{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35624/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35624","id":"gutenberg_35624","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35624","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME IV\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 VIII\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. IV\n\n\nVOLTAIRE'S ARREST AT FRANKFORT _Frontispiece_\n\nOLIVER CROMWELL\n\nTIME MAKES TRUTH TRIUMPHANT\n\nFRANCIS I. AND HIS SISTER\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Voltaire's arrest at Frankfort.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL. IV.\n\nCOUNTRY--FALSITY\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nCOUNTRY.\n\n\nSECTION I\n\nAccording to our custom, we confine ourselves on this subject to the\nstatement of a few queries which we cannot resolve. Has a Jew a country?\nIf he is born at Coimbra, it is in the midst of a crowd of ignorant and\nabsurd persons, who will dispute with him, and to whom he makes foolish\nanswers, if he dare reply at all. He is surrounded by inquisitors, who\nwould burn him if they knew that he declined to eat bacon, and all his\nwealth would belong to them. Is Coimbra _his_ country? Can he exclaim,\nlike the Horatii in Corneille:\n\n     _Mourir pour la patrie est un si digne sort_\n     _Qu'on briguerait en foule, une si belle mort._\n\n     So high his meed who for his country dies,\n     Men should contend to gain the glorious prize.\n\nHe might as well exclaim, \"fiddlestick!\" Again! is Jerusalem his\ncountry? He has probably heard of his ancestors of old; that they had\nformerly inhabited a sterile and stony country, which is bordered by a\nhorrible desert, of which little country the Turks are at present\nmasters, but derive little or nothing from it. Jerusalem is, therefore,\nnot his country. In short, he has no country: there is not a square\nfoot of land on the globe which belongs to him.\n\nThe Gueber, more ancient, and a hundred times more respectable than the\nJew, a slave of the Turks, the Persians, or the Great Mogul, can he\nregard as his country the fire-altars which he raises in secret among\nthe mountains? The Banian, the Armenian, who pass their lives in\nwandering through all the east, in the capacity of money-brokers, can\nthey exclaim, \"My dear country, my dear country\"--who have no other\ncountry than their purses and their account-books?\n\nAmong the nations of Europe, all those cut-throats who let out their\nservices to hire, and sell their blood to the first king who will\npurchase it--have they a country? Not so much so as a bird of prey, who\nreturns every evening to the hollow of the rock where its mother built\nits nest! The monks--will they venture to say that they have a country?\nIt is in heaven, they say. All in good time; but in this world I know\nnothing about one.\n\nThis expression, \"my country,\" how sounds it from the mouth of a Greek,\nwho, altogether ignorant of the previous existence of a Miltiades, an\nAgesilaus, only knows that he is the slave of a janissary, who is the\nslave of an aga, who is the slave of a pasha, who is the slave of a\nvizier, who is the slave of an individual whom we call, in Paris, the\nGrand Turk?\n\nWhat, then, is country?--Is it not, probably, a good piece of ground,\nin the midst of which the owner, residing in a well-built and commodious\nhouse, may say: \"This field which I cultivate, this house which I have\nbuilt, is my own; I live under the protection of laws which no tyrant\ncan infringe. When those who, like me, possess fields and houses\nassemble for their common interests, I have a voice in such assembly. I\nam a part of the whole, one of the community, a portion of the\nsovereignty: behold my country!\" What cannot be included in this\ndescription too often amounts to little beyond studs of horses under the\ncommand of a groom, who employs the whip at his pleasure. People may\nhave a country under a good king, but never under a bad one.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nA young pastry-cook who had been to college, and who had mustered some\nphrases from Cicero, gave himself airs one day about loving his country.\n\"What dost thou mean by country?\" said a neighbor to him. \"Is it thy\noven? Is it the village where thou wast born, which thou hast never\nseen, and to which thou wilt never return? Is it the street in which thy\nfather and mother reside? Is it the town hall, where thou wilt never\nbecome so much as a clerk or an alderman? Is it the church of Notre\nDame, in which thou hast not been able to obtain a place among the boys\nof the choir, although a very silly person, who is archbishop and duke,\nobtains from it an annual income of twenty-four thousand louis d'or?\"\n\nThe young pastry-cook knew not how to reply; and a person of reflection,\nwho overheard the conversation, was led to infer that a country of\nmoderate extent may contain many millions of men who have no country at\nall. And thou, voluptuous Parisian, who hast never made a longer voyage\nthan to Dieppe, to feed upon fresh sea-fish--who art acquainted only\nwith thy splendid town-house, thy pretty villa in the country, thy box\nat that opera which all the world makes it a point to feel tiresome but\nthyself--who speakest thy own language agreeably enough, because thou\nart ignorant of every other; thou lovest all this, no doubt, as well as\nthy brilliant champagne from Rheims, and thy rents, payable every six\nmonths; and loving these, thou dwellest upon thy love for thy country.\n\nSpeaking conscientiously, can a financier cordially love his country?\nWhere was the country of the duke of Guise, surnamed Balafr\u00e9--at Nancy,\nat Paris, at Madrid, or at Rome? What country had your cardinals Balue,\nDuprat, Lorraine, and Mazarin? Where was the country of Attila situated,\nor that of a hundred other heroes of the same kind, who, although\neternally travelling, make themselves always at home? I should be much\nobliged to any one who would acquaint me with the country of Abraham.\n\nThe first who observed that every land is our country in which we \"do\nwell,\" was, I believe, Euripides, in his \"_Ph\u00e6do_\":\n\n     \"_\u03a9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b5 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1f76\u03c2 \u03b2\u03bf\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c3\u03b1 \u03b3\u1fc6_.\"\n\nThe first man, however, who left the place of his birth to seek a\ngreater share of welfare in another, said it before him.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nA country is a composition of many families; and as a family is commonly\nsupported on the principle of self-love, when, by an opposing interest,\nthe same self-love extends to our town, our province, or our nation, it\nis called love of country. The greater a country becomes, the less we\nlove it; for love is weakened by diffusion. It is impossible to love a\nfamily so numerous that all the members can scarcely be known.\n\nHe who is burning with ambition to be edile, tribune, pr\u00e6tor, consul, or\ndictator, exclaims that he loves his country, while he loves only\nhimself. Every man wishes to possess the power of sleeping quietly at\nhome, and of preventing any other man from possessing the power of\nsending him to sleep elsewhere. Every one would be certain of his\nproperty and his life. Thus, all forming the same wishes, the particular\nbecomes the general interest. The welfare of the republic is spoken of,\nwhile all that is signified is love of self.\n\nIt is impossible that a state was ever formed on earth, which was not\ngoverned in the first instance as a republic: it is the natural march\nof human nature. On the discovery of America, all the people were found\ndivided into republics; there were but two kingdoms in all that part of\nthe world. Of a thousand nations, but two were found subjugated.\n\nIt was the same in the ancient world; all was republican in Europe\nbefore the little kinglings of Etruria and of Rome. There are yet\nrepublics in Africa: the Hottentots, towards the south, still live as\npeople are said to have lived in the first ages of the world--free,\nequal, without masters, without subjects, without money, and almost\nwithout wants. The flesh of their sheep feeds them; they are clothed\nwith their skins; huts of wood and clay form their habitations. They are\nthe most dirty of all men, but they feel it not, but live and die more\neasily than we do. There remain eight republics in Europe without\nmonarchs--Venice, Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Lucca, Ragusa, Geneva,\nand San Marino. Poland, Sweden, and England may be regarded as republics\nunder a king, but Poland is the only one of them which takes the name.\n\nBut which of the two is to be preferred for a country--a monarchy or a\nrepublic? The question has been agitated for four thousand years. Ask\nthe rich, and they will tell you an aristocracy; ask the people, and\nthey will reply a democracy; kings alone prefer royalty. Why, then, is\nalmost all the earth governed by monarchs? Put that question to the rats\nwho proposed to hang a bell around the cat's neck. In truth, the\ngenuine reason is, because men are rarely worthy of governing\nthemselves.\n\nIt is lamentable, that to be a good patriot we must become the enemy of\nthe rest of mankind. That good citizen, the ancient Cato, always gave it\nas his opinion, that Carthage must be destroyed: \"_Delenda est\nCarthago_.\" To be a good patriot is to wish our own country enriched by\ncommerce, and powerful by arms; but such is the condition of mankind,\nthat to wish the greatness of our own country is often to wish evil to\nour neighbors. He who could bring himself to wish that his country\nshould always remain as it is, would be a citizen of the universe.\n\n\n\n\nCRIMES OR OFFENCES.\n\n_Of Time and Place._\n\n\nA Roman in Egypt very unfortunately killed a consecrated cat, and the\ninfuriated people punished this sacrilege by tearing him to pieces. If\nthis Roman had been carried before the tribunal, and the judges had\npossessed common sense, he would have been condemned to ask pardon of\nthe Egyptians and the cats, and to pay a heavy fine, either in money or\nmice. They would have told him that he ought to respect the follies of\nthe people, since he was not strong enough to correct them.\n\nThe venerable chief justice should have spoken to him in this manner:\n\"Every country has its legal impertinences, and its offences of time\nand place. If in your Rome, which has become the sovereign of Europe,\nAfrica, and Asia Minor, you were to kill a sacred fowl, at the precise\ntime that you give it grain in order to ascertain the just will of the\ngods, you would be severely punished. We believe that you have only\nkilled our cat accidentally. The court admonishes you. Go in peace, and\nbe more circumspect in future.\"\n\nIt seems a very indifferent thing to have a statue in our hall; but if,\nwhen Octavius, surnamed Augustus, was absolute master, a Roman had\nplaced in his house the statue of Brutus, he would have been punished as\nseditious. If a citizen, under a reigning emperor, had the statue of the\ncompetitor to the empire, it is said that it was accounted a crime of\nhigh treason.\n\nAn Englishman, having nothing to do, went to Rome, where he met Prince\nCharles Edward at the house of a cardinal. Pleased at the incident, on\nhis return he drank in a tavern to the health of Prince Charles Edward,\nand was immediately accused of high treason. But whom did he highly\nbetray in wishing the prince well? If he had conspired to place him on\nthe throne, then he would have been guilty towards the nation; but I do\nnot see that the most rigid justice of parliament could require more\nfrom him than to drink four cups to the health of the house of Hanover,\nsupposing he had drunk two to the house of Stuart.\n\n_Of Crimes of Time and Place, which Ought to Be Concealed._\n\nIt is well known how much our Lady of Loretto ought to be respected in\nthe March of Ancona. Three young people happened to be joking on the\nhouse of our lady, which has travelled through the air to Dalmatia;\nwhich has two or three times changed its situation, and has only found\nitself comfortable at Loretto. Our three scatterbrains sang a song at\nsupper, formerly made by a Huguenot, in ridicule of the translation of\nthe _santa casa_ of Jerusalem to the end of the Adriatic Gulf. A\nfanatic, having heard by chance what passed at their supper, made strict\ninquiries, sought witnesses, and engaged a magistrate to issue a\nsummons. This proceeding alarmed all consciences. Every one trembled in\nspeaking of it. Chambermaids, vergers, inn-keepers, lackeys, servants,\nall heard what was never said, and saw what was never done: there was an\nuproar, a horrible scandal throughout the whole March of Ancona. It was\nsaid, half a league from Loretto, that these youths had killed our lady;\nand a league farther, that they had thrown the _santa casa_ into the\nsea. In short, they were condemned. The sentence was, that their hands\nshould be cut off, and their tongues be torn out; after which they were\nto be put to the torture, to learn--at least by signs--how many\ncouplets there were in the song. Finally, they were to be burnt to death\nby a slow fire.\n\nAn advocate of Milan, who happened to be at Loretto at this time, asked\nthe principal judge to what he would have condemned these boys if they\nhad violated their mother, and afterwards killed and eaten her? \"Oh!\"\nreplied the judge, \"there is a great deal of difference; to assassinate\nand devour their father and mother is only a crime against men.\" \"Have\nyou an express law,\" said the Milanese, \"which obliges you to put young\npeople scarcely out of their nurseries to such a horrible death, for\nhaving indiscreetly made game of the _santa casa,_ which is\ncontemptuously laughed at all over the world, except in the March of\nAncona?\" \"No,\" said the judge, \"the wisdom of our jurisprudence leaves\nall to our discretion.\" \"Very well, you ought to have discretion enough\nto remember that one of these children is the grandson of a general who\nhas shed his blood for his country, and the nephew of an amiable and\nrespectable abbess; the youth and his companions are giddy boys, who\ndeserve paternal correction. You tear citizens from the state, who might\none day serve it; you imbrue yourself in innocent blood, and are more\ncruel than cannibals. You will render yourselves execrable to posterity.\nWhat motive has been powerful enough, thus to extinguish reason,\njustice, and humanity in your minds, and to change you into ferocious\nbeasts?\" The unhappy judge at last replied: \"We have been quarrelling\nwith the clergy of Ancona; they accuse us of being too zealous for the\nliberties of the Lombard Church, and consequently of having no\nreligion.\" \"I understand, then,\" said the Milanese, \"that you have made\nyourselves assassins to appear Christians.\" At these words the judge\nfell to the ground, as if struck by a thunderbolt; and his brother\njudges having been since deprived of office, they cry out that injustice\nis done them. They forget what they have done, and perceive not that the\nhand of God is upon them.\n\nFor seven persons legally to amuse themselves by making an eighth perish\non a public scaffold by blows from iron bars; take a secret and\nmalignant pleasure in witnessing his torments; speak of it afterwards at\ntable with their wives and neighbors; for the executioners to perform\nthis office gaily, and joyously anticipate their reward; for the public\nto run to this spectacle as to a fair--all this requires that a crime\nmerit this horrid punishment in the opinion of all well-governed\nnations, and, as we here treat of universal humanity, that it is\nnecessary to the well-being of society. Above all, the actual\nperpetration should be demonstrated beyond contradiction. If against a\nhundred thousand probabilities that the accused be guilty there is a\nsingle one that he is innocent, that alone should balance all the rest.\n\n\n_Query: Are Two Witnesses Enough to Condemn a Man to be Hanged?_\n\nIt has been for a long time imagined, and the proverb assures us, that\ntwo witnesses are enough to hang a man, with a safe conscience. Another\nambiguity! The world, then, is to be governed by equivoques. It is said\nin St. Matthew that two or three witnesses will suffice to reconcile two\ndivided friends; and after this text has criminal jurisprudence been\nregulated, so far as to decree that by divine law a citizen may be\ncondemned to die on the uniform deposition of two witnesses who may be\nvillains? It has been already said that a crowd of according witnesses\ncannot prove an improbable thing when denied by the accused. What, then,\nmust be done in such a case? Put off the judgment for a hundred years,\nlike the Athenians!\n\nWe shall here relate a striking example of what passed under our eyes at\nLyons. A woman suddenly missed her daughter; she ran everywhere in\nsearch of her in vain, and at length suspected a neighbor of having\nsecreted the girl, and of having caused her violation. Some weeks after\nsome fishermen found a female drowned, and in a state of putrefaction,\nin the Rh\u00f4ne at Condmeux. The woman of whom we have spoken immediately\nbelieved that it was her daughter. She was persuaded by the enemies of\nher neighbor that the latter had caused the deceased to be dishonored,\nstrangled, and thrown into the Rh\u00f4ne. She made this accusation publicly,\nand the populace repeated it; persons were found who knew the minutest\ncircumstances of the crime. The rumor ran through all the town, and all\nmouths cried out for vengeance. There is nothing more common than this\nin a populace without judgment; but here follows the most prodigious\npart of the affair. This neighbor's own son, a child of five years and a\nhalf old, accused his mother of having caused the unhappy girl who was\nfound in the Rh\u00f4ne to be violated before his eyes, and to be held by\nfive men, while the sixth committed the crime. He had heard the words\nwhich pronounced her violated; he painted her attitudes; he saw his\nmother and these villains strangle this unfortunate girl after the\nconsummation of the act. He also saw his mother and the assassins throw\nher into a well, draw her out of it, wrap her up in a cloth, carry her\nabout in triumph, dance round the corpse, and, at last, throw her into\nthe Rh\u00f4ne. The judges were obliged to put all the pretended accomplices\ndeposed against in chains. The child is again heard, and still\nmaintains, with the simplicity of his age, all that he had said of them\nand of his mother. How could it be imagined that this child had not\nspoken the pure truth? The crime was not probable, but it was still less\nso that a child of the age of five years and a half should thus\ncalumniate his mother, and repeat with exactness all the circumstances\nof an abominable and unheard-of crime; if he had not been the\neye-witness of it, and been overcome with the force of the truth, such\nthings would not have been wrung from him.\n\nEvery one expected to feast his eyes on the torment of the accused; but\nwhat was the end of this strange criminal process? There was not a word\nof truth in the accusation. There was no girl violated, no young men\nassembled at the house of the accused, no murder, not the least\ntransaction of the sort, nor the least noise. The child had been\nsuborned; and by whom? Strange, but true, by two other children, who\nwere the sons of the accused. He had been on the point of burning his\nmother to get some sweetmeats.\n\nThe heads of the accusation were clearly incompatible. The sage and\nenlightened court of judicature, after having yielded to the public fury\nso far as to seek every possible testimony for and against the accused,\nfully and unanimously acquitted them. Formerly, perhaps, this innocent\nprisoner would have been broken on the wheel, or judicially burned, for\nthe pleasure of supplying an execution--the tragedy of the mob.\n\n\n\n\nCRIMINAL.\n\n_Criminal Prosecution._\n\n\nVery innocent actions have been frequently punished with death. Thus in\nEngland, Richard III., and Edward IV., effected by the judges the\ncondemnation of those whom they suspected of disaffection. Such are not\ncriminal processes; they are assassinations committed by privileged\nmurderers. It is the last degree of abuse to make the laws the\ninstruments of injustice.\n\nIt is said that the Athenians punished with death every stranger who\nentered their areopagus or sovereign tribunal. But if this stranger was\nactuated by mere curiosity, nothing was more cruel than to take away his\nlife. It is observed, in \"The Spirit of Laws,\" that this vigor was\nexercised, \"because he usurped the rights of a citizen.\"\n\nBut a Frenchman in London who goes to the House of Commons to hear the\ndebates, does not aspire to the rights of a citizen. He is received with\npoliteness. If any splenetic member calls for the clearing of the house,\nthe traveller clears it by withdrawing; he is not hanged. It is probable\nthat, if the Athenians passed this temporary law, it was at a time when\nit was suspected that every stranger might be a spy, and not from the\nfear that he would arrogate to himself the rights of citizenship. Every\nAthenian voted in his tribe; all the individuals in the tribe knew each\nother; no stranger could have put in his bean.\n\nWe speak here only of a real criminal prosecution, and among the Romans\nevery criminal prosecution was public. The citizen accused of the most\nenormous crimes had an advocate who pleaded in his presence; who even\ninterrogated the adverse party; who investigated everything before his\njudges. All the witnesses, for and against, were produced in open court;\nnothing was secret. Cicero pleaded for Milo, who had assassinated\nClodius, in the presence of a thousand citizens. The same Cicero\nundertook the defence of Roscius Amerinus, accused of parricide. A\nsingle judge did not in secret examine witnesses, generally consisting\nof the dregs of the people, who may be influenced at pleasure.\n\nA Roman citizen was not put to the torture at the arbitrary order of\nanother Roman citizen, invested with this cruel authority by purchase.\nThat horrible outrage against humanity was not perpetrated on the\npersons of those who were regarded as the first of men, but only on\nthose of their slaves, scarcely regarded as men. It would have been\nbetter not to have employed torture, even against slaves.\n\nThe method of conducting a criminal prosecution at Rome accorded with\nthe magnanimity and liberality of the nation. It is nearly the same in\nLondon. The assistance of an advocate is never in any case refused.\nEvery one is judged by his peers. Every citizen has the power, out of\nthirty-six jurymen sworn, to challenge twelve without reasons, twelve\nwith reasons, and, consequently, of choosing his judges in the remaining\ntwelve. The judges cannot deviate from or go beyond the law. No\npunishment is arbitrary. No judgment can be executed before it has been\nreported to the king, who may, and who ought to bestow pardon on those\nwho are deserving of it, and to whom the law cannot extend it. This case\nfrequently occurs. A man outrageously wronged kills the offender under\nthe impulse of venial passion; he is condemned by the rigor of the law,\nand saved by that mercy which ought to be the prerogative of the\nsovereign.\n\nIt deserves particular remark that in the same country where the laws\nare as favorable to the accused as they are terrible for the guilty, not\nonly is false imprisonment in ordinary cases punished by heavy damages\nand severe penalties, but if an illegal imprisonment has been ordered by\na minister of state, under color of royal authority, that minister may\nbe condemned to pay damages corresponding to the imprisonment.\n\n\n_Proceedings in Criminal Cases Among Particular Nations._\n\nThere are countries in which criminal jurisprudence has been founded on\nthe canon law, and even on the practice of the Inquisition, although\nthat tribunal has long since been held in detestation there. The people\nin such countries still remain in a species of slavery. A citizen\nprosecuted by the king's officer is at once immured in a dungeon, which\nis in itself a real punishment of perhaps an innocent man. A single\njudge, with his clerk, hears secretly and in succession, every witness\nsummoned.\n\nLet us here merely compare, in a few points, the criminal procedure of\nthe Romans with that of a country of the west, which was once a Roman\nprovince. Among the Romans, witnesses were heard publicly in the\npresence of the accused, who might reply to them, and examine them\nhimself, or through an advocate. This practice was noble and frank; it\nbreathed of Roman magnanimity. In France, in many parts of Germany,\neverything is done in secret. This practice, established under Francis\nI., was authorized by the commissioners, who, in 1670, drew up the\nordinance of Louis XIV. A mere mistake was the cause of it.\n\nIt was imagined, on reading the code \"_De Testibus_\" that the words,\n_Testes intrare judicii secretum,_ signified that witnesses were\nexamined in secret. But _secretum_ here signifies the chambers of the\njudge. _Intrare secretum_ to express speaking in secret, would not be\nLatin. This part of our jurisprudence was occasioned by a solecism.\nWitnesses were usually persons of the lowest class, and whom the judge,\nwhen closeted with them, might induce to say whatever he wished. These\nwitnesses are examined a second time, always in secret, which is called,\nre-examination; and if, after re-examination, they retract their\ndepositions, or vary them in essential circumstances, they are punished\nas false witnesses. Thus, when an upright man of weak understanding, and\nunused to express his ideas, is conscious that he has stated either too\nmuch or too little--that he has misunderstood the judge, or that the\njudge has misunderstood him--and revokes, in the spirit of justice, what\nhe has advanced through incaution, he is punished as a felon. He is in\nthis manner often compelled to persevere in false testimony, from the\nactual dread of being treated as a false witness.\n\nThe person accused exposes himself by flight to condemnation, whether\nthe crime has been proved or not. Some jurisconsults, indeed, have\nwisely held that the contumacious person ought not to be condemned\nunless the crime were clearly established; but other lawyers have been\nof a contrary opinion: they have boldly affirmed that the flight of the\naccused was a proof of the crime; that the contempt which he showed for\njustice, by refusing to appear, merited the same chastisement as would\nhave followed his conviction. Thus, according to the sect of lawyers\nwhich the judge may have embraced, an innocent man may be acquitted or\ncondemned.\n\nIt is a great abuse in jurisprudence that people often assume as law the\nreveries and errors--sometimes cruel ones--of men destitute of all\nauthority, who have laid down their own opinions as laws. In the reign\nof Louis XIV., two edicts were published in France, which apply equally\nto the whole kingdom. In the first, which refers to civil causes, the\njudges are forbidden to condemn in any suit, on default, when the demand\nis not proved; but in the second, which regulates criminal proceedings,\nit is not laid down that, in the absence of proof, the accused shall be\nacquitted. Singular circumstance! The law declares that a man proceeded\nagainst for a sum of money shall not be condemned, on default, unless\nthe debt be proved; but, in cases affecting life, the profession is\ndivided with respect to condemning a person for contumacy when the crime\nis not proved; and the law does not solve the difficulty.\n\n\n_Example Taken from the Condemnation of a Whole Family._\n\nThe following is an account of what happened to an unfortunate family,\nat the time when the mad fraternities of pretended penitents, in white\nrobes and masks, had erected, in one of the principal churches of\nToulouse, a superb monument to a young Protestant, who had destroyed\nhimself, but who they pretended had been murdered by his father and\nmother for having abjured the reformed religion; at the time when the\nwhole family of this Protestant, then revered as a martyr, were in\nirons, and a whole population, intoxicated by a superstition equally\nsenseless and cruel, awaited with devout impatience the delight of\nseeing five or six persons of unblemished integrity expire on the rack\nor at the stake. At this dreadful period there resided near Castres a\nrespectable man, also of the Protestant religion, of the name of Sirven,\nwho exercised in that province the profession of a feudist. This man had\nthree daughters. A woman who superintended the household of the bishop\nof Castres, proposed to bring to him Sirven's second daughter, called\nElizabeth, in order to make her a Catholic, apostolical and Roman. She\nis, in fact, brought. She is by him secluded with the female Jesuits,\ndenominated the \"lady teachers,\" or the \"black ladies.