwhoever should dare to be of another opinion from the Stagyrite, of\nwhom two councils had burned the books.\n\nFurther, a Faculty, which possessed very small faculties, made a decree\n_against_ innate ideas, and afterwards another _for_ them, without the\nsaid Faculty being informed, except by its beadles, of what an idea was.\n\nIn neighboring schools legal proceedings were commenced against the\ncirculation of the blood. A process was issued against inoculation, and\nthe parties cited by summons.\n\nOne and twenty volumes of thoughts in folio have been seized, in which\nit was wickedly and falsely said that triangles have always three\nangles; that a father was older than his son; that Rhea Silvia lost her\nvirginity before her accouchement; and that farina differs from oak\nleaves.\n\nIn another year the following question was decided: _\"Utrum chim\u00e6ra\nbombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas intentiones?\"_ and decided\nin the affirmative. These judges, of course, considered themselves much\nsuperior to Archimedes, Euclid, Cicero, or Pliny, and strutted about the\nUniversities accordingly.\n\n\n\n\nAXIS.\n\n\nHow is it that the axis of the earth is not perpendicular to the\nequator? Why is it raised toward the north and inclined towards the\nsouth pole, in a position which does not appear natural, and which\nseems the consequence of some derangement, or the result of a period of\na prodigious number of years?\n\nIs it true that the ecliptic continually inclines by an insensible\nmovement towards the equator and that the angle formed by these two\nlines has a little diminished in two thousand years?\n\nIs it true that the ecliptic has been formerly perpendicular to the\nequator, that the Egyptians have said so, and that Herodotus has related\nit? This motion of the ecliptic would form a period of about two\nmillions of years. It is not that which astounds us, for the axis of the\nearth has an imperceptible movement in about twenty-six thousand years\nwhich occasions the precession of the equinoxes. It is as easy for\nnature to produce a rotation of twenty thousand as of two hundred and\nsixty ages.\n\nWe are deceived when we are told that the Egyptians had, according to\nHerodotus, a tradition that the ecliptic had been formerly perpendicular\nto the equator. The tradition of which Herodotus speaks has no relation\nto the coincidence of the equinoctial and ecliptic lines; that is quite\nanother affair.\n\nThe pretended scholars of Egypt said that the sun in the space of eleven\nthousand years had set twice in the east and risen twice in the west.\nWhen the equator and the ecliptic coincided, and when the days were\neverywhere equal to the nights the sun did not on that account change\nits setting and rising, but the earth turned on its axis from west to\neast, as at this day. This idea of making the sun set in the east is a\nchimera only worthy of the brains of the priests of Egypt and shows the\nprofound ignorance of those jugglers who have had so much reputation.\nThe tale should be classed with those of the satyrs who sang and danced\nin the train of Osiris; with the little boys whom they would not feed\ntill after they had run eight leagues, to teach them to conquer the\nworld; with the two children who cried _bec_ in asking for bread and who\nby that means discovered that the Phrygian was the original language;\nwith King Psammeticus, who gave his daughter to a thief who had\ndexterously stolen his money, etc.\n\nAncient history, ancient astronomy, ancient physics, ancient medicine\n(up to Hippocrates), ancient geography, ancient metaphysics, all are\nnothing but ancient absurdities which ought to make us feel the\nhappiness of being born in later times.\n\nThere is, no doubt, more truth in two pages of the French Encyclop\u00e6dia\nin relation to physics than in all the library of Alexandria, the loss\nof which is so much regretted.\n\n\n\n\nBABEL.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nBabel signifies among the Orientals, God the Father, the power of God,\nthe gate of God, according to the way in which the word is pronounced.\nIt appears, therefore, that Babylon was the city of God, the holy city.\nEvery capital of a state was a city of God, the sacred city. The Greeks\ncalled them all Hieropolis, and there were more than thirty of this\nname. The tower of Babel, then, signifies the tower of God the Father.\n\nJosephus says truly that Babel signifies confusion; Calmet says, with\nothers, that Bilba, in Chald\u00e6an, signifies confounded, but all the\nOrientals have been of a contrary opinion. The word confusion would be a\nstrange etymon for the capital of a vast empire. I very much like the\nopinion of Rabelais, who pretends that Paris was formerly called Lutetia\non account of the ladies' white legs.\n\nBe that as it may, commentators have tormented themselves to know to\nwhat height men had raised this famous tower of Babel. St. Jerome gives\nit twenty thousand feet. The ancient Jewish book entitled _\"Jacult\"_\ngave it eighty-one thousand. Paul Lucas has seen the remains of it and\nit is a fine thing to be as keen-sighted as Paul Lucas, but these\ndimensions are not the only difficulties which have exercised the\nlearned.\n\nPeople have wished to know how the children of Noah, after having\ndivided among themselves the islands of the nations and established\nthemselves in various lands, with each one his particular language,\nfamilies, and people, should all find themselves in the plain of\nShinaar, to build there a tower saying, \"Let us make us a name lest we\nbe scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.\"\n\nThe Book of Genesis speaks of the states which the sons of Noah founded.\nIt has related how the people of Europe, Africa, and Asia, all came to\nShinaar speaking one language only, and purposing the same thing.\n\nThe Vulgate places the Deluge in the year of the world 1656, and the\nconstruction of the tower of Babel 1771, that is to say, one hundred and\nfifteen years after the destruction of mankind, and even during the life\nof Noah.\n\nMen then must have multiplied with prodigious celerity; all the arts\nrevived in a very little time. When we reflect on the great number of\ntrades which must have been employed to raise a tower so high we are\namazed at so stupendous a work.\n\nThe patriarch Abraham was born, according to the Bible, about four\nhundred years after the deluge, and already we see a line of powerful\nkings in Egypt and in Asia. Bochart and other sages have pleasantly\nfilled their great books with Ph\u0153nician and Chald\u00e6an words and\nsystems which they do not understand. They have learnedly taken Thrace\nfor Cappadocia, Greece for Crete, and the island of Cyprus for Tyre;\nthey sport in an ocean of ignorance which has neither bottom nor shore.\nIt would have been shorter for them to have avowed that God, after\nseveral ages, has given us sacred books to render us better men and not\nto make us geographers, chronologists, or etymologists.\n\nBabel is Babylon. It was founded, according to the Persian historians,\nby a prince named Tamurath. The only knowledge we have of its\nantiquities consists in the astronomical observations of nineteen\nhundred and three years, sent by Callisthenes by order of Alexander, to\nhis preceptor Aristotle. To this certainty is joined the extreme\nprobability that a nation which had made a series of celestial\nobservations for nearly two thousand years had congregated and formed a\nconsiderable power several ages before the first of these observations.\n\nIt is a pity that none of the calculations of the ancient profane\nauthors agree with our sacred ones, and that none of the names of the\nprinces who reigned after the different epochs assigned to the Deluge\nhave been known by either Egyptians, Syrians, Babylonians, or Greeks.\n\nIt is no less a pity that there remains not on the earth among the\nprofane authors one vestige of the famous tower of Babel; nothing of\nthis story of the confusion of tongues is found in any book. This\nmemorable adventure was as unknown to the whole universe as the names of\nNoah, Methuselah, Cain, and Adam and Eve.\n\nThis difficulty tantalizes our curiosity. Herodotus, who travelled so\nmuch, speaks neither of Noah, or Shem, Reu, Salah, or Nimrod. The name\nof Nimrod is unknown to all profane antiquity; there are only a few\nArabs and some modern Persians who have made mention of Nimrod in\nfalsifying the books of the Jews.\n\nNothing remains to conduct us through these ancient ruins, unknown to\nall the nations of the universe during so many ages, but faith in the\nBible, and happily that is an infallible guide.\n\nHerodotus, who has mingled many fables with some truths, pretends that\nin his time, which was that of greatest power of the Persian sovereigns\nof Babylon, all the women of the immense city were obliged to go once in\ntheir lives to the temple of Mylitta, a goddess who was thought to be\nthe same as Aphrodite, or Venus, in order to prostitute themselves to\nstrangers, and that the law commanded them to receive money as a sacred\ntribute, which was paid over to the priesthood of the goddess.\n\nBut even this Arabian tale is more likely than that which the same\nauthor tells of Cyrus dividing the Indus into three hundred and sixty\ncanals, which all discharged themselves into the Caspian Sea! What\nshould we say of M\u00e9zeray if he had told us that Charlemagne divided the\nRhine into three hundred and sixty canals, which fell into the\nMediterranean, and that all the ladies of his court were obliged once in\ntheir lives to present themselves at the church of St. Genevieve to\nprostitute themselves to all comers for money?\n\nIt must be remarked that such a fable is still more absurd in relation\nto the time of Xerxes, in which Herodotus lived, than it would be in\nthat of Charlemagne. The Orientals were a thousand times more jealous\nthan the Franks and Gauls. The wives of all the great lords were\ncarefully guarded by eunuchs. This custom existed from time immemorial.\nIt is seen even in the Jewish history that when that little nation\nwished like the others to have a king, Samuel, to dissuade them from it\nand to retain his authority, said \"that a king would tyrannize over them\nand that he would take the tenths of their vines and corn to give to his\neunuchs.\" The kings accomplished this prediction, for it is written in\nthe First Book of Kings that King Ahab had eunuchs, and in the Second\nthat Joram, Jehu, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah had them also.\n\nThe eunuchs of Pharaoh are spoken of a long time previously in the Book\nof Genesis, and it is said that Potiphar, to whom Joseph was sold, was\none of the king's eunuchs. It is clear, therefore, that there were great\nnumbers of eunuchs at Babylon to guard the women. It was not then a duty\nfor them to prostitute themselves to the first comer, nor was Babylon,\nthe city of God, a vast brothel as it has been pretended.\n\nThese tales of Herodotus, as well as all others in the same taste, are\nnow so decried by all people of sense--reason has made so great progress\nthat even old women and children will no longer believe such\nextravagances--_\"Non est vetula qu\u00e6 credat nec pueri credunt, nisi qui\nnondum \u00e6re lavantur.\"_\n\nThere is in our days only one man who, not partaking of the spirit of\nthe age in which he lives, would justify the fable of Herodotus. The\ninfamy appears to him a very simple affair. He would prove that the\nBabylonian princesses prostituted themselves through piety, to the\nfirst passengers, because it is said in the holy writings that the\nAmmonites made their children pass through the fire in presenting them\nto Moloch. But what relation has this custom of some barbarous\nhordes--this superstition of passing their children through the flames,\nor even of burning them on piles, in honor of I know not whom--of\nMoloch; these Iroquois horrors of a petty, infamous people to a\nprostitution so incredible in a nation known to be the most jealous and\norderly of the East? Would what passes among the Iroquois be among us a\nproof of the customs of the courts of France and of Spain?\n\nHe also brings, in further proof, the Lupercal feast among the Romans\nduring which he says the young people of quality and respectable\nmagistrates ran naked through the city with whips in their hands, with\nwhich they struck the pregnant women of quality, who unblushingly\npresented themselves to them in the hope of thereby obtaining a happy\ndeliverance.\n\nNow, in the first place, it is not said that these Romans of quality ran\nquite naked, on the contrary, Plutarch expressly observes, in his\nremarks on the custom, that they were covered from the waist downwards.\n\nSecondly, it seems by the manner in which this defender of infamous\ncustoms expresses himself that the Roman ladies stripped naked to\nreceive these blows of the whip, which is absolutely false.\n\nThirdly, the Lupercal feast has no relation whatever to the pretended\nlaw of Babylon, which commands the wives and daughters of the king, the\nsatraps, and the magi to sell and prostitute themselves to strangers out\nof pure devotion.\n\nWhen an author, without knowing either the human mind or the manners of\nnations, has the misfortune to be obliged to compile from passages of\nold authors, who are almost all contradictory, he should advance his\nopinions with modesty and know how to doubt, and to shake off the dust\nof the college. Above all he should never express himself with\noutrageous insolence.\n\nHerodotus, or Ctesias, or Diodorus of Sicily, relate a fact: you have\nread it in Greek, therefore this fact is true. This manner of reasoning,\nwhich is not that of Euclid, is surprising enough in the time in which\nwe live; but all minds will not be instructed with equal facility; and\nthere are always more persons who compile than people who think.\n\nWe will say nothing here of the confusion of tongues which took place\nduring the construction of the tower of Babel. It is a miracle, related\nin the Holy Scriptures. We neither explain, nor even examine any\nmiracles, and as the authors of that great work, the Encyclop\u00e6dia,\nbelieved them, we also believe them with a lively and sincere faith.\n\nWe will simply affirm that the fall of the Roman Empire has produced\nmore confusion and a greater number of new languages than that of the\ntower of Babel. From the reign of Augustus till the time of the\nAttilas, the Clovises, and the Gondiberts, during six ages, _\"terra erat\nunius labii\"_--\"the known earth was of one language.\" They spoke the\nsame Latin at the Euphrates as at Mount Atlas. The laws which governed a\nhundred nations were written in Latin and the Greek served for\namusement, whilst the barbarous jargon of each province was only for the\npopulace. They pleaded in Latin at once in the tribunals of Africa and\nof Rome. An inhabitant of Cornwall departed for Asia Minor sure of being\nunderstood everywhere in his route. It was at least one good effected by\nthe rapacity of the Romans that people found themselves as well\nunderstood on the Danube as on the Guadalquiver. At the present time a\nBergamask who travels into the small Swiss cantons, from which he is\nonly separated by a mountain, has the same need of an interpreter as if\nhe were in China. This is one of the greatest plagues of modern life.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nVanity has always raised stately monuments. It was through vanity that\nmen built the lofty tower of Babel. \"Let us go and raise a tower, the\nsummit of which shall touch the skies, and render our name celebrated\nbefore we are scattered upon the face of the earth.\" The enterprise was\nundertaken hi the time of a patriarch named Phaleg, who counted the good\nman Noah for his fifth ancestor. It will be seen that architecture, and\nall the arts which accompany it, had made great progress in five\ngenerations. St. Jerome, the same who has seen fauns and satyrs, has not\nseen the tower of Babel any more than I have, but he assures us that it\nwas twenty thousand feet high. This is a trifle. The ancient book,\n_\"Jacult\"_ written by one of the most learned Jews, demonstrates the\nheight to be eighty-one thousand Jewish feet, and every one knows that\nthe Jewish foot was nearly as long as the Greek. These dimensions are\nstill more likely than those of Jerome. This tower remains, but it is no\nlonger quite so high; several quite veracious travellers have seen it.\nI, who have not seen it, will talk as little of it as of my grandfather\nAdam, with whom I never had the honor of conversing. But consult the\nreverend father Calmet; he is a man of fine wit and a profound\nphilosopher and will explain the thing to you. I do not know why it is\nsaid, in Genesis, that Babel signifies confusion, for, as I have already\nobserved, _ba_ answers to father in the eastern languages, and _bel_\nsignifies God. Babel means the city of God, the holy city. But it is\nincontestable that Babel means confusion, possibly because the\narchitects were confounded after having raised their work to eighty-one\nthousand feet, perhaps, because the languages were then confounded, as\nfrom that time the Germans no longer understood the Chinese, although,\naccording to the learned Bochart, it is clear that the Chinese is\noriginally the same language as the High German.\n\n\n\n\nBACCHUS.\n\n\nOf all the true or fabulous personages of profane antiquity Bacchus is\nto us the most important. I do not mean for the fine invention which is\nattributed to him by all the world except the Jews, but for the\nprodigious resemblance of his fabulous history to the true adventures of\nMoses.\n\nThe ancient poets have placed the birth of Bacchus in Egypt; he is\nexposed on the Nile and it is from that event that he is named Mises by\nthe first Orpheus, which, in Egyptian, signifies \"saved from the\nwaters,\" according to those who pretend to understand the ancient\nEgyptian tongue, which is no longer known. He is brought up near a\nmountain of Arabia called Nisa, which is believed to be Mount Sinai. It\nis pretended that a goddess ordered him to go and destroy a barbarous\nnation and that he passed through the Red Sea on foot, with a multitude\nof men, women, and children. Another time the river Orontes suspended\nits waters right and left to let him pass, and the Hydaspes did the\nsame. He commanded the sun to stand still; two luminous rays proceeded\nfrom his head. He made a fountain of wine spout up by striking the\nground with his thyrsis, and engraved his laws on two tables of marble.\nHe wanted only to have afflicted Egypt with ten plagues, to be the\nperfect copy of Moses.\n\nVossius is, I think, the first who has extended this parallel. The\nbishop of Avranches, Huet, has pushed it quite as far, but he adds, in\nhis \"Evangelical Demonstrations\" that Moses is not only Bacchus, but\nthat he is also Osiris and Typhon. He does not halt in this fine path.\nMoses, according to him, is \u00c6sculapius, Amphion, Apollo, Adonis, and\neven Priapus. It is pleasant enough that Huet founds his proof that\nMoses is Adonis in their both keeping sheep: _\"Et formosus oves, ad\nflumina pavit Adonis.\"_\n\nHe contends that he is Priapus because Priapus is sometimes painted with\nan ass, and the Jews were supposed, among the Gentiles, to adore an ass.\nHe gives another proof, not very canonical, which is that the rod of\nMoses might be compared to the sceptre of Priapus. _\"Sceptrum tribuitur\nPriapo, virga Most.\"_ Neither is this demonstration in the manner of\nEuclid.\n\nWe will not here speak of the more modern Bacchuses, such as he who\nlived two hundred years before the Trojan war, and whom the Greeks\ncelebrated as a son of Jupiter, shut up in his thigh. We will pause at\nhim who was supposed to be born on the confines of Egypt and to have\nperformed so many prodigies. Our respect for the sacred Jewish books\nwill not permit us to doubt that the Egyptians, the Arabs, and even the\nGreeks, have imitated the history of Moses. The difficulty consists\nsolely in not knowing how they could be instructed in this\nincontrovertible history. With respect to the Egyptians, it is very\nlikely that they never recorded these miracles of Moses, which would\nhave covered them with shame. If they had said a word of it the\nhistorians, Josephus and Philo, would not have failed to have taken\nadvantage of it Josephus, in his answer to Appion, made a point of\nciting all the Egyptian authors who have mentioned Moses, and he finds\nnone who relate one of these miracles. No Jew has ever quoted any\nEgyptian author who has said a word of the ten plagues of Egypt, of the\nmiraculous passage through the Red Sea, etc. It could not be among the\nEgyptians, therefore, that this scandalous parallel was formed between\nthe divine Moses and the profane Bacchus.\n\nIt is very clear that if a single Egyptian author had said a word of the\ngreat miracles of Moses all the synagogue of Alexandria, all the\ndisputatious church of that famous town would have quoted such word, and\nhave triumphed at it, every one after his manner. Athenagorus, Clement,\nOrigen, who have said so many useless things, would have related this\nimportant passage a thousand times and it would have been the strongest\nargument of all the fathers. The whole have kept a profound silence;\nthey Had, therefore, nothing to say. But how was it possible for any\nEgyptian to speak of the exploits of a man who caused all the first born\nof the families of Egypt to be killed; who turned the Nile to blood, and\nwho drowned in the Red Sea their king and all his army?\n\nAll our historians agree that one Clodowick, a Sicambrian, subjugated\nGaul with a handful of barbarians. The English are the first to say that\nthe Saxons, the Danes, and the Normans came by turns to exterminate a\npart of their nation. If they had not avowed this truth all Europe would\nhave exclaimed against its concealment. The universe should exclaim in\nthe same manner at the amazing prodigies of Moses, of Joshua, of Gideon,\nSamson, and of so many leaders and prophets. The universe is silent\nnotwithstanding. Amazing mystery! On one side it is palpable mat all is\ntrue, since it is found in the holy writings, which are approved by the\nChurch; on the other it is evident that no people have ever mentioned\nit. Let us worship Providence, and submit ourselves in all things.\n\nThe Arabs, who have always loved the marvellous, were probably the first\nauthors of the fables invented of Bacchus, afterwards adopted and\nembellished by the Greeks. But how came the stories of the Arabs and\nGreeks to agree so well with those of the Jews? It is known that the\nHebrews never communicated their books to any one till the time of the\nPtolemies; they regarded such communication as a sacrilege, and\nJosephus, to justify their obstinacy in concealing the Pentateuch from\nthe rest of the world, says that God punished all foreigners who dared\nto speak of the Jewish histories. If we are to believe him, the\nhistorian Theopompus, for only designing to mention them in his work,\nbecame deranged for thirty days, and the tragic poet Theodectes was\nstruck blind for having introduced the name of the Jews into one of his\ntragedies. Such are the excuses that Flavius Josephus gives in his\nanswer to Appion for the history of the Jews being so long unknown.\n\nThese books were of such prodigious scarcity that we only hear of one\ncopy under King Josiah, and this copy had been lost for a long time and\nwas found in the bottom of a chest on the report of Shaphan, scribe to\nthe Pontiff Hilkiah, who carried it to the king.\n\nThis circumstance happened, according to the Second Book of Kings, six\nhundred and twenty-four years before our vulgar era, four hundred years\nafter Homer, and in the most flourishing times of Greece. The Greeks\nthen scarcely knew that there were any Hebrews in the world. The\ncaptivity of the Jews at Babylon still more augmented their ignorance of\ntheir own books. Esdras must have restored them at the end of seventy\nyears and for already more than five hundred years the fable of Bacchus\nhad been current among the Greeks.\n\nIf the Greeks had founded their fables on the Jewish history they would\nhave chosen facts more interesting to mankind, such as the adventures of\nAbraham, those of Noah, of Methuselah, of Seth, Enoch, Cain, and Eve; of\nthe fatal serpent and of the tree of knowledge, all which names have\never been unknown to them. There was only a slight knowledge of the\nJewish people until a long time after the revolution that Alexander\nproduced in Asia and in Europe; the historian Josephus avows it in\nformal terms. This is the manner in which he expresses himself in the\ncommencement of his reply to Appion, who (by way of parenthesis) was\ndead when he answered him, for Appion died under the Emperor Claudius,\nand Josephus wrote under Vespasian.