\" They instruct\nher in what they know; they find her capacity weak, and impose upon her\npenances in order to inculcate doctrines which, with gentleness, she\nmight have been taught. She becomes imbecile; the \"black ladies\" expel\nher; she returns to her parents; her mother, on making her change her\nlinen, perceives that her person is covered with contusions; her\nimbecility increases; she becomes melancholy mad; she escapes one day\nfrom the house, while her father is some miles distant, publicly\noccupied in his business, at the seat of a neighboring nobleman. In\nshort, twenty days after the flight of Elizabeth, some children find her\ndrowned in a well, on January 4, 1761.\n\nThis was precisely the time when they were preparing to break Calas on\nthe wheel at Toulouse. The word \"parricide,\" and what is worse,\n\"Huguenot,\" flies from mouth to mouth throughout the province. It was\nnot doubted that Sirven, his wife, and his two daughters, had drowned\nthe third, on a principle of religion.\n\nIt was the universal opinion that the Protestant religion positively\nrequired fathers and mothers to destroy such of their children as might\nwish to become Catholics. This opinion had taken such deep root in the\nminds even of magistrates themselves, hurried on unfortunately by the\npublic clamor, that the Council and Church of Geneva were obliged to\ncontradict the fatal error, and to send to the parliament of Toulouse an\nattestation upon oath that not only did Protestants not destroy their\nchildren, but that they were left masters of their whole property when\nthey quitted their sect for another. It is known that, notwithstanding\nthis attestation, Calas was broken on the wheel.\n\nA country magistrate of the name of Londes, assisted by graduates as\nsagacious as himself, became eager to make every preparation for\nfollowing up the example which had been furnished at Toulouse. A village\ndoctor, equally enlightened with the magistrate, boldly affirmed, on\ninspecting the body after the expiration of eighteen days, that the\nyoung woman had been strangled, and afterwards thrown into the well. On\nthis deposition the magistrate issued a warrant to apprehend the father,\nmother, and the two daughters. The family, justly terrified at the\ncatastrophe of Calas, and agreeably to the advice of their friends,\nbetook themselves instantly to flight; they travelled amidst snow during\na rigorous winter, and, toiling over mountain after mountain, at length\narrived at those of Switzerland. The daughter, who was married and\npregnant, was prematurely delivered amidst surrounding ice.\n\nThe first intelligence this family received, after reaching a place of\nsafety, was that the father and mother were condemned to be hanged; the\ntwo daughters to remain under the gallows during the execution of their\nmother, and to be reconducted by the executioner out of the territory,\nunder pain of being hanged if they returned. Such is the lesson given to\ncontumacy!\n\nThis judgment was equally absurd and abominable. If the father, in\nconcert with his wife, had strangled his daughter, he ought to have been\nbroken on the wheel, like Calas, and the mother to have been burned--at\nleast, after having been strangled--because the practice of breaking\nwomen on the wheel is not yet the custom in the country of this judge.\nTo limit the punishment to hanging in such a case, was an acknowledgment\nthat the crime was not proved, and that in the doubt the halter was\nadopted to compromise for want of evidence. This sentence was equally\nrepugnant to law and reason. The mother died of a broken heart, and the\nwhole family, their property having been confiscated, would have\nperished through want, unless they had met with assistance.\n\nWe stop here to inquire whether there be any law and any reason that can\njustify such a sentence? We ask the judge, \"What madness has urged you\nto condemn a father and a mother?\" \"It was because they fled,\" he\nreplies. \"Miserable wretch, would you have had them remain to glut your\ninsensate fury? Of what consequence could it be, whether they appeared\nin chains to plead before you, or whether in a distant land they lifted\nup their hands in an appeal to heaven against you? Could you not see\nthe truth, which ought to have struck you, as well during their absence?\nCould you not see that the father was a league distant from his\ndaughter, in the midst of twenty persons, when the unfortunate young\nwoman withdrew from her mother's protection? Could you be ignorant that\nthe whole family were in search of her for twenty days and nights?\" To\nthis you answer by the words, contumacy, contumacy. What! because a man\nis absent, therefore must he be condemned to be hanged, though his\ninnocence be manifest? It is the jurisprudence of a fool and a monster.\nAnd the life, the property, and the honor of citizens, are to depend\nupon this code of Iroquois!\n\nThe Sirven family for more than eight years dragged on their\nmisfortunes, far from their native country. At length, the sanguinary\nsuperstition which disgraced Languedoc having been somewhat mitigated,\nand men's minds becoming more enlightened, those who had befriended the\nSirvens during their exile, advised them to return and demand justice\nfrom the parliament of Toulouse itself, now that the blood of Calas no\nlonger smoked, and many repented of having ever shed it. The Sirvens\nwere justified.\n\n     _Erudimini, qui judicatis terram._\n     Be instructed, ye judges of the earth.\n\n\n\n\nCROMWELL.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nCromwell is described as a man who was an impostor all his life. I can\nscarcely believe it. I conceive that he was first an enthusiast, and\nthat he afterwards made his fanaticism instrumental to his greatness. An\nardent novice at twenty often becomes an accomplished rogue at forty. In\nthe great game of human life, men begin with being dupes, and end in\nbecoming knaves. A statesman engages as his almoner a monk, entirely\nmade up of the details of his convent, devout, credulous, awkward,\nperfectly new to the world; he acquires information, polish, finesse,\nand supplants his master.\n\nCromwell knew not, at first, whether he should become a churchman or a\nsoldier. He partly became both. In 1622 he made a campaign in the army\nof the prince of Orange, Frederick Henry, a great man and the brother of\ntwo great men; and, on his return to England, engaged in the service of\nBishop Williams, and was the chaplain of his lordship, while the bishop\npassed for his wife's gallant. His principles were puritanical, which\nled him to cordially hate a bishop, and not to be partial to kingship.\nHe was dismissed from the family of Bishop Williams because he was a\nPuritan; and thence the origin of his fortune. The English Parliament\ndeclared against monarchy and against episcopacy; some friends whom he\nhad in that parliament procured him a country living. He might be said\nonly now to have commenced his existence; he was more than forty before\nhe acquired any distinction. He was master of the sacred Scriptures,\ndisputed on the authority of priests and deacons, wrote some bad\nsermons, and some lampoons; but he was unknown. I have seen one of his\nsermons, which is insipid enough, and pretty much resembles the holdings\nforth of the Quakers; it is impossible to discover in it any trace of\nthat power by which he afterwards swayed parliaments. The truth is, he\nwas better fitted for the State than for the Church. It was principally\nin his tone and in his air that his eloquence consisted. An inclination\nof that hand which had gained so many battles, and killed so many\nroyalists, was more persuasive than the periods of Cicero. It must be\nacknowledged that it was his incomparable valor that brought him into\nnotice, and which conducted him gradually to the summit of greatness.\n\nHe commenced by throwing himself, as a volunteer and a soldier of\nfortune, into the town of Hull, besieged, by the king. He there\nperformed some brilliant and valuable services, for which he received a\ngratuity of about six thousand francs from the parliament. The present,\nbestowed by parliament upon an adventurer, made it clear that the rebel\nparty must prevail. The king could not give to his general officers what\nthe parliament gave to volunteers. With money and fanaticism,\neverything must in the end be mastered. Cromwell was made colonel. His\ngreat talents for war became then so conspicuous that, when the\nparliament created the earl of Manchester general of its forces,\nCromwell was appointed lieutenant-general, without his having passed\nthrough the intervening ranks. Never did any man appear more worthy of\ncommand. Never was seen more activity and skill, more daring and more\nresources, than in Cromwell. He is wounded at the battle of York, and,\nwhile undergoing the first dressing, is informed that his commander, the\nearl of Manchester, is retreating, and the battle lost. He hastens to\nfind the earl; discovers him flying, with some officers; catches him by\nthe arm, and, in a firm and dignified tone, he exclaims: \"My lord, you\nmistake; the enemy has not taken that road.\" He reconducts him to the\nfield of battle; rallies, during the night, more than twelve thousand\nmen; harangues them in the name of God; cites Moses, Gideon, and Joshua;\nrenews the battle at daybreak against the victorious royalist army, and\ncompletely defeats it. Such a man must either perish or obtain the\nmastery. Almost all the officers of his army were enthusiasts, who\ncarried the New Testament on their saddle-bows. In the army, as in the\nparliament, nothing was spoken of but Babylon destroyed, building up the\nworship of Jerusalem, and breaking the image. Cromwell, among so many\nmadmen, was no longer one himself, and thought it better to govern than\nto be governed by them. The habit of preaching, as by inspiration,\nremained with him. Figure to yourself a fakir, who, after putting an\niron girdle round his loins in penance, takes it off to drub the ears of\nother fakirs. Such was Cromwell. He becomes as intriguing as he was\nintrepid. He associates with all the colonels of the army, and thus\nforms among the troops a republic which forces the commander to resign.\nAnother commander is appointed, and him he disgusts. He governs the\narmy, and through it he governs the parliament; which he at last compels\nto make him commander. All this is much; but the essential point is that\nhe wins all the battles he fights in England, Scotland, and Ireland; and\nwins them, not consulting his own security while the fight rages, but\nalways charging the enemy, rallying his troops, presenting himself\neverywhere, frequently wounded, killing with his own hands many royalist\nofficers, like the fiercest soldier in the ranks.\n\n[Illustration: Oliver Cromwell.]\n\nIn the midst of this dreadful war Cromwell made love; he went, with the\nBible under his arm, to an assignation with the wife of his\nmajor-general, Lambert. She loved the earl of Holland, who served in the\nking's army. Cromwell took him prisoner in battle, and had the pleasure\nof bringing his rival to the block. It was his maxim to shed the blood\nof every important enemy, in the field or by the hand of the\nexecutioner. He always increased his power by always daring to abuse it;\nthe profoundness of his plans never lessened his ferocious impetuosity.\nHe went to the House of Commons, and drove all the members out, one\nafter another, making them defile before him. As they passed, each was\nobliged to make a profound reverence; one of them was passing on with\nhis head covered; Cromwell seized his hat and threw it down. \"Learn,\"\nsaid he, \"to respect me.\"\n\nWhen he had outraged all kings by beheading his own legitimate king, and\nhe began himself to reign, he sent his portrait to one crowned head,\nChristina, queen of Sweden. Marvel, a celebrated English poet, who wrote\nexcellent Latin verses, accompanied his portrait with six lines, in\nwhich he introduces Cromwell himself speaking; Cromwell corrected these\ntwo last verses:\n\n     _At tibi submittit frontem reverentior umbra,_\n     _Non sunt hi vultus regibus usque truces._\n\nThe spirit of the whole six verses may be given thus:\n\n     _Les armes \u00e0 la main j'ai d\u00e9fendu les lois;_\n     _D'un peuple audacieux j'ai veng\u00e9 la querelle._\n     _Regardez sans fr\u00e9mir cette image fid\u00e8le:_\n     _Mon front n'est pas toujours l'\u00e9pouvante des rois._\n\n     'Twas mine by arms t'uphold my country's laws;\n     My sword maintained a lofty people's cause;\n     With less of fear these faithful outlines trace,\n     Menace of kings not always clouds my face.\n\nThis queen was the first to acknowledge him after he became protector of\nthe three kingdoms. Almost all the sovereigns of Europe sent ambassadors\n_to their brother Cromwell_--to that domestic of a bishop, who had just\nbrought to the scaffold a sovereign related to them. They emulously\ncourted his alliance. Cardinal Mazarin, in order to please him, banished\nfrom France the two sons of Charles I., the two grandsons of Henry IV.,\nand the two cousins-german of Louis XIV. France conquered Dunkirk for\nhim, and the keys of it were delivered into his possession. After his\ndeath, Louis XIV. and his whole court went into mourning, except\nmademoiselle, who dared to appear in the circle in colors, and alone to\nmaintain the honor of her race.\n\nNo king was ever more absolute than Cromwell. He would observe \"that he\nhad preferred governing under the name of protector rather than under\nthat of king, because the English were aware of the limits of the\nprerogative of a king of England, but knew not the extent of that of a\nprotector.\" This was knowing mankind, who are governed by opinion, and\nwhose opinion depends upon a name. He had conceived a profound contempt\nfor the religion to which he owed his success. An anecdote, preserved in\nthe St. John family, sufficiently proves the slight regard he attached\nto that instrument which had produced such mighty effects in his hands.\nHe was drinking once in company with Ireton, Fleetwood, and St. John,\ngreat grandfather of the celebrated Lord Bolingbroke; a bottle of wine\nwas to be uncorked, and the corkscrew fell under the table; they all\nlooked for it, and were unable to find it. In the meantime a deputation\nfrom the Presbyterian churches awaited in the ante-chamber, and an usher\nannounced them. \"Tell them,\" said Cromwell, \"that I have retired, and\n_that I am seeking the Lord_.\" This was the expression employed by the\nfanatics for going to prayers. Having dismissed the troop of divines, he\nthus addressed his companions: \"Those fellows think we are seeking the\nLord, while we are only seeking a corkscrew.\"\n\nThere is scarcely any example in Europe of a man who, from so low a\nbeginning, raised himself to such eminence. But with all his great\ntalents, what did he consider absolutely essential to his happiness?\nPower he obtained; but was he happy? He had lived in poverty and\ndisquiet till the age of forty-three; he afterwards plunged into blood,\npassed his life in trouble, and died prematurely, at the age of\nfifty-seven. With this life let any one compare that of a Newton, who\nlived fourscore years, always tranquil, always honored, always the light\nof all thinking beings; beholding every day an accession to his fame,\nhis character, his fortune; completely free both from care and remorse;\nand let him decide whose was the happier lot.\n\n     _O curas hominum! O quantim est in rebus inane!_\n     O human cares! O mortal toil how vain!\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nOliver Cromwell was regarded with admiration by the Puritans and\nIndependents of England; he is still their hero. But Richard Cromwell,\nhis son, is the man for me. The first was a fanatic who in the present\nday would be hissed down in the House of Commons, on uttering any one of\nthe unintelligible absurdities which he delivered with such confidence\nbefore other fanatics who listened to him with open mouth and staring\neyes, in the name of the Lord. If he were to say that they must seek the\nLord, and fight the battles of the Lord--if he were to introduce the\nJewish jargon into the parliament of England, to the eternal disgrace of\nthe human understanding, he would be much more likely to be conducted to\nBedlam than to be appointed the commander of armies.\n\nBrave he unquestionably was--and so are wolves; there are even some\nmonkeys as fierce as tigers. From a fanatic he became an able\npolitician; in other words, from a wolf he became a fox, and the knave,\ncraftily mounting from the first steps where the mad enthusiasm of the\ntimes had placed him, to the summit of greatness, walked over the heads\nof the prostrated fanatics. He reigned, but he lived in the horrors of\nalarm and had neither cheerful days nor tranquil nights. The\nconsolations of friendship and society never approached him. He died\nprematurely, more deserving, beyond a doubt, of public execution than\nthe monarch whom, from a window of his own palace, he caused to be led\nout to the scaffold.\n\nRichard Cromwell, on the contrary, was gentle and prudent and refused to\nkeep his father's power at the expense of the lives of three or four\nfactious persons whom he might have sacrificed to his ambition. He\npreferred becoming a private individual to being an assassin with\nsupreme power. He relinquished the protectorship without regret, to live\nas a subject; and in the tranquillity of a country life he enjoyed\nhealth and possessed his soul in peace for ninety years, beloved by his\nneighbors, to whom he was a peacemaker and a father.\n\nSay, reader, had you to choose between the destiny of the father and\nthat of the son, which would you prefer?\n\n\n\n\nCUISSAGE.\n\n\nDion Cassius, that flatterer of Augustus and detractor from Cicero,\nbecause Cicero was the friend of liberty--that dry and diffuse writer\nand gazetteer of popular rumors, Dion Cassius, reports that certain\nsenators were of opinion that in order to recompense C\u00e6sar for all the\nevil which he had brought upon the commonwealth it would be right, at\nthe age of fifty-seven, to allow him to honor with his favors all the\nladies who took his fancy. Men are still found who credit this\nabsurdity. Even the author of the \"Spirit of Laws\" takes it for a truth\nand speaks of it as of a decree which would have passed the Roman senate\nbut for the modesty of the dictator, who suspected that he was not\naltogether prepared for the accession of so much good fortune. But if\nthe Roman emperors attained not this right by a _senatus-consultum_,\nduly founded upon a _plebiscitum_, it is very likely that they fully\nenjoyed it by the courtesy of the ladies. The Marcus Aureliuses and the\nJulians, to be sure, exercised not this right, but all the rest extended\nit as widely as they were able.\n\nIt is astonishing that in Christian Europe a kind of feudal law for a\nlong time existed, or at least it was deemed a customary usage, to\nregard the virginity of a female vassal as the property of the lord. The\nfirst night of the nuptials of the daughter of his _villein_ belonged to\nhim without dispute.\n\nThis right was established in the same manner as that of walking with a\nfalcon on the fist, and of being saluted with incense at mass. The\nlords, indeed, did not enact that the _wives_ of their villeins belonged\nto them; they confined themselves to the daughters, the reason of which\nis obvious. Girls are bashful and sometimes might exhibit reluctance.\nThis, however, yielded at once to the majesty of the laws, when the\ncondescending baron deemed them worthy the honor of personally enforcing\ntheir practice.\n\nIt is asserted that this curious jurisprudence commenced in Scotland,\nand I willingly believe that the Scotch lords had a still more absolute\npower over their clans than even the German and French barons over their\nvassals.\n\nIt is undoubted that some abbots and bishops enjoyed this privilege in\ntheir quality of temporal lords, and it is not very long since that\nthese prelates compounded their prerogative for acknowledgments in\nmoney, to which they have just as much right as to the virginity of the\ngirls.\n\nBut let it be well remarked that this excess of tyranny was never\nsanctioned by any public law. If a lord or a prelate had cited before a\nregular tribunal a girl affianced to one of his vassals, in claim of her\nquit-rent, he would doubtless have lost his cause and costs.\n\nLet us seize this occasion to rest assured that no partially civilized\npeople ever established formal laws against morals; I do not believe\nthat a single instance of it can be furnished. Abuses creep in and are\nborne: they pass as customs and travellers mistake them for fundamental\nlaws. It is said that in Asia greasy Mahometan saints march in\nprocession entirely naked and that devout females crowd round them to\nkiss what is not worthy to be named, but I defy any one to discover a\npassage in the Koran which justifies this brutality.\n\nThe phallus, which the Egyptians carry in procession, may be quoted in\norder to confound me, as well as the idol Juggernaut, of the Indians. I\nreply that these ceremonies war no more against morals than circumcision\nat the age of eight days. In some of our towns the holy foreskin has\nbeen borne in procession, and it is preserved yet in certain sacristies\nwithout this piece of drollery causing the least disturbance in\nfamilies. Still, I am convinced that no council or act of parliament\never ordained this homage to the holy foreskin.\n\nI call a public law which deprives me of my property, which takes away\nmy wife and gives her to another, a law against morals; and I am certain\nthat such a law is impossible. Some travellers maintain that in Lapland\nhusbands, out of politeness, make an offer of their wives. Out of still\ngreater politeness, I believe them; but I nevertheless assert, that they\nnever found this rule of good manners in the legal code of Lapland, any\nmore than in the constitutions of Germany, in the ordinances of the king\nof France, or in the \"Statutes at Large\" of England, any positive law,\nadjudging the right of _cuissage_ to the barons. Absurd and barbarous\nlaws may be found everywhere; formal laws against morals nowhere.\n\n\n\n\nCURATE (OF THE COUNTRY).\n\n\nA curate--but why do I say a curate?--even an imam, a talapoin, or\nbrahmin ought to have the means of living decently. The priest in every\ncountry ought to be supported by the altar since he serves the public.\nSome fanatic rogue may assert that I place the curate and the brahmin on\nthe same level and associate truth with imposture; but I compare only\nthe services rendered to society, the labor, and the recompense.\n\nI maintain that whoever exercises a laborious function ought to be well\npaid by his fellow-citizens. I do not assert that he ought to amass\nriches, sup with Lucullus, or be as insolent as Clodius. I pity the\ncase of a country curate who is obliged to dispute a sheaf of corn with\nhis parishioner; to plead against him; to exact from him the tenth of\nhis peas and beans; to be hated and to hate, and to consume his\nmiserable life in miserable quarrels which engross the mind as much as\nthey embitter it.\n\nI still more pity the inconsistent lot of a curate, whom monks, claiming\nthe great tithes, audaciously reward with a salary of forty ducats per\nannum for undertaking, throughout the year, the labor of visiting for\nthree miles round his abode, by day and by night, in hail, rain, or\nsnow, the most disagreeable and often the most useless functions, while\nthe abbot or great tithe-holder drinks his rich wine of Volney, Beaune,\nor Chambertin, eats his partridges and pheasants, sleeps upon his down\nbed with a fair neighbor, and builds a palace. The disproportion is too\ngreat.\n\nIt has been taken for granted since the days of Charlemagne that the\nclergy, besides their own lands, ought to possess a tenth of the lands\nof other people, which tenth is at least a quarter, computing the\nexpense of culture. To establish this payment it is claimed on a\nprinciple of divine right. Did God descend on earth to give a quarter of\nHis property to the abbey of Monte Cassino, to the abbey of St. Denis,\nto the abbey of Fulda? Not that I know, but it has been discovered that\nformerly, in the desert of Ethan, Horeb, and Kadesh Barnea, the Levites\nwere favored with forty-eight cities and a tenth of all which the earth\nproduced besides.\n\nVery well, great tithe-holders, go to Kadesh Barnea and inhabit the\nforty-eight cities in that uninhabitable desert. Take the tenth of the\nflints which the land produces there, and great good may they do you.\nBut Abraham having combated for Sodom, gave a tenth of the spoil to\nMelchizedek, priest and king of Salem. Very good, combat you also for\nSodom, but, like Melchizedek, take not from me the produce of the corn\nwhich I have sowed.\n\nIn a Christian country containing twelve hundred thousand square leagues\nthroughout the whole of the North, in part of Germany, in Holland, and\nin Switzerland, the clergy are paid with money from the public treasury.\nThe tribunals resound not there with lawsuits between landlords and\npriests, between the great and the little tithe-holders, between the\npastor, plaintiff, and the flock defendants, in consequence of the third\nCouncil of the Lateran, of which the said flocks defendant have never\nheard a syllable.\n\nThe king of Naples this year (1772) has just abolished tithes in one of\nhis provinces: the clergy are better paid and the province blesses him.\nThe Egyptian priests, it is said, claimed not this tenth, but then, it\nis observed that they possessed a third part of the land of Egypt as\ntheir own. Oh, stupendous miracle! oh, thing most difficult to be\nconceived, that possessing one-third of the country they did not quickly\nacquire the other two!\n\nBelieve not, dear reader, that the Jews, who were a stiff-necked people,\nnever complained of the extortion of the tenths, or tithe. Give yourself\nthe trouble to consult the Talmud of Babylon, and if you understand not\nthe Chald\u00e6an, read the translation, with notes of Gilbert Gaumin, the\nwhole of which was printed by the care of Fabricius. You will there\nperuse the adventure of a poor widow with the High Priest Aaron, and\nlearn how the quarrel of this widow became the cause of the quarrel of\nKoran, Dathan, and Abiram, on the one side, and Aaron on the other.\n\n\"A widow possessed only a single sheep which she wished to shear. Aaron\ncame and took the wool for himself: 'It belongs to me,' said he,\n'according to the law, thou shalt give the first of the wool to God.'\nThe widow, in tears, implored the protection of Koran. Koran applied to\nAaron but his entreaties were fruitless. Aaron replies that the wool\nbelongs to him. Koran gives some money to the widow and retires, filled\nwith indignation.\n\n\"Some time after, the sheep produces a lamb. Aaron returns and carries\naway the lamb. The widow runs weeping again to Koran, who in vain\nimplores Aaron. The high priest answers, 'It is written in the law,\nevery first-born male in thy flock belongs to God.' He eats the lamb and\nKoran again retires in a rage.\n\n\"The widow, in despair, kills her sheep; Aaron returns once more and\ntakes away the shoulder and the breast. Koran again complains. Aaron\nreplies: 'It is written, thou shalt give unto the priests the shoulder,\nthe two cheeks, and the maw.'\n\n\"The widow could no longer contain her affliction and said, 'Anathema,'\nto the sheep, upon which Aaron observed, 'It is written, all that is\nanathema (cursed) in Israel belongs to thee;' and took away the sheep\naltogether.\"\n\nWhat is not so pleasant, yet very remarkable, is that in a suit between\nthe clergy of Rheims and the citizens, this instance from the Talmud was\ncited by the advocate of the citizens. Gaumin asserts that he witnessed\nit. In the meantime it may be answered that the tithe-holders do not\ntake _all_ from the people, the tax-gatherers will not suffer it. To\nevery one his share is just.\n\n\n\n\nCURIOSITY.