\n\n\"As the country we inhabit is distant from the sea we do not apply\nourselves to commerce and have no communication with other nations. We\ncontent ourselves with cultivating our lands, which are very fertile,\nand we labor chiefly to bring up our children properly, because nothing\nappears to us so necessary as to instruct them in the knowledge of our\nholy laws and in true piety, which inspires them with the desire of\nobserving them. The above reasons, added to others already mentioned,\nand this manner of life which is peculiar to us, show why we have had no\ncommunication with the Greeks, like the Egyptians and Ph\u0153nicians. Is\nit astonishing that our nation, so distant from the sea, not affecting\nto write anything, and living in the way which I have related, has been\nlittle known?\"\n\nAfter such an authentic avowal from a Jew, the most tenacious of the\nhonor of his nation that has ever written, it will be seen that it is\nimpossible for the ancient Greeks to have taken the fable of Bacchus\nfrom the holy books of the Hebrews, any more than the sacrifice of\nIphigenia, that of the son of Idomeneus, the labors of Hercules, the\nadventure of Eurydice, and others. The quantity of ancient tales which\nresemble one another is prodigious. How is it that the Greeks have put\ninto fables what the Hebrews have put into histories? Was it by the\ngift of invention; was it by a facility of imitation, or in consequence\nof the accordance of fine minds? To conclude: God has permitted it--a\ntruth which ought to suffice.\n\nOf what consequence is it that the Arabs and Greeks have said the same\nthings as the Jews? We read the Old Testament only to prepare ourselves\nfor the New, and in neither the one nor the other do we seek anything\nbut lessons of benevolence, moderation, gentleness, and true charity.\n\n\n\n\nBACON (ROGER).\n\n\nIt is generally thought that Roger Bacon, the famous monk of the\nthirteenth century, was a very great man and that he possessed true\nknowledge, because he was persecuted and condemned to prison by a set of\nignoramuses. It is a great prejudice in his favor, I own. But does it\nnot happen every day that quacks gravely condemn other quacks, and that\nfools make other fools pay the penalty of folly? This, our world, has\nfor a long time resembled the compact edifices in which he who believes\nin the eternal Father anathematizes him who believes in the Holy Ghost;\ncircumstances which are not very rare even in these days. Among the\nthings which render Friar Bacon commendable we must first reckon his\nimprisonment, and then the noble boldness with which he declared that\nall the books of Aristotle were fit only to be burned and that at a time\nwhen the learned respected Aristotle much more than the Jansenists\nrespect St. Augustine. Has Roger Bacon, however, done anything better\nthan the Poetics, the Rhetoric, and the Logic of Aristotle? These three\nimmortal works clearly prove that Aristotle was a very great and fine\ngenius--penetrating, profound, and methodical; and that he was only a\nbad natural philosopher because it was impossible to penetrate into the\ndepths of physical science without the aid of instruments.\n\nDoes Roger Bacon, in his best work, in which he treats of light and\nvision, express himself much more clearly than Aristotle when he says\nlight is created by means of multiplying its luminous species, which\naction is called univocal and conformable to the agent? He also mentions\nanother equivocal multiplication, by which light engenders heat and heat\nputrefaction.\n\nRoger Bacon likewise tells us that life may be prolonged by means of\nspermaceti, aloes, and dragons' flesh, and that the philosopher's stone\nwould render us immortal. It is thought that besides these fine secrets\nhe possessed all those of judicial astrology, without exception, as he\naffirms very positively in his _\"Opus Majus,\"_ that the head of man is\nsubject to the influences of the ram, his neck to those of the bull, and\nhis arms to the power of the twins. He even demonstrates these fine\nthings from experience, and highly praises a great astrologer at Paris\nwho says that he hindered a surgeon from putting a plaster on the leg\nof an invalid, because the sun was then in the sign of Aquarius, and\nAquarius is fatal to legs to which plasters are applied.\n\nIt is an opinion quite generally received that Roger was the inventor of\ngunpowder. It is certain that it was in his time that important\ndiscovery was made, for I always remark that the spirit of invention is\nof all times and that the doctors, or sages, who govern both mind and\nbody are generally profoundly ignorant, foolishly prejudiced, or at war\nwith common sense. It is usually among obscure men that artists are\nfound animated with a superior instinct, who invent admirable things on\nwhich the learned afterwards reason.\n\nOne thing that surprises me much is that Friar Bacon knew not the\ndirection of the magnetic needle, which, in his time, began to be\nunderstood in Italy, but in lieu thereof he was acquainted with the\nSecret of the hazel rod and many such things Of which he treats in his\n\"Dignity of the Experimental Art.\"\n\nYet, notwithstanding this pitiable number of absurdities and chimeras,\nit must be confessed that Roger Bacon was an admirable man for his age.\nWhat age? you will ask--that of feudal government and of the schoolmen.\nFigure to yourself Samoyedes and Ostiacs who read Aristotle. Such were\nwe at that time.\n\nRoger Bacon knew a little of geometry and optics, which made him pass\nfor a sorcerer at Rome and Paris. He was, however, really acquainted\nwith the matter contained in the Arabian _\"Alhazen,\"_ for in those days\nlittle was known except through the Arabs. They were the physicians and\nastrologers of all the Christian kings. The king's fool was always a\nnative; his doctor an Arab or a Jew.\n\nTransport this Bacon to the times in which we live and he would be, no\ndoubt, a great man. He was gold, encrusted with the rust of the times in\nwhich he lived, this gold would now be quickly purified. Poor creatures\nthat we are! How many ages have passed away in acquiring a little\nreason!\n\n\n\n\nBANISHMENT.\n\n\nBanishment for a term of years, or for life: a penalty inflicted on\ndelinquents, or on individuals who are wished to be considered as such.\n\nNot long ago it was the custom to banish from within the limits of the\njurisdiction, for petty thefts, forgeries, and assaults, the result of\nwhich was that the offender became a great robber, forger, or murderer\nin some other jurisdiction. This is like throwing into a neighbor's\nfield the stones that incommode us in our own.\n\nThose who have written on the laws of nations have tormented themselves\ngreatly to determine whether a man who has been banished from his\ncountry can justly be said still to belong to that country. It might\nalmost as well be asked whether a gambler, who has been driven away from\nthe gaming-table, is still one of the players at that table.\n\nIf by the law of nature a man is permitted to choose his country, still\nmore is the man who has lost the rights of a citizen at liberty to\nchoose himself a new country. May he bear arms against his former\nfellow-citizens? Of this we have a thousand examples. How many French\nProtestants, naturalized in England, Holland, or Germany, have served,\nnot only against France, but against armies in which their relatives,\ntheir own brothers, have fought? The Greeks in the armies of the king of\nPersia fought against the Greeks, their old fellow-countrymen. The Swiss\nin the service of Holland have fired upon the Swiss in the service of\nFrance. This is even worse than fighting against those who have banished\nyou, for, after all, drawing the sword in revenge does not seem so bad\nas drawing it for hire.\n\n\n\n\nBAPTISM.\n\n_A Greek Word, Signifying Immersion._\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWe do not speak of baptism as theologians; we are but poor men of\nletters, who shall never enter the sanctuary. The Indians plunge, and\nhave from time immemorial plunged, into the Ganges. Mankind, always\nguided by their senses, easily imagined that what purified the body\nlikewise purified the soul. In the subterranean apartments under the\nEgyptian temples there were large tubs for the priests and the\ninitiated.\n\n     _O nimium faciles qui tristia crimina c\u00e6dis_\n     _Fluminea tolli posse putatis aqua!_\n\nOld Baudier, when he was eighty, made the following comic translation of\nthese lines:\n\n     _C'est une dr\u00f4le de maxime,_\n     _Qu'une lessive efface un crime._\n     One can't but think it somewhat droll,\n     Pump-water thus should cleanse a soul.\n\nEvery sign being of itself indifferent, God vouchsafed to consecrate\nthis custom amongst the Hebrew people. All foreigners that came to\nsettle in Palestine were baptized; they were called domiciliary\nproselytes.\n\nThey were not forced to receive circumcision, but only to embrace the\nseven precepts of the Noachides, and to sacrifice to no strange god. The\nproselytes of justice were circumcised and baptized; the female\nproselytes were also baptized, quite naked, in the presence of three\nmen. The most devout among the Jews went and received baptism from the\nhands of the prophets most venerated by the people. Hence it was that\nthey flocked to St. John, who baptized in the Jordan.\n\nJesus Christ Himself, who never baptized any one, deigned to receive\nbaptism from St. John. This custom, which had long been an accessory of\nthe Jewish religion, received new dignity, new value from our Saviour,\nand became the chief rite, the principal seal of Christianity. However,\nthe first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were Jews. 'The Christians of\nPalestine long continued to circumcise. St. John's Christians never\nreceived baptism from Christ.\n\nSeveral other Christian societies applied a cautery to the baptized,\nwith a red-hot iron, being determined to the performance of this\nextraordinary operation by the words of St. John the Baptist, related by\nSt. Luke: \"I baptize you with water, but He that cometh after me shall\nbaptize you with fire.\"\n\nThis was practised by the Seleucians, the Herminians, and some others.\nThe words, \"He shall baptize you with fire,\" have never been explained.\nThere are several opinions concerning the baptism by fire which is\nmentioned by St. Luke and St. Matthew. Perhaps the most likely opinion\nis that it was an allusion to the ancient custom of the devotees to the\nSyrian goddess, who, after plunging into water, imprinted characters on\ntheir bodies with a hot iron. With miserable man all was superstition,\nbut Jesus substituted for these ridiculous superstitions a sacred\nceremony--a divine and efficacious symbol.\n\nIn the first ages of Christianity nothing was more common than to\npostpone the receiving of baptism until the last agony. Of this the\nexample of the Emperor Constantine is a very strong proof. St. Andrew\nhad not been baptized when he was made bishop of Milan. The custom of\ndeferring the use of the sacred bath until the hour of death was soon\nabolished.\n\n_Baptism of the Dead._\n\nThe dead also were baptized. This is established by the passage of St.\nPaul to the Corinthians: \"If we rise not again what shall they do that\nreceive baptism from the dead?\" Here is a point of fact. Either the\ndead themselves were baptized, or baptism was received in their names,\nas indulgences have since been received for the deliverance of the souls\nof friends and relatives out of purgatory.\n\nSt. Epiphanius and St. Chrysostom inform us that it was a custom in some\nChristian societies, and principally among the Marcionites, to put a\nliving man under the dead man's bed; he was then asked if he would be\nbaptized; the living man answered yes, and the corpse was taken and\nplunged into a tub of water. This custom was soon condemned. St. Paul\nmentions it but he does not condemn it; on the contrary he cites it as\nan invincible argument to prove resurrection.\n\n_Baptism by Aspersion._\n\nThe Greeks always retained baptism by immersion. The Latins, about the\nclose of the eighth century, having extended their religion into Gaul\nand Germany and seeing that immersion might be fatal to infants in cold\ncountries, substituted simple aspersion and thus drew upon themselves\nfrequent anathemas from the Greek Church.\n\nSt. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was asked if those were really baptized\nwho had only had their bodies sprinkled all over. He answers, in his\nseventy-sixth letter, that several churches did not believe the\nsprinkled to be Christians; that, for his own part, he believes that\nthey are so, but that they have infinitely less grace than those who\nhave been thrice dipped, according to custom.\n\nA person was initiated among the Christians as soon as he was dipped;\nuntil then he was only a catechumen. To be initiated it was necessary to\nhave sponsors to answer to the Church for the fidelity of the new\nChristians and that the mysteries should not be divulged. Hence it was\nthat in the first ages the Gentiles had, in general, as little knowledge\nof the Christian mysteries as the Christians had of the mysteries of\nIsis and the Eleusinian Ceres.\n\nCyril of Alexandria, in his writing against the Emperor Julian,\nexpresses himself thus: \"I would speak of baptism but that I fear my\nwords would reach them who are not initiated.\" At that time there was no\nworship without its mysteries, its associations, its catechumens, its\ninitiated, and its professed. Each sect required new virtues and\nrecommended to its penitents a new life--_\"initium nov\u00e6 vit\u00e6\"_--whence\nthe word initiation. The initiation of Christians, whether male or\nfemale, consisted in their being plunged quite naked into a tub of cold\nwater, to which sign was attached the remission of all their sins. But\nthe difference between Christian baptism and the Greek, Syrian,\nEgyptian, and Roman ceremonies was the difference between truth and\nfalsehood. Jesus Christ was the High Priest of the new law.\n\nIn the second century infants began to be baptized; it was natural that\nthe Christians should desire their children, who would have been damned\nwithout this sacrament, to be provided with it. It was at length\nconcluded that they must receive it at the expiration of eight days,\nbecause that was the period at which, among the Jews, they were\ncircumcised. In the Greek Church this is still the custom.\n\nSuch as died in the first week were damned, according to the most\nrigorous fathers of the Church. But Peter Chrysologos, in the fifth\ncentury, imagined limbo, a sort of mitigated hell, or properly, the\nborder, the outskirt of hell, whither all infants dying without baptism\ngo and where the patriarchs remained until Jesus Christ's descent into\nhell. So that the opinion that Jesus Christ descended into limbo, and\nnot into hell, has since then prevailed.\n\nIt was agitated whether a Christian in the deserts of Arabia might be\nbaptized with sand, this was answered in the negative. It was asked if\nrosewater might be used, it was decided that pure water would be\nnecessary but that muddy water might be made use of. It is evident that\nall this discipline depended on the discretion of the first pastors who\nestablished it.\n\nThe Anabaptists and some other communions out of the pale have thought\nthat no one should be baptized without a thorough knowledge of the\nmerits of the case. You require, say they, a promise to be of the\nChristian society, but a child can make no engagement. You give it a\nsponsor, but this is an abuse of an ancient custom. The precaution was\nrequisite in the first establishment. When strangers, adult men and\nwomen, came and presented themselves to be received into the society\nand share in the alms there was needed a guarantee to answer for their\nfidelity; it was necessary to make sure of them; they swore they would\nbe Jews, but an infant is in a diametrically opposite case. It has often\nhappened, that a child baptized by Greeks at Constantinople has\nafterwards been circumcised by Turks, a Christian at eight days old and\na Mussulman at thirty years, he has betrayed the oaths of his godfather.\n\nThis is one reason which the Anabaptists might allege; it would hold\ngood in Turkey, but it has never been admitted in Christian countries\nwhere baptism insures a citizen's condition. We must conform to the\nrights and laws of our country.\n\nThe Greeks re-baptize such of the Latins as pass from one of our Latin\ncommunions to the Greek communion. In the last century it was the custom\nfor these catechumens to pronounce the following words: \"I spit upon my\nfather and my mother who had me ill baptized.\" This custom still exists,\nand will, perhaps, long continue to exist in the provinces.\n\n_Notions of Rigid Unitarians Concerning Baptism._\n\nIt is evident to whosoever is willing to reason without prejudice that\nbaptism is neither a mark of grace conferred nor a seal of alliance, but\nsimply a mark of profession.\n\nThat baptism is not necessary, neither by necessity of precept, nor by\nnecessity of means. That it was not instituted by Christ and that it\nmay be omitted by the Christian without his suffering any inconvenience\ntherefrom.\n\nThat baptism should be administered neither to children, nor to adults,\nnor, in general, to any individual whatsoever.\n\nThat baptism might be of service in the early infancy of Christianity to\nthose who quitted paganism in order to make their profession of faith\npublic and give an authentic mark of it, but that now it is absolutely\nuseless and altogether indifferent.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nBaptism, immersion in water, abstersion, purification by water, is of\nthe highest antiquity. To be cleanly was to be pure before the gods. No\npriest ever dared to approach the altar with a soil upon his body. The\nnatural inclination to transfer to the soul that which appertains to the\nbody led to the belief that lustrations and ablutions took away the\nstains of the soul as they removed those of the garments and that\nwashing the body washed the soul also. Hence the ancient custom of\nbathing in the Ganges, the waters of which were thought to be sacred;\nhence the lustrations so frequent among every people. The Oriental\nnations, inhabiting hot countries, were the most religiously attached to\nthese customs.\n\nThe Jews were obliged to bathe after any pollution--after touching an\nunclean animal, touching a corpse, and on many other occasions.\n\nWhen the Jews received among them a stranger converted to their\nreligion they baptized, after circumcising him, and if it was a woman\nshe was simply baptized--that is, dipped in water in the presence of\nthree witnesses. This immersion was reputed to give the persons baptized\na new birth, a new life; they became at once Jewish and pure. Children\nborn before this baptism had no share in the inheritance of their\nbrethren, born after them of a regenerated father and mother. So that,\nwith the Jews, to be baptized and to be born again were the same thing,\nand this idea has remained attached to baptism down to the present day.\nThus, when John, the forerunner, began to baptize in the Jordan he did\nbut follow an immemorial usage. The priests of the law did not call him\nto account for this baptizing as for anything new, but they accused him\nof arrogating to himself a right which belonged exclusively to them --as\nRoman Catholic priests would have a right to complain if a layman took\nupon himself to say mass. John was doing a lawful thing but was doing it\nunlawfully.\n\nJohn wished to have disciples, and he had them. He was chief of a sect\namong the lower orders of the people and it cost him his life. It even\nappears that Jesus was at first among his disciples, since he was\nbaptized by him in the Jordan, and John sent some of his own party to\nHim a short time before His death.\n\nThe historian Josephus speaks of John but not of Jesus--an incontestable\nproof that in his time John the Baptist had a greater reputation than\nHe whom he baptized. A great multitude followed him, says that\ncelebrated historian, and the Jews seemed disposed to undertake whatever\nhe should command them.\n\nFrom this passage it appears that John was not only the chief of a sect,\nbut the chief of a party. Josephus adds that he caused Herod some\nuneasiness. He did indeed make himself formidable to Herod, who, at\nlength, put him to death, but Jesus meddled with none but the Pharisees.\nJosephus, therefore, mentions John as a man who had stirred up the Jews\nagainst King Herod; as one whose zeal had made him a state criminal, but\nJesus, not having approached the court, was unknown to the historian\nJosephus.\n\nThe sect of John the Baptist differed widely in discipline from that of\nJesus. In the Acts of the Apostles we see that twenty years after the\nexecution of Jesus, Apollos of Alexandria, though become a Christian,\nknew no baptism but that of John, nor had any idea of the Holy Ghost.\nSeveral travellers, and among others Chardin, the most accredited of\nall, say that in Persia there still are disciples of John, called Sabis,\nwho baptize in his name and acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, but not as a\ngod.\n\nAs for Jesus Christ Himself He received baptism but conferred it on no\none; His apostles baptized the catechumens, or circumcised them as\noccasion required; this is evident from the operation of circumcision\nperformed by Paul on his disciple Timothy.\n\nIt also appears that when the apostles baptized it was always in the\nname of Jesus Christ alone. The Acts of the Apostles do not mention any\none baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--whence it\nmay be concluded that the author of the Acts of the Apostles knew\nnothing of Matthew's gospel, in which it is said: \"Go and teach all\nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and\nof the Holy Ghost.\" The Christian religion had not yet received its\nform. Even the Symbol, which was called the Symbol of the Apostles, was\nnot made until after their time, of this no one has any doubt. In Paul's\nEpistle to the Corinthians we find a very singular custom which was then\nintroduced--that of baptizing the dead, but the rising Church soon\nreserved baptism for the living alone; at first none were baptized but\nadults, and the ceremony was often deferred until the age of fifty, or\nthe last sickness, that the individual might carry with him into the\nother world the unimpaired virtue of a baptism recently performed.\n\nNow, all children are baptized: none but the Anabaptists reserve this\nceremony for the mature age; they plunge their whole bodies into the\nwater. The Quakers, who compose a very numerous society in England and\nin America, do not use baptism: the reason is that Jesus Christ did not\nbaptize any of His disciples, and their aim is to be Christians only as\nHis disciples were--which occasions a very wide difference between them\nand other communions.\n\n_Addition to the Article \"Baptism\" by Abb\u00e9 Nicaise._\n\nThe Emperor Julian, the philosopher, in his immortal \"Satire on the\nC\u00e6sars,\" puts these words into the mouth of Constantius, son of\nConstantine: \"Whosoever feels himself guilty of rape, murder, plunder,\nsacrilege, and every most abominable crime, so soon as I have washed him\nwith this water, he shall be clean and pure.\"\n\nIt was, indeed, this fatal doctrine that occasioned the Christian\nemperors, and the great men of the empire, to defer their baptism until\ndeath. They thought they had found the secret of living criminal and\ndying virtuous.\n\nHow strange an idea--that a pot of water should wash away every crime!\nNow, all children are baptized because an idea no less absurd supposes\nthem all criminal; they are all saved until they have the use of reason\nand the power to become guilty! Cut their throats, then, as quickly as\npossible, to insure their entrance into paradise. This is so just a\nconsequence that there was once a devout sect that went about poisoning\nand killing all newly-baptized infants. These devout persons reasoned\nwith perfect correctness, saying: \"We do these little innocents the\ngreatest possible good; we prevent them from being wicked and unhappy in\nthis life and we give them life eternal.\"\n\n\n\n\nBARUCH, OR BARAK, AND DEBORAH;\n\nAND, INCIDENTALLY, ON CHARIOTS OF WAR.\n\n\nWe have no intention here to inquire at what time Baruch was chief of\nthe Jewish people; why, being chief, he allowed his army to be commanded\nby a woman; whether this woman, named Deborah, had married Lapidoth;\nwhether she was the friend or relative of Baruch, or perhaps his\ndaughter or his mother; nor on what day the battle of Tabor, in Galilee,\nwas fought between this Deborah and Sisera, captain-general of the\narmies of King Jabin--which Sisera commanded in Galilee an army of three\nhundred thousand foot, ten thousand horse, and three thousand chariots\nof war, according to the historian Josephus.\n\nWe shall at present leave out of the question this Jabin, king of a\nvillage called Azor, who had more troops than the Grand Turk. We very\nmuch pity the fate of his grand-vizier Sisera, who, having lost the\nbattle in Galilee, leaped from his chariot and four that he might fly\nmore swiftly on foot. He went and begged the hospitality of a holy\nJewish woman, who gave him some milk and drove a great cart-nail through\nhis head while he was asleep. We are very sorry for it, but this is not\nthe matter to be discussed. We wish to speak of chariots of war.