\n\n\n     _Suave, mari magno turbantibus aequora ventis,_\n     _E terra magnum alterius spectare laborem;_\n     _Non quia vexari quemquam est jucunda voluptas,_\n     _Sed quibus ipse malis careas, quia cernere suave est._\n     _Suave etiam belli certamina magna tueri_\n     _Per campos instructa tua sine parte pericli;_\n     _Sed nil dulcius est, bene quam munita tenere_\n     _Edita doctrina sapientum templa serena_\n     _Despicere unde queas alios, passimque videre_\n     _Errare, atque viam palantes quaerere vitae,_\n     _Certare ingenio, contendere nobilitate,_\n     _Noctes atque dies niti praestante labore_\n     _Ad summas emergere opes, rerumque potiri._\n     _O miseras hominum mentes! O pectora caeca!_\n\n\n     'Tis pleasant, when the seas are rough, to stand\n     And view another's danger, safe at land;\n     Not 'cause he's troubled, but 'tis sweet to see\n     Those cares and fears, from which ourselves are free;\n     Tis also pleasant to behold from far\n     How troops engage, secure ourselves from war.\n     But, above all, 'tis pleasantest to get\n     The top of high philosophy, and set\n     On the calm, peaceful, nourishing head of it;\n     Whence we may view, deep, wondrous deep below,\n     How poor mistaken mortals wandering go,\n     Seeking the path to happiness; some aim\n     At learning, not nobility, or fame;\n     Others, with cares and dangers vie each hour\n     To reach the top of wealth and sovereign power.\n     Blind, wretched man, in what dark paths of strife\n     We walk this little journey of our life.\n                                       --CREECH'S _Lucretius_.\n\nI ask your pardon, Lucretius! I suspect that you are here as mistaken in\nmorals as you are always mistaken in physics. In my opinion it is\ncuriosity alone that induces people to hasten to the shore to see a\nvessel in danger of being overwhelmed in a tempest. The case has\nhappened to myself, and I solemnly assure you that my pleasure, mingled\nas it was with uneasiness and distress, did not at all arise from\nreflection, nor originate in any secret comparison between my own\nsecurity and the danger of the unfortunate crew. I was moved by\ncuriosity and pity.\n\nAt the battle of Fontenoy little boys and girls climbed up the\nsurrounding trees to have a view of the slaughter. Ladies ordered seats\nto be placed for them on a bastion of the city of Liege that they might\nenjoy the spectacle at the battle of Rocoux.\n\nWhen I said, \"Happy they who view in peace the gathering storm,\" the\nhappiness I had in view consists in tranquillity and the search of\ntruth, and not in seeing the sufferings of thinking beings, oppressed\nby fanatics or hypocrites under persecution for having sought it.\n\nCould we suppose an angel flying on six beautiful wings from the height\nof the Empyrean, setting out to take a view through some loophole of\nhell of the torments and contortions of the damned, and congratulating\nhimself on feeling nothing of their inconceivable agonies, such an angel\nwould much resemble the character of Beelzebub.\n\nI know nothing of the nature of angels because I am only a man; divines\nalone are acquainted with them; but, as a man, I think, from my own\nexperience and also from that of all my brother drivellers, that people\ndo not flock to any spectacle, of whatever kind, but from pure\ncuriosity.\n\nThis seems to me so true that if the exhibition be ever so admirable men\nat last get tired of it. The Parisian public scarcely go any longer to\nsee \"_Tartuffe_\" the most masterly of Moli\u00e8re's masterpieces. Why is it?\nBecause they have gone often; because they have it by heart. It is the\nsame with \"Andromache.\"\n\nPerrin Dandin is unfortunately right when he proposes to the young\nIsabella to take her to see the method of \"putting to the torture;\" it\nserves, he says, to pass away an hour or two. If this anticipation of\nthe execution, frequently more cruel than the execution itself, were a\npublic spectacle, the whole city of Toulouse would have rushed in crowds\nto behold the venerable Calas twice suffering those execrable torments,\nat the instance of the attorney-general. Penitents, black, white, and\ngray, married women, girls, stewards of the floral games, students,\nlackeys, female servants, girls of the town, doctors of the canon law\nwould have been all squeezed together. At Paris we must have been almost\nsuffocated in order to see the unfortunate General Lally pass along in a\ndung cart, with a six-inch gag in his mouth.\n\nBut if these tragedies of cannibals, which are sometimes performed\nbefore the most frivolous of nations, and the one most ignorant in\ngeneral of the principles of jurisprudence and equity; if the\nspectacles, like those of St. Bartholomew, exhibited by tigers to\nmonkeys and the copies of it on a smaller scale were renewed every day,\nmen would soon desert such a country; they would fly from it with\nhorror; they would abandon forever the infernal land where such\nbarbarities were common.\n\nWhen little boys and girls pluck the feathers from their sparrows it is\nmerely from the impulse of curiosity, as when they dissect the dresses\nof their dolls. It is this passion alone which produces the immense\nattendance at public executions. \"Strange eagerness,\" as some tragic\nauthor remarks, \"to behold the wretched.\"\n\nI remember being in Paris when Damiens suffered a death the most\nelaborate and frightful that can be conceived. All the windows in the\ncity which bore upon the spot were engaged at a high price by ladies,\nnot one of whom, assuredly, made the consoling reflection that her own\nbreasts were not torn by pincers; that melted lead and boiling pitch\nwere not poured upon wounds of her own, and that her own limbs,\ndislocated and bleeding, were not drawn asunder by four horses. One of\nthe executioners judged more correctly than Lucretius, for, when one of\nthe academicians of Paris tried to get within the enclosure to examine\nwhat was passing more closely, and was forced back by one of the guards,\n\"Let the gentleman go in,\" said he, \"he is an amateur.\" That is to say,\nhe is inquisitive; it is not through malice that he comes here; it is\nnot from any reflex consideration of self to revel in the pleasure of\nnot being himself quartered; it is only from curiosity, as men go to see\nexperiments in natural philosophy.\n\nCuriosity is natural to man, to monkeys, and to little dogs. Take a\nlittle dog with you in your carriage, he will continually be putting up\nhis paws against the door to see what is passing. A monkey searches\neverywhere, and has the air of examining everything. As to men, you know\nhow they are constituted: Rome, London, Paris, all pass their time in\ninquiring what's the news?\n\n\n\n\nCUSTOMS--USAGES.\n\n\nThere are, it is said, one hundred and forty-four customs in France\nwhich possess the force of law.\n\nThese laws are almost all different in different places. A man that\ntravels in this country changes his law almost as often as he changes\nhis horses. The majority of these customs were not reduced to writing\nuntil the time of Charles VII., the reason of which probably was that\nfew people knew how to write. They then copied a part of the customs of\na part of Ponthieu, but this great work was not aided by the Picards\nuntil Charles VIII. There were but sixteen digests in the time of Louis\nXII., but our jurisprudence is so improved there are now but few customs\nwhich have not a variety of commentators, all of whom are of different\nopinions. There are already twenty-six upon the customs of Paris. The\njudges know not which to prefer, but, to put them at their ease the\ncustom of Paris has been just turned into verse. It was in this manner\nthat the Delphian pythoness of old declared her oracles.\n\nWeights and measures differ as much as customs, so that which is correct\nin the faubourg of Montmartre, is otherwise in the abbey of St. Denis.\nThe Lord pity us!\n\n\n\n\nCYRUS.\n\n\nMany learned men, and Rollin among the number, in an age in which reason\nis cultivated, have assured us that Javan, who is supposed to be the\nfather of the Greeks, was the grandson of Noah. I believe it precisely\nas I believe that Persius was the founder of the kingdom of Persia and\nNiger of Nigritia. The only thing which grieves me is that the Greeks\nhave never known anything of Noah, the venerable author of their race. I\nhave elsewhere noted my astonishment and chagrin that our father Adam\nshould be absolutely unknown to everybody from Japan to the Strait of Le\nMaire, except to a small people to whom he was known too late. The\nscience of genealogy is doubtless in the highest degree certain, but\nexceedingly difficult.\n\nIt is neither upon Javan, upon Noah, nor upon Adam that my doubts fall\nat present; it is upon Cyrus, and I seek not which of the fables in\nregard to him is preferable, that of Herodotus, of Ctesias, of Xenophon,\nof Diodorus, or of Justin, all of which contradict one another. Neither\ndo I ask why it is obstinately determined to give the name of Cyrus to a\nbarbarian called Khosrou, and those of Cyropolis and Persepolis to\ncities that never bore them.\n\nI drop all that has been said of the grand Cyrus, including the romance\nof that name, and the travels which the Scottish Ramsay made him\nundertake, and simply inquire into some instructions of his to the Jews,\nof which that people make mention.\n\nI remark, in the first place, that no author has said a word of the Jews\nin the history of Cyrus, and that the Jews alone venture to notice\nthemselves, in speaking of this prince.\n\nThey resemble, in some degree, certain people, who, alluding to\nindividuals of a rank superior to their own say, we know the gentlemen\nbut the gentlemen know not us. It is the same with Alexander in the\nnarratives of the Jews. No historian of Alexander has mixed up his name\nwith that of the Jews, but Josephus fails not to assert that Alexander\ncame to pay his respects at Jerusalem; that he worshipped, I know not\nwhat Jewish pontiff, called Jaddus, who had formerly predicted to him\nthe conquest of Persia in a dream. Petty people are often visionary in\nthis way: the great dream less of their greatness.\n\nWhen Tarik conquered Spain the vanquished said they had foretold it.\nThey would have said the same thing to Genghis, to Tamerlane, and to\nMahomet II.\n\nGod forbid that I should compare the Jewish prophets to the predictors\nof good fortune, who pay their court to conquerors by foretelling them\nthat which has come to pass. I merely observe that the Jews produce some\ntestimony from their nation in respect to the actions of Cyrus about one\nhundred and sixty years before he was born.\n\nIt is said, in the forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah, \"Thus saith the Lord\nto His anointed--His Christ--Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden to\nsubdue nations before him, and I will loosen the loins of kings to open\nbefore him the two-leaved gates, and the gates shall not be shut. I will\ngo before thee and make the crooked places straight; I will break in\npieces the gates of brass and cut in sunder the bars of iron. And I will\ngive thee the treasures of darkness and hidden riches of secret places\nthat thou mayest know that I the Lord, who call thee by thy name, am\nthe God of Israel,\" etc.\n\nSome learned men have scarcely been able to digest the fact of the Lord\nhonoring with the name of His Christ an idolater of the religion of\nZoroaster. They even dare to say that the Jews, in the manner of all the\nweak who flatter the powerful, invented predictions in favor of Cyrus.\n\nThese learned persons respect Daniel no more than Isaiah, but treat all\nthe prophecies attributed to the latter with similar contempt to that\nmanifested by St. Jerome for the adventures of Susannah, of Bel and the\nDragon, and of the three children in the fiery furnace.\n\nThe sages in question seem not to be penetrated with sufficient esteem\nfor the prophets. Many of them even pretend that to see clearly the\nfuture is metaphysically impossible. To see that which is not, say they,\nis a contradiction in terms, and as the future exists not, it\nconsequently cannot be seen. They add that frauds of this nature abound\nin all nations, and, finally, that everything is to be doubted which is\nrecorded in ancient history.\n\nThey observe that if there was ever a formal prophecy it is that of the\ndiscovery of America in the tragedy of Seneca:\n\n                 _Venient annis_\n     _S\u00e6cula seris quibus oceanus_\n     _Vinculo rerum laxet, et ingens_\n     _Pateat tellus,..._\n\nA time may arrive when ocean will loosen the chains of nature and lay\nopen a vast world. The four stars of the southern pole are advanced\nstill more clearly in Dante, yet no one takes either Seneca or Dante for\ndiviners.\n\nAs to Cyrus, it is difficult to know whether he died nobly or had his\nhead cut off by Tomyris, but I am anxious, I confess, that the learned\nmen may be right who claim the head of Cyrus was cut off. It is not\namiss that these illustrious robbers on the highway of nations who\npillage and deluge the earth with blood, should be occasionally\nchastised.\n\nCyrus has always been the subject of remark, Xenophon began and,\nunfortunately, Ramsay ended. Lastly, to show the sad fate which\nsometimes attends heroes, Danchet has made him the subject of a tragedy.\n\nThis tragedy is entirely unknown; the \"Cyrop\u00e6dia\" of Xenophon is more\npopular because it is in Greek. The \"Travels of Cyrus\" are less so,\nalthough printed in French and English, and wonderfully erudite.\n\nThe pleasantry of the romance entitled \"The Travels of Cyrus,\" consists\nin its discovery of a Messiah everywhere--at Memphis, at Babylon, at\nEcbatana, and at Tyre, as at Jerusalem, and as much in Plato as in the\ngospel. The author having been a Quaker, an Anabaptist, an Anglican, and\na Presbyterian, had finally become a _F\u00e9nelonist_ at Cambray, under the\nillustrious author of \"Telemachus.\" Having since been made preceptor to\nthe child of a great nobleman, he thought himself born to instruct and\ngovern the universe, and, in consequence, gives lessons to Cyrus in\norder to render him at once the best king and the most orthodox\ntheologian in existence. These two rare qualities appear to lack the\ngrace of congruity.\n\nRamsay leads his pupil to the school of Zoroaster and then to that of\nthe young Jew, Daniel, the greatest philosopher who ever existed. He not\nonly explained dreams, which is the acme of human science, but\ndiscovered and interpreted even such as had been forgotten, which none\nbut he could ever accomplish. It might be expected that Daniel would\npresent the beautiful Susannah to the prince, it being in the natural\nmanner of romance, but he did nothing of the kind.\n\nCyrus, in return, has some very long conversations with Nebuchadnezzar\nwhile he was an ox, during which transformation Ramsay makes\nNebuchadnezzar ruminate like a profound theologian.\n\nHow astonishing that the prince for whom this work was composed\npreferred the chase and the opera to perusing it!\n\n\n\n\nDANTE.\n\n\nYou wish to become acquainted with Dante. The Italians call him divine,\nbut it is a mysterious divinity; few men understand his oracles, and\nalthough there are commentators, that may be an additional reason why\nhe is little comprehended. His reputation will last because he is little\nread. Twenty pointed things in him are known by rote, which spare people\nthe trouble of being acquainted with the remainder.\n\nThe divine Dante was an unfortunate person. Imagine not that he was\ndivine in his own day; no one is a prophet at home. It is true he was a\nprior--not a prior of monks, but a prior of Florence, that is to say,\none of its senators.\n\nHe was born in 1260, when the arts began to flourish in his native land.\nFlorence, like Athens, abounded in greatness, wit, levity, inconstancy,\nand faction. The white faction was in great credit; it was called after\na Signora Bianca. The opposing party was called the blacks, in\ncontradistinction. These two parties sufficed not for the Florentines;\nthey had also Guelphs and Ghibellines. The greater part of the whites\nwere Ghibellines, attached to the party of the emperors; the blacks, on\nthe other hand, sided with the Guelphs, the partisans of the popes.\n\nAll these factions loved liberty, but did all they could to destroy it.\nPope Boniface VIII. wished to profit by these divisions in order to\nannihilate the power of the emperors in Italy. He declared Charles de\nValois, brother of Philip the Fair, king of France, his vicar in Italy.\nThe vicar came well armed and chased away the whites and the Ghibellines\nand made himself detested by blacks and Guelphs. Dante was a white and a\nGhibelline; he was driven away among the first and his house razed to\nthe ground. We may judge if he could be for the remainder of his life,\nfavorable towards the French interest and to the popes. It is said,\nhowever, that he took a journey to Paris, and, to relieve his chagrin\nturned theologian and disputed vigorously in the schools. It is added\nthat the emperor Henry VIII. did nothing for him, Ghibelline as he was,\nand that he repaired to Frederick of Aragon, king of Sicily, and\nreturned as poor as he went. He subsequently died in poverty at Ravenna\nat the age of fifty-six. It was during these various peregrinations that\nhe composed his divine comedy of \"Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise.\"\n\n[Voltaire here enters into a description of the \"_Inferno_,\" which it is\nunnecessary to insert, after the various translations into English. The\nconclusion, however, exhibiting our author's usual vivacity, is\nretained.]\n\nIs all this in the comic style? No. In the heroic manner? No. What then\nis the taste of this poem? An exceedingly wild one, but it contains\nverses so happy and piquant that it has not lain dormant for four\ncenturies and never will be laid aside. A poem, moreover, which puts\npopes into hell excites attention, and the sagacity of commentators is\nexhausted in correctly ascertaining who it is that Dante has damned, it\nbeing, of course, of the first consequence not to be deceived in a\nmatter so important.\n\nA chair and a lecture have been founded with a view to the exposition\nof this classic author. You ask me why the Inquisition acquiesces. I\nreply that in Italy the Inquisition understands raillery and knows that\nraillery in verse never does any harm.\n\n\n\n\nDAVID.\n\n\nWe are called upon to reverence David as a prophet, as a king, as the\nancestor of the holy spouse of Mary, as a man who merited the mercy of\nGod from his penitence.\n\nI will boldly assert that the article on \"David,\" which raised up so\nmany enemies to Bayle, the first author of a dictionary of facts and of\nreasonings, deserves not the strange noise which was made about it. It\nwas not David that people were anxious to defend, but Bayle whom they\nwere solicitous to destroy. Certain preachers of Holland, his mortal\nenemies, were so far blinded by their enmity as to blame him for having\npraised popes whom he thought meritorious, and for having refuted the\nunjust calumny with which they had been assailed.\n\nThis absurd and shameful piece of injustice was signed by a dozen\ntheologians on Dec. 20, 1698, in the same consistory in which they\npretended to take up the defence of King David. A great proof that the\ncondemnation of Bayle arose from personal feeling is supplied by the\nfact of that which happened in 1761, to Mr. Peter Anet, in London. The\ndoctors Chandler and Palmer, having delivered funeral sermons on the\ndeath of King George II., in which they compared him to King David, Mr.\nAnet, who did not regard this comparison as honorable to the deceased\nmonarch, published his famous dissertation entitled, \"The History of the\nMan after God's Own Heart.\" In that work he makes it clear that George\nII., a king much more powerful than David, did not fall into the errors\nof the Jewish sovereign, and consequently could not display the\npenitence which was the origin of the comparison.\n\nHe follows, step by step, the Books of Kings, examines the conduct of\nDavid with more severity than Bayle, and on it founds an opinion that\nthe Holy Spirit does not praise actions of the nature of those\nattributed to David. The English author, in fact, judges the king of\nJudah upon the notions of justice and injustice which prevail at the\npresent time.\n\nHe cannot approve of the assembly of a band of robbers by David to the\namount of four hundred; of his being armed with the sword of Goliath, by\nthe high priest Abimelech, from whom he received hallowed bread.\n\nHe could not think well of the expedition of David against the farmer,\nNabal, in order to destroy his abode with fire and sword, because Nabal\nrefused contributions to his troop of robbers; or of the death of Nabal\na few days afterwards, whose widow David immediately espoused.\n\nHe condemned his conduct to King Achish, the possessor of a few villages\nin the district of Gath. David, at the head of five or six hundred\nbanditti, made inroads upon the allies of his benefactor Achish. He\npillaged the whole of them, massacred all the inhabitants, men, women,\nand children at the breast. And why the children at the breast? For\nfear, says the text, these children should carry the news to King\nAchish, who was deceived into a belief that these expeditions were\nundertaken against the Israelites, by an absolute lie on the part of\nDavid.\n\nAgain, Saul loses a battle and wishes his armor-bearer to slay him, who\nrefuses; he wounds himself, but not effectually, and at his own desire a\nyoung man despatches him, who, carrying the news to David, is massacred\nfor his pains.\n\nIshbosheth succeeds his father, Saul, and David makes war upon him.\nFinally Ishbosheth is assassinated.\n\nDavid, possessed of the sole dominion, surprised the little town or\nvillage of Rabbah and put all the inhabitants to death by the most\nextraordinary devices--sawing them asunder, destroying them with harrows\nand axes of iron, and burning them in brick-kilns.\n\nAfter these expeditions there was a famine in the country for three\nyears. In fact, from this mode of making war, countries must necessarily\nbe badly cultivated. The Lord was consulted as to the causes of the\nfamine. The answer was easy. In a country which produces corn with\ndifficulty, when laborers are baked in brick-kilns and sawed into\npieces, few people remain to cultivate the earth. The Lord, however,\nreplied that it was because Saul had formerly slain some Gibeonites.\n\nWhat is David's speedy remedy? He assembles the Gibeonites, informs them\nthat Saul had committed a great sin in making war upon them, and that\nSaul not being like him, a man after God's own heart, it would be proper\nto punish him in his posterity. He therefore makes them a present of\nseven grandsons of Saul to be hanged, who were accordingly hanged\nbecause there had been a famine.\n\nMr. Anet is so just as not to insist upon the adultery with Bathsheba\nand the murder of her husband, as these crimes were pardoned in\nconsequence of the repentance of David. They were horrible and\nabominable, but being remitted by the Lord, the English author also\nabsolves from them.\n\nNo one complained in England of the author, and the parliament took\nlittle interest in the history of a kinglet of a petty district in\nSyria.\n\nLet justice be done to Father Calmet; he has kept within bounds in his\ndictionary of the Bible, in the article on \"David.\" \"We pretend not,\"\nsaid he, \"to approve of the conduct of David, but it is to be believed\nthat this excess of cruelty was committed before his repentance on the\nscore of Bathsheba.\" Possibly he repented of all his crimes at the same\ntime, which were sufficiently numerous.\n\nLet us here ask what appears to us to be an important question. May we\nnot exhibit a portion of contempt in the article on \"David,\" and treat\nof his person and glory with the respect due to the sacred books? It is\nto the interest of mankind that crime should in no case be sanctified.\nWhat signifies what _he_ is called, who massacres the wives and children\nof his allies; who hangs the grandchildren of his king; who saws his\nunhappy captives in two, tears them to pieces with harrows, or burns\nthem in brick-kilns? These actions we judge, and not the letters which\ncompose the name of the criminal. His name neither augments nor\ndiminishes the criminality.\n\nThe more David is revered after his reconciliation with God, the more\nare his previous qualities condemnable.\n\nIf a young peasant, in searching after she-asses finds a kingdom it is\nno common affair. If another peasant cures his king of insanity by a\ntune on the harp that is still more extraordinary. But when this petty\nplayer on the harp becomes king because he meets a village priest in\nsecret, who pours a bottle of olive oil on his head, the affair is more\nmarvellous still.\n\nI know nothing either of the writers of these marvels, or of the time in\nwhich they were written, but I am certain that it was neither Polybius\nnor Tacitus.\n\nI shall not speak here of the murder of Uriah, and of the adultery with\nBathsheba, these facts being sufficiently well known. The ways of God\nare not the ways of men, since He permitted the descent of Jesus Christ\nfrom this very Bathsheba, everything being rendered pure by so holy a\nmystery.\n\nI ask not now how Jurieu had the audacity to persecute the wise Bayle\nfor not approving all the actions of the good King David. I only inquire\nwhy a man like Jurieu is suffered to molest a man like Bayle.\n\n\n\n\nDECRETALS.\n\n\nThese are letters of the popes which regulate points of doctrine and\ndiscipline and which have the force of law in the Latin church.\n\nBesides the genuine ones collected by Denis le Petit, there is a\ncollection of false ones, the author of which, as well as the date, is\nunknown. It was an archbishop of Mentz called Riculphus who circulated\nit in France about the end of the eighth century; he had also brought to\nWorms an epistle of Pope Gregory, which had never before been heard of,\nbut no vestige of the latter is at present remaining, while the false\ndecretals, as we shall see, have met with the greatest success for eight\ncenturies.\n\nThis collection bears the name of Isidore Mercator, and comprehends an\ninfinite number of decrees falsely ascribed to the popes, from Clement\nI. down to Siricius. The false donation of Constantine; the Council of\nRome under Sylvester; the letter of Athanasius to Mark; that of\nAnastasius to the bishops of Germany and Burgundy; that of Sixtus III.\nto the Orientals; that of Leo. I. relating to the privileges of the\nrural bishops; that of John I. to the archbishop Zachariah; one of\nBoniface II. to Eulalia of Alexandria; one of John III. to the bishops\nof France and Burgundy; one of Gregory, containing a privilege of the\nmonastery of St. M\u00e9dard; one from the same to Felix, bishop of Messina,\nand many others.\n\nThe object of the author was to extend the authority of the pope and the\nbishops. With this view, he lays it down as a principle that they can be\ndefinitely judged only by the pope, and he often repeats this maxim that\nnot only every bishop but every priest, and, generally, every oppressed\nindividual may, in any stage of a cause, appeal directly to the pope. He\nlikewise considers it as an incontestable principle that no council, not\neven a provincial one, may be held without the permission of the pope.\n\nThese decretals, favoring the impunity of bishops, and still more the\nambitious pretensions of the popes, were eagerly adopted by them both.\nIn 861, Rotade, bishop of Soissons, being deprived of episcopal\ncommunion in a provincial council on account of disobedience, appeals to\nthe pope. Hincmar of Rheims, his metropolitan, notwithstanding his\nappeal, deposes him in another council under the pretext that he had\nafterwards renounced it, and submitted himself to the judgment of the\nbishops.\n\nPope Nicholas I. being informed of this affair, wrote to Hincmar, and\nblamed his proceedings. \"You ought,\" says he, \"to honor the memory of\nSt. Peter, and await our judgment, even although Rotade had not\nappealed.\" And in another letter on the same matter, he threatens\nHincmar with excommunication, if he does not restore Rotade. That pope\ndid more. Rotade having arrived at Rome, he declared him acquitted in a\ncouncil held on Christmas eve, 864; and dismissed him to his see with\nletters. That which he addressed to all the bishops is worthy of notice,\nand is as follows:\n\n\"What you say is absurd, that Rotade, after having appealed to the holy\nsee, changed his language and submitted himself anew to your judgment.\nEven although he had done so, it would have been your duty to set him\nright, and teach him that an appeal never lies from a superior judge to\nan inferior one. But even although he had not appealed to the holy see,\nyou ought by no means to depose a bishop without our participation, in\nprejudice of so many decretals of our predecessors; for, if it be by\ntheir judgment that the writings of other doctors are approved or\nrejected, how much more should that be respected which they have\nthemselves written, to decide on points of doctrine and discipline. Some\ntell you that these decretals are not in the book of canons; yet those\nsame persons, when they find them favorable to their designs, use both\nwithout distinction, and reject them only to lessen the power of the\nholy see. If the decretals of the ancient popes are to be rejected\nbecause they are not contained in the book of canons, the writings of\nSt. Gregory, and the rest of the fathers, must, on the same principle,\nbe rejected also, and even the Holy Scriptures themselves.\"\n\n\"You say,\" the pope continues, \"that judgments upon bishops are not\namong the higher causes; we maintain that they are high in proportion as\nbishops hold a high rank in the church. Will you assert that it is only\nmetropolitan affairs which constitute the higher causes? But\nmetropolitans are not of a different order from bishops, and we do not\ndemand different witnesses or judges in the one case, from what are\nusual in the other; we therefore require that causes which involve\neither should be reserved for us. And, finally, can anyone be found so\nutterly unreasonable as to say that all other churches ought to preserve\ntheir privileges, and that the Roman Church alone should lose hers?\" He\nconcludes with ordering them to receive and replace Rotade.\n\nPope Adrian, the successor of Nicholas I., seems to have been no less\nzealous in a similar case relating to Hincmar of Laon. That prelate had\nrendered himself hateful both to the clergy and people of his diocese,\nby various acts of injustice and violence. Having been accused before\nthe Council of Verberie--at which Hincmar of Rheims, his uncle and\nmetropolitan, presided--he appealed to the pope, and demanded permission\nto go to Rome. This was refused him. The process against him was merely\nsuspended, and the affair went no farther. But upon new matters of\ncomplaint brought against him by Charles the Bald and Hincmar of\nRheims, he was cited at first before the Council of Attigny, where he\nappeared, and soon afterwards fled; and then before the Council of\nDouzy, where he renewed his appeal, and was deposed. The council wrote\nto the pope a synodal letter, on Sept. 6, 871, to request of him a\nconfirmation of the acts which they sent him; but Adrian, far from\nacquiescing in the judgment of the council, expressed in the strongest\nterms his disapprobation of the condemnation of Hincmar; maintaining\nthat, since Hincmar declared before the council that he appealed to the\nholy see, they ought not to have pronounced any sentence of condemnation\nupon him. Such were the terms used by that pope, in his letter to the\nbishops of the council, as also in that which he wrote to the king.\n\nThe following is the vigorous answer sent by Charles to Adrian: \"Your\nletters say, 'We will and ordain, by apostolical authority, that Hincmar\nof Laon shall come to Rome and present himself before us, resting upon\nyour supremacy.'\n\n\"We wonder where the writer of this letter discovered that a king, whose\nduty it is to chastise the guilty and be the avenger of crimes, should\nsend to Rome a criminal convicted according to legal forms, and more\nespecially one who, before his deposition, was found guilty, in three\ncouncils, of enterprises against the public peace; and who, after his\ndeposition, persisted in his disobedience.\n\n\"We are compelled further to tell you, that we, kings of France, born\nof a royal race, have never yet passed for the deputies of bishops, but\nfor sovereigns of the earth. And, as St. Leon and the Roman council have\nsaid, kings and emperors, whom God has appointed to govern the world,\nhave permitted bishops to regulate their affairs according to their\nordinances, but they have never been the stewards of bishops; and if you\nsearch the records of your predecessors, you will not find that they\nhave ever written to persons in our exalted situation as you have done\nin the present instance.\"\n\nHe then adduces two letters of St. Gregory, to show with what modesty he\nwrote, not only to the kings of France, but to the exarchs of Italy.\n\"Finally,\" he concludes, \"I beg that you will never more send to me, or\nto the bishops of my kingdom, similar letters, if you wish that we\nshould give to what you write that honor and respect which we would\nwillingly grant it.\" The bishops of the Council of Douzy answered the\npope nearly in the same strain; and, although we have not the entire\nletter, it appears that their object in it was to prove that Hincmar's\nappeal ought not to be decided at Rome, but in France, by judges\ndelegated conformably to the canons of the Council of Sardis.\n\nThese examples are sufficient to show how the popes extended their\njurisdiction by the instrumentality of these false decretals; and\nalthough Hincmar of Rheims objected to Adrian, that, not being included\nin the book of canons, they could not subvert the discipline\nestablished by the canons--which occasioned his being accused, before\nPope John VIII., of not admitting the decretals of the popes--he\nconstantly cited these decretals as authorities, in his letters and\nother writings, and his example was followed by many bishops. At first,\nthose only were admitted which were not contrary to the more recent\ncanons, and afterwards there was less and less scruple.\n\nThe councils themselves made use of them. Thus, in that of Rheims, held\nin 992, the bishops availed themselves of the decretals of Anacletus, of\nJulius, of Damasus, and other popes, in the cause of Arnoul. Succeeding\ncouncils imitated that of Rheims. The popes Gregory VII., Urban II.,\nPascal II., Urban III., and Alexander III. supported the maxims they\nfound in them, persuaded that they constituted the discipline of the\nflourishing age of the church. Finally, the compilers of the\ncanons--Bouchard of Worms, Yves of Chartres, and Gratian--introduced\nthem into their collection. After they became publicly taught in the\nschools, and commented upon, all the polemical and scholastic divines,\nand all the expositors of the canon law, eagerly laid hold of these\nfalse decretals to confirm the Catholic dogmas, or to establish points\nof discipline, and scattered them profusely through their works.\n\nIt was not till the sixteenth century that the first suspicions of their\nauthenticity were excited. Erasmus, and many others with him, called\nthem in question upon the following grounds:\n\n1. The decretals contained in the collection of Isidore are not in that\nof Denis le Petit, who cited none of the decretals of the popes before\nthe time of Siricius. Yet he informs us that he took extreme care in\ncollecting them. They could not, therefore, have escaped him, if they\nhad existed in the archives of the see of Rome, where he resided. If\nthey were unknown to the holy see, to which they were favorable, they\nwere so to the whole church. The fathers and councils of the first eight\ncenturies have made no mention of them. But how can this universal\nsilence be reconciled with their authenticity?\n\n2. These decretals do not all correspond with the state of things\nexisting at the time in which they are supposed to have been written.\nNot a word is said of the heresies of the three first centuries, nor of\nother ecclesiastical affairs with which the genuine works of the same\nperiod are filled. This proves that they were fabricated afterwards.\n\n3. Their dates are almost always false. Their author generally follows\nthe chronology of the pontifical book, which, by Baronius's own\nconfession, is very incorrect. This is a presumptive evidence that the\ncollection was not composed till after the pontifical book.\n\n4. These decretals, in all the citations of Scripture passages which\nthey contain, use the version known by the name of \"Vulgate,\" made, or\nat least revised, by St. Jerome. They are, therefore, of later date\nthan St. Jerome.\n\nFinally, they are all written in the same style, which is very\nbarbarous; and, in that respect, corresponding to the ignorance of the\neighth century: but it is not by any means probable that all the\ndifferent popes, whose names they bear, affected that uniformity of\nstyle. It may be concluded with confidence, that all the decretals are\nfrom the same hand.\n\nBesides these general reasons, each of the documents which form\nIsidore's collection carries with it marks of forgery peculiar to\nitself, and none of which have escaped the keen criticism of David\nBlondel, to whom we are principally indebted for the light thrown at the\npresent day on this compilation, now no longer known but as \"The False\nDecretals\"; but the usages introduced in consequence of it exist not the\nless through a considerable portion of Europe.\n\n\n\n\nDELUGE (UNIVERSAL).\n\n\nWe begin with observing that we are believers in the universal deluge,\nbecause it is recorded in the holy Hebrew Scriptures transmitted to\nChristians. We consider it as a miracle:\n\n1. Because all the facts by which God condescends to interfere in the\nsacred books are so many miracles.\n\n2. Because the sea could not rise fifteen cubits, or one-and-twenty\nstandard feet and a half, above the highest mountains, without leaving\nits bed dry, and, at the same time, violating all the laws of gravity\nand the equilibrium of fluids, which would evidently require a miracle.\n\n3. Because, even although it might rise to the height mentioned, the ark\ncould not have contained, according to known physical laws, all the\nliving things of the earth, together with their food, for so long a\ntime; considering that lions, tigers, panthers, leopards, ounces,\nrhinoceroses, bears, wolves, hyenas, eagles, hawks, kites, vultures,\nfalcons, and all carnivorous animals, which feed on flesh alone, would\nhave died of hunger, even after having devoured all the other species.\n\nThere was printed some time ago, in an appendix to Pascal's \"Thoughts,\"\na dissertation of a merchant of Rouen, called Le Peletier, in which he\nproposes a plan for building a vessel in which all kinds of animals\nmight be included and maintained for the space of a year. It is clear\nthat this merchant never superintended even a poultry-yard. We cannot\nbut look upon M. Le Peletier, the architect of the ark, as a visionary,\nwho knew nothing about menageries; and upon the deluge as an adorable\nmiracle, fearful, and incomprehensible to the feeble reason of M. Le\nPeletier, as well as to our own.\n\n4. Because the physical impossibility of a universal deluge, by natural\nmeans, can be strictly demonstrated. The demonstration is as follows:\nAll the seas cover half the globe. A common measure of their depths\nnear the shores, and in the open ocean, is assumed to be five hundred\nfeet.\n\nIn order that they might cover both hemispheres to the depth of five\nhundred feet, not only would an ocean of that depth be necessary over\nall the land, but a new sea would, in addition, be required to envelop\nthe ocean at present existing, without which the laws of hydrostatics\nwould occasion the dispersion of that other new mass of water five\nhundred feet deep, which should remain covering the land. Thus, then,\ntwo new oceans are requisite to cover the terraqueous globe merely to\nthe depth of five hundred feet.\n\nSupposing the mountains to be only twenty thousand feet high, forty\noceans, each five hundred feet in height, would be required to\naccumulate on each other, merely in order to equal the height of the\nmountains. Every successive ocean would contain all the others, and the\nlast of them all would have a circumference containing forty times that\nof the first.\n\nIn order to form this mass of water, it would be necessary to create it\nout of nothing. In order to withdraw it, it would be necessary to\nannihilate it. The event of the deluge, then, is a double miracle, and\nthe greatest that has ever manifested the power of the eternal Sovereign\nof all worlds.\n\nWe are exceedingly surprised that some learned men have attributed to\nthis deluge some small shell found in many parts of our continent. We\nare still more surprised at what we find under the article on \"Deluge,\"\nin the grand \"Encyclop\u00e6dia.\" An author is quoted in it, who says things\nso very profound that they may be considered as chimerical. This is the\nfirst characteristic of Pluche. He proves the possibility of the deluge\nby the history of the giants who made war against the gods!\n\n_Briareus_, according to him, is clearly the deluge, for it signifies\n\"the loss of serenity\": and in what language does it signify this\nloss?--in Hebrew. But _Briareus_ is a Greek word, which means \"robust\":\nit is not a Hebrew word. Even if, by chance, it had been so, we should\nbeware of imitating Bochart, who derives so many Greek, Latin, and even\nFrench words from the Hebrew idiom. The Greeks certainly knew no more of\nthe Jewish idiom than of the language of the Chinese.\n\nThe giant Othus is also in Hebrew, according to Pluche, \"the derangement\nof the seasons.\" But it is also a Greek word, which does not signify\nanything, at least, that I know; and even if it did, what, let me ask,\ncould it have to do with the Hebrew?\n\n_Porphyrion_ is \"a shaking of the earth,\" in Hebrew; but in Greek, it is\nporphyry. This has nothing to do with the deluge.\n\n_Mimos_ is \"a great rain\"; for once, he does mention a name which may\nbear upon the deluge. But in Greek _mimos_ means mimic, comedian. There\nare no means of tracing the deluge of such an origin. _Enceladus_ is\nanother proof of the deluge in Hebrew; for, according to Pluche, it is\nthe fountain of time; but, unluckily, in Greek it is \"noise.\"\n\n_Ephialtes_, another demonstration of the deluge in Hebrew; for\n_ephialtes_, which signifies leaper, oppressor, incubus, in Greek is,\naccording to Pluche, \"a vast accumulation of clouds.\"\n\nBut the Greeks, having taken everything from the Hebrews, with whom they\nwere unacquainted, clearly gave to their giants all those names which\nPluche extracts from the Hebrew as well as he can, and all as a memorial\nof the deluge.\n\nSuch is the reasoning of Pluche. It is he who cites the author of the\narticle on \"Deluge\" without refuting him. Does he speak seriously, or\ndoes he jest? I do not know. All I know is, that there is scarcely a\nsingle system to be found at which one can forbear jesting.\n\nI have some apprehension that the article in the grand \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\"\nattributed to M. Boulanger, is not serious. In that case, we ask whether\nit is philosophical. Philosophy is so often deceived, that we shall not\nventure to decide against M. Boulanger.\n\nStill less shall we venture to ask what was that abyss which was broken\nup, or what were the cataracts of heaven which were opened. Isaac\nVossius denies the universality of the deluge: \"_Hoc est pie nugari_.\"\nCalmet maintains it; informing us, that bodies have no weight in air,\nbut in consequence of their being compressed by air. Calmet was not\nmuch of a natural philosopher, and the weight of the air has nothing to\ndo with the deluge. Let us content ourselves with reading and respecting\neverything in the Bible, without comprehending a single word of it.\n\nI do not comprehend how God created a race of men in order to drown\nthem, and then substituted in their room a race still viler than the\nfirst.\n\nHow seven pairs of all kinds of clean animals should come from the four\nquarters of the globe, together with two pairs of unclean ones, without\nthe wolves devouring the sheep on the way, or the kites the pigeons,\netc.\n\nHow eight persons could keep in order, feed, and water, such an immense\nnumber of inmates, shut up in an ark for nearly two years; for, after\nthe cessation of the deluge, it would be necessary to have food for all\nthese passengers for another year, in consequence of the herbage being\nso scanty.\n\nI am not like M. Le Peletier. I admire everything, and explain nothing.\n\n\n\n\nDEMOCRACY.\n\n     _Le pire des \u00e9tats, c'est l'\u00e9tat populaire._\n     That sway is worst, in which the people rule.\n\nSuch is the opinion which Cinna gave Augustus. But on the other hand,\nMaximus maintains, that\n\n     _Le pire des \u00e9tats, c'est l'\u00e9tat monarchique._\n     That sway is worst, in which a monarch rules.\n\nBayle, in his \"Philosophical Dictionary,\" after having repeatedly\nadvocated both sides of the question, gives, under the article on\n\"Pericles,\" a most disgusting picture of democracy, and more\nparticularly that of Athens.\n\nA republican, who is a stanch partisan of democracy, and one of our\n\"proposers of questions,\" sends us his refutation of Bayle and his\napology for Athens. We will adduce his reasons. It is the privilege of\nevery writer to judge the living and the dead; he who thus sits in\njudgment will be himself judged by others, who, in their turn, will be\njudged also; and thus, from age to age, all sentences are, according to\ncircumstances, reversed or reformed.\n\nBayle, then, after some common-place observations, uses these words: \"A\nman would look in vain into the history of Macedon for as much tyranny\nas he finds in the history of Athens.\"\n\nPerhaps Bayle was discontented with Holland when he thus wrote; and\nprobably my republican friend, who refutes him, is contented with his\nlittle democratic city \"for the present.\"\n\nIt is difficult to weigh, in an exquisitely nice balance, the iniquities\nof the republic of Athens and of the court of Macedon. We still upbraid\nthe Athenians with the banishment of Cimon, Aristides, Themistocles, and\nAlcibiades, and the sentences of death upon Phocion and Socrates;\nsentences similar in absurdity and cruelty to those of some of our own\ntribunals.\n\nIn short, what we can never pardon in the Athenians is the execution of\ntheir six victorious generals, condemned because they had not time to\nbury their dead after the victory, and because they were prevented from\ndoing so by a tempest. The sentence is at once so ridiculous and\nbarbarous, it bears such a stamp of superstition and ingratitude, that\nthose of the Inquisition, those delivered against Urbain Grandier,\nagainst the wife of Marshal d'Ancre, against Montrin, and against\ninnumerable sorcerers and witches, etc., are not, in fact, fooleries\nmore atrocious.\n\nIt is in vain to say, in excuse of the Athenians, that they believed,\nlike Homer before them, that the souls of the dead were always\nwandering, unless they had received the honors of sepulture or burning.\nA folly is no excuse for a barbarity.\n\nA dreadful evil, indeed, for the souls of a few Greeks to ramble for a\nweek or two on the shores of the ocean! The evil is, in consigning\nliving men to the executioner; living men who have won a battle for you;\nliving men, to whom you ought to be devoutly grateful.\n\nThus, then, are the Athenians convicted of having been at once the most\nsilly and the most barbarous judges in the world. But we must now place\nin the balance the crimes of the court of Macedon; we shall see that\nthat court far exceeds Athens in point of tyranny and atrocity.\n\nThere is ordinarily no comparison to be made between the crimes of the\ngreat, who are always ambitious, and those of the people, who never\ndesire, and who never can desire, anything but liberty and equality.\nThese two sentiments, \"liberty and equality,\" do not _necessarily_ lead\nto calumny, rapine, assassination, poisoning, and devastation of the\nlands of neighbors; but, the towering ambition and thirst for power of\nthe great precipitate them head-long into every species of crime in all\nperiods and all places.\n\nIn this same Macedon, the virtue of which Bayle opposes to that of\nAthens, we see nothing but a tissue of tremendous crimes for a series of\ntwo hundred years.\n\nIt is Ptolemy, the uncle of Alexander the Great, who assassinates his\nbrother Alexander to usurp the kingdom. It is Philip, his brother, who\nspends his life in guilt and perjury, and ends it by a stab from\nPausanias.\n\nOlympias orders Queen Cleopatra and her son to be thrown into a furnace\nof molten brass. She assassinates Arid\u00e6us. Antigonus assassinates\nEumenes. Antigonus Gonatas, his son, poisons the governor of the citadel\nof Corinth, marries his widow, expels her, and takes possession of the\ncitadel. Philip, his grandson, poisons Demetrius, and defiles the whole\nof Macedon with murders. Perseus kills his wife with his own hand, and\npoisons his brother. These perfidies and cruelties are authenticated in\nhistory.\n\nThus, then, for two centuries, the madness of despotism converts\nMacedon into a theatre for every crime; and in the same space of time\nyou see the popular government of Athens stained only by five or six\nacts of judicial iniquity, five or six certainly atrocious judgments, of\nwhich the people in every instance repented, and for which they made, as\nfar as they could, honorable expiation (_amende honorable._) They asked\npardon of Socrates after his death, and erected to his memory the small\ntemple called _Socrateion_. They asked pardon of Phocion, and raised a\nstatue to his honor. They asked pardon of the six generals, so\nridiculously condemned and so basely executed. They confined in chains\nthe principal accuser, who, with difficulty, escaped from public\nvengeance. The Athenian people, therefore, appear to have had good\nnatural dispositions, connected, as they were, with great versatility\nand frivolity. In what despotic state has the injustice of precipitate\ndecrees ever been thus ingenuously acknowledged and deplored?\n\nBayle, then, is for this once in the wrong. My republican has reason on\nhis side. Popular government, therefore, is in itself iniquitous, and\nless abominable than monarchical despotism.\n\nThe great vice of democracy is certainly not tyranny and cruelty. There\nhave been republicans in mountainous regions wild and ferocious; but\nthey were made so, not by the spirit of republicanism, but by nature.\nThe North American savages were entirely republican; but they were\nrepublics of bears.\n\nThe radical vice of a civilized republic is expressed by the Turkish\nfable of the dragon with many heads, and the dragon with many tails. The\nmultitude of heads become injurious, and the multitude of tails obey one\nsingle head, which wants to devour all.\n\nDemocracy seems to suit only a very small country; and even that\nfortunately situated. Small as it may be, it will commit many faults,\nbecause it will be composed of men. Discord will prevail in it, as in a\nconvent of monks; but there will be no St. Bartholomews there, no Irish\nmassacre, no Sicilian vespers, no Inquisition, no condemnation to the\ngalleys for having taken water from the ocean without paying for it; at\nleast, unless it be a republic of devils, established in some corner of\nhell.\n\nAfter having taken the side of my Swiss friend against the dexterous\nfencing-master, Bayle, I will add: That the Athenians were warriors like\nthe Swiss, and as polite as the Parisians were under Louis XIV.; that\nthey excelled in every art requiring genius or execution, like the\nFlorentine in time of the Medici; that they were the masters of the\nRomans in the sciences and in eloquence, even in the days of Cicero;\nthat this same people, insignificant in number, who scarcely possessed\nanything of territory, and who, at the present day, consist only of a\nband of ignorant slaves, a hundred times less numerous than the Jews,\nand deprived of all but their name, yet bear away the palm from Roman\npower, by their ancient reputation, which triumphs at once over time and\ndegradation.\n\nEurope has seen a republic, ten times smaller than Athens, attract its\nattention for the space of one hundred and fifty years, and its name\nplaced by the side of that of Rome, even while she still commanded\nkings; while she condemned one Henry, a sovereign of France, and\nabsolved and scourged another Henry, the first man of his age; even\nwhile Venice retained her ancient splendor, and the republic of the\nseven United Provinces was astonishing Europe and the Indies, by its\nsuccessful establishment and extensive commerce.\n\nThis almost imperceptible ant-hill could not be crushed by the royal\ndemon of the South, and the monarch of two worlds, nor by the intrigues\nof the Vatican, which put in motion one-half of Europe. It resisted by\nwords and by arms; and with the help of a Picard who wrote, and a small\nnumber of Swiss who fought for it, it became at length established and\ntriumphant, and was enabled to say, \"Rome and I.\" She kept all minds\ndivided between the rich pontiffs who succeeded to the Scipios--_Romanos\nrerum dominos_--and the poor inhabitants of a corner of the world long\nunknown in a country of poverty and _go\u00eetres_.\n\nThe main point was, to decide how Europe should think on the subject of\ncertain questions which no one understood. It was the conflict of the\nhuman mind. The Calvins, the Bezas, and Turetins, were the\nDemostheneses, Platos, and Aristotles, of the day.\n\nThe absurdity of the greater part of the controversial questions which\nbound down the attention of Europe, having at length been acknowledged,\nthis small republic turned our consideration to what appears of solid\nconsequence--the acquisition of wealth. The system of law, more\nchimerical and less baleful than that of the supralapsarians and the\nsublapsarians, occupied with arithmetical calculations those who could\nno longer gain celebrity as partisans of the doctrine of crucified\ndivinity. They became rich, but were no longer famous.\n\nIt is thought at present there is no republic, except in Europe. I am\nmistaken if I have not somewhere made the remark myself; it must,\nhowever, have been a great inadvertence. The Spaniards found in America\nthe republic of Tlascala perfectly well established. Every part of that\ncontinent which has not been subjugated is still republican. In the\nwhole of that vast territory, when it was first discovered, there\nexisted no more than two kingdoms; and this may well be considered as a\nproof that republican government is the most natural. Men must have\nobtained considerable refinement, and have tried many experiments,\nbefore they submit to the government of a single individual.\n\nIn Africa, the Hottentots, the Kaffirs, and many communities of negroes,\nare democracies. It is pretended that the countries in which the greater\npart of the negroes are sold are governed by kings. Tripoli, Tunis, and\nAlgiers are republics of soldiers and pirates. There are similar ones in\nIndia. The Mahrattas, and many other Indian hordes, have no kings: they\nelect chiefs when they go on their expeditions of plunder.\n\nSuch are also many of the hordes of Tartars. Even the Turkish Empire has\nlong been a republic of janissaries, who have frequently strangled their\nsultan, when their sultan did not decimate them. We are every day asked,\nwhether a republican or a kingly government is to be preferred? The\ndispute always ends in agreeing that the government of men is\nexceedingly difficult. The Jews had God himself for their master; yet\nobserve the events of their history. They have almost always been\ntrampled upon and enslaved; and, nationally, what a wretched figure do\nthey make at present!\n\n\n\n\nDEMONIACS.\n\n\nHypochondriacal and epileptic persons, and women laboring under\nhysterical affections, have always been considered the victims of evil\nspirits, malignant demons and divine vengeance. We have seen that this\ndisease was called the sacred disease; and that while the physicians\nwere ignorant, the priests of antiquity obtained everywhere the care and\nmanagement of such diseases.\n\nWhen the symptoms were very complicated, the patient was supposed to be\npossessed with many demons--a demon of madness, one of luxury, one of\navarice, one of obstinacy, one of short-sightedness, one of deafness;\nand the exorciser could not easily miss finding a demon of foolery\ncreated, with another of knavery.\n\nThe Jews expelled devils from the bodies of the possessed, by the\napplication of the root _barath_, and a certain formula of words; our\nSaviour expelled them by a divine virtue; he communicated that virtue to\nhis apostles, but it is now greatly impaired.\n\nA short time since, an attempt was made to renew the history of St.