\n\nThe battle was fought at the foot of Mount Tabor, near the river Kishon.\nMount Tabor is a steep mountain, the branches of which, somewhat less\nin height, extend over a great part of Galilee. Between this mountain\nand the neighboring rocks there is a small plain, covered with great\nflint-stones and impracticable for cavalry. The extent of this plain is\nfour or five hundred paces. We may venture to believe that Sisera did\nnot here draw up his three hundred thousand men in order of battle; his\nthree thousand chariots would have found it difficult to man\u0153uvre on\nsuch a field.\n\nWe may believe that the Hebrews had no chariots of war in a country\nrenowned only for asses, but the Asiatics made use of them in the great\nplains. Confucius, or rather Confutze, says positively that, from time\nimmemorial, each of the viceroys of the provinces was expected to\nfurnish to the emperor a thousand war-chariots, each drawn by four\nhorses. Chariots must have been in use long before the Trojan war, for\nHomer does not speak of them as a new invention, but these chariots were\nnot armed like those of Babylon, neither the wheels nor the axles were\nfurnished with steel blades.\n\nAt first this invention must have been very formidable on large plains,\nespecially when the chariots were numerous, driven with impetuosity, and\narmed with long pikes and scythes, but when they became familiar it\nseemed so easy to avoid their shock that they fell into general disuse.\n\nIn the war of 1741 it was proposed to renew and reform this ancient\ninvention. A minister of state had one of these chariots constructed and\nit was tried. It was asserted that in large plains, like that of\nL\u00fctzen, they might be used with advantage by concealing them behind the\ncavalry, the squadrons of which would open to let them pass and then\nfollow them, but the generals judged that this man\u0153uvre would be\nuseless, and even dangerous, now that battles are gained by cannon only.\nIt was replied that there would be as many cannon hi the army using the\nchariots of war to defend them as in the enemy's army to destroy them.\nIt was added that these chariots would, in the first instance, be\nsheltered from the cannon behind the battalions or squadrons, that the\nlatter would open and let the chariots run with impetuosity and that\nthis unexpected attack might have a prodigious effect. The generals\nadvanced nothing in opposition to these arguments, but they would not\nrevive this game of the ancient Persians.\n\n\n\n\nBATTALION.\n\n\nLet us observe that the arrangements, the marching, and the evolutions\nof battalions, nearly as they are now practised, were revived in Europe\nby one who was not a military man--by Machiavelli, a secretary at\nFlorence. Battalions three, four, and five deep; battalions advancing\nupon the enemy; battalions in square to avoid being cut off in a rout;\nbattalions four deep sustained by others in column; battalions flanked\nby cavalry--all are his. He taught Europe the art of war; it had long\nbeen practised without being known.\n\nThe grand duke would have had his secretary teach his troops their\nexercises according to his new method. But Machiavelli was too prudent\nto do so; he had no wish to see the officers and soldiers laugh at a\ngeneral in a black cloak; he reserved himself for the council.\n\nThere is something singular in the qualities which he requires in a\nsoldier. He must first have _gagliardia_, which signifies _alert vigor_;\nhe must have a quick and sure eye--in which there must also be a little\ngayety; a strong neck, a wide breast, a muscular arm, round loins, but\nlittle belly, with spare legs and feet--all indicating strength and\nagility. But above all the soldier must have honor, and must be led by\nhonor alone. \"War,\" says he, \"is but too great a corrupter of morals,\"\nand he reminds us of the Italian proverb: War makes thieves, and peace\nfinds them gibbets.\n\nMachiavelli had but a poor opinion of the French infantry, and until the\nbattle of Rocroi it must be confessed that it was very bad. A strange\nman this Machiavelli! He amused himself with making verses, writing\nplays, showing his cabinet the art of killing with regularity, and\nteaching princes the art of perjuring themselves, assassinating, and\npoisoning as occasion required--a great art which Pope Alexander VI.,\nand his bastard C\u00e6sar Borgia, practised in wonderful perfection without\nthe aid of his lessons.\n\nBe it observed that in all Machiavelli's works on so many different\nsubjects there is not one word which renders virtue amiable--not one\nword proceeding from the heart. The same remark has been made on\nBoileau. He does not, it is true, make virtue lovely, but he represents\nit as necessary.\n\n\n\n\nBAYLE.\n\n\nWhy has Louis Racine treated Bayle like a dangerous man, with a cruel\nheart, in an epistle to Jean Baptiste Rousseau, which, although printed,\nis but little known?\n\nHe compares Bayle, whose logical acuteness detected the errors of\nopposing systems, to Marius sitting upon the ruins of Carthage:\n\n     _Ainsi d'un \u0153il content Marius, dans sa fuite,_\n     _Contemplait les d\u00e9bris de Carthage d\u00e9truite._\n     Thus exiled Marius, with contented gaze,\n     Thy ruins, Carthage, silently surveys.\n\nHere is a simile which exhibits very little resemblance, or, as Pope\nsays, a simile dissimilar. Marius had not destroyed reason and\narguments, nor did he contentedly view its ruins, but, on the contrary,\nhe was penetrated with an elevated sentiment of melancholy on\ncontemplating the vicissitudes of human affairs, when he made the\ncelebrated answer: \"Say to the proconsul of Africa that thou hast seen\nMarius seated on the ruins of Carthage.\"\n\nWe ask in what Marius resembled Bayle? Louis Racine, if he thinks fit,\nmay apply the epithets \"hard-hearted\" and \"cruel\" to Marius, to Sulla,\nto the triumvirs, but, in reference to Bayle the phrases \"detestable\npleasure,\" \"cruel heart,\" \"terrible man,\" should not be put in a\nsentence written by Louis Racine against one who is only proved to have\nweighed the arguments of the Manich\u00e6ans, the Paulicians, the Arians, the\nEutychians, against those of their adversaries. Louis Racine proportions\nnot the punishment to the offence. He should remember that Bayle\ncombated Spinoza, who was too much of a philosopher, and Jurieu, who was\nnone at all. He should respect the good manners of Bayle and learn to\nreason from him. But he was a Jansenist, that is to say, he knew the\nwords of the language of Jansenism and employed them at random. You may\nproperly call cruel and terrible a powerful man who commands his slaves,\non pain of death, to go and reap corn where he has sown thistles; who\ngives to some of them too much food, and suffers others to die of\nhunger; who kills his eldest son to leave a large fortune to the\nyounger. All that is frightful and cruel, Louis Racine! It is said that\nsuch is the god of thy Jansenists, but I do not believe it. Oh slaves of\nparty, people attacked with the jaundice, you constantly see everything\nyellow!\n\nAnd to whom has the unthinking heir of a father who had a hundred times\nmore taste than he has philosophy, addressed this miserable epistle\nagainst the virtuous Bayle? To Rousseau--a poet who thinks still less;\nto a man whose principal merit has consisted in epigrams which are\nrevolting to the most indulgent reader; to a man to whom it was alike\nwhether he sang Jesus Christ or Giton. Such was the apostle to whom\nLouis Racine denounced Bayle as a miscreant. What motive could the\nauthor of \"Ph\u00e6dra\" and \"Iphigenia\" have for falling into such a\nprodigious error? Simply this, that Rousseau had made verses for the\nJansenists, whom he then believed to be in high credit.\n\nSuch is the rage of faction let loose upon Bayle, but you do not hear\nany of the dogs who have howled against him bark against Lucretius,\nCicero, Seneca, Epicurus, nor against the numerous philosophers of\nantiquity. It is all reserved for Bayle; he is their fellow citizen--he\nis of their time--his glory irritates them. Bayle is read and Nicole is\nnot read; behold the source of the Jansenist hatred! Bayle is studied,\nbut neither the reverend Father Croiset, nor the reverend Father\nCaussin; hence Jesuitical denouncement!\n\nIn vain has a Parliament of France done him the greatest honor in\nrendering his will valid, notwithstanding the severity of the law. The\nmadness of party knows neither honor nor justice. I have not inserted\nthis article to make the eulogy of the best of dictionaries, which would\nnot be becoming here, and of which Bayle is not in need; I have written\nit to render, if I can, the spirit of party odious and ridiculous.\n\n\n\n\nBDELLIUM.\n\n\nWe are very much puzzled to know what this Bdellium is which is found\nnear the shores of the Pison, a river of the terrestrial paradise which\nturns into the country of the Havilah, where there is gold. Calmet\nrelates that, according to several commentators, Bdellium is the\ncarbuncle, but that it may also be crystal. Then it is the gum of an\nArabian tree and afterwards we are told that capers are intended. Many\nothers affirm that it signifies pearls. Nothing but the etymologies of\nBochart can throw a light on this question. I wish that all these\ncommentators had been upon the spot.\n\nThe excellent gold which is obtained in this country, says Calmet, shows\nevidently that this is the country of Colchis and the golden fleece is a\nproof of it. It is a pity that things have changed so much for\nMingrelia; that beautiful country, so famous for the loves of Medea and\nJason, now produces gold and Bdellium no more than bulls which vomit\nfire and flame, and dragons which guard the fleece. Everything changes\nin this world; and if we do not skilfully cultivate our lands, and if\nthe state remain always in debt, we shall become a second Mingrelia.\n\n\n\n\nBEARD.\n\n\nCertain naturalists assure us that the secretion which produces the\nbeard is the same as that which perpetuates mankind. An entire\nhemisphere testifies against this fraternal union. The Americans, of\nwhatever country, color, or stature they may be, have neither beards on\ntheir chins, nor any hair on their bodies, except their eyebrows and the\nhair of their heads, I have legal attestations of official men who have\nlived, conversed, and combated with thirty nations of South America, and\nthey attest that they have never seen a hair on their bodies; and they\nlaugh, as they well may, at writers who, copying one another, say that\nthe Americans are only without hair because they pull it out with\npincers; as if Christopher Columbus, Fernando Cortes, and the other\nadventurers had loaded themselves with the little tweezers with which\nour ladies remove their superfluous hairs, and had distributed them in\nall the countries of America.\n\nI believed for a long time that the Esquimaux were excepted from the\ngeneral laws of the new world; but I am assured that they are as free\nfrom hair as the others. However, they have children in Chile, Peru, and\nCanada, as well as in our bearded continent. There is, then, a specific\ndifference between these bipeds and ourselves, in the same way as their\nlions, which are divested of the mane, and in other respects differ from\nthe lions of Africa.\n\nIt is to be remarked that the Orientals have never varied in their\nconsideration for the beard. Marriage among them has always existed, and\nthat period is still the epoch of life from which they no longer shave\nthe beard. The long dress and the beard impose respect. The Westerns\nhave always been changing the fashion of the chin. Mustaches were worn\nunder Louis XIV. towards the year 1672. Under Louis XIII. a little\npointed beard prevailed. In the time of Henry IV. it was square. Charles\nV., Julius II., and Francis I. restored the large beard to honor in\ntheir courts, which had been a long time in fashion. Gownsmen, through\ngravity and respect for the customs of their fathers, shaved themselves;\nwhile the courtiers, in doublets and little mantles, wore their beards\nas long as they could. When a king in those days sent a lawyer as an\nambassador, his comrades would laugh at him if he suffered his beard to\ngrow, besides mocking him in the chamber of accounts or of\nrequests,--But quite enough upon beards.\n\n\n\n\nBEASTS.\n\n\nWhat a pity and what a poverty of spirit to assert that beasts are\nmachines deprived of knowledge and sentiment, which effect all their\noperations in the same manner, which learn nothing, never improve, etc.\n\nWhat is this bird, who makes its nest in a semicircle when he attaches\nit to a wall; and in a circle on a tree--this bird does all in the same\nblind manner! The hound, which you have disciplined for three months,\ndoes he not know more at the end of this time than he did before? Does\nthe canary, to which you play an air, repeat ft directly? Do you not\nemploy a considerable time in teaching it? Have you not seen that he\nsometimes mistakes it, and that be corrects himself?\n\nIs it because I speak to you that you judge I have sentiment, memory,\nand ideas? Well, suppose I do not speak to you; you see me enter my room\nwith an afflicted air, I seek a paper with disquietude, I open the\nbureau in which I recollect to have shut it, I hid it and read it with\njoy. You pronounce that I have felt the sentiment of affliction and of\njoy; that I have memory and knowledge.\n\nExtend the same judgment to the dog who has lost his master, who has\nsought hum everywhere with grievous cries, and who enters the house\nagitated and restless, goes upstairs and down, from room to room, and at\nlast finds in the closet the master whom he loves, and testifies his joy\nby the gentleness of his cries, by his leaps and his caresses.\n\nSome barbarians seize this dog, who so prodigiously excels man in\nfriendship, they nail him to a table and dissect him living to show the\nmesenteric veins. You discover in him the same organs of sentiment which\nare in yourself. Answer me, machinist, has nature arranged all the\nsprings of sentiment in this animal that he should not feel? Has he\nnerves, and is he incapable of suffering? Do not suppose this\nimpertinent contradiction in mature.\n\nBut the masters of this school ask, what is the soul of beasts? I do not\nunderstand tins question. A tree has the faculty of receiving in its\nfibres the sap which circulates, of evolving its buds, its leaves, and\nits fruits. You will ask me what is the soul of this tree? It has\nreceived these gifts. The animal has received those of sentiment,\nmemory, and a certain number of ideas. Who has bestowed these gifts; who\nhas given these faculties? He who has made the herb of the field to\ngrow, and who makes the earth gravitate towards the sun.\n\nThe souls of beasts are _substantial forms_, says Aristotle; and after\nAristotle, the Arabian school; and after the Arabian school, the\nAngelical school; and after the Angelical school, the Sorbonne; and\nafter the Sorbonne, every one in the world.\n\nThe souls of beasts are material, exclaim other philosophers. These have\nnot been more fortunate than the former. They are in vain asked what is\na material soul? They say that it is a matter which has sensation; but\nwho has given it this sensation? It is a material soul, that is to say,\nit is composed of a matter which gives sensation to matter. They cannot\nget out of this circle.\n\nListen to one kind of beasts reasoning upon another; their soul is a\nspiritual being, which dies with the body; but what proof have you of\nit? What idea have you of this spiritual being, which has sentiment,\nmemory, and its share of ideas and combinations, but which can never\ntell what made a child of six years old? On what ground do you imagine\nthat this being, which is not corporeal, perishes with the body? The\ngreatest beasts are those who have suggested that this soul is neither\nbody nor spiritan excellent system! We can only understand by spirit\nsomething unknown, which is not body. Thus the system of these gentlemen\namounts to this, that the soul of beasts is a substance which is neither\nbody, nor something which is not body. Whence can proceed so many\ncontradictory errors? From the custom which men have of examining what a\nthing is before they know whether it exists. They call the speech the\neffect of a breath of mind, the soul of a sigh. What is the soul? It is\na name which I have given to this valve which rises and falls, which\nlets the air in, relieves itself, and sends it through a pipe when I\nmove the lungs.\n\nThere is not, then, a soul distinct from the machine. But what moves the\nlungs of animals? I have already said, the power that moves the stars.\nThe philosopher who said, _\"Deus est anim\u00e2 brutorum.\"_--God is the soul\nof the brutes--is right; but he should have gone much further.\n\n\n\n\nBEAUTIFUL (THE).\n\n\nSince we have quoted Plato on love, why should we not quote him on \"the\nbeautiful,\" since beauty causes love. It is curious to know how a Greek\nspoke of the beautiful more than two thousand years since.\n\n\"The man initiated into the sacred mysteries, when he sees a beautiful\nface accompanied by a divine form, a something more than mortal, feels a\nsecret emotion, and I know not what respectful fear. He regards this\nfigure as a divinity.... When the influence of beauty enters into his\nsoul by his eyes he burns; the wings of his soul are bedewed; they lose\nthe hardness which retains their germs and liquefy themselves; these\ngerms, swelling beneath the roots of its wings, they expand from every\npart of the soul (for soul had wings formerly),\" etc.\n\nI am willing to believe that nothing is finer than this discourse of the\ndivine Plato; but it does not give us very clear ideas of the nature of\nthe beautiful.\n\nAsk a toad what is beauty--the great beauty _To Kalon_; he will answer\nthat it is the female with two great round eyes coming out of her little\nhead, her large flat mouth, her yellow belly, and brown back. Ask a\nnegro of Guinea; beauty is to him a black, oily skin, sunken eyes, and a\nflat nose. Ask the devil; he will tell you that the beautiful consists\nin a pair of horns, four claws, and a tail. Then consult the\nphilosophers; they will answer you with jargon; they must have something\nconformable to the archetype of the essence of the beautiful--to the _To\nKalon_.\n\nI was once attending a tragedy near a philosopher. \"How beautiful that\nis,\" said he. \"What do you find beautiful?\" asked I. \"It is,\" said he,\n\"that the author has attained his object.\" The next day he took his\nmedicine, which did him some good. \"It has attained its object,\" cried I\nto him; \"it is a beautiful medicine.\" He comprehended that it could not\nbe said that a medicine is beautiful, and that to apply to anything\nthe epithet beautiful it must cause admiration and pleasure. He admitted\nthat the tragedy had inspired him with these two sentiments, and that it\nwas the _To Kalon_, the beautiful.\n\nWe made a journey to England. The same piece was played, and, although\nably translated, it made all the spectators yawn. \"Oh, oh!\" said he,\n\"the _To Kalon_ is not the same with the English as with the French.\" He\nconcluded after many reflections that \"the beautiful\" is often merely\nrelative, as that which is decent at Japan is indecent at Rome; and that\nwhich is the fashion at Paris is not so at Pekin; and he was thereby\nspared the trouble of composing a long treatise on the beautiful.\n\n[Illustration: A beautiful face accompanied by a divine form.]\n\nThere are actions which the whole world considers fine. A challenge\npassed between two of C\u00e6sar's officers, mortal enemies, not to shed each\nother's blood behind a thicket by tierce and quarte, as among us, but to\ndecide which of them would best defend the camp of the Romans, about to\nbe attacked by the barbarians. One of the two, after having repulsed the\nenemy, was near falling; the other flew to his assistance, saved his\nlife, and gained the victory. A friend devotes himself to death for his\nfriend, a son for his father. The Algonquin, the French, the Chinese,\nwill mutually say that all this is very beautiful, that such actions\ngive them pleasure, and that they admire them.\n\nThey will say the same of great moral maxims; of that of Zoroaster: \"If\nin doubt that an action be just, desist;\" of that of Confucius: \"Forget\ninjuries; never forget benefits.\"\n\nThe negro, with round eyes and flattened nose, who would not give the\nladies of our court the name of beautiful, would give it without\nhesitation to these actions and these maxims. Even the wicked man\nrecognizes the beauty of the virtues which he cannot imitate. The\nbeautiful, which only strikes the senses, the imagination, and what is\ncalled the spirit, is then often uncertain; the beauty which strikes the\nheart is not. You will find a number of people who will tell you they\nhave found nothing beautiful in three-fourths of the \"Iliad\"; but nobody\nwill deny that the devotion of Codrus for his people was fine, supposing\nit was true.\n\nBrother Attinet, a Jesuit, a native of Dijon, was employed as designer\nin the country house of the Emperor Camhi, at the distance of some\nleagues from Pekin.\n\n\"This country house,\" says he, in one of his letters to M. Dupont, \"is\nlarger than the town of Dijon. It is divided into a thousand habitations\non one line; each one has its courts, its parterres, its gardens, and\nits waters; the front of each is ornamented with gold varnish and\npaintings. In the vast enclosures of the park, hills have been raised by\nhand from twenty to sixty feet high. The valleys are watered by an\ninfinite number of canals, which run a considerable distance to join and\nform lakes and seas. We float on these seas in boats varnished and\ngilt, from twelve to thirteen fathoms long and four wide. These barks\nhave magnificent saloons, and the borders of the canals are covered with\nhouses, all in different tastes. Every house has its gardens and\ncascades. You go from one valley to another by alleys, alternately\nornamented with pavilions and grottoes. No two valleys are alike; the\nlargest of all is surrounded by a colonnade, behind which are gilded\nbuildings. All the apartments of these houses correspond in magnificence\nwith the outside. All the canals have bridges at stated distances; these\nbridges are bordered with balustrades of white marble sculptured in\nbasso-relievo.\n\n\"In the middle of the great sea is raised a rock, and on this rock is a\nsquare pavilion, in which are more than a hundred apartments. From this\nsquare pavilion there is a view of all the palaces, all the houses, and\nall the gardens of this immense enclosure, and there are more than four\nhundred of them.\n\n\"When the emperor gives a f\u00eate all these buildings are illuminated in an\ninstant, and from every house there are fireworks.\n\n\"This is not all; at the end of what they call the sea is a great fair,\nheld by the emperor's officers. Vessels come from the great sea to\narrive at this fair. The courtiers disguise themselves as merchants and\nartificers of all sorts; one keeps a coffee house, another a tavern; one\ntakes the profession of a thief, another that of the officer who\npursues him. The emperor and all the ladies of the court come to buy\nstuffs, the false merchants cheat them as much as they can; they tell\nthem that it is shameful to dispute so much about the price, and that\nthey are poor customers. Their majesties reply that the merchants are\nknaves; the latter are angry and affect to depart; they are appeased;\nthe emperor buys all and makes lotteries of it for all his court.\nFarther on are spectacles of all sorts.\"\n\nWhen brother Attinet came from China to Versailles he found it small and\ndull. The Germans, who were delighted to stroll about its groves, were\nastonished that brother Attinet was so difficult. This is another reason\nwhich determines me not to write a treatise on the beautiful.\n\n\n\n\nBEES.\n\n\nThe bees may be regarded as superior to the human race in this, that\nfrom their own substance they produce another which is useful; while, of\nall our secretions, there is not one good for anything; nay, there is\nnot one which does not render mankind disagreeable.\n\nI have been charmed to find that the swarms which turn out of the hive\nare much milder than our sons when they leave college. The young bees\nthen sting no one; or at least but rarely and in extraordinary cases.\nThey suffer themselves to be carried quietly in the bare hand to the\nhive which is destined for them. But no sooner have they learned in\ntheir new habitation to know their interests than they become like us\nand make war. I have seen very peaceable bees go for six months to labor\nin a neighboring meadow covered with flowers which secreted them. When\nthe mowers came they rushed furiously from their hive upon those who\nwere about to steal their property and put them to flight.\n\nWe find in the Proverbs attributed to Solomon that \"there are four\nthings, the least upon earth, but which are wiser than the wise men--the\nants, a little people who lay up food during the harvest; the hares, a\nweak people who lie on stones; the grasshoppers, who have no kings and\nwho journey in flocks; and the lizards, which work with their hands and\ndwell in the palaces of kings.