\nPaulin. That saint saw on the roof of a church a poor demoniac, who\nwalked under, or rather upon, this roof or ceiling, with his head below\nand his feet above, nearly in the manner of a fly. St. Paulin clearly\nperceived that the man was possessed, and sent several leagues off for\nsome relics of St. Felix of Nola, which were applied to the patient as\nblisters. The demon who supported the man against the roof instantly\nfled, and the demoniac fell down upon the pavement.\n\nWe may have doubts about this history, while we preserve the most\nprofound respect for genuine miracles; and we may be permitted to\nobserve that this is not the way in which we now cure demoniacs. We\nbleed them, bathe them, and gently relax them by medicine; we apply\nemollients to them. This is M. Pome's treatment of them; and he has\nperformed more cures than the priests of Isis or Diana, or of anyone\nelse who ever wrought by miracles. As to demoniacs who say they are\npossessed merely to gain money, instead of being bathed, they are at\npresent flogged.\n\nIt often happened, that the specific gravity of epileptics, whose fibres\nand muscles withered away, was lighter than water, and that they floated\nwhen put into it. A miracle! was instantly exclaimed. It was pronounced\nthat such a person must be a demoniac or sorcerer; and holy water or the\nexecutioner was immediately sent for. It was an unquestionable proof\nthat either the demon had become master of the body of the floating\nperson, or that the latter had voluntarily delivered himself over to the\ndemon. On the first supposition the person was exorcised, on the second\nhe was burned. Thus have we been reasoning and acting for a period of\nfifteen or sixteen hundred years, and yet we have the effrontery to\nlaugh at the Kaffirs.\n\nIn 1603, in a small village of Franche-Comt\u00e9, a woman of quality made\nher granddaughter read aloud the lives of the saints in the presence of\nher parents; this young woman, who was, in some respects, very well\ninformed, but ignorant of orthography, substituted the word _histories_\nfor that of _lives_ (_vies_). Her step-mother, who hated her, said to\nher in a tone of harshness, \"Why don't you read as it is there?\" The\ngirl blushed and trembled, but did not venture to say anything; she\nwished to avoid disclosing which of her companions had interpreted the\nword upon a false orthography, and prevented her using it. A monk, who\nwas the family confessor, pretended that the devil had taught her the\nword. The girl chose to be silent rather than vindicate herself; her\nsilence was considered as amounting to confession; the Inquisition\nconvicted her of having made a compact with the devil: she was condemned\nto be burned, because she had a large fortune from her mother, and the\nconfiscated property went by law to the inquisitors. She was the hundred\nthousandth victim of the doctrine of demoniacs, persons possessed by\ndevils and exorcisms, and of the real devils who swayed the world.\n\n\n\n\nDESTINY.\n\n\nOf all the books written in the western climes of the world, which have\nreached our times, Homer is the most ancient. In his works we find the\nmanners of profane antiquity, coarse heroes, and material gods, made\nafter the image of man, but mixed up with reveries and absurdities; we\nalso find the seeds of philosophy, and more particularly the idea of\ndestiny, or necessity, who is the dominatrix of the gods, as the gods\nare of the world.\n\nWhen the magnanimous Hector determines to fight the magnanimous\nAchilles, and runs away with all possible speed, making the circuit of\nthe city three times, in order to increase his vigor; when Homer\ncompares the light-footed Achilles, who pursues him, to a man that is\nasleep! and when Madame Dacier breaks into a rapture of admiration at\nthe art and meaning exhibited in this passage, it is precisely then\nthat Jupiter, desirous of saving the great Hector who has offered up to\nhim so many sacrifices, bethinks him of consulting the destinies, upon\nweighing the fates of Hector and Achilles in a balance. He finds that\nthe Trojan must inevitably be killed by the Greek, and is not only\nunable to oppose it, but from that moment Apollo, the guardian genius of\nHector, is compelled to abandon him. It is not to be denied that Homer\nis frequently extravagant, and even on this very occasion displays a\ncontradictory flow of ideas, according to the privilege of antiquity;\nbut yet he is the first in whom we meet with the notion of destiny. It\nmay be concluded, then, that in his days it was a prevalent one.\n\nThe Pharisees, among the small nation of Jews, did not adopt the idea of\na destiny till many ages after. For these Pharisees themselves, who were\nthe most learned class among the Jews, were but of very recent date.\nThey mixed up, in Alexandria, a portion of the dogmas of the Stoics with\ntheir ancient Jewish ideas. St. Jerome goes so far as to state that\ntheir sect is but a little anterior to our vulgar era.\n\nPhilosophers would never have required the aid of Homer, or of the\nPharisees, to be convinced that everything is performed according to\nimmutable laws, that everything is ordained, that everything is, in\nfact, _necessary_. The manner in which they reason is as follows:\n\nEither the world subsists by its own nature, by its own physical laws,\nor a Supreme Being has formed it according to His supreme laws: in both\ncases these laws are immovable; in both cases everything is necessary;\nheavy bodies tend towards the centre of the earth without having any\npower or tendency to rest in the air. Pear-trees cannot produce\npine-apples. The instinct of a spaniel cannot be the instinct of an\nostrich; everything is arranged, adjusted, and fixed.\n\nMan can have only a certain number of teeth, hairs, and ideas; and a\nperiod arrives when he necessarily loses his teeth, hair, and ideas.\n\nIt is contradictory to say that yesterday should not have been; or that\nto-day does not exist; it is just as contradictory to assert that that\nwhich is to come will not inevitably be.\n\nCould you derange the destiny of a single fly there would be no possible\nreason why you should not control the destiny of all other flies, of all\nother animals, of all men, of all nature. You would find, in fact, that\nyou were more powerful than God.\n\nWeak-minded persons say: \"My physician has brought my aunt safely\nthrough a mortal disease; he has added ten years to my aunt's life.\"\nOthers of more judgment say, the prudent man makes his own destiny.\n\n     _Nullum numen abest, si sit Prudentia, sed te_\n     _Nos facimus, Fortuna, deam c\u0153oque locamus._\n                          --JUVENAL, _Sat_. x. v. 365.\n\n     We call on Fortune, and her aid implore,\n     While Prudence is the goddess to adore.\n\n\nBut frequently the prudent man succumbs under his destiny instead of\nmaking it; it is destiny which makes men prudent. Profound politicians\nassure us that if Cromwell, Ludlow, Ireton, and a dozen other\nparliamentary leaders, had been assassinated eight days before Charles\nI. had his head cut off, that king would have continued alive and have\ndied in his bed; they are right; and they may add, that if all England\nhad been swallowed up in the sea, that king would not have perished on a\nscaffold before Whitehall. But things were so arranged that Charles was\nto have his head cut off.\n\nCardinal d'Ossat was unquestionably more clever than an idiot of the\n_petites maisons_; but is it not evident that the organs of the wise\nd'Ossat were differently formed than those of that idiot?--Just as the\norgans of a fox are different from those of a crane or a lark.\n\nYour physician saved your aunt, but in so doing he certainly did not\ncontradict the order of nature, but followed it. It is clear that your\naunt could not prevent her birth in a certain place, that she could not\nhelp being affected by a certain malady, at a certain time; that the\nphysician could be in no other place than where he was, that your aunt\ncould not but apply to him, that he could not but prescribe medicines\nwhich cured her, or were thought to cure her, while nature was the sole\nphysician.\n\nA peasant thinks that it hailed upon his field by chance; but the\nphilosopher knows that there was no chance, and that it was absolutely\nimpossible, according to the constitution of the world, for it not to\nhave hailed at that very time and place.\n\nThere are some who, being shocked by this truth, concede only half of\nit, like debtors who offer one moiety of their property to their\ncreditors, and ask remission for the other. There are, they say, some\nevents which are necessary, and others which are not so. It would be\ncurious for one part of the world to be changed and the other not; that\none part of what happens should happen inevitably, and another\nfortuitously. When we examine the question closely, we see that the\ndoctrine opposed to that of destiny is absurd; but many men are destined\nto be bad reasoners, others not to reason at all, and others to\npersecute those who reason well or ill.\n\nSome caution us by saying, \"Do not believe in fatalism, for, if you do,\neverything appearing to you unavoidable, you will exert yourself for\nnothing; you will sink down in indifference; you will regard neither\nwealth, nor honors, nor praise; you will be careless about acquiring\nanything whatever; you will consider yourself meritless and powerless;\nno talent will be cultivated, and all will be overwhelmed in apathy.\"\n\nDo not be afraid, gentlemen; we shall always have passions and\nprejudices, since it is our destiny to be subjected to prejudices and\npassions. We shall very well know that it no more depends upon us to\nhave great merit or superior talents than to have a fine head of hair,\nor a beautiful hand; we shall be convinced that we ought to be vain of\nnothing, and yet vain we shall always be.\n\nI have necessarily the passion for writing as I now do; and, as for you,\nyou have the passion for censuring me; we are both equally fools, both\nequally the sport of destiny. Your nature is to do ill, mine is to love\ntruth, and publish it in spite of you.\n\nThe owl, while supping upon mice in his ruined tower, said to the\nnightingale, \"Stop your singing there in your beautiful arbor, and come\nto my hole that I may eat you.\" The nightingale replied, \"I am born to\nsing where I am, and to laugh at you.\"\n\nYou ask me what is to become of liberty: I do not understand you; I do\nnot know what the liberty you speak of really is. You have been so long\ndisputing about the nature of it that you do not understand it. If you\nare willing, or rather, if you are able to examine with me coolly what\nit is, turn to the letter L.\n\n\n\n\nDEVOTEE.\n\n\nThe word devout (_d\u00e9vot_) signifies devoted (_d\u00e9vou\u00e9_), and, in the\nstrict sense of the term, can only be applicable to monks, and to\nfemales belonging to some religious order and under vows. But as the\ngospel makes no mention of vows or devotees, the title should not, in\nfact, be given to any person: the whole world ought to be equally just.\nA man who calls himself devout is like a plebeian who calls himself a\nmarquis; he arrogates a quality which does not belong to him; he thinks\nhimself a better man than his neighbor. We pardon this folly in women;\ntheir weakness and frivolity render them excusable; they pass, poor\nthings, from a lover to a spiritual director with perfect sincerity, but\nwe cannot pardon the knaves who direct them, who abuse their ignorance,\nand establish the throne of their pride on the credulity of the sex.\nThey form a snug mystical harem, composed of seven or eight elderly\nbeauties subjugated by the weight of inoccupation, and almost all these\nsubjects pay tribute to their new master. No young women without lovers;\nno elderly devotee without a director.--Oh, how much more shrewd are the\nOrientals than we! A pasha never says, \"We supped last night with the\naga of the janissaries, who is my sister's lover; and with the vicar of\nthe mosque, who is my wife's director.\"\n\n\n\n\nDIAL.\n\n_Dial of Ahaz._\n\n\nIt is well known that everything is miraculous in the history of the\nJews; the miracle performed in favor of King Hezekiah on the dial of\nAhaz is one of the greatest that ever took place: it is evident that the\nwhole earth must have been deranged, the course of the stars changed\nforever, and the periods of the eclipses of the sun and moon so altered\nas to confuse all the ephemerides. This was the second time the prodigy\nhappened. Joshua had stopped the sun at noon on Gibeon, and the moon on\nAscalon, in order to get time to kill a troop of Amorites already\ncrushed by a shower of stones from heaven.\n\nThe sun, instead of stopping for King Hezekiah, went back, which is\nnearly the same thing, only differently described.\n\nIn the first place Isaiah said to Hezekiah, who was sick, \"Thus saith\nthe Lord, set thine house in order; for thou shalt die and not live.\"\n\nHezekiah wept and God was softened; He signified to him, through Isaiah,\nthat he should still live fifteen years, and that in three days he\nshould go to the temple; then Isaiah brought a plaster of figs and put\nit on the king's ulcers, and he was cured--\"_et curatus est_.\"\n\nHezekiah demanded a sign to convince him that he should be cured. Isaiah\nsaid to him, \"Shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten\ndegrees?\" And Hezekiah answered, \"It is a light thing for the shadow to\ngo down ten degrees; let the shadow return backward ten degrees.\" And\nIsaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and He brought the shadow ten\ndegrees backwards from the point to which it had gone down on the dial\nof Ahaz.\n\nWe should like to know what this dial of Ahaz was; whether it was the\nwork of a dialmaker named Ahaz, or whether it was a present made to a\nking of that name, it is an object of curiosity. There have been many\ndisputes on this dial; the learned have proved that the Jews never knew\neither clocks or dials before their captivity in Babylon--the only time,\nsay they, in which they learned anything of the Chald\u00e6ans, or the\ngreater part of the nation began to read or write. It is even known that\nin their language they had no words to express clock, dial, geometry, or\nastronomy; and in the Book of Kings the dial of Ahaz is called the hour\nof the stone.\n\nBut the grand question is to know how King Hezekiah, the possessor of\nthis clock, or dial of the sun--this hour of stone--could tell that it\nwas easy to advance the sun ten degrees. It is certainly as difficult to\nmake it advance against its ordinary motion as to make it go backward.\n\nThe proposition of the prophet appears as astonishing as the discourse\nof the king: Shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten\ndegrees? That would have been well said in some town of Lapland, where\nthe longest day of the year is twenty hours; but at Jerusalem, where the\nlongest day of the year is about fourteen hours and a half, ii was\nabsurd. The king and the prophet deceived each other grossly. We do not\ndeny the miracle, we firmly believe it; we only remark that Hezekiah and\nIsaiah knew not what they said. Whatever the hour, it was a thing\nequally impossible to make the shadow of the dial advance or recede ten\nhours. If it were two hours after noon, the prophet could, no doubt,\nhave very well made the shadow of the dial go back to four o'clock in\nthe morning; but in this case he could not have advanced it ten hours,\nsince then it would have been midnight, and at that time it is not usual\nto have a shadow of the sun in perfection.\n\nIt is difficult to discover when this strange history was written, but\nperhaps it was towards the time in which the Jews only confusedly knew\nthat there were clocks and sun-dials. In that case it is true that they\ngot but a very imperfect knowledge of these sciences until they went to\nBabylon. There is a still greater difficulty of which the commentators\nhave not thought; which is that the Jews did not count by hours as we\ndo.\n\nThe same miracle happened in Greece, the day that Atreus served up the\nchildren of Thyestes for their father's supper.\n\nThe same miracle was still more sensibly performed at the time of\nJupiter's intrigue with Alcmena. It required a night double the natural\nlength to form Hercules. These adventures are common in antiquity, but\nvery rare in our days, in which all things have degenerated.\n\n\n\n\nDICTIONARY.\n\n\nThe invention of dictionaries, which was unknown to antiquity, is of the\nmost unquestionable utility; and the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" which was\nsuggested by Messrs. d'Alembert and Diderot, and so successfully\ncompleted by them and their associates, notwithstanding all its defects,\nis a decisive evidence of it. What we find there under the article\n\"Dictionary\" would be a sufficient instance; it is done by the hand of a\nmaster.\n\nI mean to speak here only of a new species of historical dictionaries,\nwhich contain a series of lies and satires in alphabetical order; such\nis the \"Historical Literary and Critical Dictionary,\" containing a\nsummary of the lives of celebrated men of every description, and printed\nin 1758, in six volumes, octavo, without the name of the author.\n\nThe compilers of that work begin with declaring that it was undertaken\nby the advice of the author of the \"Ecclesiastical Gazette,\" \"a\nformidable writer,\" they add, \"whose arrow,\" which had already been\ncompared to that of Jonathan, \"never returned back, and was always\nsteeped in the blood of the slain, in the carnage of the valiant.\"--\"_A\nsanguine interfectorum ab adipe fortium sagitta Jonath\u00e6 nunquam abiit\nretrorsum._\"\n\nIt will, no doubt, be easily admitted that the connection between\nJonathan, the son of Saul, who was killed at the battle of Gilboa, and a\nParisian convulsionary, who scribbles ecclesiastical notices in his\ngarret, in 1758, is wonderfully striking.\n\nThe author of this preface speaks in it of the great Colbert. We should\nconceive, at first, that the great statesman who conferred such vast\nbenefits on France is alluded to; no such thing, it is a bishop of\nMontpellier. He complains that no other dictionary has bestowed\nsufficient praise on the celebrated Abb\u00e9 d'Asfeld, the illustrious\nBoursier, the famous Genes, the immortal Laborde, and that the lash of\ninvective on the other hand has not been sufficiently applied to\nLanguet, archbishop of Sens, and a person of the name of Fillot, all, as\nhe pretends, men well known from the Pillars of Hercules to the frozen\nocean. He engages to be \"animated, energetic, and sarcastic, on a\nprinciple of religion\"; that he will make his countenance \"sterner than\nthat of his enemies, and his front harder than their front, according to\nthe words of Ezekiel,\" etc.\n\nHe declares that he has put in contribution all the journals and all the\nanas; and he concludes with hoping that heaven will bestow a blessing on\nhis labors.\n\nIn dictionaries of this description, which are merely party works, we\nrarely find what we are in quest of, and often what we are not. Under\nthe word \"Adonis,\" for example, we learn that Venus fell in love with\nhim; but not a word about the worship of Adonis, or Adonai among the\nPh\u0153nicians--nothing about those very ancient and celebrated\nfestivals, those lamentations succeeded by rejoicings, which were\nmanifest allegories, like the feasts of Ceres, of Isis, and all the\nmysteries of antiquity.\n\nBut, in compensation, we find _Adkichomia_ a devotee, who translated\nDavid's psalms in the sixteenth century; and _Adkichomus_, apparently\nher relation, who wrote the life of Jesus Christ in low German.\n\nWe may well suppose that all the individuals of the faction which\nemployed this person are loaded with praise, and their enemies with\nabuse. The author, of the crew of authors who have put together this\nvocabulary of trash, say of Nicholas Boindin, attorney-general of the\ntreasures of France, and a member of the Academy of Belles-lettres, that\nhe was a poet and an atheist.\n\nThat magistrate, however, never printed any verses, and never wrote\nanything on metaphysics or religion.\n\nHe adds that Boindin will be ranked by posterity among the Vaninis, the\nSpinozas, and the Hobbeses. He is ignorant that Hobbes never professed\natheism--that he merely subjected religion to the sovereign power, which\nhe denominates the Leviathan. He is ignorant that Vanini was not an\natheist; that the term \"atheist\" is not to be found even in the decree\nwhich condemned him; and that he was accused of impiety for having\nstrenuously opposed the philosophy of Aristotle, and for having disputed\nwith indiscretion and acrimony against a counsellor of the parliament of\nToulouse, called Francon, or Franconi, who had the credit of getting him\nburned to death; for the latter burn whom they please; witness the Maid\nof Orleans, Michael Servetus, the Counsellor Dubourg, the wife of\nMarshal d'Ancre, Urbain Grandier, Morin, and the books of the\nJansenists. See, moreover, the apology for Vanini by the learned\nLacroze, and the article on \"Atheism.\"\n\nThe vocabulary treats Boindin as a miscreant; his relations were\ndesirous of proceeding at law and punishing an author, who himself so\nwell deserved the appellation which he so infamously applied to a man\nwho was not merely a magistrate, but also learned and estimable; but the\ncalumniator concealed himself, like most libellers, under a fictitious\nname.\n\nImmediately after having applied such shameful language to a man\nrespectable compared with himself, he considers him as an irrefragable\nwitness, because Boindin--whose unhappy temper was well known--left an\nill-written and exceedingly ill-advised memorial, in which he accuses La\nMotte--one of the worthiest men in the world, a geometrician, and an\nironmonger--with having written the infamous verses for which Jean\nBaptiste Rousseau was convicted. Finally, in the list of Boindin's\nworks, he altogether omits his excellent dissertations printed in the\ncollection of the Academy of Belles-lettres, of which he was a highly\ndistinguished member.\n\nThe article on \"Fontenelle\" is nothing but a satire upon that ingenious\nand learned academician, whose science and talents are esteemed by the\nwhole of literary Europe. The author has the effrontery to say that \"his\n'History of Oracles' does no honor to his religion.\" If Van Dale, the\nauthor of the \"History of Oracles,\" and his abridger, Fontenelle, had\nlived in the time of the Greeks and of the Roman republic, it might have\nbeen said with reason that they were rather good philosophers than good\npagans; but, to speak sincerely, what injury do they do to Christianity\nby showing that the pagan priests were a set of knaves? Is it not\nevident that the authors of the libel, miscalled a dictionary, are\npleading their own cause? \"_Jam proximus ardet Ucalegon\"_ But would it\nbe offering an insult to the Christian religion to prove the knavery of\nthe Convulsionaries? Government has done more; it has punished them\nwithout being accused of irreligion.\n\nThe libeller adds that he suspects that Fontenelle never performed the\nduties of a Christian but out of contempt for Christianity itself. It is\na strange species of madness on the part of these fanatics to be always\nproclaiming that a philosopher cannot be a Christian. They ought to be\nexcommunicated and punished for this alone; for assuredly it implies a\nwish to destroy Christianity to assert that it is impossible for a man\nto be a good reasoner and at the same time believe a religion so\nreasonable and holy.\n\nDes Yveteaux, preceptor of Louis XIV., is accused of having lived and\ndied without religion. It seems as if these compilers had none; or at\nleast as if, while violating all the precepts of the true one, they\nwere searching about everywhere for accomplices.\n\nThe very gentlemanly writer of these articles is wonderfully pleased\nwith exhibiting all the bad verses that have been written on the French\nAcademy, and various anecdotes as ridiculous as they are false. This\nalso is apparently out of zeal for religion.\n\nI ought not to lose an opportunity of refuting an absurd story which has\nbeen much circulated, and which is repeated exceedingly malapropos under\nthe article of the \"Abb\u00e9 Gedoyn,\" upon whom the writer falls foul with\ngreat satisfaction, because in his youth he had been a Jesuit; a\ntransient weakness, of which I know he repented all his life.\n\nThe devout and scandalous compiler of the dictionary asserts that the\nAbb\u00e9 Gedoyn slept with the celebrated Ninon de l'Enclos on the very\nnight of her completing her eightieth year. It certainly was not exactly\nbefitting in a priest to relate this anecdote in a pretended dictionary\nof illustrious men. Such a foolery, however, is in fact highly\nimprobable; and I can take upon me to assert that nothing can be more\nfalse. The same anecdote was formerly put down to the credit of the Abb\u00e9\nChateauneuf, who was not very difficult in his amours, and who, it was\nsaid, had received Ninon's favors when she was of the age of sixty, or,\nrather, had conferred upon her his own. In early life I saw a great deal\nof the Abb\u00e9 Gedoyn, the Abb\u00e9 Chateauneuf, and Mademoiselle de l'Enclos;\nand I can truly declare that at the age of eighty years her countenance\nbore the most hideous marks of old age--that her person was afflicted\nwith all the infirmities belonging to that stage of life, and that her\nmind was under the influence of the maxims of an austere philosophy.\n\nUnder the article on \"Deshouli\u00e8res\" the compiler pretends that lady was\nthe same who was designated under the term prude (_pr\u00e9cieuse_) in\nBoileau's satire upon women. Never was any woman more free from such\nweakness than Madame Deshouli\u00e8res; she always passed for a woman of the\nbest society, possessed great simplicity, and was highly agreeable in\nconversation.\n\nThe article on \"La Motte\" abounds with atrocious abuse of that\nacademician, who was a man of very amiable manners, and a philosophic\npoet who produced excellent works of every description. Finally the\nauthor, in order to secure the sale of his book of six volumes, has made\nof it a slanderous libel.\n\nHis hero is Carr\u00e9 de Montgeron, who presented to the king a collection\nof the miracles performed by the Convulsionaries in the cemetery of St.\nM\u00e9dard; who became mad and died insane.\n\nThe interest of the republic of literature and reason demands that those\nlibellers should be delivered up to public indignation, lest their\nexample, operating upon the sordid love of gain, should stimulate others\nto imitation; and the more so, as nothing is so easy as to copy books in\nalphabetical order, and add to them insipidities, calumnies, and abuse.\n\n_Extract from the Reflections of an Academician on the \"Dictionary of\nthe French Academy.\"_\n\nIt would be desirable to state the natural and incontestable etymology\nof every word, to compare the application, the various significations,\nthe extent of the word, with use of it; the different acceptations, the\nstrength or weakness of correspondent terms in foreign languages; and\nfinally, to quote the best authors who have used the word, to show the\ngreater or less extent of meaning which they have given to it and to\nremark whether it is more fit for poetry than prose.\n\nFor example, I have observed that the \"inclemency\" of the weather is\nridiculous in history, because that term has its origin in the anger of\nheaven, which is supposed to be manifested by the intemperateness,\nirregularities, and rigors of the seasons, by the violence of the cold,\nthe disorder of the atmosphere, by tempests, storms, and pestilential\nexhalations. Thus then inclemency, being a metaphor, is consecrated to\npoetry.\n\nI have given to the word \"impotence\" all the acceptations which it\nreceives. I showed the correctness of the historian, who speaks of the\nimpotence of King Alphonso, without explaining whether he referred to\nthat of resisting his brother, or that with which he was charged by his\nwife.\n\nI have endeavored to show that the epithets \"irresistible\" and\n\"incurable\" require very delicate management. The first who used the\nexpression, \"the irresistible impulse of genius,\" made a very fortunate\nhit; because, in fact, the question was in relation to a great genius\nthrowing itself upon its own resources in spite of all difficulties.\nThose imitators who have employed the expression in reference to very\ninferior men are plagiarists who know not how to dispose of what they\nsteal.