\" I know not how Solomon forgot the bees,\nwhose instinct seems very superior to that of hares, which do not lie on\nstone; or of lizards, with whose genius I am not acquainted. Moreover, I\nshall always prefer a bee to a grasshopper.\n\nThe bees have, in all ages, furnished the poet with descriptions,\ncomparisons, allegories, and fables. Mandeville's celebrated \"Fable of\nthe Bees\" made a great noise in England. Here is a short sketch of it:\n\n     Once the bees, in worldly things,\n       Had a happy government;\n     And their laborers and their kings\n       Made them wealthy and content;\n     But some greedy drones at last\n       Found their way into their hive;\n       Those, in idleness to thrive,\n     Told the bees they ought to fast.\n       Sermons were _their_ only labors;\n       Work they preached unto their neighbors.\n     In their language they would say,\n       \"You shall surely go to heaven,\n       When to us you've freely given\n     Wax and honey all away.\"--\n       Foolishly the bees believed,\n       Till by famine undeceived;\n     When their misery was complete,\n       All the strange delusion vanished!\n       Now the drones are killed or banished,\n     And the bees again may eat.\n\nMandeville goes much further; he asserts that bees cannot live at their\nease in a great and powerful hive without many vices. \"No kingdom, no\nstate,\" says he, \"can flourish without vices. Take away the vanity of\nladies of quality, and there will be no more fine manufactures of silk,\nno more employment for men and women in a thousand different branches; a\ngreat part of the nation will be reduced to beggary. Take away the\navarice of our merchants, and the fleets of England will be annihilated.\nDeprive artists of envy, and emulation will cease; we shall sink back\ninto primitive rudeness and ignorance.\"\n\nIt is quite true that a well-governed society turns every vice to\naccount; but it is not true that these vices are necessary to the\nwell-being of the world. Very good remedies may be made from poisons,\nbut poisons do not contribute to the support of life. By thus reducing\nthe \"Fable of the Bees\" to its just value, it might be made a work of\nmoral utility.\n\n\n\n\nBEGGAR--MENDICANT\n\n\nEvery country where begging, where mendicity, is a profession, is ill\ngoverned. Beggary, as I have elsewhere said, is a vermin that clings to\nopulence. Yes; but let it be shaken off; let the hospitals be for\nsickness and age alone, and let the shops be for the young and vigorous.\n\nThe following is an extract from a sermon composed by a preacher ten\nyears ago for the parish of St. Leu and St. Giles, which is the parish\nof the beggars and the convulsionaries: \"_Pauper es\nevangelicantur_\"--\"the gospel is preached to the poor.\"\n\n\"My dear brethren the beggars, what is meant by the word _gospel_? It\nsignifies _good news_. It is, then, good news that I come to tell you;\nand what is it? It is that if you are idlers you will die on a\ndung-hill. Know that there have been idle kings, so at least we are\ntold, and they at last had not where to lay their heads. If you work,\nyou will be as happy as other men.\n\n\"The preachers at St. Eustache and St. Roche may deliver to the rich\nvery fine sermons in a flowery style, which procure for the auditors a\nlight slumber with an easy digestion, and for the orator a thousand\ncrowns; but I address those whom hunger keeps awake. Work for your\nbread, I say; for the Scripture says that he who does not work deserves\nnot to eat. Our brother in adversity, Job, who was for some time in your\ncondition, says that man is born to labor as the bird is to fly. Look\nat this immense city; every one is busy; the judges rise at four in the\nmorning to administer justice to you and send you to the galleys when\nyour idleness has caused you to thieve rather awkwardly.\n\n\"The king works; he attends his council every day; and he has made\ncampaigns. Perhaps you will say he is none the richer. Granted; but that\nis not his fault. The financiers know, better than you or I do, that not\none-half his revenue ever enters his coffers. He has been obliged to\nsell his plate in order to defend us against our enemies. We should aid\nhim in our turn. The Friend of Man (_l'Ami des Hommes_) allows him only\nseventy-five millions per annum. Another friend all at once gives him\nseven hundred and forty. But of all these Job's comforters, not one will\nadvance him a single crown. It is necessary to invent a thousand\ningenious ways of drawing this crown from our pockets, which, before it\nreaches his own, is diminished by at least one-half.\n\n\"Work, then, my dear brethren; act for yourselves, for I forewarn you\nthat if you do not take care of yourselves, no one will take care of\nyou; you will be treated as the king has been in several grave\nremonstrances; people will say, 'God help you.'\n\n\"We will go into the provinces, you will answer; we skill be fed by the\nlords of the land, by the farmers, by the curates. Do not flatter\nyourselves, my dear brethren, that you shall eat at their tables; they\nhave for the most part enough to do to feed themselves, notwithstanding\nthe 'Method of Rapidly Getting Rich by Agriculture' and fifty other\nworks of the same kind, published every day at Paris for the use of the\npeople in the country, with the cultivation of which the authors never\nhad anything to do.\n\n\"I behold among you young men of some talent, who say that they will\nmake verses, that they will write pamphlets, like Chisiac, Normotte, or\nPatouillet; that they will work for the _'Nouvelles Eccl\u00e9siastiques'_\nthat they will write sheets for Fr\u00e9ron, funeral orations for bishops,\nsongs for the comic opera. Any of these would at least be an occupation.\nWhen a man is writing for the _'Ann\u00e9e Litt\u00e9raire,'_ he is not robbing on\nthe highway, he is only robbing his creditors. But do better, my dear\nbrethren in Jesus Christ--my dear beggars, who, by passing your lives in\nasking charity, run the risk of the galleys; do better; enter one of the\nfour mendicant orders; you will then be not only rich, but honored\nalso.\"\n\n\n\n\nBEKKER,\n\n\"THE WORLD BEWITCHED,\" THE DEVIL, THE BOOK OF ENOCH, AND SORCERERS.\n\n\nThis Balthazar Bekker, a very good man, a great enemy of the everlasting\nhell and the devil, and a still greater of precision, made a great deal\nof noise in his time by his great book, \"The World Bewitched.\"\n\nOne Jacques-George de Chaufepied, a pretended continuator of Bayle,\nassures us that Bekker learned Greek at Gascoigne. Niceron has good\nreasons for believing that it was at Franeker. This historical point has\noccasioned much doubt and trouble at court.\n\nThe fact is that in the time of Bekker, a minister of the Holy\nGospel--as they say in Holland--the devil was still in prodigious credit\namong divines of all sorts in the middle of the seventeenth century, in\nspite of the good spirits which were beginning to enlighten the world.\nWitchcraft, possessions, and everything else attached to that fine\ndivinity, were in vogue throughout Europe and frequently had fatal\nresults.\n\nA century had scarcely elapsed since King James himself--called by Henry\nIV. _Master_ James--that great enemy of the Roman communion and the\npapal power, had published his \"Demonology\" (what a book for a king!)\nand in it had admitted sorceries, incubuses, and succubuses, and\nacknowledged the power of the devil, and of the pope, who, according to\nhim, had just as good a right to drive Satan from the bodies of the\npossessed as any other priest. And we, miserable Frenchmen, who boast of\nhaving recovered some small part of our senses, in what a horrid sink of\nstupid barbarism were we then immersed! Not a parliament, not a\npresidential court, but was occupied in trying sorcerers; not a great\njurisconsult who did not write memorials on possessions by the devil.\nFrance resounded with the cries of poor imbecile creatures whom the\njudges, after making them believe that they had danced round a cauldron,\ntortured and put to death without pity, in horrible torments. Catholics\nand Protestants were alike infected with this absurd and frightful\nsuperstition; the pretext being that in one of the Christian gospels it\nis said that disciples were sent to cast out devils. It was a sacred\nduty to put girls to the torture in order to make them confess that they\nhad lain with Satan, and that they had fallen in love with him in the\nform of a goat. All the particulars of the meetings of the girls with\nthis goat were detailed in the trials of the unfortunate individuals.\nThey were burned at last, whether they confessed or denied; and France\nwas one vast theatre of judicial carnage.\n\nI have before me a collection of these infernal proceedings, made by a\ncounsellor of the Parliament of Bordeaux, named De Langre, and addressed\nto Monseigneur Silleri, chancellor of France, without Monseigneur\nSilleri's having ever thought of enlightening those infamous\nmagistrates. But, indeed, it would have been necessary to begin by\nenlightening the chancellor himself. What was France at that time? A\ncontinual St. Bartholomew--from the massacre of Vassy to the\nassassination of Marshal d'Ancre and his innocent wife.\n\nWill it be believed that in the time of this very Bekker, a poor girl\nnamed Magdalen Chaudron, who had been persuaded that she was a witch,\nwas burned at Geneva?\n\nThe following is a very exact summary of the proc\u00e8s-verbal of this\nabsurd and horrid act, which is not the last monument of the kind:\n\n\"Michelle, having met the devil as she was going out of the town, the\ndevil gave her a kiss, received her homage, and imprinted on her upper\nlip and her right breast the mark which it is his custom to affix on all\npersons whom he recognizes as his favorites. This seal of the devil is a\nsmall sign-manual, which, as demonological jurisconsults affirm, renders\nthe skin insensible.\n\n\"The devil ordered Michelle Chaudron to bewitch two girls; and she\nimmediately obeyed her lord. The relatives of the young women judicially\ncharged her with devilish practices, and the girls themselves were\ninterrogated and confronted with the accused. They testified that they\nconstantly felt a swarming of ants in certain parts of their bodies, and\nthat they were possessed. The physicians were then called in, or at\nleast those who then passed as physicians. They visited the girls and\nsought on Michelle's body for the devil's seal, which the proc\u00e8s-verbal\ncalls the _satanic marks_. They thrust a large needle into the spot, and\nthis of itself was a grievous torture. Blood flowed from the puncture;\nand Michelle made known by her cries that satanic marks do not produce\ninsensibility. The judges, seeing no satisfactory evidence that Michelle\nChaudron was a witch, had her put to the torture, which never fails to\nbring forth proofs. The unfortunate girl, yielding at length to the\nviolence of her tortures, confessed whatever was required of her.\n\n\"The physicians again sought for the satanic mark. They found it in a\nsmall dark spot on one of her thighs. They applied the needle; but the\ntorture had been so excessive that the poor, expiring creature scarcely\nfelt the wound; she did not cry out; therefore the crime was\nsatisfactorily proved. But, as manners were becoming less rude, she was\nnot burned until she had been hanged.\"\n\nEvery tribunal in Christian Europe still rings with similar\ncondemnations; so long did this barbarous imbecility endure, that even\nin our own day, at W\u00fcrzburg, in Franconia, there was a witch burned in\n1750. And what a witch! A young woman of quality, the abbess of a\nconvent! and in our own times, under the empire of Maria Theresa of\nAustria!\n\nThese horrors, by which Europe was so long filled, determined Bekker to\nfight against the devil. In vain was he told, in prose and verse, that\nhe was doing wrong to attack him, seeing that he was extremely like him,\nbeing horribly ugly; nothing could stop him. He began with absolutely\ndenying the power of Satan; and even grew so bold as to maintain that he\ndoes not exist. \"If,\" said he, \"there were a devil, he would revenge the\nwar which I make upon him.\"\n\nBekker reasoned but too well in saying that if the devil existed he\nwould punish him. His brother ministers took Satan's part and suspended\nBekker; for heretics will also excommunicate; and in the article of\ncursing, Geneva mimics Rome.\n\nBekker enters on his subject in the second volume. According to him, the\nserpent which seduced our first parents was not a devil, but a real\nserpent; as Balaam's ass was a real ass, and as the whale that swallowed\nJonah was a real whale. It was so decidedly a real serpent, that all its\nspecies, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl\non their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or\nBeelzebub, or devil, in the Pentateuch. There is not so much as an\nallusion to Satan. The Dutch destroyer of Satan does, indeed, admit the\nexistence of angels; but at the same time he assures us that it cannot\nbe proved by reasoning. \"And if there are any,\" says he, in the eighth\nchapter of his second volume, \"it is hard to say what they are. The\nScripture tells us nothing about their nature, nor in what the nature of\na spirit consists. The Bible was made, not for angels, but for men;\nJesus was made a man for us, not an angel.\"\n\nIf Bekker has so many scruples concerning angels, it is not to be\nwondered at that he has some concerning devils; and it is very amusing\nto see into what contortions he puts his mind in order to avail himself\nof such texts as appear to be in his favor and to evade such as are\nagainst him.\n\nHe does his utmost to prove that the devil had nothing to do with the\nafflictions of Job; and here he is even more prolix than the friends of\nthat holy man.\n\nThere is great probability that he was condemned only through the\nill-humor of his judges at having lost so much time in reading his work.\nIf the devil himself had been forced to read Bekker's \"World Bewitched\"\nhe could never have forgiven the fault of having so prodigiously wearied\nhim.\n\nOne of our Dutch divine's greatest difficulties is to explain these\nwords: \"Jesus was transported by the spirit into the desert to be\ntempted by the devil.\" No text can be clearer. A divine may write\nagainst Beelzebub as much as he pleases, but he must of necessity admit\nhis existence; he may then explain the difficult texts if he can.\n\nWhoever desires to know precisely what the devil is may be informed by\nreferring to the Jesuit Scott; no one has spoken of him more at length;\nhe is much worse than Bekker.\n\nConsulting history, where the ancient origin of the devil is to be found\nin the doctrine of the Persians, Ahrimanes, the bad principle, corrupts\nall that the good principle had made salutary. Among the Egyptians,\nTyphon does all the harm he can; while Oshireth, whom we call Osiris,\ndoes, together with Isheth, or Isis, all the good of which he is\ncapable.\n\nBefore the Egyptians and Persians, Mozazor, among the Indians, had\nrevolted against God and become the devil, but God had at last pardoned\nhim. If Bekker and the Socinians had known this anecdote of the fall of\nthe Indian angels and their restoration, they would have availed\nthemselves of it to support their opinion that hell is not perpetual,\nand to give hopes of salvation to such of the damned as read their\nbooks.\n\nThe Jews, as has already been observed, never spoke of the fall of the\nangels in the Old Testament; but it is mentioned in the New.\n\nAbout the period of the establishment of Christianity a book was\nattributed to \"Enoch, the seventh man after Adam,\" concerning the devil\nand his associates. Enoch gives us the names of the leaders of the\nrebellious and the faithful angels, but he does not say that war was in\nheaven; on the contrary, the fight was upon a mountain of the earth, and\nit was for the possession of young women.\n\nSt. Jude cites this book in his Epistle: \"And the angels, which kept not\ntheir first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in\neverlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great\nday.... Woe unto them, for they have gone in the way of Cain.... And\nEnoch, also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these....\"\n\nSt. Peter in his second Epistle alludes to the Book of Enoch when he\nsays: \"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down\nto hell and delivered them into chains of darkness....\"\n\nBekker must have found it difficult to resist passages so formal.\nHowever, he was even more inflexible on the subject of devils than on\nthat of angels; he would not be subdued by the Book of Enoch, the\nseventh man from Adam; he maintained that there was no more a devil than\nthere was a book of Enoch. He said that the devil was imitated from\nancient mythology, that it was an old story revived, and that we are\nnothing more than plagiarists.\n\nWe may at the present day be asked why we call that Lucifer the _evil\nspirit_, whom the Hebrew version, and the book attributed to Enoch,\nnamed Samyaza. It is because we understand Latin better than Hebrew.\n\nBut whether Lucifer be the planet Venus, or the Samyaza of Enoch, or the\nSatan of the Babylonians, or the Mozazor of the Indians, or the Typhon\nof the Egyptians, Bekker was right in saying that so enormous a power\nought not to be attributed to him as that with which, even down to our\nown times, he has been believed to be invested. It is too much to have\nimmolated to him a woman of quality of W\u00fcrzburg, Magdalen Chaudron, the\ncurate of Gaupidi, the wife of Marshal d'Ancre, and more than a hundred\nthousand other wizards and witches, in the space of thirteen hundred\nyears, in Christian states. Had Belthazar Bekker been content with\nparing the devil's nails, he would have been very well received; but\nwhen a curate would annihilate the devil he loses his cure.\n\n\n\n\nBELIEF.\n\n\nWe shall see at the article \"Certainty\" that we ought often to be very\nuncertain of what we are certain of; and that we may fail in good sense\nwhen deciding according to what is called _common_ sense. But what is it\nthat we call _believing_?\n\nA Turk comes and says to me, \"I believe that the angel Gabriel often\ndescended from the empyrean, to bring Mahomet leaves of the Koran,\nwritten on blue vellum.\"\n\nWell, Mustapha, and on what does thy shaven head found its belief of\nthis incredible thing?\n\n\"On this: That there are the greatest probabilities that I have not been\ndeceived in the relation of these improbable prodigies; that Abubeker,\nthe father-in-law, Ali, the son-in-law, Aisha, or Aisse, the daughter,\nOmar, and Osman, certified the truth of the fact in the presence of\nfifty thousand men--gathered together all the leaves, read them to the\nfaithful, and attested that not a word had been altered.\n\n\"That we have never had but one Koran, which has never been contradicted\nby another Koran. That God has never permitted the least alteration to\nbe made in this book.\n\n\"That its doctrine and precepts are the perfection of reason. Its\ndoctrine consists in the unity of God, for Whom we must live and die; in\nthe immortality of the soul; the eternal rewards of the just and\npunishments of the wicked; and the mission of our great prophet\nMahomet, proved by victories.\n\n\"Its precepts are: To be just and valiant; to give alms to the poor; to\nabstain from that enormous number of women whom the Eastern princes, and\nin particular the petty Jewish kings, took to themselves without\nscruple; to renounce the good wines of Engaddi and Tadmor, which those\ndrunken Hebrews have so praised in their books; to pray to God five\ntimes a day, etc.\n\n\"This sublime religion has been confirmed by the miracle of all others\nthe finest, the most constant, and best verified in the history of the\nworld; that Mahomet, persecuted by the gross and absurd scholastic\nmagistrates who decreed his arrest, and obliged to quit his country,\nreturned victorious; that he made his imbecile and sanguinary enemies\nhis footstool; that he all his life fought the battles of the Lord; that\nwith a small number he always triumphed over the greater number; that he\nand his successors have converted one-half of the earth; and that, with\nGod's help, we shall one day convert the other half.\"\n\nNothing can be arrayed in more dazzling colors. Yet Mustapha, while\nbelieving so firmly, always feels some small shadows of doubt arising in\nhis soul when he hears any difficulties started respecting the visits of\nthe angel Gabriel; the sura or chapter brought from heaven to declare\nthat the great prophet was not a cuckold; or the mare Borak, which\ncarried him in one night from Mecca to Jerusalem. Mustapha stammers; he\nmakes very bad answers, at which he blushes; yet he not only tells you\nthat he believes, but would also persuade you to believe. You press\nMustapha; he still gapes and stares, and at last goes away to wash\nhimself in honor of Allah, beginning his ablution at the elbow and\nending with the forefinger.\n\nIs Mustapha really persuaded--convinced of all that he has told us? Is\nhe perfectly sure that Mahomet was sent by God, as he is sure that the\ncity of Stamboul exists? as he is sure that the Empress Catherine II.\nsent a fleet from the remotest seas of the North to land troops in\nPeloponnesus--a thing as astonishing as the journey from Mecca to\nJerusalem in one night--and that this fleet destroyed that of the\nOttomans in the Dardanelles?\n\nThe truth is that Mustapha believes what he does not believe. He has\nbeen accustomed to pronounce, with his mollah, certain words which he\ntakes for ideas. To _believe_ is very often to _doubt_.\n\n\"Why do you believe that?\" says Harpagon. \"I believe it because I\nbelieve it,\" answers Master Jacques; and most men might return the same\nanswer.\n\nBelieve me fully, my dear reader, when I say one must not believe too\neasily. But what shall we say of those who would persuade others of what\nthey themselves do not believe? and what of the monsters who persecute\ntheir brethren in the humble and rational doctrine of doubt and\nself-distrust?\n\n\n\n\nBETHSHEMESH.\n\n_Of the Fifty Thousand and Seventy Jews Struck with Sudden Death for\nHaving Looked Upon the Ark; of the Five Golden Emeroids Paid by the\nPhilistines; and of Dr. Kennicott's Incredulity._\n\n\nMen of the world will perhaps be astonished to find this word the\nsubject of an article; but we here address only the learned and ask\ntheir instruction.\n\nBethshemesh was a village belonging to God's people, situated, according\nto commentators, two miles north of Jerusalem. The Ph\u0153nicians having,\nin Samuel's time, beaten the Jews, and taken from them their Ark of\nalliance in the battle, in which they killed thirty thousand of their\nmen, were severely punished for it by the Lord:\n\n_\"Percussit eos in secretiori parte natium, et ebullierunt vill\u00e6 et\nagri.... et nati sunt mures, et facta est confusio mortis magna in\ncivitate.\"_ Literally: \"He struck them in the most secret part of the\nbuttocks; and the fields and the farmhouses were troubled.... and there\nsprung up mice; and there was a great confusion of death in the city.\"\n\nThe prophets of the Ph\u0153nicians, or Philistines, having informed them\nthat they could deliver themselves from the scourge only by giving to\nthe Lord five golden mice and five golden emeroids, and sending him back\nthe Jewish Ark, they fulfilled this order, and, according to the express\ncommand of their prophets sent back the Ark with the mice and emeroids\non a wagon drawn by two cows, with each a sucking calf and without a\ndriver.\n\nThese two cows of themselves took the Ark straight to Bethshemesh. The\nmen of Bethshemesh approached the Ark in order to look at it, which\nliberty was punished yet more severely than the profanation by the\nPh\u0153nicians had been. The Lord struck with sudden death seventy men of\nthe people, and fifty thousand of the populace.\n\nThe reverend Doctor Kennicott, an Irishman, printed in 1768 a French\ncommentary on this occurrence and dedicated it to the bishop of Oxford.\nAt the head of this commentary he entitles himself Doctor of Divinity,\nmember of the Royal Society of London, of the Palatine Academy, of the\nAcademy of G\u00f6ttingen, and of the Academy of Inscriptions at Paris. All\nthat I know of the matter is that he is not of the Academy of\nInscriptions at Paris. Perhaps he is one of its correspondents. His vast\nerudition may have deceived him, but titles are distinct from things.\n\nHe informs the public that his pamphlet is sold at Paris by Saillant and\nMolini, at Rome by Monaldini, at Venice by Pasquali, at Florence by\nCambiagi, at Amsterdam by Marc-Michel Rey, at The Hague by Gosse, at\nLeyden by Jaquau, and in London by Beckett, who receives subscriptions.\n\nIn this pamphlet he pretends to prove that the Scripture text has been\ncorrupted. Here we must be permitted to differ with him. Nearly all\nBibles agree in these expressions: seventy men of the people and fifty\nthousand of the populace--_\"De populo septuaginta viros, et quinquaginta\nmillia plebis.\"_ The reverend Doctor Kennicott says to the right\nreverend the lord bishop of Oxford that formerly there were strong\nprejudices in favor of the Hebrew text, but that for seventeen years his\nlordship and himself have been freed from their prejudices, after the\ndeliberate and attentive perusal of this chapter.\n\nIn this we differ from Dr. Kennicott, and the more we read this chapter\nthe more we reverence the ways of the Lord, which are not our ways. It\nis impossible, says Kennicott, for the candid reader not to feel\nastonished and affected at the contemplation of fifty thousand men\ndestroyed in one village--men, too, employed in gathering the harvest.\n\nThis does, it is true, suppose a hundred thousand persons, at least, in\nthat village, but should the doctor forget that the Lord had promised\nAbraham that his posterity should be as numerous as the sands of the\nsea?\n\nThe Jews and the Christians, adds he, have not scrupled to express their\nrepugnance to attach faith to this destruction of fifty thousand and\nseventy men.\n\nWe answer that we are Christians and have no repugnance to attach faith\nto whatever is in the Holy Scriptures. We answer, with the reverend\nFather Calmet, that \"if we were to reject whatever is extraordinary and\nbeyond the reach of our conception we must reject the whole Bible.\" We\nare persuaded that the Jews, being under the guidance of God himself,\ncould experience no events but such as were stamped with the seal of the\nDivinity and quite different from what happened to other men. We will\neven venture to advance that the death of these fifty thousand and\nseventy men is one of the least surprising things in the Old Testament.\n\nWe are struck with astonishment still more reverential when Eve's\nserpent and Balaam's ass talk; when the waters of the cataracts are\nswelled by rain fifteen cubits above all the mountains; when we behold\nthe plagues of Egypt, and the six hundred and thirty thousand fighting\nJews flying on foot through the divided and suspended sea; when Joshua\nstops the sun and moon at noonday; when Samson slays a thousand\nPhilistines with the jaw-bone of an ass.... In those divine times all\nwas miracle, without exception, and we have the profoundest reverence\nfor all these miracles--for that ancient world which was not our world;\nfor that nature which was not our nature; for a divine book, in which\nthere can be nothing human.\n\nBut we are astonished at the liberty which Dr. Kennicott takes of\ncalling those deists and atheists, who, while they revere the Bible more\nthan he does, differ from him in opinion. Never will it be believed that\na man with such ideas is of the Academy of Medals and Inscriptions. He\nis, perhaps, of the Academy of Bedlam, the most ancient of all, and\nwhose colonies extend throughout the earth.\n\n\n\n\nBILHAH--BASTARDS\n\n\nBilhah, servant to Rachel, and Zilpah, servant to Leah, each bore the\npatriarch Jacob two children, and, be it observed, that they inherited\nlike legitimate sons, as well as the eight other male children whom\nJacob had by the two sisters Leah and Rachel. It is true that all their\ninheritance consisted in a blessing; whereas, William the Bastard\ninherited Normandy.\n\nThierri, a bastard of Clovis, inherited the best part of Gaul, invaded\nby his father. Several kings of Spain and Naples have been bastards. In\nSpain bastards have always inherited. King Henry of Transtamare was not\nconsidered as an illegitimate king, though he was an illegitimate child,\nand this race of bastards, founded in the house of Austria, reigned in\nSpain until Philip V.\n\nThe line of Aragon, who reigned in Naples in the time of Louis XII.,\nwere bastards. Count de Dunois signed himself \"the bastard of Orleans,\"\nand letters were long preserved of the duke of Normandy, king of\nEngland, which were signed \"William the Bastard.\"\n\nIn Germany it is otherwise; the descent must be pure; bastards never\ninherit fiefs, nor have any estate. In France, as has long been the\ncase, a king's bastard cannot be a priest without a dispensation from\nRome, but he becomes a prince without any difficulty as soon as the king\nacknowledges him to be the offspring of his sire, even though he be the\nbastard of an adulterous father and mother. It is the same in Spain. The\nbastard of a king of England may be a duke but not a prince. Jacob's\nbastards were neither princes nor dukes; they had no lands, the reason\nbeing that their father had none, but they were afterwards called\n_patriarchs_, which may be rendered _arch-fathers_.\n\nIt has been asked whether the bastards of the popes might be popes in\nturn. Pope John XI. was, it is true, a bastard of Pope Sergius III., and\nof the famous Marozia; but an instance is not a law.\n\n\n\n\nBISHOP.\n\n\nSamuel Ornik, a native of Basle, was, as is well known, a very amiable\nyoung man, who, moreover, knew his German and Greek New Testament by\nheart. At the age of twenty his parents sent him to travel. He was\ncommissioned to carry books to the coadjutor at Paris in the time of the\nFronde. He arrived at the archbishop's gate and was told by the Swiss\nthat _monseigneur_ saw no one. \"My dear fellow,\" said Ornik, \"you are\nvery rude to your countrymen; the apostles allowed every one to\napproach, and Jesus Christ desired that little children should come unto\nhim. I have nothing to ask of your master; on the contrary, I bring him\nsomething.\" \"Enter, then,\" said the Swiss.\n\nHe waited an hour in the first ante-chamber. Being quite artless he\nattacked with questions a domestic who was very fond of telling all he\nknew about his master. \"He must be pretty rich,\" said Ornik, \"to have\nsuch a swarm of pages and footmen running in and out of the house.\" \"I\ndon't know,\" answered the other, \"what his income is, but I hear Joli\nand the Abb\u00e9 Charier say that he is two millions in debt.\" \"But who is\nthat lady who came out of a cabinet and is passing by?\" \"That is Madame\nde Pomereu, one of his mistresses.\" \"She is really very pretty, but I\nhave not read that the apostles had such company in their bedchambers in\na morning.\" \"Ah! that, I believe, is monsieur, about to give audience.\"\n\"Say _sa grandeur, monseigneur_.\" \"Well, with all my heart....\" Ornik\nsaluted _sa grandeur_, presented his books, and was received with a most\ngracious smile. _Sa grandeur_ said three words to him, and stepped into\nhis carriage, escorted by fifty horsemen. In stepping in, monseigneur\ndropped a sheath and Ornik was astonished that monseigneur should carry\nso large an inkhorn. \"Do you not see,\" said the talker, \"that it is his\ndagger? every one that goes to parliament wears his dagger?\" Ornik\nuttered an exclamation of astonishment, and departed.\n\nHe went through France and was edified by town after town. From thence\nhe passed into Italy. In the papal territories he met a bishop with an\nincome of only a thousand crowns, who went on foot. Ornik, being\nnaturally kind, offered him a place in his cambiatura. \"Signor, you are\nno doubt going to comfort the sick?\" \"Sir, I am going to my master.\"\n\"Your master? He, no doubt, is Jesus Christ.\" \"Sir, he is Cardinal\nAzolino; I am his almoner. He gives me a very poor salary, but he has\npromised to place me with Donna Olimpia, the favorite sister-in-law of\n_nostro signore_.\" \"What! are you in the pay of a cardinal? But do you\nnot know that there were no cardinals in the time of Jesus Christ and\nSt. John?\" \"Is it possible!\" exclaimed the Italian prelate. \"Nothing is\nmore true; you have read it in the Gospel.\" \"I have never read it,\"\nreplied the bishop; \"I know only the office of Our Lady.\" \"I tell you\nthere were neither cardinals nor bishops, and when there were bishops\nthe priests were almost their equals, as St. Jerome, in several places,\nassures us.\" \"Holy Virgin\" said the Italian, \"I knew nothing about it;\nand what of the popes?\" \"There were no popes either.\" The good bishop\ncrossed himself, thinking he was with the evil one, and leaped from the\nside of his companion.\n\n\n\n\nBLASPHEMY.\n\n\nThis is a Greek word signifying _an attack on reputation_. We find\nblasphemia in Demosthenes. In the Greek Church it was used only to\nexpress an injury done to God. The Romans never made use of this\nexpression, apparently not thinking that God's honor could be offended\nlike that of men.\n\nThere scarcely exists one synonym. Blasphemy does not altogether convey\nthe idea of sacrilege. We say of a man who has taken God's name in\nvain, who, in the violence of anger, has sworn--as it is expressed--by\nthe name of God, that he has _blasphemed_; but we do not say that he has\ncommitted sacrilege. The sacrilegious man is he who perjures himself on\nthe gospel, who extends his rapacity to sacred things, who imbrues his\nhands in the blood of priests.\n\nGreat sacrileges have always been punished with death in all nations,\nespecially those accompanied by bloodshed. The author of the\n_\"Institutes au Droit Criminel\"_ reckons among divine high treasons in\nthe second degree, the non-observance of Sundays and holidays. He should\nhave said the non-observance attended with marked contempt, for simple\nnegligence is a sin, but not, as he calls it, a sacrilege. It is absurd\nto class together, as this author does, simony, the carrying off of a\nnun, and the forgetting to go to vespers on a holiday. It is one great\ninstance of the errors committed by writers on jurisprudence, who, not\nhaving been called upon to make laws, take upon themselves to interpret\nthose of the state.\n\nBlasphemies uttered in intoxication, in anger, in the excess of\ndebauchery, or in the heat of unguarded conversation have been subjected\nby legislators to much lighter penalties. For instance, the advocate\nwhom we have already cited says that the laws of France condemn simple\nblasphemers to a fine for the first offence, which is doubled for the\nsecond, tripled for the third, and quadrupled for the fourth offence;\nfor the fifth relapse the culprit is set in the pillory, for the sixth\nrelapse he is pilloried, and has his upper lip burned off with a hot\niron, and for the seventh he loses his tongue. He should have added that\nthis was an ordinance of the year 1666.\n\nPunishments are almost always arbitrary, which is a great defect in\njurisprudence. But this defect opens the way for clemency and\ncompassion, and this compassion is no other than the strictest justice,\nfor it would be horrible to punish a youthful indiscretion as poisoners\nand parricides are punished. A sentence of death for an offence which\ndeserves nothing more than correction is no other than an assassination\ncommitted with the sword of justice.\n\nIs it not to the purpose here to remark that what has been blasphemy in\none country has often been piety in another?\n\nSuppose a Tyrian merchant landed at the port of Canope: he might be\nscandalized on seeing an onion, a cat, or a goat carried in procession;\nhe might speak indecorously of Isheth, Oshireth, and Horeth, or might\nturn aside his head and not fall on his knees at the sight of a\nprocession with the parts of human generation larger than life; he might\nexpress his opinion at supper, or even sing some song in which the\nTyrian sailors made a jest of the Egyptian absurdities. He might be\noverheard by the maid of the inn, whose conscience would not suffer her\nto conceal so enormous a crime; she would run and denounce the offender\nto the nearest shoen that bore the image of the truth on his breast, and\nit is known how this image of truth was made. The tribunal of the\nshoens, or shotim, would condemn the Tyrian blasphemer to a dreadful\ndeath, and confiscate his vessel. Yet this merchant might be considered\nat Tyre as one of the most pious persons in Ph\u0153nicia.\n\nNuma sees that his little horde of Romans is a Collection of Latin\nfreebooters who steal right and left all they can find--oxen, sheep,\nfowls, and girls. He tells them that he has spoken with the nymph Egeria\nin a cavern, and that the nymph has been employed by Jupiter to give him\nlaws. The senators treat him at first as a blasphemer and threaten to\nthrow him headlong from the Tarpeian rock. Numa makes himself a powerful\nparty; he gains over some seniors who go with him into Egeria's grotto.\nShe talks to them and converts them; they convert the senate and the\npeople. In a little time Numa is no longer a blasphemer, the name is\ngiven only to such as doubt the existence of the nymph.\n\nIn our own times it is unfortunate that what is blasphemy at Rome, at\nour Lady of Loretto, and within the walls of San Gennaro, is piety in\nLondon, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Berlin, Copenhagen, Berne, Basel, and\nHamburg. It is yet more unfortunate that even in the same country, in\nthe same town, in the same street, people treat one another as\nblasphemers.\n\nNay, of the ten thousand Jews living at Rome there is not one who does\nnot regard the pope as the chief of the blasphemers, while the hundred\nthousand Christians who inhabit Rome, in place of two millions of\nJovians who filled it in Trajan's time, firmly believe that the Jews\nmeet in their synagogues on Saturday for the purpose of blaspheming.\n\nA Cordelier has no hesitation in applying the epithet of blasphemer to a\nDominican who says that the Holy Virgin was born in original sin,\nnotwithstanding that the Dominicans have a bull from the pope which\npermits them to teach the maculate conception in their convents, and\nthat, besides this bull, they have in their forum the express\ndeclaration of St. Thomas Aquinas.\n\nThe first origin of the schism of three-fourths of Switzerland and a\npart of Lower Germany was a quarrel in the cathedral church of Frankfort\nbetween a Cordelier, whose name I forget, and a Dominican named Vigand.\n\nBoth were drunk, according to the custom of that day. The drunken\nCordelier, who was preaching, thanked God that he was not a Jacobin,\nswearing that it was necessary to exterminate the blaspheming Jacobins\nwho believed that the Holy Virgin had been born in mortal sin, and\ndelivered from sin only by the merits of her son. The drunken Jacobin\ncried out: \"Thou hast lied; thou thyself art a blasphemer.\" The\nCordelier descended from the pulpit with a great iron crucifix in his\nhand, laid it about his adversary, and left him almost dead on the spot.\n\nTo revenge this outrage the Dominicans worked many miracles in Germany\nand Switzerland; these miracles were designed to prove their faith.\nThey at length found means to imprint the marks of our Lord Jesus Christ\non one of their lay brethren named Jetzer. This operation was performed\nat Berne by the Holy Virgin herself, but she borrowed the hand of the\nsub-prior, who dressed himself in female attire and put a glory round\nhis head. The poor little lay brother, exposed all bloody to the\nveneration of the people on the altar of the Dominicans at Berne, at\nlast cried out murder! sacrilege! The monks, in order to quiet him as\nquickly as possible administered to him a host sprinkled with corrosive\nsublimate, but the excess of the dose made him discharge the host from\nhis stomach.\n\nThe monks then accused him to the bishop of Lausanne of horrible\nsacrilege. The indignant people of Berne in their turn accused the\nmonks, and four of them were burned at Berne on the 13th of May, 1509,\nat the Marsilly gate. Such was the termination of this abominable\naffair, which determined the people of Berne to choose a religion, bad\nindeed in Catholic eyes, but which delivered them from the Cordeliers\nand the Jacobins. The number of similar sacrileges is incredible. Such\nare the effects of party spirit.\n\nThe Jesuits maintained for a hundred years that the Jansenists were\nblasphemers, and proved it by a thousand _lettres-de-cachet_; the\nJansenists by upwards of four thousand volumes demonstrated that it was\nthe Jesuits who blasphemed. The writer of the _\"Gazettes\nEccl\u00e9siastiques\"_ pretends that all honest men blaspheme against him,\nwhile he himself blasphemes from his garret on high against every honest\nman in the kingdom. The gazette-writer's publisher blasphemes in return\nand complains that he is starving. He would find it better to be honest\nand polite.\n\nOne thing equally remarkable and consoling is that never in any country\nof the earth, among the wildest idolaters, has any man been considered\nas a blasphemer for acknowledging one supreme, eternal, and all-powerful\nGod. It certainly was not for having acknowledged this truth that\nSocrates was condemned to the hemlock, for the doctrine of a Supreme God\nwas announced in all the Grecian mysteries. It was a faction that\ndestroyed Socrates; he was accused, at a venture, of not recognizing the\n_secondary_ gods, and on this point it was that he was accused as a\nblasphemer.\n\nThe first Christians were accused of blasphemy for the same reason, but\nthe partisans of the ancient religion of the empire, the Jovians, who\nreproached the primitive Christians with blasphemy, were at length\ncondemned as blasphemers themselves, under Theodosius II. Dryden says:\n\n     This side to-day, to-morrow t'other burns,\n     And they're all Gods Almighty in their turns.\n\n\n\n\nBODY.\n\n\nBody and matter are here the same thing although there is hardly any\nsuch thing as synonym in the most rigorous sense of the word. There have\nbeen persons who by this word \"body\" have understood \"spirit\" also.\nThey have said spirit originally signifies breath; only a body can\nbreathe, therefore body and spirit may, after all, be the same thing. In\nthis sense La Fontaine said to the celebrated Duke de la Rochefoucauld:\n_\"J'entens les esprits corps et p\u00e9tris de mati\u00e8re.\"_ In the same sense\nhe says to Madame Sabli\u00e8re:\n\n     _Je subtiliserais un morceau de mati\u00e8re,_\n     _Quintessence d'atome, extrait de la lumi\u00e8re,_\n     _je ne sais quoiplus vif et plus subtil encor...._\n\nNo one thought of harassing good Monsieur La Fontaine, or bringing him\nto trial for his expressions. Were a poor philosopher, or even a poet,\nto say as much nowadays, how many would there be to fall on him! How\nmany scribblers to sell their extracts for sixpence! How many knaves,\nfor the sole purpose of making mischief, to cry philosopher!\nperipatetic! disciple of Gassendi! pupil of Locke, and the primitive\nfathers! damnable!\n\nAs we know not what a spirit is, so also we are ignorant of what a body\nis; we see various properties, but what is the subject in which those\nproperties reside? \"There is nothing but body,\" said Democritus and\nEpicurus; \"there is no such thing as body,\" said the disciples of Zeno,\nof Elia.\n\nBerkeley, bishop of Cloyne, is the last who, by a hundred captious\nsophisms, has pretended to prove that bodies do not exist. They have,\nsays he, neither color, nor smell, nor heat; all these modalities are\nin your sensations, not in the objects. He might have spared himself\nthe trouble of proving this truth for it was already sufficiently known.\nBut thence he passed to extent and solidity, which are essential to\nbody, and thinks he proves that there is no extent in a piece of green\ncloth because the cloth is not in reality green, the sensation of green\nbeing in ourselves only, therefore the sensation of extent is likewise\nin ourselves only. Having thus destroyed extent he concludes that\nsolidity, which is attached to it, falls of itself, and therefore that\nthere is nothing in the world but our ideas. So that, according to this\ndoctor, ten thousand men killed by ten thousand cannon shots are in\nreality nothing more than ten thousand apprehensions of our\nunderstanding, and when a female becomes pregnant it is only one idea\nlodged in another idea from which a third idea will be produced.\n\nSurely, the bishop of Cloyne might have saved himself from falling into\nthis excessive absurdity. He thinks he shows that there is no extent\nbecause a body has appeared to him four times as large through a glass\nas to his naked eye, and four times as small through another glass.\nHence he concludes, that, since a body cannot be at the same time four\nfeet, sixteen feet, and but one foot in extent, there is no extent,\ntherefore there is nothing. He had only to take any measure and say: of\nwhatever extent this body may appear to me to be, it extends to so many\nof these measures.\n\nWe might very easily see that extent and solidity were quite different\nfrom sound, color, taste, smell. It is quite clear that these are\nsensations excited in us by the configuration of parts, but extent is\nnot a sensation. When this lighted coal goes out, I am no longer warm;\nwhen the air is no longer struck, I cease to hear; when this rose\nwithers, I no longer smell it: but the coal, the air, and the rose have\nextent without me. Berkeley's paradox is not worth refuting.\n\nThus argued Zeno and Parmenides of old, and very clever they were; they\nwould prove to you that a tortoise went along as swiftly as Achilles,\nfor there was no such thing as motion; they discussed a hundred other\nquestions equally important. Most of the Greeks made philosophy a\njuggle, and they transmitted their art to our schoolmen. Bayle himself\nwas occasionally one of the set and embroidered cobwebs like the rest.\nIn his article, \"Zeno,\" against the divisible extent of matter and the\ncontiguity of bodies he ventures to say what would not be tolerated in\nany six-months geometrician.\n\nIt is worth knowing how Berkeley was drawn into this paradox. A long\nwhile ago I had some conversation with him, and he told me that his\nopinion originated in our being unable to conceive what the subject of\nthis extension is, and certainly, in his book, he triumphs when he asks\nHylas what this subject, this substratum, this substance is? It is the\nextended body, answers Hylas. Then the bishop, under the name of\nPhilonous, laughs at him, and poor Hylas, finding that he has said that\nextension is the subject of extension, and has therefore talked\nnonsense, remains quite confused, acknowledges that he understands\nnothing at all of the matter; that there is no such thing as body; that\nthe natural world does not exist, and that there is none but an\nintellectual world.\n\nHylas should only have said to Philonous: We know nothing of the subject\nof this extension, solidity, divisibility, mobility, figure, etc.; I\nknow no more of it than I do of the subject of thought, feeling, and\nwill, but the subject does not the less exist for it has essential\nproperties of which it cannot be deprived.\n\nWe all resemble the greater part of the Parisian ladies who live well\nwithout knowing what is put in their ragouts; just so do we enjoy bodies\nwithout knowing of what they are composed. Of what does a body consist?\nOf parts, and these parts resolve themselves into other parts. What are\nthese last parts? They, too, are bodies; you divide incessantly without\nmaking any progress.\n\nIn short, a subtle philosopher, observing that a picture was made of\ningredients of which no single ingredient was a picture, and a house of\nmaterials of which no one material was a house, imagined that bodies are\ncomposed of an infinity of small things which are not bodies, and these\nare called monads. This system is not without its merits, and, were it\nrevealed, I should think it very possible. These little beings would be\nso many mathematical points, a sort of souls, waiting only for a\ntenement: here would be a continual metempsychosis. This system is as\ngood as another; I like it quite as well as the declination of atoms,\nthe substantial forms, the versatile grace, or the vampires.\n\n\n\n\nBOOKS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nYou despise books; you, whose lives are absorbed in the vanities of\nambition, the pursuit of pleasure, or in indolence, but remember that\nall the known world, excepting only savage nations, is governed by\nbooks. All Africa, to the limits of Ethiopia and Nigritia obeys the book\nof the Koran after bowing to the book of the Gospel. China is ruled by\nthe moral book of Confucius, and a great part of India by the Veda.\nPersia was governed for ages by the books of one of the Zoroasters.\n\nIn a lawsuit or criminal process, your property, your honor, perhaps\nyour life, depends on the interpretation of a book which you never read.\nIt is, however, with books as with men, a very small number play a great\npart, the rest are confounded with the multitude.\n\nBy whom are mankind led in all civilized countries? By those who can\nread and write. You are acquainted with neither Hippocrates, nor\nBoerhaave, nor Sydenham, but you place your body in the hands of those\nwho can read them. You leave your soul entirely to the care of those\nwho are paid for reading the Bible, although there are not fifty of them\nwho have read it through with attention.\n\nThe world is now so entirely governed by books that they who command in\nthe city of the Scipios and the Catos have resolved that the books of\ntheir law shall be for themselves alone; they are their sceptre, which\nthey have made it high treason in their subjects to touch without an\nexpress permission. In other countries it has been forbidden to think in\nprint without letters-patent.