\n\nAs soon as the man of genius has made a new application of any word in\nthe language, copyists are not wanting to apply it, very malapropos, in\ntwenty places, without giving the inventor any credit.\n\nI do not know that a single one of these words, termed by Boileau\n\"foundlings\" (_des mots trouv\u00e9s_) a single new expression of genius, is\nto be found in any tragic author since Racine, until within the last few\nyears. These words are generally lax, ineffective, stale, and so ill\nplaced as to produce a barbarous style. To the disgrace of the nation,\nthese Visigothic and Vandal productions were for a certain time\nextolled, panegyrized, and admired in the journals, especially as they\ncame out under the protection of a certain lady of distinction, who knew\nnothing at all about the subject. We have recovered from all this now;\nand, with one or two exceptions, the whole race of such productions is\nextinct forever.\n\nI did not in the first instance intend to make all these reflections,\nbut to put the reader in a situation to make them. I have shown at the\nletter E that our _e_ mute, with which we are reproached by an Italian,\nis precisely what occasions the delicious harmony of our\nlanguage:--_empire, couronne, diad\u00e8me, \u00e9pouvantable, sensible_. This _e_\nmute, which we make perceptible without articulating it, leaves in the\near a melodious sound like that of a bell which still resounds although\nit is no longer struck. This we have already stated in respect to an\nItalian, a man of letters, who came to Paris to teach his own language,\nand who, while there, ought not to decry ours.\n\nHe does not perceive the beauty or necessity of our feminine rhymes;\nthey are only _e_'s mute. This interweaving of masculine and feminine\nrhymes constitutes the charm of our verse.\n\nSimilar observations upon the alphabet, and upon words generally, would\nnot have been without utility; but they would have made the work too\nlong.\n\n\n\n\nDIOCLETIAN.\n\n\nAfter several weak or tyrannic reigns, the Roman Empire had a good\nemperor in Probus, whom the legions massacred, and elected Carus, who\nwas struck dead by lightning while making war against the Persians. His\nson, Numerianus, was proclaimed by the soldiers. The historians tell us\nseriously that he lost his sight by weeping for the death of his father,\nand that he was obliged to be carried along with the army, shut up in a\nclose litter. His father-in-law Aper killed him in his bed, to place\nhimself on the throne; but a druid had predicted in Gaul to Diocletian,\none of the generals of the army, that he would become emperor after\nhaving killed a boar. A boar, in Latin, is _aper_. Diocletian assembled\nthe army, killed Aper with his own hands in the presence of the\nsoldiers, and thus accomplished the prediction of the druid. The\nhistorians who relate this oracle deserve to be fed on the fruit of the\ntree which the druids revered. It is certain that Diocletian killed the\nfather-in-law of the emperor, which was his first right to the throne.\nNumerianus had a brother named Carinus, who was also emperor, but being\nopposed to the elevation of Diocletian, he was killed by one of the\ntribunes of his army, which formed his second pretension to the purple.\nThese were Diocletian's rights to the throne, and for a long time he had\nno other.\n\nHe was originally of Dalmatia, of the little town of Dioclea, of which\nhe took the name. If it be true that his father was a laborer, and that\nhe himself in his youth had been a slave to a senator named Anulinus,\nthe fact forms his finest eulogium. He could have owed his elevation to\nhimself alone; and it is very clear that he had conciliated the esteem\nof his army, since they forgot his birth to give him the diadem.\nLactantius, a Christian authority, but rather partial, pretends that\nDiocletian was the greatest poltroon of the empire. It is not very\nlikely that the Roman soldiers would have chosen a poltroon to govern\nthem, or that this poltroon would have passed through all the degrees of\nthe army. The zeal of Lactantius against a pagan emperor is very\nlaudable, but not judicious.\n\nDiocletian continued for twenty years the master of those fierce\nlegions, who dethroned their emperors with as much facility as they\ncreated them; which is another proof, notwithstanding Lactantius, that\nhe was as great a prince as he was a brave soldier. The empire under him\nsoon regained its pristine splendor. The Gauls, the Africans, Egyptians,\nand British, who had revolted several times, were all brought under\nobedience to the empire; even the Persians were vanquished. So much\nsuccess without; a still more happy administration within; laws as\nhumane as wise, which still exist in the Justinian code; Rome, Milan,\nAutun, Nicomedia, Carthage, embellished by his munificence; all tended\nto gain him the love and respect both of the East and West; so that, two\nhundred and forty years after his death, they continued to reckon and\ndate from the first year of his reign, as they had formerly dated from\nthe foundation of Rome. This is what is called the era of Diocletian; it\nhas also been called the era of martyrs; but this is a mistake of\neighteen years, for it is certain that he did not persecute any\nChristian for eighteen years. So far from it, the first thing he did,\nwhen emperor, was to give a company of pr\u00e6torian guards to a Christian\nnamed Sebastian, who is in the list of the saints.\n\nHe did not fear to give a colleague to the empire in the person of a\nsoldier of fortune, like himself; it was Maximian Hercules, his friend.\nThe similarity of their fortunes had caused their friendship. Maximian\nwas also born of poor and obscure parents, and had been elevated like\nDiocletian, step by step, by his own courage. People have not failed to\nreproach this Maximian with taking the surname of Hercules, and\nDiocletian with accepting that of Jove. They do not condescend to\nperceive that we have clergymen every day who call themselves Hercules,\nand peasants denominated C\u00e6sar and Augustus.\n\nDiocletian created two C\u00e6sars; the first was another Maximian, surnamed\nGalerius, who had formerly been a shepherd. It seemed that Diocletian,\nthe proudest of men and the first introducer of kissing the imperial\nfeet, showed his greatness in placing C\u00e6sars on the throne from men born\nin the most abject condition. A slave and two peasants were at the head\nof the empire, and never was it more flourishing.\n\nThe second C\u00e6sar whom he created was of distinguished birth. He was\nConstantius Chlorus, great-nephew, on his mother's side, to the emperor\nClaudius II. The empire was governed by these four princes; an\nassociation which might have produced four civil wars a year, but\nDiocletian knew so well how to be master of his colleagues, that he\nobliged them always to respect him, and even to live united among\nthemselves. These princes, with the name of C\u00e6sars were in reality no\nmore than his subjects. It is seen that he treated them like an absolute\nsovereign; for when the C\u00e6sar Galerius, having been conquered by the\nPersians, went into Mesopotamia to give him the account of his defeat,\nhe let him walk for the space of a mile near his chariot, and did not\nreceive him into favor until he had repaired his fault and misfortune.\n\nGalerius retrieved them the year after, in 297, in a very signal manner.\nHe vanquished the king of Persia in person.\n\nThese kings of Persia had not been cured, by the battle of Arbela, of\ncarrying their wives, daughters, and eunuchs along with their armies.\nGalerius, like Alexander, took his enemy's wife and all his family, and\ntreated them with the same respect. The peace was as glorious as the\nvictory. The vanquished ceded five provinces to the Romans, from the\nsands of Palmyra to Armenia.\n\nDiocletian and Galerius went to Rome to dazzle the inhabitants with a\ntriumph till then unheard of. It was the first time that the Roman\npeople had seen the wife and children of a king of Persia in chains. All\nthe empire was in plenty and prosperity. Diocletian went through all the\nprovinces, from Rome to Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor. His ordinary\nresidence was not at Rome, but at Nicomedia, near the Euxine Sea, either\nto watch over the Persians and the barbarians, or because he was\nattached to a retreat which he had himself embellished. It was in the\nmidst of this prosperity that Galerius commenced the persecution against\nthe Christians. Why had he left them in repose until then, and why were\nthey then ill treated? Eusebius says that a centurion of the Trajan\nlegion, named Marcellus, who served in Mauritania, assisting with his\ntroop at a feast given in honor of the victory of Galerius, threw his\nmilitary sash, his arms, and his branch of vine, on the ground, and\ncried out loudly that he was a Christian and that he would no longer\nserve pagans--a desertion which was punished with death by the council\nof war. This was the first known example of the famous persecution of\nDiocletian. It is true that there were a great number of Christians in\nthe armies of the empire, and the interest of the state demanded that\nsuch a desertion should not be allowed. The zeal of Marcellus was pious,\nbut not reasonable. If at the feast given in Mauritania, viands offered\nto the gods of the empire were eaten, the law did not command Marcellus\nto eat of them, nor did Christianity order him to set the example of\nsedition. There is not a country in the world in which so rash an action\nwould not have been punished.\n\nHowever, after the adventure of Marcellus, it does not appear that the\nChristians were thought of until the year 303. They had, at Nicomedia, a\nsuperb church, next to the palace, which it exceeded in loftiness.\nHistorians do not tell us the reasons why Galerius demanded of\nDiocletian the instant destruction of this church; but they tell us that\nDiocletian was a long time before he determined upon it, and that he\nresisted for almost a year. It is very strange that after this he should\nbe called the _persecutor._ At last the church was destroyed and an\nedict was affixed by which the Christians were deprived of all honors\nand dignities. Since they were then deprived of them, it is evident that\nthey possessed them. A Christian publicly tore the imperial edict in\npieces--that was not an act of religion, it was an incitement to revolt.\nIt is, therefore, very likely that an indiscreet and unreasonable zeal\ndrew down this fatal persecution. Some time afterwards the palace of\nGalerius was burned down; he accused the Christians, and they accused\nGalerius of having himself set fire to it, in order to get a pretext for\ncalumniating them. The accusation of Galerius appeared very unjust; that\nwhich they entered against him was no less so, for the edict having been\nalready issued, what new pretext could he want? If he really wanted a\nnew argument to engage Diocletian to persecute, this would only form a\nnew proof of the reluctance of Diocletian to abandon the Christians,\nwhom he had always protected; it would evidently show that he wanted new\nadditional reasons to determine him to so much severity.\n\nIt appears certain that there were many Christians tormented in the\nempire, but it is difficult to reconcile with the Roman laws the alleged\nreported tortures, the mutilations, torn-out tongues, limbs cut and\nbroiled, and all the insults offered against modesty and public decency.\nIt is certain that no Roman law ever ordered such punishments; the\naversion of the people to the Christians might carry them to horrible\nexcesses, but we do not anywhere find that these excesses were ordered,\neither by the emperors or the senate.\n\nIt is very likely that the suffering of the Christians spread itself in\nexaggerated complaints: the \"_Acta Sincera_\" informs us that the\nemperor, being at Antioch, the pr\u00e6tor condemned a Christian child named\nRomanus to be burned; that the Jews present at the punishment began to\nlaugh, saying: \"We had formerly three children, Shadrach, Meshach, and\nAbednego, who did not burn in the fiery furnace but these do burn.\" At\nthat instant, to confound the Jews, a great rain extinguished the pile\nand the little boy walked out safe and sound, asking, \"Where then is the\nfire?\" The account goes on to say that the emperor commanded him to be\nset free, but that the judge ordered his tongue to be cut out. It is\nscarcely possible to believe that the judge would have the tongue of a\nboy cut out, whom the emperor had pardoned.\n\nThat which follows is more singular. It is pretended that an old\nChristian physician named Ariston, who had a knife ready, cut the\nchild's tongue out to pay his court to the pr\u00e6tor. The little Romanus\nwas then carried back to prison; the jailer asked him the news. The\nchild related at length how the old surgeon had cut out his tongue. It\nshould be observed that before this operation the child stammered very\nmuch but that now he spoke with wonderful volubility. The jailer did not\nfail to relate this miracle to the emperor. They brought forward the old\nsurgeon who swore that the operation had been performed according to the\nrules of his art and showed the child's tongue which he had properly\npreserved in a box as a relic. \"Bring hither another person,\" said he,\n\"and I will cut his tongue out in your majesty's presence, and you will\nsee if he can speak.\" The proposition was accepted; they took a poor man\nwhose tongue the surgeon cut out as he had done the child's, and the man\ndied on the spot.\n\nI am willing to believe that the \"Acts\" which relate this fact are as\nveracious as their title pretends, but they are still more simple than\nsincere, and it is very strange that Fleury, in his \"Ecclesiastical\nHistory,\" relates such a prodigious number of similar incidents, being\nmuch more conducive to scandal than edification.\n\nYou will also remark that in this year 303, in which it is pretended\nthat Diocletian was present at this fine affair in Antioch, he was at\nRome and passed all that year in Italy. It is said that it was at Rome,\nand in his presence, that St. Genestus, a comedian, was converted on the\nstage while playing in a comedy against the Christians. This play shows\nclearly that the taste of Plautus and Terence no longer existed; that\nwhich is now called comedy, or Italian farce, seems to have originated\nat this time. St. Genestus represented an invalid; the physician asked\nhim what was the matter with him. \"I am too unwieldy,\" said Genestus.\n\"Would you have us exorcise you to make you lighter?\" said the\nphysician. \"No,\" replied Genestus, \"I will die a Christian, to be raised\nagain of a finer stature.\" Then the actors, dressed as priests and\nexorcists, came to baptize him, at which moment Genestus really became a\nChristian, and, instead of finishing his part, began to preach to the\nemperor and the people. The \"_Acta Sincera_\" relate this miracle also.\n\nIt is certain that there were many true martyrs, but it is not true that\nthe provinces were inundated with blood, as it is imagined. Mention is\nmade of about two hundred martyrs towards the latter days of Diocletian\nin all the extent of the Roman Empire, and it is averred, even in the\nletters of Constantine, that Diocletian had much less part in the\npersecution than Galerius.\n\nDiocletian fell ill this year and feeling himself weakened he was the\nfirst who gave the world the example of the abdication of empire. It is\nnot easy to know whether this abdication was forced or not; it is true,\nhowever, that having recovered his health he lived nine years equally\nhonored and peaceable in his retreat of Salonica, in the country of his\nbirth. He said that he only began to live from the day of his retirement\nand when he was pressed to remount the throne he replied that the\nthrone was not worth the tranquillity of his life, and that he took more\npleasure in cultivating his garden than he should' have in governing the\nwhole earth. What can be concluded from these facts but that with great\nfaults he reigned like a great emperor and finished his life like a\nphilosopher!\n\n\n\n\nDIONYSIUS, ST. (THE AREOPAGITE),\n\nAND THE FAMOUS ECLIPSE.\n\n\nThe author of the article \"Apocrypha\" has neglected to mention a hundred\nworks recognized for such, and which, being entirely forgotten, seem not\nto merit the honor of being in his list. We have thought it right not to\nomit St. Dionysius, surnamed the Areopagite, who is pretended to have\nbeen for a long time the disciple of St. Paul, and of one Hierotheus, an\nunknown companion of his. He was, it is said, consecrated bishop of\nAthens by St. Paul himself. It is stated in his life that he went to\nJerusalem to pay a visit to the holy Virgin and that he found her so\nbeautiful and majestic that he was strongly tempted to adore her.\n\nAfter having a long time governed the Church of Athens he went to confer\nwith St. John the evangelist, at Ephesus, and afterwards with Pope\nClement at Rome; thence he went to exercise his apostleship in France;\nand knowing, says the historian, that Paris was a rich, populous, and\nabundant town, and like other capitals, he went there to plant a\ncitadel, to lay hell and infidelity in ruins.\n\nHe was regarded for a long time as the first bishop of Paris. Harduinus,\none of his historians, adds that at Paris he was exposed to wild beasts,\nbut, having made the sign of the cross on them, they crouched at his\nfeet. The pagan Parisians then threw him into a hot oven from which he\nwalked out fresh and in perfect health; he was crucified and he began to\npreach from the top of the cross.\n\nThey imprisoned him with his companions Rusticus and Eleutherus. He\nthere said mass, St. Rusticus performing the part of deacon and\nEleutherus that of subdeacon. Finally they were all three carried to\nMontmartre, where their heads were cut off, after which they no longer\nsaid mass.\n\nBut, according to Harduinus, there appeared a still greater miracle. The\nbody of St. Dionysius took its head in its hands and accompanied by\nangels singing \"_Gloria tibi, Domine, alleluia_!\" carried it as far as\nthe place where they afterwards built him a church, which is the famous\nchurch of St. Denis.\n\nMestaphrastus, Harduinus, and Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, say that he was\nmartyred at the age of ninety-one years, but Cardinal Baronius proves\nthat he was a hundred and ten, in which opinion he is supported by\nRibadeneira, the learned author of \"Flower of the Saints.\" For our own\npart we have no opinion on the subject.\n\nSeventeen works are attributed to him, six of which we have\nunfortunately lost; the eleven which remain to us have been translated\nfrom the Greek by Duns Scotus, Hugh de St. Victor, Albert Magnus, and\nseveral other illustrious scholars.\n\nIt is true that since wholesome criticism has been introduced into the\nworld it has been discovered that all the books attributed to Dionysius\nwere written by an impostor in the year 362 of our era, so that there no\nlonger remains any difficulty on that head.\n\n_Of the Great Eclipse Noticed by Dionysius._\n\nA fact related by one of the unknown authors of the life of Dionysius\nhas, above all, caused great dissension among the learned. It is\npretended that this first bishop of Paris, being in Egypt in the town of\nDiospolis, or No-Amon, at the age of twenty-five years, before he was a\nChristian, he was there, with one of his friends, witness of the famous\neclipse of the sun which happened at the full moon, at the death of\nJesus Christ and that he cried in Greek, \"Either God suffers or is\nafflicted at the sufferings of the criminal.\"\n\nThese words have been differently related by different authors, but in\nthe time of Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea it is pretended that two historians--the\none named Phlegon and the other Thallus--had made mention of this\nmiraculous eclipse. Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea quotes Phlegon, but we have none\nof his works now existing. He said--at least it is pretended so--that\nthis eclipse happened in the fourth year of the two hundredth Olympiad,\nwhich would be the eighteenth year of Tiberius's reign. There are\nseveral versions of this anecdote; we distrust them all and much more\nso, if it were possible to know whether they reckoned by Olympiads in\nthe time of Phlegon, which is very doubtful.\n\nThis important calculation interested all the astronomers. Hodgson,\nWhiston, Gale, Maurice, and the famous Halley, demonstrated that there\nwas no eclipse of the sun in this first year, but that on November 24th\nin the year of the hundred and second Olympiad an eclipse took place\nwhich obscured the sun for two minutes, at a quarter past one, at\nJerusalem.\n\nIt has been carried still further: a Jesuit named Greslon pretended that\nthe Chinese preserved in their annals the account of an eclipse which\nhappened near that time, contrary to the order of nature. They desired\nthe mathematicians of Europe to make a calculation of it; it was\npleasant enough to desire the astronomists to calculate an eclipse which\nwas not natural. Finally it was discovered that these Chinese annals do\nnot in any way speak of this eclipse.\n\nIt appears from the history of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, the passage\nfrom Phlegon, and from the letter of the Jesuit Greslon that men like to\nimpose upon one another. But this prodigious multitude of lies, far from\nharming the Christian religion, only serves, on the contrary, to show\nits divinity, since it is more confirmed every day in spite of them.\n\n\n\n\nDIODORUS OF SICILY, AND HERODOTUS.\n\n\nWe will commence with Herodotus as the most ancient. When Henry Stephens\nentitled his comic rhapsody \"The Apology of Herodotus,\" we know that his\ndesign was not to justify the tales of this father of history; he only\nsports with us and shows that the enormities of his own times were worse\nthan those of the Egyptians and Persians. He made use of the liberty\nwhich the Protestants assumed against those of the Catholic, Apostolic,\nand Roman churches. He sharply reproaches them with their debaucheries,\ntheir avarice, their crimes expiated by money, their indulgences\npublicly sold in the taverns, and the false relics manufactured by their\nown monks, calling them idolaters. He ventures to say that if the\nEgyptians adored cats and onions, the Catholics adore the bones of the\ndead. He dares to call them in his preliminary discourses, \"theophages,\"\nand even \"theokeses.\" We have fourteen editions of this book, for we\nrelish general abuse, just as much as we resent that which we deem\nspecial and personal.\n\nHenry Stephens made use of Herodotus only to render us hateful and\nridiculous; we have quite a contrary design. We pretend to show that the\nmodern histories of our good authors since Guicciardini are in general\nas wise and true as those of Herodotus and Diodorus are foolish and\nfabulous.\n\n1. What does the father of history mean by saying in the beginning of\nhis work, \"the Persian historians relate that the Ph\u0153nicians were the\nauthors of all the wars. From the Red Sea they entered ours,\" etc.? It\nwould seem that the Ph\u0153nicians, having embarked at the Isthmus of\nSuez, arrived at the straits of Babel-Mandeb, coasted along Ethiopia,\npassed the line, doubled the Cape of Tempests, since called the Cape of\nGood Hope, returned between Africa and America, repassed the line and\nentered from the ocean into the Mediterranean by the Pillars of\nHercules, a voyage of more than four thousand of our long marine leagues\nat a time when navigation was in its infancy.\n\n2. The first exploit of the Ph\u0153nicians was to go towards Argos to\ncarry off the daughter of King Inachus, after which the Greeks, in their\nturn, carried off Europa, the daughter of the king of Tyre.\n\n3. Immediately afterwards comes Candaules, king of Lydia, who, meeting\nwith one of his guards named Gyges, said to him, \"Thou must see my wife\nquite naked; it is absolutely essential.\" The queen, learning that she\nhad been thus exposed, said to the soldier, \"You shall either die or\nassassinate my husband and reign with me.\" He chose the latter\nalternative, and the assassination was accomplished without difficulty.\n\n4. Then follows the history of Arion, carried on the back of a dolphin\nacross the sea from the skirts of Calabria to Cape Matapan, an\nextraordinary voyage of about a hundred leagues.\n\n5. From tale to tale--and who dislikes tales?--we arrive at the\ninfallible oracle of Delphi, which somehow foretold that Cr\u0153sus would\ncook a quarter of lamb and a tortoise in a copper pan and that he would\nbe dethroned by a mullet.\n\n6. Among the inconceivable absurdities with which ancient history\nabounds is there anything approaching the famine with which the Lydians\nwere tormented for twenty-eight years? This people, whom Herodotus\ndescribes as being richer in gold than the Peruvians, instead of buying\nfood from foreigners, found no better expedient than that of amusing\nthemselves every other day with the ladies without eating for\neight-and-twenty successive years.\n\n7. Is there anything more marvellous than the history of Cyrus? His\ngrandfather, the Mede Astyages, with a Greek name, dreamed that his\ndaughter Mandane--another Greek name--inundated all Asia; at another\ntime, that she produced a vine, of which all Asia ate the grapes, and\nthereupon the good man Astyages ordered one Harpagos, another Greek, to\nmurder his grandson Cyrus--for what grandfather would not kill his\nposterity after dreams of this nature?\n\n8. Herodotus, no less a good naturalist than an exact historian, does\nnot fail to tell us that near Babylon the earth produced three hundred\nears of wheat for one. I know a small country which yields three for\none. I should like to have been transported to Diabek when the Turks\nwere driven from it by Catherine II. It has fine corn also but returns\nnot three hundred ears for one.\n\n9. What has always seemed to me decent and edifying in Herodotus is the\nfine religious custom established in Babylon of which we have already\nspoken--that of all the married women going to prostitute themselves in\nthe temple of Mylitta for money, to the first stranger who presented\nhimself. We reckon two millions of inhabitants in this city; the\ndevotion must have been ardent. This law is very probable among the\nOrientals who have always shut up their women, and who, more than six\nages before Herodotus, instituted eunuchs to answer to them for the\nchastity of their wives. I must no longer proceed numerically; we should\nvery soon indeed arrive at a hundred.\n\nAll that Diodorus of Sicily says seven centuries after Herodotus is of\nthe same value in all that regards antiquities and physics. The Abb\u00e9\nTerrasson said, \"I translate the text of Diodorus in all its\ncoarseness.\" He sometimes read us part of it at the house of de Lafaye,\nand when we laughed, he said, \"You are resolved to misconstrue; it was\nquite the contrary with Dacier.\"\n\nThe finest part of Diodorus is the charming description of the island of\nPanchaica--\"Panchaica Tellus,\" celebrated by Virgil: \"There were groves\nof odoriferous trees as far as the eye could see, myrrh and frankincense\nto furnish the whole world without exhausting it; fountains, which\nformed an infinity of canals, bordered with flowers, besides unknown\nbirds, which sang under the eternal shades; a temple of marble four\nthousand feet long, ornamented with columns, colossal statues,\" etc.\n\nThis puts one in mind of the Duke de la Fert\u00e9, who, to flatter the taste\nof the Abb\u00e9 Servien, said to him one day, \"Ah, if you had seen my son\nwho died at fifteen years of age! What eyes! what freshness of\ncomplexion! what an admirable stature! the Antinous of Belvidere\ncompared to him was only like a Chinese baboon, and as to sweetness of\nmanners, he had the most engaging I ever met with.\" The Abb\u00e9 Servien\nmelted, the duke of Fert\u00e9, warmed by his own words, melted also, both\nbegan to weep, after which he acknowledged that he never had a son.\n\nA certain Abb\u00e9 Bazin, with his simple common sense, doubts another tale\nof Diodorus. It is of a king of Egypt, Sesostris, who probably existed\nno more than the island of Panchaica. The father of Sesostris, who is\nnot named, determined on the day that he was born that he would make him\nthe conqueror of all the earth as soon as he was of age. It was a\nnotable project. For this purpose he brought up with him all the boys\nwho were born on the same day in Egypt, and, to make them conquerors,\nhe did not suffer them to have their breakfasts until they had run a\nhundred and eighty stadia, which is about eight of our long leagues.\n\nWhen Sesostris was of age he departed with his racers to conquer the\nworld. They were then about seventeen hundred and probably half were\ndead, according to the ordinary course of nature--and, above all, of the\nnature of Egypt, which was desolated by a destructive plague at least\nonce in ten years.\n\nThere must have been three thousand four hundred boys born in Egypt on\nthe same day as Sesostris, and as nature produces almost as many girls\nas boys, there must have been six thousand persons at least born on that\nday. But women were confined every day, and six thousand births a day\nproduce, at the end of the year, two millions one hundred and ninety\nthousand children. If you multiply by thirty-four, according to the rule\nof Kersseboom, you would have in Egypt more than seventy-four millions\nof inhabitants in a country which is not so large as Spain or France.\n\nAll this appeared monstrous to the Abb\u00e9 Bazin, who had seen a little of\nthe world, and who judged only by what he had seen.\n\nBut one Larcher, who was never outside of the college of Mazarin arrayed\nhimself with great animation on the side of Sesostris and his runners.\nHe pretends that Herodotus, in speaking of the Greeks, does not reckon\nby the stadia of Greece, and that the heroes of Sesostris only ran four\nleagues before breakfast. He overwhelms poor Abb\u00e9 Bazin with injurious\nnames such as no scholar in _us_ or _es_ had ever before employed. He\ndoes not hold with the seventeen hundred boys, but endeavors to prove by\nthe prophets that the wives, daughters, and nieces of the king of\nBabylon, of the satraps, and the magi, resorted, out of pure devotion,\nto sleep for money in the aisles of the temple of Babylon with all the\ncamel-drivers and muleteers of Asia. He treats all those who defend the\nhonor of the ladies of Babylon as bad Christians, condemned souls, and\nenemies to the state.\n\nHe also takes the part of the goat, so much in the good graces of the\nyoung female Egyptians. It is said that his great reason was that he was\nallied, by the female side, to a relation of the bishop of Meaux,\nBossuet, the author of an eloquent discourse on \"Universal History\"; but\nthis is not a peremptory reason.\n\nTake care of the extraordinary stories of all kinds. Diodorus of Sicily\nwas the greatest compiler of these tales. This Sicilian had not a grain\nof the temper of his countryman Archimedes, who sought and found so many\nmathematical truths.\n\nDiodorus seriously examines the history of the Amazons and their queen\nTheaestris; the history of the Gorgons, who fought against the Amazons;\nthat of the Titans, and that of all the gods. He searches into the\nhistory of Priapus and Hermaphroditus. No one could give a better\naccount of Hercules: this hero wandered through half the earth,\nsometimes on foot and alone like a pilgrim, and sometimes like a general\nat the head of a great army, and all his labors are faithfully\ndiscussed, but this is nothing in comparison with the gods of Crete.\n\nDiodorus justifies Jupiter from the reproach which other grave\nhistorians have passed upon him, of having dethroned and mutilated his\nfather. He shows how Jupiter fought the giants, some in his island,\nothers in Phrygia, and afterwards in Macedonia and Italy; the number of\nchildren which he had by his sister Juno and his favorites are not\nomitted.\n\nHe describes how he afterwards became a god, and the supreme god. It is\nthus that all the ancient histories have been written. What is more\nremarkable, they were sacred; if they had not been sacred, they would\nnever have been read.\n\nIt is clear that it would be very useful if in all they were all\ndifferent, and from province to province, and island to island, each had\na different history of the gods, demi-gods, and heroes, from that of\ntheir neighbors. But it should also be observed that the people never\nfought for this mythology.\n\nThe respectable history of Thucydides, which has several glimmerings of\ntruth, begins at Xerxes, but, before that epoch how much time was\nwasted.\n\n\n\n\nDIRECTOR.\n\n\nIt is neither of a director of finances, a director of hospitals, nor a\ndirector of the royal buildings that I pretend to speak, but of a\ndirector of conscience, for that directs all the others: it is the\npreceptor of human kind; it knows and teaches all that should be done or\nomitted in all possible cases.\n\nIt is clear that it would be very useful if in all courts there were one\nconscientious man whom the monarch secretly consulted on most occasions,\nand who would boldly say, \"_Non licet_.\" Louis the Just would not then\nhave begun his mischievous and unhappy reign by assassinating his first\nminister and imprisoning his mother. How many wars, unjust as fatal, a\nfew good dictators would have spared! How many cruelties they would have\nprevented!\n\nBut often, while intending to consult a lamb, we consult a fox. Tartuffe\nwas the director of Orgon. I should like to know who was the\nconscientious director of the massacre of St. Bartholomew.\n\nThe gospel speaks no more of directors than of confessors. Among the\npeople whom our ordinary courtesy calls Pagans we do not see that\nScipio, Fabricius, Cato, Titus, Trajan, or the Antonines had directors.\nIt is well to have a scrupulous friend to remind you of your duty. But\nyour conscience ought to be the chief of your council.\n\nA Huguenot was much surprised when a Catholic lady told him that she had\na confessor to absolve her from her sins and a director to prevent her\ncommitting them. \"How can your vessel so often go astray, madam,\" said\nhe, \"having two such good pilots?\"\n\nThe learned observe that it is not the privilege of every one to have a\ndirector. It is like having an equerry; it only belongs to ladies of\nquality. The Abb\u00e9 Gobelin, a litigious and covetous man, directed Madame\nde Maintenon only. The directors of Paris often serve four or five\ndevotees at once; they embroil them with their husbands, sometimes with\ntheir lovers, and occasionally fill the vacant places.\n\nWhy have the women directors and the men none? It was possibly owing to\nthis distinction that Mademoiselle de la Valli\u00e8re became a Carmelite\nwhen she was quitted by Louis XIV., and that M. de Turenne, being\nbetrayed by Madame de Coetquin, did _not_ make himself a monk.\n\nSt. Jerome, and Rufinus his antagonist, were great directors of women\nand girls. They did not find a Roman senator or a military tribune to\ngovern. These people profited by the devout facility of the feminine\ngender. The men had too much beard on their chins and often too much\nstrength of mind for them. Boileau has given the portrait of a director\nin his \"Satire on Women,\" but might have said something much more to the\npurpose.\n\n\n\n\nDISPUTES.\n\n\nThere have been disputes at all times, on all subjects:--\"_Mundum\ntradidit disputationi eorum.\"_ There have been violent quarrels about\nwhether the whole is greater than a part; whether a body can be in\nseveral places at the same time; whether the whiteness of snow can exist\nwithout snow, or the sweetness of sugar without sugar; whether there can\nbe thinking without a head, etc.\n\nI doubt not that as soon as a Jansenist shall have written a book to\ndemonstrate that one and two are three, a Molinist will start up and\ndemonstrate that two and one are five.\n\nWe hope to please and instruct the reader by laying before him the\nfollowing verses on \"Disputation.\" They are well known to every man of\ntaste in Paris, but they are less familiar to those among the learned\nwho still dispute on gratuitous predestination, concomitant grace, and\nthat momentous question--whether the mountains were produced by the sea.\n\n\nON DISPUTATION.\n\n      Each brain its thought, each season has its mode;\n        Manners and fashions alter every day;\n        Examine for yourself what others say;--\n      This privilege by nature is bestowed;--\n      But, oh! dispute not--the designs of heaven\n      To mortal insight never can be given.\n      What is the knowledge of this world worth knowing?\n      What, but a bubble scarcely worth the blowing?\n      \"Quite full of errors was the world before;\"\n      Then, to preach reason is but one error more.\n\n      Viewing this earth from Luna's elevation,\n      Or any other convenient situation,\n      What shall we see? The various tricks of man.\n      _Here_ is a synod--_there_ is a divan;\n      Behold the mufti, dervish, iman, bonze,\n      The lama and the pope on equal thrones.\n      The modern doctor and the ancient rabbi,\n      The monk, the priest, and the expectant abb\u00e9:\n      If you are disputants, my friends, pray travel--\n      When you come home again, you'll cease to cavil.\n\n      That wild Ambition should lay waste the earth,\n      Or Beauty's glance give civil discord birth;\n      That, in our courts of equity, a suit\n      Should hang in doubt till ruin is the fruit;\n      That an old country priest should deeply groan,\n      To see a benefice he'd thought his own\n      Borne off by a court abb\u00e9; that a poet\n      Should feel most envy when he least should show it;\n      And, when another's play the public draws,\n      Should grin damnation while he claps applause;\n      With this, and more, the human heart is fraught--\n      But whence the rage to rule another's thought;\n      Say, wherefore--in what way--can you design\n      To make _your_ judgment give the law to _mine_?\n\n      But chiefly I detest those tiresome elves,\n      Half-learned critics, worshipping themselves,\n      Who, with the utmost weight of all their lead,\n      Maintain against you what yourself have said;\n      Philosophers--and poets--and musicians--\n      Great statesmen--deep in third and fourth editions--\n      They know all--read all--and (the greatest curse)\n      They _talk_ of all--from politics to verse;\n      On points of taste they'll contradict Voltaire;\n      In law e'en Montesquieu they will not spare;\n      They'll tutor Broglio in affairs of arms;\n      And teach the charming d'Egmont higher charms.\n      See them, alike in great and small things clever,\n      Replying constantly, though answering never;\n      Hear them assert, repeat, affirm, aver,\n      Wax wroth. And wherefore all this mighty stir?\n      This the great theme that agitates their breast--\n      Which of two wretched rhymesters rhymes the best?\n\n      Pray, gentle reader, did you chance to know\n      One Monsieur d'Aube, who died not long ago?\n      One whom the disputatious mania woke\n      Early each morning? If, by chance, you spoke\n      Of your own part in some well-fought affair,\n      Better than you he knew how, when, and where;\n      What though your own the deed and the renown?\n      His \"letters from the army\" put you down;\n      E'en Richelieu he'd have told--if he attended--\n      How Mahon fell, or Genoa was defended.\n      Although he wanted neither wit nor sense,\n      His every visit gave his friends offence;\n      I've seen him, raving in a hot dispute,\n      Exhaust their logic, force them to be mute,\n      Or, if their patience were entirely spent,\n      Rush from the room to give their passion vent.\n      His kinsmen, whom his property allured,\n      At last were wearied, though they long endured.\n      His neighbors, less athletic than himself,\n      For health's sake laid him wholly on the shelf.\n      Thus, 'midst his many virtues, this one failing\n      Brought his old age to solitary wailing;--\n      For solitude to him was deepest woe--\n      A sorrow which the peaceful ne'er can know\n      At length, to terminate his cureless grief,\n      A mortal fever came to his relief,\n      Caused by the great, the overwhelming pang,\n      Of hearing in the church a long harangue\n      Without the privilege of contradiction;\n      So, yielding to this crowning dire affliction,\n      His spirit fled. But, in the grasp of death,\n      'Twas some small solace, with his parting breath,\n      To indulge once more his ruling disposition\n      By arguing with the priest and the physician.\n\n      Oh! may the Eternal goodness grant him now\n      The rest _he_ ne'er to mortals would allow!\n      If, even there, he like not disputation\n      Better than uncontested, calm salvation.\n\n             *       *       *       *       *\n\n      But see, my friends, this bold defiance made\n      To every one of the disputing trade,\n      With a young bachelor their skill to try;\n      And God's own essence shall the theme supply.\n\n      Come and behold, as on the theatric stage,\n      The pitched encounter, the contending rage;\n      Dilemmas, enthymemes, in close array--\n      Two-edged weapons, cutting either way;\n      The strong-built syllogism's pondering might,\n      The sophism's vain ignis fatuus light;\n      Hot-headed monks, whom all the doctors dread,\n      And poor Hibernians arguing for their bread,\n      Fleeing their country's miseries and morasses\n      To live at Paris on disputes and masses;\n      While the good public lend their strict attention\n      To what soars far above their sober comprehension.\n\n      Is, then, all arguing frivolous or absurd?\n      Was Socrates himself not sometimes heard\n      To hold an argument amidst a feast?\n      E'en naked in the bath he hardly ceased.\n      Was this a failing in his mental vision?\n      Genius is sure discovered by collision;\n      The cold hard flint by one quick blow is fired;--\n      Fit emblem of the close and the retired,\n      Who, in the keen dispute struck o'er and o'er,\n      Acquire a sudden warmth unfelt before.\n\n      All this, I grant, is good. But mark the ill:\n      Men by disputing have grown blinder still.\n      The crooked mind is like the squinting eye:\n      How can you make it see _itself_ awry?\n      Who's in the wrong? Will any answer \"I\"?\n      Our words, our efforts, are an idle breath;\n      Each hugs his darling notion until death;\n      Opinions ne'er are altered; all we do\n      Is, _to arouse conflicting passions, too_.\n      Not truth itself should always find a tongue;\n      \"To be too stanchly right, is to be wrong.\"\n\n             *       *       *       *       *\n\n      In earlier days, by vice and crime unstained,\n      Justice and Truth, two naked sisters, reigned;\n      But long since fled--as every one can tell--\n      Justice to heaven and Truth into a well.\n\n      Now vain Opinion governs every age,\n      And fills poor mortals with fantastic rage.\n      Her airy temple floats upon the clouds;\n      Gods, demons, antic sprites, in countless crowds,\n      Around her throne--a strange and motley mask--\n      Ply busily their never-ceasing task,\n      To hold up to mankind's admiring gaze\n      A thousand nothings in a thousand ways;\n      While, wafted on by all the winds that blow,\n      Away the temple and the goddess go.\n      A mortal, as her course uncertain turns,\n      To-day is worshipped, and to-morrow burns.\n      We scoff, that young Antinous once had priests;\n      We think our ancestors were worse than beasts;\n      And he who treats each modern custom ill,\n      Does but what future ages surely will.\n      What female face has Venus smiled upon?\n      The Frenchman turns with rapture to Brionne,\n      Nor can believe that men were wont to bow\n      To golden tresses and a narrow brow.\n      And thus is vagabond Opinion seen\n      To sway o'er Beauty--this world's other queen!\n        How can we hope, then, that she e'er will quit\n      Her vapory throne, to seek some sage's feet,\n      And Truth from her deep hiding-place remove,\n      Once more to witness what is done above?\n\n\n      And for the learned--even for the wise--\n      Another snare of false delusion lies;\n      That rage for systems, which, in dreamy thought,\n      Frames magic universes out of naught;\n      Building ten errors on one truth's foundation.\n      So he who taught the art of calculation,\n      In one of these illusive mental slumbers,\n      Foolishly sought the Deity in numbers;\n      The first mechanic, from as wild a notion,\n      Would rule man's freedom by the laws of motion.\n      This globe, says one, is an extinguished sun;\n\n      No, says another, 'tis a globe of glass;\n      And when the fierce contention's once begun,\n\n      Book upon book--a vast and useless mass--On\n      Science's altar are profusely strewn,\n      While Disputation sits on Wisdom's throne.\n\n\n      And then, from contrarieties of speech,\n      What countless feuds have sprung! For you may teach,\n      In the same words, two doctrines different quite\n      As day from darkness, or as wrong from right.\n      This has indeed been man's severest curse;\n      Famine and pestilence have not been worse,\n      Nor e'er have matched the ills whose aggravations\n      Have scourged the world through misinterpretations.\n\n\n      How shall I paint the conscientious strife?\n        The holy transports of each heavenly soul--\n      Fanaticism wasting human life\n        With torch, with dagger, and with poisoned bow;\n      The ruined hamlet and the blazing town,\n        Homes desolate, and parents massacred,\n        And temples in the Almighty's honor reared\n      The scene of acts that merit most his frown!\n      Rape, murder, pillage, in one frightful storm,\n        Pleasure with carnage horribly combined,\n        The brutal ravisher amazed to find\n      A sister in his victim's dying form!\n\n      Sons by their fathers to the scaffold led;\n      The vanquished always numbered with the dead.\n      Oh, God, permit that all the ills we know\n      May one day pass for merely fabled woe!\n\n\n      But see, an angry disputant steps forth--\n        His humble mien a proud heart ill conceals\n      In holy guise inclining to the earth,\n        Offering to God the venom he distils.\n      \"Beneath all this a dangerous poison lies;\n        So--every man is neither right nor wrong,\n      And, since we never can be truly wise,\n        By instinct only should be driven along.\"\n      \"Sir, I've not said a word to that effect.\"\n        \"It's true, you've artfully disguised your meaning.\"\n      \"But, Sir, my judgment ever is correct.\"\n        \"Sir, in this case, 'tis rather overweening.\n      Let truth be sought, but let all passion yield;\n        'Discussion's right, and disputation's wrong;'\n      This have I said--and that at court, in field,\n        Or town, one often should restrain one's tongue.\"\n      \"But, my dear Sir, you've still a double sense;\n        I can distinguish--\" \"Sir, with all my heart;\n      I've told my thoughts with all due deference,\n        And crave the like indulgence on your part.\"\n      \"My son, all 'thinking' is a grievous crime;\n      So I'll denounce you without loss of time.\"\n\n\n      Blest would be they who, from fanatic power,\n        From carping censors, envious critics, free,\n        O'er Helicon might roam in liberty,\n      And unmolested pluck each fragrant flower!\n      So does the farmer, in his healthy fields,\n        Far from the ills in swarming towns that spring,\n      Taste the pure joys that our existence yields,\n        Extract the honey and escape the sting.\n\n\n[Illustration: \"Truth from her deep hiding-place remove once more to\nwitness what is done above\"]\n\n\n\n\nDISTANCE.\n\n\nA man who knows how to reckon the paces from one end of his house to the\nother might imagine that nature had all at once taught him this distance\nand that he has only need of a _coup d'\u0153il_, as in the case of\ncolors. He is deceived; the different distances of objects can be known\nonly by experience, comparison, and habit. It is that which makes a\nsailor, on seeing a vessel afar off, able to say without hesitation what\ndistance his own vessel is from it, of which distance a passenger would\nonly form a very confused idea.\n\nDistance is only the line from a given object to ourselves. This line\nterminates at a point; and whether the object be a thousand leagues from\nus or only a foot, this point is always the same to our eyes.\n\nWe have then no means of directly perceiving distances, as we have of\nascertaining by the touch whether a body is hard or soft; by the taste,\nif it is bitter or sweet; or by the ear, whether of two sounds the one\nis grave and the other lively. For if I duly notice, the parts of a body\nwhich give way to my fingers are the immediate cause of my sensation of\nsoftness, and the vibrations of the air, excited by the sonorous body,\nare the immediate cause of my sensation of sound. But as I cannot have\nan immediate idea of distance I must find it out by means of an\nintermediate idea, but it is necessary that this intermediate idea be\nclearly understood, for it is only by the medium of things known that we\ncan acquire a notion of things unknown.\n\nI am told that such a house is distant a mile from such a river, but if\nI do not know where this river is I certainly do not know where the\nhouse is situated. A body yields easily to the impression of my hand: I\nconclude immediately that it is soft. Another resists, I feel at once\nits hardness. I ought therefore to feel the angles formed in my eye in\norder to determine the distance of objects. But most men do not even\nknow that these angles exist; it is evident, therefore, that they cannot\nbe the immediate cause of our ascertaining distances.\n\nHe who, for the first time in his life, hears the noise of a cannon or\nthe sound of a concert, cannot judge whether the cannon be fired or the\nconcert be performed at the distance of a league or of twenty paces. He\nhas only the experience which accustoms him to judge of the distance\nbetween himself and the place whence the noise proceeds. The vibrations,\nthe undulations of the air carry a sound to his ears, or rather to his\nsensorium, but this noise no more carries to his sensorium the place\nwhence it proceeds than it teaches him the form of the cannon or of the\nmusical instruments. It is the same thing precisely with regard to the\nrays of light which proceed from an object, but which do not at all\ninform us of its situation.\n\nNeither do they inform us more immediately of magnitude or form. I see\nfrom afar a little round tower. I approach, perceive, and touch a great\nquadrangular building. Certainly, this which I now see and touch cannot\nbe that which I saw before. The little round tower which was before my\neyes cannot be this large, square building. One thing in relation to us\nis the measurable and tangible object; another, the visible object. I\nhear from my chamber the noise of a carriage, I open my window and see\nit. I descend and enter it. Yet this carriage that I have heard, this\ncarriage that I have seen, and this carriage which I have touched are\nthree objects absolutely distinct to three of my senses, which have no\nimmediate relation to one another.\n\nFurther; it is demonstrated that there is formed in my eye an angle a\ndegree larger when a thing is near, when I see a man four feet from me\nthan when I see the same man at a distance of eight feet. However, I\nalways see this man of the same size. How does my mind thus contradict\nthe mechanism of my organs? The object is really a degree smaller to my\neyes, and yet I see it the same. It is in vain that we attempt to\nexplain this mystery by the route which the rays follow or by the form\ntaken by the crystalline humor of the eye. Whatever may be supposed to\nthe contrary, the angle at which I see a man at four feet from me is\nalways nearly double the angle at which I see him at eight feet. Neither\ngeometry nor physics will explain this difficulty.\n\nThese geometrical lines and angles are not really more the cause of our\nseeing objects in their proper places than that we see them of a certain\nsize and at a certain distance. The mind does not consider that if this\npart were to be painted at the bottom of the eye it could collect\nnothing from lines that it saw not. The eye looks down only to see that\nwhich is near the ground, and is uplifted to see that which is above the\nearth. All this might be explained and placed beyond dispute by any\nperson born blind, to whom the sense of sight was afterwards attained.\nFor if this blind man, the moment that he opens his eyes, can correctly\njudge of distances, dimensions, and situations, it would be true that\nthe optical angles suddenly formed in his retina were the immediate\ncause of his decisions. Doctor Berkeley asserts, after Locke--going even\nfurther than Locke--that neither situation, magnitude, distance, nor\nfigure would be discerned by a blind man thus suddenly gifted with\nsight.\n\nIn fact, a man born blind was found in 1729, by whom this question was\nindubitably decided. The famous Cheselden, one of those celebrated\nsurgeons who join manual skill to the most enlightened minds, imagined\nthat he could give sight to this blind man by couching, and proposed the\noperation. The patient was with great difficulty brought to consent to\nit. He did not conceive that the sense of sight could much augment his\npleasures, except that he desired to be able to read and to write, he\ncared indeed little about seeing. He proved by this indifference that it\nis impossible to be rendered unhappy by the privation of pleasures of\nwhich we have never formed an idea--a very important truth. However this\nmay be, the operation was performed, and succeeded. This young man at\nfourteen years of age saw the light for the first time, and his\nexperience confirmed all that Locke and Berkeley had so ably foreseen.\nFor a long time he distinguished neither dimensions, distance, nor\nform. An object about the size of an inch, which was placed before his\neyes, and which concealed a house from him, appeared as large as the\nhouse itself. All that he saw seemed to touch his eyes, and to touch\nthem as objects of feeling touch the skin. He could not at first\ndistinguish that which, by the aid of his hands, he had thought round\nfrom that which he had supposed square, nor could he discern with his\neyes if that which his hands had felt to be tall and short were so in\nreality. He was so far from knowing anything about magnitude that after\nhaving at last conceived by his sight that his house was larger than his\nchamber, he could not conceive how sight could give him this idea. It\nwas not until after two months' experience he could discover that\npictures represented existing bodies, and when, after this long\ndevelopment of his new sense in him, he perceived that bodies, and not\nsurfaces only, were painted in the pictures, he took them in his hands\nand was astonished at not finding those solid bodies of which he had\nbegun to perceive the representation, and demanded which was the\ndeceived, the sense of feeling or that of sight.\n\nThus was it irrevocably decided that the manner in which we see things\nfollows not immediately from the angles formed in the eye. These\nmathematical angles were in the eyes of this man the same as in our own\nand were of no use to him without the help of experience and of his\nother senses.\n\nThe adventure of the man born blind was known in France towards the year\n1735. The author of the \"Elements of Newton,\" who had seen a great deal\nof Cheselden, made mention of this important discovery, but did not take\nmuch notice of it. And even when the same operation of the cataract was\nperformed at Paris on a young man who was said to have been deprived of\nsight from his cradle, the operators neglected to attend to the daily\ndevelopment of the sense of sight in him and to the progress of nature.\nThe fruit of this operation was therefore lost to philosophy.\n\nHow do we represent to ourselves dimensions and distances? In the same\nmanner that we imagine the passions of men by the colors with which they\nvary their countenances, and by the alteration which they make in their\nfeatures. There is no person who cannot read joy or grief on the\ncountenance of another. It is the language that nature addresses to all\neyes, but experience only teaches this language. Experience alone\nteaches us that, when an object is too far, we see it confusedly and\nweakly, and thence we form ideas, which always afterwards accompany the\nsensation of sight. Thus every man who at ten paces sees his horse five\nfeet high, if, some minutes after, he sees this horse of the size of a\nsheep, by an involuntary judgment immediately concludes that the horse\nis much farther from him.