\n\nThere are nations in which thought is considered merely as an article of\ncommerce, the operations of the human understanding being valued only at\nso much per sheet. If the bookseller happens to desire a privilege for\nhis merchandise whether he is selling \"Rabelais,\" or the \"Fathers of the\nChurch,\" the magistrate grants the privilege without answering for the\ncontents of the book.\n\nIn another country the liberty of explaining yourself by books is one of\nthe most inviolable prerogatives. There you may print whatever you\nplease, on pain of being tiresome, and of being punished if you have too\nmuch abused your natural right.\n\nBefore the admirable invention of printing, books were scarcer and\ndearer than jewels. There were scarcely any books in our barbarous\nnations, either before Charlemagne or after him, until the time of\nCharles V., king of France, called the Wise, and from this time to\nFrancis I. the scarcity was extreme. The Arabs alone had them from the\neighth to the thirteenth century of our era. China was full of them when\nwe could neither read nor write.\n\nCopyists were much employed in the Roman Empire from the time of the\nScipios until the irruption of the barbarians. This was a very\nungrateful employment. The dealers always paid authors and copyists very\nill. It required two years of assiduous labor for a copyist to\ntranscribe the whole Bible well on vellum, and what time and trouble to\ncopy correctly in Greek and Latin the works of Origen, Clement of\nAlexandria and all the others writers called Fathers!\n\nSt. Hieronymos, or Hieronymus, whom we call Jerome, says, in one of his\nsatirical letters against Rufinus that he has ruined himself with buying\nthe works of Origen, against whom he wrote with so much bitterness and\nviolence. \"Yes,\" says he, \"I have read Origen, if it be a crime I\nconfess that I am guilty and that I exhausted my purse in buying his\nworks at Alexandria.\"\n\nThe Christian societies of the three first centuries had fifty-four\ngospels, of which, until Diocletian's time scarcely two or three copies\nfound their way among the Romans of the old religion.\n\nAmong the Christians it was an unpardonable crime to show the gospels to\nthe Gentiles; they did not even lend them to the catechumens.\n\nWhen Lucian (insulting our religion of which he knew very little)\nrelates that \"a troop of beggars took him up into a fourth story where\nthey were invoking the Father through the Son, and foretelling\nmisfortunes to the emperor and the empire,\" he does not say that they\nshowed him a single book. No Roman historian, no Roman author whomsoever\nmakes mention of the gospels.\n\nWhen a Christian, who was unfortunately rash and unworthy of his holy\nreligion had publicly torn in pieces and trampled under foot an edict of\nthe Emperor Diocletian, and had thus drawn down upon Christianity that\npersecution which succeeded the greatest toleration, the Christians were\nthen obliged to give up their gospels and written authors to the\nmagistrates, which before then had never been done. Those who gave up\ntheir books through fear of imprisonment, or even of death, were held by\nthe rest of the Christians to be sacrilegious apostates, they received\nthe surname of _traditores_, whence we have the word \"traitor,\" and\nseveral bishops asserted that they should be rebaptized, which\noccasioned a dreadful schism.\n\nThe poems of Homer were long so little known that Pisistratus was the\nfirst who put them in order and had them transcribed at Athens about\nfive hundred years before the Christian era.\n\nPerhaps there was not at this time in all the East a dozen copies of the\nVeda and the Zend-Avesta.\n\nIn 1700 you would not have found a single book in all Rome, excepting\nthe missals and a few Bibles in the hands of papas drunk with brandy.\n\nThe complaint now is of their too great abundance. But it is not for\nreaders to complain, the remedy is in their own hands; nothing forces\nthem to read. Nor for authors, they who make the multitude of books have\nnot to complain of being pressed. Notwithstanding this enormous quantity\nhow few people read! But if they read, and read with advantage, should\nwe have to witness the deplorable infatuations to which the vulgar are\nstill every day a prey?\n\nThe reason that books are multiplied in spite of the general law that\nbeings shall not be multiplied without necessity, is that books are made\nfrom books. A new history of France or Spain is manufactured from\nseveral volumes already printed, without adding anything new. All\ndictionaries are made from dictionaries; almost all new geographical\nbooks are made from other books of geography; St. Thomas's Dream has\nbrought forth two thousand large volumes of divinity, and the same race\nof little worms that have devoured the parent are now gnawing the\nchildren.\n\n     _\u00c9crive qui voudra, chacun a son m\u00e9tier_\n     _Peut perdre impun\u00e9ment de l'encre et du papier._\n\n     Write, write away; each writer at his pleasure\n     May squander ink and paper without measure.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIt is sometimes very dangerous to make a book. Silhou\u00e8te, before he\ncould suspect that he should one day be comptroller-general of the\nfinances, published a translation of Warburton's \"Alliance of Church\nand State,\" and his father-in-law, Astuce the physician, gave to the\npublic the \"Memoirs,\" in which the author of the Pentateuch might have\nfound all the astonishing things which happened so long before his time.\n\nThe very day that Silhou\u00e8te came into office, some good friend of his\nsought out a copy of each of these books by the father-in-law and\nson-in-law, in order to denounce them to the parliament and have them\ncondemned to the flames, according to custom. They immediately bought up\nall the copies in the kingdom, whence it is that they are now extremely\nrare.\n\nThere is hardly a single philosophical or theological book in which\nheresies and impieties may not be found by misinterpreting, or adding\nto, or subtracting from, the sense.\n\nTheodore of Mopsuestes ventured to call the \"Canticle of Canticles,\" \"a\ncollection of impurities.\" Grotius pulls it in pieces and represents it\nas horrid, and Chatillon speaks of it as \"a scandalous production.\"\n\nPerhaps it will hardly be believed that Dr. Tamponet one day said to\nseveral others: \"I would engage to find a multitude of heresies in the\nLord's Prayer if this prayer, which we know to have come from the Divine\nmouth, were now for the first time published by a Jesuit.\"\n\nI would proceed thus: \"Our Father, who art in heaven--\" a proposition\ninclining to heresy, since God is everywhere. Nay, we find in this\nexpression the leaven of Socinianism, for here is nothing at all said of\nthe Trinity.\n\n\"Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven--\"\nanother proposition tainted with heresy, for it said again and again in\nthe Scriptures that God reigns eternally. Moreover it is very rash to\nask that His will may be done, since nothing is or can be done but by\nthe will of God.\n\n\"Give us this day our daily bread\"--a proposition directly contrary to\nwhat Jesus Christ uttered on another occasion: \"Take no thought, saying\nwhat shall we eat? or what shall we drink?... for after all these things\ndo the Gentiles seek.... But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His\nrighteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.\"\n\n\"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors--\" a rash\nproposition, which compares man to God, destroys gratuitous\npredestination, and teaches that God is bound to do to us as we do to\nothers. Besides, how can the author say that we forgive our debtors? We\nhave never forgiven them a single crown. No convent in Europe ever\nremitted to its farmers the payment of a sou. To dare to say the\ncontrary is a formal heresy.\n\n\"Lead us not into temptation--\" a proposition scandalous and manifestly\nheretical, for there is no tempter but the devil, and it is expressly\nsaid in St. James' Epistle: \"God is no tempter of the wicked; He tempts\nno man.\"--_\"Deus enim intentator malorum est; ipse autem neminem\ntentat.\"_\n\nYou see, then, said Doctor Tamponet, that there is nothing, though ever\nso venerable, to which a bad sense may not be given. What book, then,\nshall not be liable to human censure when even the Lord's Prayer may be\nattacked, by giving a diabolical interpretation to all the divine words\nthat compose it?\n\nAs for me, I tremble at the thought of making a book. Thank God, I have\nnever published anything; I have not even--like brothers La Rue, Du\nCeveau, and Folard--had any of my theatrical pieces played, it would be\ntoo dangerous.\n\nIf you publish, a parish curate accuses you of heresy; a stupid\ncollegian denounces you; a fellow that cannot read condemns you; the\npublic laugh at you; your bookseller abandons you, and your wine\nmerchant gives you no more credit. I always add to my paternoster,\n\"Deliver me, O God, from the itch of bookmaking.\"\n\nO ye who, like myself, lay black on white and make clean paper dirty!\ncall to mind the following verses which I remember to have read, and by\nwhich we should have been corrected:\n\n     _Tout ce fatras fat du chauvre en son temps,_\n     _Linge il devint par l'art des tisserands;_\n     _Puis en lambeaux des pilons le press\u00e8rent_\n     _Il fut papier. Cent cerveaux \u00e0 l'envers_\n     _De visions \u00e0 l'envi le charg\u00e8rent;_\n     _Puis on le br\u00fble; il vole dans les airs,_\n     _Il est fum\u00e9e aussi bien que la gloire._\n     _De nos travaux voil\u00e0 quelle est l'histoire,_\n     _Tout est fum\u00e9e, et tout nous fait sentir_\n     _Ce grand n\u00e9ant qui doit nous engloutir._\n\n     This miscellaneous rubbish once was flax,\n     Till made soft linen by the honest weaver;\n     But when at length it dropped from people's backs,\n     'Twas turned to paper, and became receiver\n     Of all that fifty motley brains could fashion;\n     So now 'tis burned without the least compassion;\n     It now, like glory, terminates in smoke;\n     Thus all our toils are nothing but a joke--\n     All ends in smoke; each nothing that we follow\n     Tells of the nothing that must all things swallow.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nBooks are now multiplied to such a degree that it is impossible not only\nto read them all but even to know their number and their titles.\nHappily, one is not obliged to read all that is published, and\nCaramuel's plan for writing a hundred folio volumes and employing the\nspiritual and temporal power of princes to compel their subjects to read\nthem, has not been put in execution. Ringelburg, too, had formed the\ndesign of composing about a thousand different volumes, but, even had he\nlived long enough to publish them he would have fallen far short of\nHermes Trismegistus, who, according to Jamblicus, composed thirty-six\nthousand five hundred and twenty-five books. Supposing the truth of this\nfact, the ancients had no less reason than the moderns to complain of\nthe multitude of books.\n\nIt is, indeed, generally agreed that a small number of choice books is\nsufficient. Some propose that we should confine ourselves to the Bible\nor Holy Scriptures, as the Turks limit themselves to the Koran. But\nthere is a great difference between the feelings of reverence\nentertained by the Mahometans for their Koran and those of the\nChristians for the Scriptures. The veneration testified by the former\nwhen speaking of the Koran cannot be exceeded. It is, say they, the\ngreatest of all miracles; nor are all the men in existence put together\ncapable of anything at all approaching it; it is still more wonderful\nthat the author had never studied, nor read any book. The Koran alone is\nworth sixty thousand miracles (the number of its verses, or\nthereabouts); one rising from the dead would not be a stronger proof of\nthe truth of a religion than the composition of the Koran. It is so\nperfect that it ought not to be regarded as a work of creation.\n\nThe Christians do indeed say that their Scriptures were inspired by the\nHoly Ghost, yet not only is it acknowledged by Cardinal Cajetan and\nBellarmine that errors have found their way into them through the\nnegligence and ignorance of the book-sellers and the rabbis, who added\nthe points, but they are considered as a book too dangerous for the\nhands of the majority of the faithful. This is expressed by the fifth\nrule of the Index, a congregation at Rome, whose office it is to examine\nwhat books are to be forbidden. It is as follows:\n\n\"Since it is evident that if the reading of the Bible, translated into\nthe vulgar tongue, were permitted to every one indiscriminately the\ntemerity of mankind would cause more evil than good to arise\ntherefrom--we will that it be referred to the judgment of the bishop or\ninquisitor, who, with the advice of the curate or confessor, shall have\npower to grant permission to read the Bible rendered in the vulgar\ntongue by Catholic writers, to those to whom they shall judge that such\nreading will do no harm; they must have this permission in writing and\nshall not be absolved until they have returned their Bible into the\nhands of the ordinary. As for such book-sellers as shall sell Bibles in\nthe vulgar tongue to those who have not this written permission, or in\nany other way put them into their hands, they shall lose the price of\nthe books (which the bishop shall employ for pious purposes), and shall\nmoreover be punished by arbitrary penalties. Nor shall regulars read or\nbuy these books without the permission of their superiors.\"\n\nCardinal Duperron also asserted that the Scriptures, in the hands of the\nunlearned, were a two-edged knife which might wound them, to avoid which\nit was better that they should hear them from the mouth of the Church,\nwith the solutions and interpretations of such passages as appear to the\nsenses to be full of absurdity and contradiction, than that they should\nread them by themselves without any solution or interpretation. He\nafterwards made a long enumeration of these absurdities in terms so\nunqualified that Jurieu was not afraid to declare that he did not\nremember to have read anything so frightful or so scandalous in any\nChristian author.\n\nJurieu, who was so violent t in his invectives against Cardinal\nDuperron, had himself to sustain similar reproaches from the Catholics.\n\"I heard that minister,\" says Pap, in speaking of him, \"teaching the\npublic that all the characteristics of the Holy Scriptures on which\nthose pretended reformers had founded their persuasion of their\ndivinity, did not appear to him to be sufficient. 'Let it not be\ninferred,' said Jurieu, 'that I wish to take from the light and strength\nof the characteristics of Scripture, but I will venture to affirm that\nthere is not one of them which may not be eluded by the profane. There\nis not one of them that amounts to a proof; not one to which something\nmay not be said in answer, and, considered altogether, although they\nhave greater power than separately to work a moral conviction--that is,\na proof on which to found a certainty excluding every doubt--I own that\nnothing seems to me to be more opposed to reason than to say that these\ncharacteristics are of themselves capable of producing such a\ncertainty.\"\n\nIt is not then astonishing that the Jews and the first Christians, who,\nwe find in the Acts of the Apostles, confined themselves in their\nmeetings to the reading of the Bible, were, as will be seen in the\narticle \"Heresy,\" divided into different sects. For this reading was\nafterwards substituted that of various apocryphal works, or at least of\nextracts from them. The author of the \"Synopsis of Scripture,\" which we\nfind among the works of St. Athanasius, expressly avows that there are\nin the apocryphal books things most true and inspired by God which have\nbeen selected and extracted for the perusal of the faithful.\n\n\n\n\nBOURGES.\n\n\nOur questions have but little to do with geography, but we shall,\nperhaps, be permitted to express in a few words our astonishment\nrespecting the town of Bourges. The Tr\u00e9voux Dictionary asserts that \"it\nis one of the most ancient in Europe; that it was the seat of empire of\nthe Gauls, and gave laws to the Celts.\"\n\nI will not combat the antiquity of any town or of any family. But was\nthere ever an empire of Gaul? had the Celts kings? This rage for\nantiquity is a malady which is not easily cured. In Gaul, in Germany,\nand in the North there is nothing ancient but the soil, the trees, and\nthe animals. If you will have antiquities go to Asia, and even there\nthey are hardly to be found. Man is ancient, but monuments are new; this\nhas already been said in more articles than one.\n\nIf to be born within a certain stone or wooden limit more ancient than\nanother were a real good it would be no more than reasonable to date the\nfoundation of the town from the giants' war, but since this vanity is in\nno wise advantageous let it be renounced. This is all I have to say\nabout Bourges.\n\n\n\n\nBRACHMANS--BRAHMINS.\n\n\nCourteous reader, observe, in the first place, that Father Thomassin,\none of the most learned men of modern Europe, derives the Brachmans\nfrom the Jewish word _barac_, by a _c_--supposing, of course, that the\nJews had a _c_. This _barac_, says he, signified _to fly_; and the\nBrachmans fled from the towns--supposing that there were any towns.\n\nOr, if you like it better, Brachmans comes from _barak_ by a _k_,\nmeaning to _bless_ or to _pray_. But why might not the Biscayans name\nthe Brahmins from the word _bran_? which expresses--I will not say what.\nThey had as good a right as the Hebrews. Really, this is a strange sort\nof erudition. By rejecting it entirely, we should know less, but we\nshould know it better.\n\nIs it not likely that the Brahmins were the first legislators, the first\nphilosophers, the first divines, of the earth? Do not the few remaining\nmonuments of ancient history form a great presumption in their favor?\nsince the first Greek philosophers went to them to learn mathematics;\nand the most ancient curiosities, those collected by the emperors of\nChina, are all Indian, as is attested by the relations in Du Halde's\ncollection.\n\nOf the Shastah, we shall speak elsewhere. It is the first theological\nbook of the Brahmins, written about fifteen hundred years before the\nVedah, and anterior to all other books.\n\nTheir annals make no mention of any war undertaken by them at any time.\nThe words \"arms,\" \"killing,\" \"maiming,\" are to be found neither in the\nfragments of the Shastah that have reached us, nor in the Yajurvedah,\nnor in the Kormovedah. At least, I can affirm that I have not seen them\nin either of these two latter collections; and it is most singular that\nthe Shastah, which speaks of a conspiracy in heaven, makes no mention of\nany war in the great peninsula between the Indus and Ganges.\n\n[Illustration: India was unknown until after Alexander's conquests.]\n\nThe Hebrews, who were unknown until so late a period, never name the\nBrahmins; they knew nothing of India till after Alexander's conquests\nand their own settling in that Egypt of which they had spoken so ill.\nThe name of India is to be found only in the book of Esther, and in that\nof Job, who was not a Hebrew. We find a singular contrast between the\nsacred books of the Hebrews and those of the Indians. The Indian books\nannounce only peace and mildness; they forbid the killing of animals:\nbut the Hebrew books speak of nothing but the slaughter and massacre of\nmen and beasts; all are butchered in the name of the Lord; it is quite\nanother order of things.\n\nWe are incontestably indebted to the Brahmins for the idea of the fall\nof celestial beings revolting against the Sovereign of Nature; and it\nwas probably from them that the Greeks took the fable of the Titans; and\nlastly, from them it was that the Jews, in the first century of our era,\ntook the idea of Lucifer's revolt.\n\nHow could these Indians suppose a rebellion in heaven without having\nseen one on earth? Such a leap from the human to the divine nature is\ndifficult of comprehension. We usually step from what is known to what\nis unknown.\n\nA war of giants would not be imagined, until some men more robust than\nthe rest had been seen to tyrannize over their fellow-men. To imagine\nthe like in heaven, the Brahmins must either have experienced violent\ndiscords among themselves, or at least have witnessed them among their\nneighbors.\n\nBe that as it may, it is an astonishing phenomenon that a society of men\nwho had never made war should have invented a sort of war carried on in\nimaginary space, or in a globe distant from our own, or in what is\ncalled the firmament--the empyrean. But let it be carefully observed,\nthat in this revolt of the celestial beings against their Sovereign,\nthere were no blows given, no celestial blood spilled, no mountains\nthrown at one another's heads, no angels deft in twain, as in Milton's\nsublime and grotesque poem.\n\nAccording to the Shastah, it was only a formal disobedience of the\norders of the Most High, which God punished by relegating the rebellious\nangels to a vast place of darkness called Onderah, for the term of a\nwhole mononthour. A mononthour is a hundred and twenty-six millions of\nour years. But God vouchsafed to pardon the guilty at the end of five\nthousand years, and their Onderah was nothing more than a purgatory.\n\nHe turned them into _Mhurd_, or men, and placed them on our globe, on\ncondition that they should not eat animals, nor cohabit with the males\nof their new species, on pain of returning to the Onderah.\n\nThese are the principal articles of the Brahmin faith, which has endured\nwithout intermission from time immemorial to the present day.\n\nThis is but a small part of the ancient cosmogony of the Brahmins. Their\nrites, their pagods, prove that among them all was allegorical. They\nstill represent Virtue in the form of a woman with ten arms, combating\nten mortal sins typified by monsters. Our missionaries were acute enough\nto take this image of Virtue for that of the devil, and affirm that the\ndevil is worshipped in India. We have never visited that people but to\nenrich ourselves and calumniate them.\n\n_The Metempsychosis of the Brahmins._\n\nThe doctrine of the metempsychosis comes from an ancient law of feeding\non cow's milk as well as on vegetables, fruits, and rice. It seemed\nhorrible to the Brahmins to kill and eat their feeder; and they had soon\nthe same respect for goats, sheep, and all other animals: they believed\nthem to be animated by the rebellious angels, who were completing their\npurification in the bodies of beasts as well as in those of men. The\nnature of the climate seconded, or rather originated this law. A burning\natmosphere creates a necessity for refreshing food, and inspires horror\nfor our custom of stowing carcasses in our stomachs.\n\nThe opinion that beasts have souls was general throughout the East, and\nwe find vestiges of it in the ancient sacred writings. In the book of\nGenesis, God forbids men to eat \"their flesh with their blood and their\nsoul.\" Such is the import of the Hebrew text. \"I will avenge,\" says he,\n\"the blood of your souls on the claws of beasts and the hands of men.\"\nIn Leviticus he says, \"The soul of the flesh is in the blood.\" He does\nmore; he makes a solemn compact with man and with all animals, which\nsupposes an intelligence in the latter.\n\nIn much later times, Ecclesiasticus formally says, \"God shows that man\nis like to the beasts; for men die like beasts; their condition is\nequal; as man dies, so also dies the beast. They breathe alike. There is\nnothing in man more than in the beast.\" Jonah, when he went to preach at\nNineveh, made both men and beasts fast.\n\nAll ancient authors, sacred books as well as profane, attribute\nknowledge to the beasts; and several make them speak. It is not then to\nbe wondered at that the Brahmins, and after them the Pythagoreans,\nbelieved that souls passed successively into the bodies of beasts and of\nmen; consequently they persuaded themselves, or at least they said, that\nthe souls of the guilty angels, in order to finish their purgation,\nbelonged sometimes to beasts, sometimes to men. This is a part of the\nromance of the Jesuit Bougeant, who imagined that the devils are spirits\nsent into the bodies of animals. Thus, in our day, and at the extremity\nof the west, a Jesuit unconsciously revives an article of the faith of\nthe most ancient Oriental priests.\n\n_The Self-burning of Men and Women among the Brahmins._\n\nThe Brahmins of the present day, who do all that the ancient Brahmins\ndid, have, we know, retained this horrible custom. Whence is it that,\namong a people who have never shed the blood of men or of animals, the\nfinest act of devotion is a public self-burning? Superstition, the great\nuniter of contraries, is the only source of these frightful sacrifices,\nthe custom of which is much more ancient than the laws of any known\npeople.\n\nThe Brahmins assert that their great prophet Brahma, the son of God,\ndescended among men, and had seyeral wives; and that after his death,\nthe wife who loved him the most burned herself on his funeral pile, that\nshe might join him in heaven. Did this woman really burn herself, as it\nis said that Portia, the wife of Brutus, swallowed burning coals, in\norder to be reunited to her husband? or is this a fable invented by the\npriests? Was there a Brahma, who really gave himself out as a prophet\nand son of God? It is likely that there was a Brahma, as there\nafterwards were a Zoroaster and a Bacchus. Fable seized upon their\nhistory, as she has everywhere constantly done.\n\nNo sooner does the wife of the son of God burn herself, than ladies of\nmeaner condition must burn themselves likewise. But how are they to\nfind their husbands again, who are become horses, elephants, hawks,\netc.? How are they to distinguish the precise beast, which the defunct\nanimates? how recognize him and be still his wife? This difficulty does\nnot in the least embarrass the Hindoo theologians; they easily find a\n_distinguo_--a solution _in sensu composito_--_in sensu diviso_. The\nmetempsychosis is only for common people; for other souls they have a\nsublimer doctrine. These souls, being those of the once rebel angels, go\nabout purifying themselves; those of the women who immolate themselves\nare beatified, and find their husbands ready-purified. In short, the\npriests are right, and the women burn themselves.\n\nThis dreadful fanaticism has existed for more than four thousand years,\namongst a mild people, who would fear to kill a grasshopper. The priests\ncannot force a widow to burn herself; for the invariable law is, that\nthe self-devotion must be absolutely voluntary. The longest married of\nthe wives of the deceased has the first refusal of the honor of mounting\nthe funeral-pile; if she is not inclined, the second presents herself;\nand so of the rest. It is said, that on one occasion seventeen burned\nthemselves at once on the pile of a rajah: but these sacrifices are now\nvery rare; the faith has become weaker since the Mahometans have\ngoverned a great part of the country, and the Europeans traded with the\nrest.\n\nStill, there is scarcely a governor of Madras or Pondicherry who has\nnot seen some Indian woman voluntarily perish in the flames. Mr. Holwell\nrelates that a young widow of nineteen, of singular beauty, and the\nmother of three children, burned herself in the presence of Mrs.\nRussell, wife of the admiral then in the Madras roads. She resisted the\ntears and the prayers of all present; Mrs. Russell conjured her, in the\nname of her children, not to leave them orphans. The Indian woman\nanswered, \"God, who has given them birth, will take care of them.\" She\nthen arranged everything herself, set fire to the pile with her own\nhand, and consummated her sacrifice with as much serenity as one of our\nnuns lights the tapers.\n\nMr. Charnock, an English merchant, one day seeing one of these\nastonishing victims, young and lovely, on her way to the funeral-pile,\ndragged her away by force when she was about to set fire to it, and,\nwith the assistance of some of his countrymen, carried her of! and\nmarried her. The people regarded this act as the most horrible\nsacrilege.\n\nWhy do husbands never burn themselves, that they may join their wives?\nWhy has a sex, naturally weak and timid, always had this frantic\nresolution? Is it because tradition does not say that a man ever married\na daughter of Brahma, while it does affirm that an Indian woman was\nmarried to a son of that divinity? Is it because women are more\nsuperstitious than men? Or is it because their imaginations are weaker,\nmore tender, and more easily governed?\n\nThe ancient Brahmins sometimes burned themselves to prevent the pains\nand the languor of old age; but, above all, to make themselves admired.\nCalanus would not, perhaps, have placed himself on the pile, but for the\npurpose of being gazed at by Alexander. The Christian renegade\nPeregrinus burned himself in public, for the same reason that a madman\ngoes about the streets dressed like an Armenian, to attract the notice\nof the populace.\n\nIs there not also an unfortunate mixture of vanity in this terrible\nsacrifice of the Indian women? Perhaps, if a law were passed that the\nburning should take place in the presence of one waiting woman only,\nthis abominable custom would be forever destroyed.\n\nOne word more: A few hundreds of Indian women, at most, have furnished\nthis horrid spectacle; but our inquisitions, our atrocious madmen\ncalling themselves judges, have put to death in the flames more than a\nhundred thousand of our brethren--men, women, and children--for things\nwhich no one has understood. Let us pity and condemn the Brahmins; but\nlet us not forget our miserable selves!\n\nTruly, we have forgotten one very essential point in this short article\non the Brahmins, which is, that their sacred books are full of\ncontradictions; but the people know nothing of them, and the doctors\nhave solutions ready--senses figured and figurative, allegories, types,\nexpress declarations of Birma, Brahma, and Vishnu, sufficient to shut\nthe mouth of any reasoner.\n\n\n\n\nBREAD-TREE.\n\n\nThe bread-tree grows in the Philippine islands, and principally in those\nof Guam and Tinian, as the cocoa-tree grows in the Indies. These two\ntrees, alone, if they could be multiplied in our climate, would furnish\nfood and drink sufficient for all mankind.\n\nThe bread-tree is taller and more bulky than our common apple-trees; its\nleaves are black, its fruit is yellow, and equal in dimensions to the\nlargest apple. The rind is hard; and the cuticle is a sort of soft,\nwhite paste, which has the taste of the best French rolls; but it must\nbe eaten fresh, as it keeps only twenty-four hours, after which it\nbecomes dry, sour and disagreeable; but, as a compensation, the trees\nare loaded with them eight months of the year. The natives of the\nislands have no other food; they are all tall, stout, well made,\nsufficiently fleshy, and in the vigorous health which is necessarily\nproduced by the use of one wholesome aliment alone: and it is to negroes\nthat nature has made this present.\n\nCorn is assuredly not the food of the greater part of the world. Maize\nand cassava are the food of all America. We have whole provinces in\nwhich the peasants eat none but chestnut bread, which is more nourishing\nand of better flavor than the rye or barley bread on which so many feed,\nand is much better than the rations given to the soldiers. Bread is\nunknown in all southern Africa. The immense Indian Archipelago, Siam,\nLaos, Pegu, Cochin-China, Tonquin, part of China, the Malabar and\nCoromandel coasts, and the banks of the Ganges, produce rice, which is\neasier of cultivation, and for which wheat is neglected. Corn is\nabsolutely unknown for the space of five hundred leagues on the coast of\nthe Icy Sea.\n\nThe missionaries have sometimes been in great tribulation, in countries\nwhere neither bread nor wine is to be found. The inhabitants told them\nby interpreters: \"You would baptize us with a few drops of water, in a\nburning climate, where we are obliged to plunge every day into the\nrivers; you would confess us, yet you understand not our language; you\nwould have us communicate, yet you want the two necessary ingredients,\nbread and wine. It is therefore evident that your universal religion\ncannot have been made for us.\" The missionaries replied, very justly,\nthat good will is the one thing needful; that they should be plunged\ninto the water without any scruple; that bread and wine should be\nbrought from Goa; and that, as for the language, the missionaries would\nlearn it in a few years.\n\n\n\n\nBUFFOONERY--BURLESQUE--LOW COMEDY.\n\n\nHe was a very subtle schoolman, who first said that we owe the origin of\nthe word \"buffoon\" to a little Athenian sacrificer called _Bupho_, who,\nbeing tired of his employment, absconded, and never returned. The\nAreopagus, as they could not punish the priest, proceeded against his\nhatchet. This farce, which was played every year in the temple of\nJupiter, is said to have been called _\"buffoonery.\"_ This story is not\nentitled to much credit Buffoon was not a proper name; _bouphonos_\nsignifies an immolator of oxen. The Greeks never called any jest\n_bouphonia_. This ceremony, frivolous as it appears, might have an\norigin wise and humane, worthy of true Athenians.\n\nOnce a year, the subaltern sacrificer, or more properly the holy\nbutcher, when on the point of immolating an ox, fled as if struck with\nhorror, to put men in mind that in wiser and happier times only flowers\nand fruits were offered to the gods, and that the barbarity of\nimmolating innocent and useful animals was not introduced until there\nwere priests desirous of fattening on their blood and living at the\nexpense of the people. In this idea there is no buffoonery.\n\nThis word \"buffoon\" has long been received among the Italians and the\nSpaniards, signifying _mimus, scurra, joculator_--a mimic, a jester, a\nplayer of tricks. M\u00e9nage, after Salmasius, derives it from _bocca\ninfiata_--a bloated face; and it is true that a round face and swollen\ncheeks are requisite in a buffoon. The Italians say _bufo magro_--a\nmeagre buffoon, to express a poor jester who cannot make you laugh.\n\nBuffoon and buffoonery appertain to low comedy, to mountebanking, to all\nthat can amuse the populace. In this it was--to the shame of the human\nmind be it spoken--that tragedy had its beginning: Thespis was a\nbuffoon before Sophocles was a great man.\n\nIn the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Spanish and English\ntragedies were all degraded by disgusting buffooneries. The courts were\nstill more disgraced by buffoons than the stage. So strong was the rust\nof barbarism, that men had no taste for more refined pleasures. Boileau\nsays of Moli\u00e8re:\n\n      _C'est par-l\u00e0 que Moli\u00e8re, illustrant ses \u00e9crits,_\n      _Peut-\u00eatre de son art e\u00fbt emport\u00e9 le prix,_\n      _Si, moins ami du peuple en ses doctes peintures,_\n      _Il n'e\u00fbt fait quelquefois, grimacer ses figures,_\n      _Quitt\u00e9 pour le bouffon l'agr\u00e9able et fin,_\n      _Et sans honte \u00e0 Terence alli\u00e9 Tabarin._\n      _Dans ce sac ridicule o\u00f9 Scapin s'enveloppe,_\n      _Je ne reconnais plus l'auteur du Misanthrope._\n\n      Moli\u00e8re in comic genius had excelled,\n      And might, perhaps, have stood unparalleled,\n      Had he his faithful portraits ne'er allowed\n      To gape and grin to gratify the crowd;\n      Deserting wit for low grimace and jest,\n      And showing Terence in a motley vest.\n      Who in the sack, where Scapin plays the fool,\n      Will find the genius of the comic school?\n\nBut it must be considered that Raphael condescended to paint grotesque\nfigures. Moli\u00e8re would not have descended so low, if all his spectators\nhad been such men as Louis XIV., Cond\u00e9, Turenne, La Rochefoucauld,\nMontausier, Beauvilliers, and such women as Montespan and Thianges; but\nhe had also to please the whole people of Paris, who were yet quite\nunpolished. The citizen liked broad farce, and he paid for it. Scarron's\n\"Jodelets\" were all the rage. We are obliged to place ourselves on the\nlevel of our age, before we can rise above it; and, after all, we like\nto laugh now and then. What is Homer's \"Battle of the Frogs and Mice,\"\nbut a piece of buffoonery--a burlesque poem?\n\nWorks of this kind give no reputation, but they may take from that which\nwe already enjoy.\n\nBuffoonery is not always in the burlesque style, \"The Physician in Spite\nof Himself,\" and the \"Rogueries of Scapin,\" are not in the style of\nScarron's \"Jodelets.\" Moli\u00e8re does not, like Scarron, go in search of\nslang terms; his lowest characters do not play the mountebank.\nBuffoonery is in the thing, not in the expression.\n\nBoileau's \"Lutrin\" was at first called a burlesque poem, but it was the\nsubject that was burlesque; the style was pleasing and refined, and\nsometimes even heroic.\n\nThe Italians had another kind of burlesque, much superior to ours--that\nof Aretin, of Archbishop La Caza, of Berni, Mauro, and Dolce. It often\nsacrifices decorum to pleasantry, but obscene words are wholly banished\nfrom it. The subject of Archbishop La Caza's _\"Capitolo del Forno\"_ is,\nindeed, that which sends the Desfontaines to the Bic\u00eatre, and the\nDeschaufours to the Place de Gr\u00e8ve: but there is not one word offensive\nto the ear of chastity; you have to divine the meaning.\n\nThree or four Englishmen have excelled in this way: Butler, in his\n\"Hudibras,\" which was the civil war excited by the Puritans turned into\nridicule; Dr. Garth, in his \"Dispensary\"; Prior, in his \"Alma,\" in\nwhich he very pleasantly makes a jest of his subject and Phillips, in\nhis \"Splendid Shilling.\"\n\nButler is as much above Scarron as a man accustomed to good company is\nabove a singer at a pot-house. The hero of \"Hudibras\" was a real\npersonage, one Sir Samuel Luke, who had been a captain in the armies of\nFairfax and Cromwell. See the commencement of the poem, in the article\n\"Prior,\" \"Butler,\" and \"Swift.\"\n\nGarth's poem on the physicians and apothecaries is not so much in the\nburlesque style as Boileau's \"Lutrin\": it has more imagination, variety,\nand naivete than the \"Lutrin\"; and, which is rather astonishing, it\ndisplays profound erudition, embellished with all the graces of\nrefinement. It begins thus:\n\n     Speak, Goddess, since 'tis thou that best canst tell\n     How ancient leagues to modern discord fell;\n     And why physicians were so cautious grown\n     Of others' lives, and lavish of their own.\n\nPrior, whom we have seen a plenipotentiary in France before the Peace of\nUtrecht, assumed the office of mediator between the philosophers who\ndispute about the soul. This poem is in the style of \"Hudibras,\" called\ndoggerel rhyme, which is the _stilo Berniesco_ of the Italians.\n\nThe great first question is, whether the soul is all in all, or is\nlodged behind the nose and eyes in a corner which it never quits.\nAccording to the latter system, Prior compares it to the pope, who\nconstantly remains at Rome, whence he sends his nuncios and spies to\nlearn all that is doing in Christendom.\n\nPrior, after making a jest of several systems, proposes his own. He\nremarks that the two-legged animal, new-born, throws its feet about as\nmuch as possible, when its nurse is so stupid as to swaddle it: thence\nhe judges that the soul enters it by the feet; that about fifteen it\nreaches the middle; then it ascends to the heart; then to the head,\nwhich it quits altogether when the animal ceases to live.\n\nAt the end of this singular poem, full of ingenious versification, and\nof ideas alike subtle and pleasing, we find this charming line of\nFontenelle: _\"Il est des hochets pour tout \u00e2ge.\"_ Prior begs of fortune\nto \"Give us play-things for old age.\"\n\nYet it is quite certain that Fontenelle did not take this line from\nPrior, nor Prior from Fontenelle. Prior's work is twenty years anterior,\nand Fontenelle did not understand English. The poem terminates with this\nconclusion:\n\n     For Plato's fancies what care I?\n     I hope you would not have me die\n     Like simple Cato in the play,\n     For anything that he can say:\n     E'en let him of ideas speak\n     To heathens, in his native Greek.\n     If to be sad is to be wise,\n     I do most heartily despise\n     Whatever Socrates has said,\n     Or Tully writ, or Wanley read.\n     Dear Drift, to set our matters right,\n     Remove these papers from my sight;\n     Burn Mat's Descartes and Aristotle--\n     Here, Jonathan,--your master's bottle.\n\nIn all these poems, let us distinguish the pleasant, the lively, the\nnatural, the familiar--from the grotesque, the farcical, the low, and,\nabove all, the stiff and forced. These various shades are discriminated\nby the connoisseurs, who alone, in the end, decide the fate of every\nwork.\n\nLa Fontaine would sometimes descend to the burlesque style--Ph\u00e6drus\nnever; but the latter has not the grace and unaffected softness of La\nFontaine, though he has greater precision and purity.\n\n\n\n\nBULGARIANS.\n\n\nThese people were originally Huns, who settled near the Volga; and\nVolgarians was easily changed into Bulgarians.\n\nAbout the end of the seventh century, they, like all the other nations\ninhabiting Sarmatia, made irruptions towards the Danube, and inundated\nthe Roman Empire. They passed through Moldavia and Wallachia, whither\ntheir old fellow-countrymen, the Russians, carried their victorious arms\nin 1769, under the Empress Catherine II.\n\nHaving crossed the Danube, they settled in part of Dacia and Moesia,\ngiving their name to the countries which are still called Bulgaria.\nTheir dominion extended to Mount H\u00e6mus and the Euxine Sea.\n\nIn Charlemagne's time, the Emperor Nicephorus, successor to Irene, was\nso imprudent as to march against them after being vanquished by the\nSaracens; and he was in like manner defeated by the Bulgarians. Their\nking, named Krom, cut off his head, and made use of his skull as a\ndrinking-cup at his table, according to the custom of that people in\ncommon with all the northern nations.\n\nIt is related that, in the ninth century, one Bogoris, who was making\nwar upon the Princess Theodora, mother and guardian to the Emperor\nMichael, was so charmed with that empress's noble answer to his\ndeclaration of war, that he turned Christian.\n\nThe Bulgarians, who were less complaisant, revolted against him; but\nBogoris, having shown them a crucifix, they all immediately received\nbaptism. So say the Greek writers of the lower empire, and so say our\ncompilers after them: _\"Et voil\u00e0 justement comme on \u00e9crit l'histoire.\"_\n\nTheodora, say they, was a very religious princess, even passing her\nlatter years in a convent. Such was her love for the Greek Catholic\nreligion that she put to death in various ways a hundred thousand men\naccused of Manich\u00e6ism--\"this being,\" says the modest continuator of\nEchard, \"the most impious, the most detestable, the most dangerous, the\nmost abominable of all heresies, for ecclesiastical censures were\nweapons of no avail against men who acknowledged not the church.\"\n\nIt is said that the Bulgarians, seeing that all the Manich\u00e6ans suffered\ndeath, immediately conceived an inclination for their religion, and\nthought it the best, since it was the most persecuted one: but this, for\nBulgarians, would be extraordinarily acute.\n\nAt that time, the great schism broke out more violently than ever\nbetween the Greek church, under the Patriarch Photius, and the Latin\nchurch, under Pope Nicholas I. The Bulgarians took part with the Greek\nchurch; and from that time, probably, it was that they were treated in\nthe west as heretics, with the addition of that fine epithet, which has\nclung to them to the present day.\n\nIn 871, the Emperor Basil sent them a preacher, named Peter of Sicily,\nto save them from the heresy of Manich\u00e6ism; and it is added, that they\nno sooner heard him than they turned Manich\u00e6ans. It is not very\nsurprising that the Bulgarians, who drank out of the skulls of their\nenemies, were not extraordinary theologians any more than Peter of\nSicily.\n\nIt is singular that these barbarians, who could neither write nor read,\nshould have been regarded as very knowing heretics, with whom it was\ndangerous to dispute. They certainly had other things to think of than\ncontroversy, since they carried on a sanguinary war against the emperors\nof Constantinople for four successive centuries, and even besieged the\ncapital of the empire.\n\nAt the commencement of the thirteenth century, the Emperor Alexis,\nwishing to make himself recognized by the Bulgarians, their king,\nJoannic, replied, that he would never be his vassal. Pope Innocent III.\nwas careful to seize this opportunity of attaching the kingdom of\nBulgaria to himself: he sent a legate to Joannic, to anoint him king;\nand pretended that he had conferred the kingdom upon him, and that he\ncould never more hold it but from the holy see.\n\nThis was the most violent period of the crusades. The indignant\nBulgarians entered into an alliance with the Turks, declared war against\nthe pope and his crusaders, took the pretended Emperor Baldwin prisoner,\nhad his head cut off, and made a bowl of his skull, after the manner of\nKrom. This was quite enough to make the Bulgarians abhorred by all\nEurope. It was no longer necessary to call them Manich\u00e6ans, a name which\nwas at that time given to every class of heretics: for Manich\u00e6an,\nPatarin, and Vaudois were the same thing. These terms were lavished upon\nwhosoever would not submit to the Roman church.\n\n\n\n\nBULL.\n\n\nA quadruped, armed with horns, having cloven feet, strong legs, a slow\npace, a thick body, a hard skin, a tail not quite so long as that of the\nhorse, with some long hairs at the end. Its blood has been looked upon\nas a poison, but it is no more so than that of other animals; and the\nancients, who wrote that Themistocles and others poisoned themselves\nwith bull's blood, were false both to nature and to history. Lucian, who\nreproaches Jupiter with having placed the bull's horns above his eyes,\nreproaches him unjustly; for the eye of a bull being large, round, and\nopen, he sees very well where he strikes; and if his eyes had been\nplaced higher than his horns, he could not have seen the grass which he\ncrops.\n\nPhalaris's bull, or the Brazen Bull, was a bull of cast metal, found in\nSicily, and supposed to have been used by Phalaris to enclose and burn\nsuch as he chose to punish--a very unlikely species of cruelty. The\nbulls of Medea guarded the Golden Fleece. The bull of Marathon was tamed\nby Hercules.\n\nThen there were the bull which carried off Europa, the bull of Mithras,\nand the bull of Osiris; there are the Bull, a sign of the zodiac, and\nthe Bull's Eye, a star of the first magnitude, and lastly, there are\nbull-fights, common in Spain.\n\n\n\n\nBULL (PAPAL).\n\n\nThis word designates the bull, or seal of gold, silver, wax, or lead,\nattached to any instrument or charter. The lead hanging to the rescripts\ndespatched in the Roman court bears on one side the head of St. Peter on\nthe right, and that of St. Paul on the left; and, on the reverse, the\nname of the reigning pope, with the year of his pontificate. The bull is\nwritten on parchment. In the greeting, the pope takes no title but that\nof \"Servant of the Servants of God,\" according to the holy words of\nJesus to His Disciples--\"Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be\nyour servant.\"\n\nSome heretics assert that, by this formula, humble in appearance, the\npopes mean to express a sort of feudal system, of which God is chief;\nwhose high vassals, Peter and Paul, are represented by their servant\nthe pontiff; while the lesser vassals are all secular princes, whether\nemperors, kings, or dukes.\n\nThey doubtless found this assertion on the famous bull _In c\u0153na\nDomini,_ which is publicly read at Rome by a cardinal-deacon every year,\non Holy Thursday, in the presence of the pope, attended by the rest of\nthe cardinals and bishops. After the ceremony, his holiness casts a\nlighted torch into the public square in token of anathema.\n\nThis bull is, to be found in Tome i., p. 714 of the _Bullaire_,\npublished at Lyons in 1673, and at page 118 of the edition of 1727. The\noldest is dated 1536. Paul III., without noticing the origin of the\nceremony, here says that it is an ancient custom of the sovereign\npontiffs to publish this excommunication on Holy Thursday, in order to\npreserve the purity of the Christian religion, and maintain union among\nthe faithful. It contains twenty-four paragraphs, in which the pope\nexcommunicates:\n\n1. Heretics, all who favor them, and all who read their books.\n\n2. Pirates, especially such as dare to cruise on the seas belonging to\nthe sovereign pontiff.\n\n3. Those who impose fresh tolls on their lands.\n\n10. Those who, in any way whatsoever, prevent the execution of the\napostolical letters, whether they grant pardons or inflict penalties.\n\n11. All lay judges who judge ecclesiastics, and bring them before their\ntribunal, whether that tribunal is called an audience, a chancery, a\ncouncil, or a parliament.\n\n12. All chancellors, counsellors, ordinary or extraordinary, of any king\nor prince whatsoever, all presidents of chanceries, councils, or\nparliaments, as also all attorneys-general, who call ecclesiastical\ncauses before them, or prevent the execution of the apostolical letters,\neven though it be on pretext of preventing some violence.\n\nIn the same paragraph, the pope reserves to himself alone the power of\nabsolving the said chancellors, counsellors, attorneys-general, and the\nrest of the excommunicated; who cannot receive absolution until they\nhave publicly revoked their acts, and have erased them from the records.\n\n20. Lastly, the pope excommunicates all such as shall presume to give\nabsolution to the excommunicated as aforesaid: and, in order that no one\nmay plead ignorance, he orders:\n\n21. That this bull be published, and posted on the gate of the basilic\nof the Prince of the Apostles, and on that of St. John of Lateran.\n\n22. That all patriarchs, primates, archbishops, and bishops, by virtue\nof their holy obedience, shall have this bull solemnly published at\nleast once a year.\n\n24. He declares that whosoever dares to go against the provisions of\nthis bull, must know that he is incurring the displeasure of Almighty\nGod and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.\n\nThe other subsequent bulls, called also _In c\u0153na Domini_, are only\nduplicates of the first. For instance, the article 21 of that of Pius\nV., dated 1567, adds to the paragraph 3 of the one that we have quoted,\nthat all princes who lay new impositions on their states, of what nature\nsoever, or increase the old ones, without obtaining permission from the\nHoly See, are excommunicated _ipso facto_. The third bull _In c\u0153na\nDomini_ of 1610, contains thirty paragraphs, in which Paul V. renews the\nprovisions of the two preceding.\n\nThe fourth and last bull _In c\u0153na Domini_ which we find in the\n_Bullaire_, is dated April 1, 1672. In it Urban VIII. announces that,\nafter the example of his predecessors, in order inviolably to maintain\nthe integrity of the faith, and public justice and tranquillity, he\nwields the spiritual sword of ecclesiastical discipline to\nexcommunicate, on the day which is the anniversary of the Supper of our\nLord:\n\n1. Heretics.\n\n2. Such as appeal from the pope to a future council; and the rest as in\nthe three former.\n\nIt is said that the one which is read now, is of a more recent date, and\ncontains some additions.\n\nThe History of Naples, by Giannone, shows us what disorders the\necclesiastics stirred up in that kingdom, and what vexations they\nexercised against the king's subjects, even refusing them absolution and\nthe sacraments, in order to effect the reception of this bull, which has\nat last been solemnly proscribed there, as well as in Austrian\nLombardy, in the states of the empress-queen, in those of the Duke of\nParma, and elsewhere.\n\nIn 1580, the French clergy chose the time between the sessions of the\nparliament of Paris, to have the same bull _In c\u0153na Domini_\npublished. But it was opposed by the procureur-general; and the _Chambre\ndes Vacations_, under the presidency of the celebrated and unfortunate\nBrisson, on October 4, passed a decree, enjoining all governors to\ninform themselves, if possible, what archbishops, bishops, or\ngrand-vicars, had received either this bull or a copy of it entitled\n_Litter\u00e6 processus_, and who had sent it to them to be published; to\nprevent the publication, if it had not yet taken place; to obtain the\ncopies and send them to the chamber; or, if they had been published, to\nsummon the archbishops, the bishops, or their grand-vicars, to appear on\na certain day before the chamber, to answer to the suit of the\nprocureur-general; and, in the meantime, to seize their temporal\npossessions and place them in the hands of the king; to forbid all\npersons obstructing the execution of this decree, on pain of punishment\nas traitors and enemies to the state; with orders that the decree be\nprinted and that the copies, collated by notaries, have the full force\nof the original.\n\nIn doing this, the parliament did but feebly imitate Philip the Fair.\nThe bull _Ausculta Fili_, of Dec. 5, 1301, was addressed to him by\nBoniface VIII., who, after exhorting the king to listen with docility,\nsays to him: \"God has established us over all kings and all kingdoms, to\nroot up, and destroy, and throw down, to build, and to plant, in His\nname and by His doctrine. Do not, then, suffer yourself to be persuaded\nthat you have no superior, and that you are not subject to the head of\nthe ecclesiastical hierarchy. Whosoever thinks this, is a madman; and\nwhosoever obstinately maintains it, is an infidel, separated from the\nflock of the Good Shepherd.\" The pope then enters into long details\nrespecting the government of France, even reproaching the king for\nhaving altered the coin.\n\nPhilip the Fair had this bull burned at Paris, and its execution\npublished on sound of trumpet throughout the city, by Sunday, Feb. 11,\n1302. The pope, in a council which he held at Rome the same year, made a\ngreat noise, and broke out into threats against Philip the Fair; but he\ndid no more than threaten. The famous decretal, _Unam Sanctam_ is,\nhowever, considered as the work of his council; it is, in substance, as\nfollows:\n\n\"We believe and confess a holy, catholic, and apostolic church, out of\nwhich there is no salvation; we also acknowledge its unity, that it is\none only body, with one only head, and not with two, like a monster.\nThis only head is Jesus Christ, and St. Peter his vicar, and the\nsuccessor of St. Peter. Therefore, the Greeks, or others, who say that\nthey are not subject to that successor, must acknowledge that they are\nnot of the flock of Christ, since He himself has said (John, x, 16)\n'that there is but one fold and one shepherd.'\n\n\"We learn that in this church, and under its power, are two swords, the\nspiritual and the temporal: of these, one is to be used by the church\nand by the hand of the pontiff; the other, by the church and by the hand\nof kings and warriors, in pursuance of the orders or with the permission\nof the pontiff. Now, one of these swords must be subject to the other,\ntemporal to spiritual power; otherwise, they would not be ordinate, and\nthe apostles say they must be so. (Rom. xiii, 1.) According to the\ntestimony of truth, spiritual power must institute and judge temporal\npower; and thus is verified with regard to the church, the prophecy of\nJeremiah (i. 10): 'I have this day set thee over the nations and over\nthe kingdoms.'\"\n\nOn the other hand, Philip the Fair assembled the states-general; and the\ncommons, in the petition which they presented to that monarch, said, in\nso many words: \"It is a great abomination for us to hear that this\nBoniface stoutly interprets like a _Boulgare_ (dropping the _l_ and the\n_a_) these words of spirituality (Matt., xvi. 19): 'Whatever thou shalt\nbind on earth, shall be bound in heaven;' if this signified that if a\nman be put into a temporal prison, God will imprison him in heaven.\"\n\nClement V., successor to Boniface VIII., revoked and annulled the odious\ndecision of the bull _Unam Sanctam_, which extends the power of the\npopes to the temporalities of kings, and condemns as heretics all who do\nnot acknowledge this chimerical power. Boniface's pretension, indeed,\nought to be condemned as heresy, according to this maxim of theologians:\n\"Not only is it a sin against the rules of the faith, and a heresy, to\ndeny what the faith teaches us, but also to set up as part of the faith\nthat which is no part of it.\" (Joan. Maj. m. 3 sent. dist. 37. q. 26.)\n\nOther popes, before Boniface VIII., had arrogated to themselves the\nright of property over different kingdoms. The bull is well known, in\nwhich Gregory VII. says to the King of Spain: \"I would have you to know,\nthat the kingdom of Spain, by ancient ecclesiastical ordinances, was\ngiven in property to St. Peter and the holy Roman church.\"\n\nHenry II. of England asked permission of Pope Adrian IV. to invade\nIreland. The pontiff gave him leave, on condition that he imposed on\nevery Irish family a tax of one _carolus_ for the Holy See, and held\nthat kingdom as a fief of the Roman church. \"For,\" wrote Adrian, \"it\ncannot be doubted that every island upon which Jesus Christ, the sun of\njustice, has arisen, and which has received the lessons of the Christian\nfaith, belongs of right to St. Peter and to the holy and sacred Roman\nchurch.\"\n\n_Bulls of the Crusade and of Composition._\n\nIf an African or an Asiatic of sense were told that in that part of\nEurope where some men have forbidden others to eat flesh on Saturdays,\nthe pope gives them leave to eat it, by a bull, for the sum of two\nrials, and that another bull grants permission to keep stolen money,\nwhat would this African or Asiatic say? He would, at least, agree with\nus, that every country has its customs; and that in this world, by\nwhatever names things may be called, or however they may be disguised,\nall is done for money.\n\nThere are two bulls under the name of _La Cruzada_--the Crusade; one of\nthe time of Ferdinand and Isabella, the other of that of Philip V. The\nfirst of these sells permission to eat what is called the _grossura_,\nviz., tripes, livers, kidneys, gizzards, sweet-breads, lights, plucks,\ncauls, heads, necks, and feet.\n\nThe second bull, granted by Pope Urban VIII., gives leave to eat meat\nthroughout Lent, and absolves from every crime except heresy.\n\nNot only are these bulls sold, but people are ordered to buy them; and,\nas is but right, they cost more in Peru and Mexico than in Spain; they\nare there sold for a piastre. It is reasonable that the countries which\nproduce gold and silver should pay more than others.\n\nThe pretext for these bulls is, making war upon the Moors. There are\npersons, difficult of conviction, who cannot see what livers and kidneys\nhave to do with a war against the Africans; and they add, that Jesus\nChrist never ordered war to be made on the Mahometans on pain of\nexcommunication.\n\nThe bull giving permission to keep another's goods is galled the bull of\n_Composition_. It is farmed; and has long brought considerable sums\nthroughout Spain, the Milanese, Naples, and Sicily. The highest bidders\nemploy the most eloquent of the monks to preach this bull. Sinners who\nhave robbed the king, the state, or private individuals, go to these\npreachers, confess to them, and show them what a sad thing it would be\nto make restitution of the whole. They offer the monks five, six, and\nsometimes seven per cent., in order to keep the rest with a safe\nconscience; and, as soon as the composition is made, they receive\nabsolution.\n\nThe preaching brother who wrote the \"Travels through Spain and Italy\"\n(_Voyage d'Espagne et d'Italie_), published at Paris, _avec privil\u00e8ge_\nby Jean-Baptiste de l'\u00c9pime, speaking of this bull, thus expresses\nhimself: \"Is it not very gracious to come off at so little cost, and be\nat liberty to steal more, when one has occasion for a larger sum?\"\n\n_Bull Unigenitus._\n\nThe bull _In c\u0153na Domini_ was an indignity offered to all Catholic\nsovereigns, and they at length proscribed it in their states; but the\nbull _Unigenitus_ was a trouble to France alone. The former attacked the\nrights of the princes and magistrates of Europe, and they maintained\nthose rights; the latter proscribed only some maxims of piety and\nmorals, which gave no concern to any except the parties interested in\nthe transient affair; but these interested parties soon filled all\nFrance. It was at first a quarrel between the all-powerful Jesuits and\nthe remains of the crushed Port-Royal.\n\nQuesnel, a preacher of the Oratory, refugee in Holland, had dedicated a\ncommentary on the New Testament to Cardinal de Noailles, then bishop of\nCh\u00e2lons-sur-Marne. It met the bishop's approbation and was well received\nby all readers of that sort of books.\n\nOne Letellier, a Jesuit, a confessor to Louis XIV. and an enemy to\nCardinal de Noailles, resolved to mortify him by having the book, which\nwas dedicated to him, and of which he had a very high opinion, condemned\nat Rome.\n\nThis Jesuit, the son of an attorney at Vire in Lower Normandy, had all\nthat fertility of expedient for which his father's profession is\nremarkable. Not content with embroiling Cardinal de Noailles with the\npope, he determined to have him disgraced by the king his master. To\nensure the success of this design, he had mandaments composed against\nhim by his emissaries, and got them signed by four bishops; he also\nindited letters to the king, which he made them sign.\n\nThese man\u0153uvres, which would have been punished in any of the\ntribunals, succeeded at court: the king was soured against the\ncardinal, and Madame de Maintenon abandoned him.\n\nHere was a series of intrigues, in which, from one end of the kingdom to\nthe other, every one took a part. The more unfortunate France at that\ntime became in a disastrous war, the more the public mind was heated by\na theological quarrel.\n\nDuring these movements, Letellier had the condemnation of Quesnel's\nbook, of which the monarch had never read a page, demanded from Rome by\nLouis XIV. himself. Letellier and two other Jesuits, named Doucin and\nLallemant, extracted one hundred and three propositions, which Pope\nClement XI. was to condemn. The court of Rome struck out two of them,\nthat it might, at least, have the honor of appearing to judge for\nitself.\n\nCardinal Fabroni, in whose hands the affair was placed, and who was\ndevoted to the Jesuits, had the bull drawn up by a Cordelier named\nFather Palerno, Elio a Capuchin, Terrovi a Barnabite, and Castelli a\nServite, to whom was added a Jesuit named Alfaro.\n\nClement XI. let them proceed in their own way. His only object was to\nplease the king of France, who had long been displeased with him, on\naccount of his recognizing the Archduke Charles, afterwards emperor, as\nKing of Spain. To make his peace with the king, it cost him only a piece\nof parchment sealed with lead, concerning a question which he himself\ndespised.\n\nClement XI. did not wait to be solicited; he sent the bull, and was\nquite astonished to learn that it was received throughout France with\nhisses and groans. \"What!\" said he to Cardinal Carpegno, \"a bull is\nearnestly asked of me; I give it freely, and every one makes a jest of\nit!\"\n\nEvery one was indeed surprised to see a pope, in the name of Jesus\nChrist, condemning as heretical, tainted with heresy, and offensive to\npious ears, this proposition: \"It is good to read books of piety on\nSundays, especially the Holy Scriptures;\" and this: \"The fear of an\nunjust excommunication should not prevent us from doing our duty.\"\n\nThe partisans of the Jesuits were themselves alarmed at these censures,\nbut they dared not speak. The wise and disinterested exclaimed against\nthe scandal, and the rest of the nation against the absurdity.\n\nNevertheless, Letellier still triumphed, until the death of Louis XIV.;\nhe was held in abhorrence, but he governed. This wretch tried every\nmeans to procure the suspension of Cardinal de Noailles; but after the\ndeath of his penitent, the incendiary was banished. The duke of Orleans,\nduring his regency, extinguished these quarrels by making a jest of\nthem. They have since thrown out a few sparks; but they are at last\nforgotten, probably forever. Their duration, for more than half a\ncentury, was quite long enough. Yet, happy indeed would mankind be, if\nthey were divided only by foolish questions unproductive of bloodshed!\n\n\n\n\nC\u00c6SAR.\n\n\nIt is not as the husband of so many women and the wife of so many men;\nas the conqueror of Pompey and the Scipios; as the satirist who turned\nCato into ridicule; as the robber of the public treasury, who employed\nthe money of the Romans to reduce the Romans to subjection; as he who,\nclement in his triumphs, pardoned the vanquished; as the man of\nlearning, who reformed the calendar; as the tyrant and the father of his\ncountry, assassinated by his friends and his bastard son; that I shall\nhere speak of C\u00e6sar. I shall consider this extraordinary man only in my\nquality of descendant from the poor barbarians whom he subjugated.\n\nYou will not pass through a town in France, in Spain, on the banks of\nthe Rhine, or on the English coast opposite to Calais, in which you will\nnot find good people who boast of having had C\u00e6sar there. Some of the\ntownspeople of Dover are persuaded that C\u00e6sar built their castle; and\nthere are citizens of Paris who believe that the great _ch\u00e2telet_ is one\nof his fine works. Many a country squire in France shows you an old\nturret which serves him for a dove-cote, and tells you that C\u00e6sar\nprovided a lodging for his pigeons. Each province disputes with its\nneighbor the honor of having been the first to which C\u00e6sar applied the\nlash; it was not by that road, but by this, that he came to cut our\nthroats, embrace our wives and daughters, impose laws upon us by\ninterpreters, and take from us what little money we had.\n\nThe Indians are wiser. We have already seen that they have a confused\nknowledge that a great robber, named Alexander, came among them with\nother robbers; but they scarcely ever speak of him.\n\nAn Italian antiquarian, passing a few years ago through Vannes in\nBrittany, was quite astonished to hear the learned men of Vannes boast\nof C\u00e6sar's stay in their town. \"No doubt,\" said he, \"you have monuments\nof that great man?\" \"Yes,\" answered the most notable among them, \"we\nwill show you the place where that hero had the whole senate of our\nprovince hanged, to the number of six hundred.\"\n\n\"Some ignorant fellows, who had found a hundred beams under ground,\nadvanced in the journals in 1755 that they were the remains of a bridge\nbuilt by C\u00e6sar; but I proved to them in my dissertation of 1756 that\nthey were the gallows on which that hero had our parliament tied up.\nWhat other town in Gaul can say as much? We have the testimony of the\ngreat C\u00e6sar himself. He says in his Commentaries' that we 'are fickle\nand prefer liberty to slavery.' He charges us with having been so\ninsolent as to take hostages of the Romans, to whom we had given\nhostages, and to be unwilling to return them unless our own were given\nup. He taught us good behavior.\"\n\n\"He did well,\" replied the virtuoso, \"his right was incontestable. It\nwas, however, disputed, for you know that when he vanquished the\nemigrant Swiss, to the number of three hundred and sixty-eight thousand,\nand there were not more than a hundred and ten thousand left, he had a\nconference in Alsace with a German king named Ariovistus, and Ariovistus\nsaid to him: 'I come to plunder Gaul, and I will not suffer any one to\nplunder it but myself;' after which these good Germans, who were come to\nlay waste the country, put into the hands of their witches two Roman\nknights, ambassadors from C\u00e6sar; and these witches were on the point of\nburning them and offering them to their gods, when C\u00e6sar came and\ndelivered them by a victory. We must confess that the right on both\nsides was equal, and that Tacitus had good reason for bestowing so many\npraises on the manners of the ancient Germans.\"\n\nThis conversation gave rise to a very warm dispute between the learned\nmen of Vannes and the antiquarian. Several of the Bretons could not\nconceive what was the virtue of the Romans in deceiving one after\nanother all the nations of Gaul, in making them by turns the instruments\nof their own ruin, in butchering one-fourth of the people, and reducing\nthe other three-fourths to slavery.\n\n\"Oh! nothing can be finer,\" returned the antiquarian. \"I have in my\npocket a medal representing C\u00e6sar's triumph at the Capitol; it is in the\nbest preservation.\" He showed the medal. A Breton, a tittle rude, took\nit and threw it into the river, exclaiming: \"Oh! that I could so serve\nall who use their power and their skill to oppress their fellow-men!\nRome deceived us, disunited us, butchered us, chained us; and at this\nday Rome still disposes of many of our benefices; and is it possible\nthat we have so long and in so many ways been a country of slaves?\"\n\nTo the conversation between the Italian antiquarian and the Breton I\nshall only add that Perrot d'Ablancourt, the translator of C\u00e6sar's\n\"Commentaries,\" in his dedication to the great Cond\u00e9, makes use of these\nwords: \"Does it not seem to you, sir, as if you were reading the life of\nsome Christian philosopher?\" C\u00e6sar a Christian philosopher! I wonder he\nhas not been made a saint. Writers of dedications are remarkable for\nsaying fine things and much to the purpose.\n\n\n\n\nCALENDS.\n\n\nThe feast of the Circumcision, which the church celebrates on the first\nof January, has taken the place of another called the Feast of the\nCalends, of Asses, of Fools, or of Innocents, according to the different\nplaces where, and the different days on which, it was held. It was most\ncommonly at Christmas, the Circumcision, or the Epiphany.\n\nIn the cathedral of Rouen there was on Christmas day a procession, in\nwhich ecclesiastics, chosen for the purpose, represented the prophets of\nthe Old Testament, who foretold the birth of the Messiah, and--which\nmay have given the feast its name--Balaam appeared, mounted on a\nshe-ass; but as Lactantius' poem, and the \"Book of Promises,\" under the\nname of St. Prosper, say that Jesus in the manger was recognized by the\nox and the ass, according to the passage Isaiah: \"The ox knoweth his\nowner, and the ass his master's crib\" (a circumstance, however, which\nneither the gospel nor the ancient fathers have remarked), it is more\nlikely that, from this opinion, the Feast of the Ass took its name.\n\nIndeed, the Jesuit, Theophilus Raynaud, testifies that on St. Stephen's\nday there was sung a hymn of the ass, which was also called the Prose of\nFools; and that on St. John's day another was sung, called the Prose of\nthe Ox. In the library of the chapter of Sens there is preserved a\nmanuscript of vellum with miniature figures representing the ceremonies\nof the Feast of Fools. The text contains a description of it, including\nthis Prose of the Ass; it was sung by two choirs, who imitated at\nintervals and as the burden of the song, the braying of that animal.\n\nThere was elected in the cathedral churches a bishop or archbishop of\nthe Fools, which election was confirmed by all sorts of buffooneries,\nplayed off by way of consecration. This bishop officiated pontifically\nand gave his blessing to the people, before whom he appeared bearing the\nmitre, the crosier, and even the archiepiscopal cross. In those\nchurches which held immediately from the Holy See, a pope of the Fools\nwas elected, who officiated in all the decorations of papacy. All the\nclergy assisted in the mass, some dressed in women's apparel, others as\nbuffoons, or masked in a grotesque and ridiculous manner. Not content\nwith singing licentious songs in the choir, they sat and played at dice\non the altar, at the side of the officiator. When the mass was over they\nran, leaped, and danced about the church, uttering obscene words,\nsinging immodest songs, and putting themselves in a thousand indecent\npostures, sometimes exposing themselves almost naked. They then had\nthemselves drawn about the streets in tumbrels full of filth, that they\nmight throw it at the mob which gathered round them. The looser part of\nthe seculars would mix among the clergy, that they might play some\nfool's part in the ecclesiastical habit.\n\nThis feast was held in the same manner in the convents of monks and\nnuns, as Naud\u00e9 testifies in his complaint to Gassendi, in 1645, in which\nhe relates that at Antibes, in the Franciscan monastery, neither the\nofficiating monks nor the guardian went to the choir on the day of the\nInnocents. The lay brethren occupied their places on that day, and,\nclothed in sacerdotal decorations, torn and turned inside out, made a\nsort of office. They held books turned upside down, which they seemed to\nbe reading through spectacles, the glasses of which were made of orange\npeel; and muttered confused words, or uttered strange cries,\naccompanied by extravagant contortions.\n\nThe second register of the church of Autun, by the secretary Rotarii,\nwhich ends with 1416, says, without specifying the day, that at the\nFeast of Fools an ass was led along with a clergyman's cape on his back,\nthe attendants singing: \"He haw! Mr. Ass, he haw!\"\n\nDucange relates a sentence of the officialty of Viviers, upon one\nWilliam, who, having been elected fool-bishop in 1400, had refused to\nperform the solemnities and to defray the expenses customary on such\noccasions.\n\nAnd, to conclude, the registers of St. Stephen, at Dijon, in 1521,\nwithout mentioning the day, that the vicars ran about the streets with\ndrums, fifes, and other instruments, and carried lamps before the\n_pr\u00e9-chantre_ of the Fools, to whom the honor of the feast principally\nbelonged. But the parliament of that city, by a decree of January 19,\n1552, forbade the celebration of this feast, which had already been\ncondemned by several councils, and especially by a circular of March 11,\n1444, sent to all the clergy in the kingdom by the Paris university.\nThis letter, which we find at the end of the works of Peter of Blois,\nsays that this feast was, in the eyes of the clergy, so well imagined\nand so Christian, that those who sought to suppress it were looked on as\nexcommunicated; and the Sorbonne doctor, John des Lyons, in his\ndiscourse against the paganism of the Roiboit, informs us that a doctor\nof divinity publicly maintained at Auxerre, about the close of the\nfifteenth century, that \"the feast of Fools was no less pleasing to God\nthan the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin;\nbesides, that it was of much higher antiquity in the church.\"\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 02","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":76852}