\n\nIt is very true that when I see my horse of the size of a sheep a much\nsmaller picture is formed in my eye--a more acute angle; but it is a\nfact which accompanies, not causes, my opinion. In like manner, it makes\na different impression on my brain, when I see a man blush from shame\nand from anger; but these different impressions would tell me nothing of\nwhat was passing in this man's mind, without experience, whose voice\nalone is attended to.\n\nSo far from the angle being the immediate cause of my thinking that a\nhorse is far off when I see it very small, it happens that I see my\nhorse equally large at ten, twenty, thirty, or forty paces, though the\nangle at ten paces may be double, treble, or quadruple. I see at a\ndistance, through a small hole, a man posted on the top of a house; the\nremoteness and fewness of the rays at first prevent me from\ndistinguishing that it is a man; the object appears to me very small. I\nthink I see a statue two feet high at most; the object moves; I then\njudge that it is a man; and from that instant the man appears to me of\nhis ordinary size. Whence come these two judgments so different? When I\nbelieved that I saw a statue, I imagined it to be two feet high, because\nI saw it at such an angle; experience had not led my mind to falsify the\ntraits imprinted on my retina; but as soon as I judged that it was a\nman, the association established in my mind by experience between a man\nand his known height of five or six feet, involuntarily obliged me to\nimagine that I saw one of a certain height; or, in fact, that I saw the\nheight itself.\n\nIt must therefore be absolutely concluded, that distance, dimension, and\nsituation are not, properly speaking, visible things; that is to say,\nthe proper and immediate objects of sight. The proper and immediate\nobject of sight is nothing but colored light; all the rest we only\ndiscover by long acquaintance and experience. We learn to see precisely\nas we learn to speak and to read. The difference is, that the art of\nseeing is more easy, and that nature is equally mistress of all.\n\nThe sudden and almost uniform judgments which, at a certain age, our\nminds form of distance, dimension, and situation, make us think that we\nhave only to open our eyes to see in the manner in which we do see. We\nare deceived; it requires the help of the other senses. If men had only\nthe sense of sight, they would have no means of knowing extent in\nlength, breadth, and depth, and a pure spirit perhaps would not know it,\nunless God revealed it to him. It is very difficult, in our\nunderstanding, to separate the extent of an object from its color. We\nnever see anything but what is extended, and from that we are led to\nbelieve that we really see the extent. We can scarcely distinguish in\nour minds the yellow that we see in a _louis d'or_ from the _louis d'or_\nin which we see the yellow. In the same manner, as when we hear the word\n\"_louis d'or_\" pronounced, we cannot help attaching the idea of the\nmoney to the word which we hear spoken.\n\nIf all men spoke the same language, we should be always ready to believe\nin a necessary connection between words and ideas. But all men in fact\ndo possess the same language of imagination. Nature says to them all:\nWhen you have seen colors for a certain time, imagination will represent\nthe bodies to which these colors appear attached to all alike. This\nprompt and summary judgment once attained will be of use to you during\nyour life; for if to estimate the distances, magnitudes, and situations\nof all that surrounds you, it were necessary to examine the visual\nangles and rays, you would be dead before you had ascertained whether\nthe things of which you have need were ten paces from you or a hundred\nthousand leagues, and whether they were of a size of a worm or of a\nmountain. It would be better to be born blind.\n\nWe are then, perhaps, very wrong, when we say that our senses deceive\nus. Every one of our senses performs the function for which it was\ndestined by nature. They mutually aid one another to convey to our\nminds, through the medium of experience, the measure of knowledge that\nour being allows. We ask from our senses what they are not made to give\nus. We would have our eyes acquaint us with solidity, dimension,\ndistance, etc.; but it is necessary for the touch to agree for that\npurpose with the sight, and that experience should second both. If\nFather Malebranche had looked at this side of nature, he would perhaps\nhave attributed fewer errors to our senses, which are the only sources\nof all our ideas.\n\nWe should not, however, extend this species of metaphysics to every case\nbefore us. We should only call it to our aid when the mathematics are\ninsufficient.\n\n\n\n\nDIVINITY OF JESUS.\n\n\nThe Socinians, who are regarded as blasphemers, do not recognize the\ndivinity of Jesus Christ. They dare to pretend, with the philosophers of\nantiquity, with the Jews, the Mahometans, and most other nations, that\nthe idea of a god-man is monstrous; that the distance from God to man is\ninfinite; and that it is impossible for a perishable body to be\ninfinite, immense, or eternal.\n\nThey have the confidence to quote Eusebius, bishop of C\u00e6sarea, in their\nfavor, who, in his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" i., 9, declares that it is\nabsurd to imagine the uncreated and unchangeable nature of Almighty God\ntaking the form of a man. They cite the fathers of the Church, Justin\nand Tertullian, who have said the same thing: Justin, in his \"Dialogue\nwith Triphonius\"; and Tertullian, in his \"Discourse against Praxeas.\"\n\nThey quote St. Paul, who never calls Jesus Christ \"God,\" and who calls\nHim \"man\" very often. They carry their audacity so far as to affirm that\nthe Christians passed three entire ages in forming by degrees the\napotheosis of Jesus; and that they only raised this astonishing edifice\nby the example of the pagans, who had deified mortals. At first,\naccording to them, Jesus was only regarded as a man inspired by God, and\nthen as a creature more perfect than others. They gave Him some time\nafter a place above the angels, as St. Paul tells us. Every day added to\nHis greatness. He in time became an emanation, proceeding from God. This\nwas not enough; He was even born before time. At last He was made God\nconsubstantial with God. Crellius, Voquelsius, Natalis Alexander, and\nHorneck have supported all these blasphemies by arguments which astonish\nthe wise and mislead the weak. Above all, Faustus Socinus spread the\nseeds of this doctrine in Europe; and at the end of the sixteenth\ncentury a new species of Christianity was established. There were\nalready more than three hundred.\n\n\n\n\nDIVORCE.\n\n\nIn the article on \"Divorce,\" in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" it is said that the\ncustom of divorce having been brought into Gaul by the Romans, it was\ntherefore that Basine, or Bazine, quitted the king of Thuringia, her\nhusband, in order to follow Childeric, who married her. Why not say that\nbecause the Trojans established the custom of divorce in Sparta, Helen\nrepudiated Menelaus according to law, to run away with Paris into\nPhrygia?\n\nThe agreeable fable of Paris, and the ridiculous one of Childeric, who\nnever was king of France, and who it is pretended carried off Bazine,\nthe wife of Bazin, have nothing to do with the law of divorce.\n\nThey all quote Cheribert, ruler of the little town of Lutetia, near\nIssay--Lutetia Parisiorum--who repudiated his wife. The Abb\u00e9 Velly, in\nhis \"History of France,\" says that this Cheribert, or Caribert, divorced\nhis wife Ingoberg to espouse Mirefleur, the daughter of an artisan; and\nafterwards Theudegild, the daughter of a shepherd, who was raised to the\nfirst throne of the French Empire.\n\nThere was at that time neither first nor second throne among these\nbarbarians whom the Roman Empire never recognized as kings. There was no\nFrench Empire. The empire of the French only commenced with Charlemagne.\nIt is very doubtful whether the word \"mirefleur\" was in use either in\nthe Welsh or Gallic languages, which were a _patois_ of the Celtic\njargon. This _patois_ had no expressions so soft.\n\nIt is also said that the ruler or governor Chilperic, lord of the\nprovince of Soissonnais, whom they call king of France, divorced his\nqueen Andovere, or Andove; and here follows the reason of this divorce.\n\nThis Andovere, after having given three male children to the lord of\nSoissons, brought forth a daughter. The Franks having been in some\nmanner Christians since the time of Clovis, Andovere, after her\nrecovery, presented her daughter to be baptized. Chilperic of Soissons,\nwho was apparently very tired of her, declared that it was an\nunpardonable crime in her to be the godmother of her infant, and that\nshe could no longer be his wife by the laws of the Church. He therefore\nmarried Fredegond, whom he subsequently put away also, and espoused a\nVisigoth. To conclude, this scrupulous husband ended by taking Fredegond\nback again.\n\nThere was nothing legal in all this, and it ought no more to be quoted\nthan anything which passed in Ireland or the Orcades. The Justinian\ncode, which we have adopted in several points, authorizes divorce; but\nthe canonical law, which the Catholics have placed before it, does not\npermit it.\n\nThe author of the article says that divorce is practised in the states\nof Germany, of the confession of Augsburg. He might have added that this\ncustom is established in all the countries of the North, among the\nreformed of all professions, and among all the followers of the Greek\nChurch.\n\nDivorce is probably of nearly the same date as marriage. I believe,\nhowever, that marriage is some weeks more ancient; that is to say, men\nquarrelled with their wives at the end of five days, beat them at the\nend of a month, and separated from them after six weeks' cohabitation.\n\nJustinian, who collected all the laws made before him, to which he added\nhis own, not only confirms that of divorce, but he extends it still\nfurther; so that every woman, whose husband is not a slave, but simply\na prisoner of war during five years, may, after the five years have\nexpired, contract another marriage.\n\nJustinian was a Christian, and even a theologian; how is it, then, that\nthe Church derogates from his laws? It was when the Church became the\nsovereign and the legislator. The popes had not much trouble to\nsubstitute their decretals instead of the civil code in the West, which\nwas plunged in ignorance and barbarism. They took, indeed, so much\nadvantage of the prevailing ignorance, that Honorius III., Gregory IX.,\nand Innocent III., by their bulls, forbade the civil law to be taught.\nIt may be said of this audacity, that it is not creditable, but true.\n\nAs the Church alone took cognizance of marriages, so it alone judged of\ndivorce. No prince effected a divorce and married a second wife without\npreviously obtaining the consent of the pope. Henry VIII., king of\nEngland, did not marry without his consent, until after having a long\ntime solicited his divorce in the court of Rome in vain.\n\nThis custom, established in ignorant times, is perpetuated in\nenlightened ones only because it exists. All abuse eternizes itself; it\nis an Augean stable, and requires a Hercules to cleanse it.\n\nHenry IV. could not be the father of a king of France without the\npermission of the pope; which must have been given, as has already been\nremarked, not by pronouncing a _divorce_, but a _lie_; that is to say,\nby pretending that there had not been previous marriage with Margaret de\nValois.\n\n\n\n\nDOG.\n\n\nIt seems as if nature had given the dog to man for his defence and\npleasure; it is of all animals the most faithful; it is the best\npossible friend of man.\n\nIt appears that there are several species absolutely different. How can\nwe believe that a greyhound comes originally from a spaniel? It has\nneither its hair, legs, shape, ears, voice, scent, nor instinct. A man\nwho has never seen any dogs but barbets or spaniels, and who saw a\ngreyhound for the first time, would take it rather for a dwarf horse\nthan for an animal of the spaniel race. It is very likely that each race\nwas always what it now is, with the exception of the mixture of a small\nnumber of them.\n\nIt is astonishing that, in the Jewish law, the dog was considered\nunclean, as well as the griffin, the hare, the pig, and the eel; there\nmust have been some moral or physical reason for it, which we have not\nyet discovered.\n\nThat which is related of the sagacity, obedience, friendship, and\ncourage of dogs, is as extraordinary as true. The military philosopher,\nUlloa, assures us that in Peru the Spanish dogs recognize the men of the\nIndian race, pursue them, and tear them to pieces; and that the Peruvian\ndogs do the same with the Spaniards. This would seem to prove that each\nspecies of dogs still retained the hatred which was inspired in it at\nthe time of the discovery, and that each race always fought for its\nmaster with the same valor and attachment.\n\nWhy, then, has the word \"dog\" become an injurious term? We say, for\ntenderness, my sparrow, my dove, my chicken; we even say my kitten,\nthough this animal is famed for treachery; and, when we are angry, we\ncall people dogs! The Turks, when not even angry, speak with horror and\ncontempt of the Christian dogs. The English populace, when they see a\nman who, by his manner or dress, has the appearance of having been born\non the banks of the Seine or of the Loire, commonly call him a French\ndog--a figure of rhetoric which is neither just to the dog nor polite to\nthe man.\n\nThe delicate Homer introduces the divine Achilles telling the divine\nAgamemnon that he is as impudent as a dog--a classical justification of\nthe English populace.\n\nThe most zealous friends of the dog must, however, confess that this\nanimal carries audacity in its eyes; that some are morose; that they\noften bite strangers whom they take for their master's enemies, as\nsentinels assail passengers who approach too near the counterscarp.\nThese are probably the reasons which have rendered the epithet \"dog\"\ninsulting; but we dare not decide.\n\nWhy was the dog adored and revered--as has been seen--by the Egyptians?\nBecause the dog protects man. Plutarch tells us that after Cambyses had\nkilled their bull Apis, and had had it roasted, no animal except the dog\ndared to eat the remains of the feast, so profound was the respect for\nApis; the dog, not so scrupulous, swallowed the god without hesitation.\nThe Egyptians, as may be imagined, were exceedingly scandalized at this\nwant of reverence, and Anubis lost much of his credit.\n\nThe dog, however, still bears the honor of being always in the heavens,\nunder the names of the great and little dog. We regularly record the\ndog-days.\n\nBut of all dogs, Cerberus has had the greatest reputation; he had three\nheads. We have remarked that, anciently, all went by threes--Isis,\nOsiris, and Orus, the three first Egyptian divinities; the three brother\ngods of the Greek world--Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto; the three Fates,\nthe three Furies, the three Graces, the three judges of hell, and the\nthree heads of this infernal dog.\n\nWe perceive here with grief that we have omitted the article on \"Cats\";\nbut we console ourselves by referring to their history. We will only\nremark that there are no cats in the heavens, as there are goats, crabs,\nbulls, rams, eagles, lions, fishes, hares, and dogs; but, in recompense,\nthe cat has been consecrated, or revered, or adored, as partaking of\ndivinity or saintship in several towns, and as altogether divine by no\nsmall number of women.\n\n\n\n\nDOGMAS.\n\n\nWe know that all belief taught by the Church is a dogma which we must\nembrace. It is a pity that there are dogmas received by the Latin\nChurch, and rejected by the Greek. But if unanimity is wanting, charity\nreplaces it. It is, above all, between hearts that union is required. I\nthink that we can relate a dream to the purpose, which has already found\nfavor in the estimation of many peaceably disposed persons.\n\n\"On Feb. 18, 1763, of the vulgar era, the sun entering the sign of the\nfishes, I was transported to heaven, as all my friends can bear witness.\nThe mare Borac, of Mahomet, was not my steed, neither was the fiery\nchariot of Elijah my carriage. I was not carried on the elephant of\nSomonocodom, the Siamese; on the horse of St. George, the patron of\nEngland; nor on St. Anthony's pig. I avow with frankness that my journey\nwas made I know not how.\n\n\"It will be easily believed that I was dazzled; but it will not so\neasily be credited that I witnessed the judgment of the dead. And who\nwere the judges? They were--do not be displeased at it--all those who\nhave done good to man. Confucius, Solon, Socrates, Titus, Antoninus,\nEpictetus, Charron, de Thou, Chancellor de L' H\u00f4pital, and all the great\nmen who, having taught and practised the virtues that God requires,\nseemed to be the only persons possessing the right of pronouncing his\ndevrees.\n\n\"I shall not describe on what thrones they were seated, nor how many\ncelestial beings were prostrated before the eternal architect of all\nworlds, nor what a crowd of the inhabitants of these innumerable worlds\nappeared before the judges. I shall not even give an account of several\nlittle interesting peculiarities which were exceedingly striking.\n\n\"I remarked that every spirit who pleaded his cause and displayed his\nspecious pretensions had beside him all the witnesses of his actions.\nFor example, when Cardinal Lorraine boasted of having caused some of his\nopinions to be adopted by the Council of Trent, and demanded eternal\nlife as the price of his orthodoxy, there immediately appeared around\nhim twenty ladies of the court, all bearing on their foreheads the\nnumber of their interviews with the cardinal. I also saw those who had\nconcerted with him the foundations of the infamous league. All the\naccomplices of his wicked designs surrounded him.\n\n\"Over against Cardinal Lorraine was John Calvin, who boasted, in his\ngross _patois_, of having trampled upon the papal idol, after others had\noverthrown it. 'I have written against painting and sculpture,' said he;\n'I have made it apparent that good works are of no avail, and I have\nproved that it is diabolical to dance a minuet. Send away Cardinal\nLorraine quickly, and place me by the side of St. Paul.'\n\n\"As he spoke there appeared by his side a lighted pile; a dreadful\nspectre, wearing round his neck a Spanish frill, arose half burned from\nthe midst of the flames, with dreadful shrieks. 'Monster,' cried he;\n'execrable monster, tremble! recognize that Servetus, whom you caused to\nperish by the most cruel torments, because he had disputed with you on\nthe manner in which three persons can form one substance.' Then all the\njudges commanded that Cardinal Lorraine should be thrown into the abyss,\nbut that Calvin should be punished still more rigorously.\n\n\"I saw a prodigious crowd of spirits, each of which said, 'I have\nbelieved, I have believed!' but on their forehead it was written, 'I\nhave acted,' and they were condemned.\n\n\"The Jesuit Letellier appeared boldly with the bull Unigenitus in his\nhand. But there suddenly arose at his side a heap, consisting of two\nthousand _lettres-de-cachet_. A Jansenist set fire to them, and\nLetellier was burned to a cinder; while the Jansenist, who had no less\ncaballed than the Jesuit, had his share of the flames.\n\n\"I saw approach, from right and left, troops of fakirs, talapoins,\nbonzes, and black, white, and gray monks, who all imagined that, to make\ntheir court to the Supreme Being, they must either sing, scourge\nthemselves, or walk quite naked. 'What good have you done to men?' was\nthe query. A dead silence succeeded to this question. No one dared to\nanswer; and they were all conducted to the mad-houses of the universe,\nthe largest buildings imaginable.\n\n\"One cried out that he believed in the metamorphoses of Xaca, another in\nthose of Somonocodom. 'Bacchus stopped the sun and moon!' said this one.\n'The gods resuscitated Pelops!' said the other. 'Here is the bull _in\nc\u0153na Domini_!' said a newcomer--and the officer of the court\nexclaimed, 'To Bedlam, to Bedlam!'\n\n\"When all these causes were gone through, I heard this proclamation: 'By\nthe Eternal Creator, Preserver, Rewarder, Revenger, Forgiver, etc., be\nit known to all the inhabitants of the hundred thousand millions of\nmillions of worlds that it hath pleased us to form, that we never judge\nany sinners in reference to their own shallow ideas, but only as to\ntheir actions. Such is our Justice.'\n\n\"I own that this was the first time I ever heard such an edict; all\nthose which I had read, on the little grain of dust on which I was born,\nended with these words: 'Such is our _pleasure_.'\"\n\n\n\n\nDONATIONS.\n\n\nThe Roman Republic, which seized so many states, also gave some away.\nScipio made Massinissa king of Numidia.\n\nLucullus, Sulla, and Pompey, each gave away half a dozen kingdoms.\nCleopatra received Egypt from C\u00e6sar. Antony, and afterwards Octavius,\ngave the little kingdom of Jud\u00e6a to Herod.\n\nUnder Trajan, the famous medal of _regna assignata_ was struck and\nkingdoms bestowed.\n\nCities and provinces given in sovereignty to priests and to colleges,\nfor the greater glory of God, or of the gods, are seen in every country.\nMahomet, and the caliphs, his vicars, took possession of many states in\nthe propagation of their faith, but they did not make donations of them.\nThey held by nothing but their Koran and their sabre.\n\nThe Christian religion, which was at first a society of poor people,\nexisted for a long time on alms alone. The first donation was that of\nAnanias and Sapphira his wife. It was in ready money and was not\nprosperous to the donors.\n\n_The Donation of Constantine._\n\nThe celebrated donation of Rome and all Italy to Pope Sylvester by the\nemperor Constantine, was maintained as a part of the creed of Rome until\nthe sixteenth century. It was believed that Constantine, being at\nNicomedia, was cured of leprosy at Rome by the baptism which he received\nfrom Bishop Sylvester, though he was not baptized at all; and that by\nway of recompense he gave forthwith the city of Rome and all its western\nprovinces to this Sylvester. If the deed of this donation had been drawn\nup by the doctor of the Italian comedy, it could not have been more\npleasantly conceived. It is added that Constantine declared all the\ncanons of Rome consuls and patricians--\"_patricios et consules effici\"_\n--that he himself held the bridle of the mare on which the new bishop\nwas mounted--\"_tenentes frenum equi illius_.\"\n\nIt is astonishing to reflect that this fine story was held an article of\nfaith and respected by the rest of Europe for eight centuries, and that\nthe Church persecuted as heretics all those who doubted it.\n\n_Donation of Pepin._\n\nAt present people are no longer persecuted for doubting that Pepin the\nusurper gave, or was able to give, the exarchate of Ravenna to the pope.\nIt is at most an evil thought, a venial sin, which does not endanger the\nloss of body or of soul.\n\nThe reasoning of the German lawyers, who have scruples in regard to this\ndonation, is as follows:\n\n1. The librarian Anastatius, whose evidence is always cited, wrote one\nhundred and forty years after the event.\n\n2. It is not likely that Pepin, who was not firmly established in\nFrance, and against whom Aquitaine made war, could give away, in Italy,\nstates which already belonged to the emperor, resident at\nConstantinople.\n\n3. Pope Zacharias recognized the Roman-Greek emperor as the sovereign of\nthose lands, disputed by the Lombards, and had administered the oath to\nhim; as may be seen by the letters of this bishop, Zacharias of Rome to\nBishop Boniface of Mentz. Pepin could not give to the pope the imperial\nterritories.\n\n4. When Pope Stephen II. produced a letter from heaven, written in the\nhand of St. Peter, to Pepin, to complain of the grievances of the king\nof the Lombards, Astolphus, St. Peter does not mention in his letter\nthat Pepin had made a present of the exarchate of Ravenna to the pope;\nand certainly St. Peter would not have failed to do so, even if the\nthing had been only equivocal; he understands his interest too well.\n\nFinally, the deed of this donation has never been produced; and what is\nstill stronger, the fabrication of a false one cannot be ventured. The\nonly proofs are vague recitals, mixed up with fables. Instead of\ncertainty, there are only the absurd writings of monks, copied from age\nto age, from one another.\n\nThe Italian advocate who wrote in 1722 to prove that Parma and Placentia\nhad been ceded to the holy see as a dependency of the exarchate, asserts\nthat the Greek emperors were justly despoiled of their rights because\nthey had excited the people against God. Can lawyers write thus in our\ndays? Yes, it appears, but only at Rome. Cardinal Bellarmine goes still\nfarther. \"The first Christians,\" says he, \"supported the emperors only\nbecause they were not the strongest.\" The avowal is frank, and I am\npersuaded that Bellarmine is right.\n\n_The Donation of Charlemagne._\n\nAt a time when the court of Rome believed itself deficient in titles, it\npretended that Charlemagne had confirmed the donation of the exarchate,\nand that he added to it Sicily, Venice, Benevento, Corsica, and\nSardinia. But as Charlemagne did not possess any of these states, he\ncould not give them away; and as to the town of Ravenna, it is very\nclear that he kept it, since in his will he made a legacy to his city of\nRavenna as well as to his city of Rome. It is surprising enough that the\npopes have obtained Ravenna and Rome; but as to Venice, it is not likely\nthat the diploma which granted them the sovereignty will be found in the\npalace of St. Mark.\n\nAll these acts, instruments, and diplomas have been subjects of dispute\nfor ages. But it is a confirmed opinion, says Giannone, that martyr to\ntruth, that all these pieces were forged in the time of Gregory VII. \"_E\ncostante opinione presso i piu gravi scrittori che tutti questi\nistromenti e diplomi furono supposti ne tempi d'Ildebrando_.\"\n\n_Donation of Benevento by the Emperor Henry III._\n\nThe first well attested donation which was made to the see of Rome was\nthat of Benevento, and that was an exchange of the Emperor Henry III.\nwith the pope. It wanted only one formality, which was that the emperor\nwho gave away Benevento was not the owner of it. It belonged to the\ndukes of Benevento, and the Roman-Greek emperors reclaimed their rights\non this duchy. But history supplies little beyond a list of those who\nhave accommodated themselves with the property of others.\n\n_Donation of the Countess Mathilda._\n\nThe most authentic and considerable of these donations was that of all\nthe possessions of the famous Countess Mathilda to Gregory VII. She was\na young widow, who gave all to her spiritual director. It is supposed\nthat the deed was twice executed and afterwards confirmed by her will.\n\nHowever, there still remains some difficulty. It was always believed at\nRome that Mathilda had given all her states, all her possessions,\npresent and to come, to her friend Gregory VII. by a solemn deed, in her\ncastle of Canossa, in 1077, for the relief of her own soul and that of\nher parents. And to corroborate this precious instrument a second is\nshown to us, dated in the year 1102, in which it is said that it is to\nRome that she made this donation; that she recalled it, and that she\nafterwards renewed it; and always for the good of her soul.\n\nHow could so important a deed be recalled? Was the court of Rome so\nnegligent? How could an instrument written at Canossa have been written\nat Rome? What do these contradictions mean? All that is clear is that\nthe souls of the receivers fared better than the soul of the giver, who\nto save it was obliged to deprive herself of all she possessed in favor\nof her physicians.\n\nIn short, in 1102, a sovereign was deprived of the power of disposing of\nan acre of land; yet after this deed, and to the time of her death, in\n1115, there are still found considerable donations of lands made by this\nsame Mathilda to canons and monks. She had not, therefore, given all.\nFinally, this deed was very likely made by some ingenious person after\nher death.\n\nThe court of Rome still includes among its titles the testament of\nMathilda, which confirmed her donations. The popes, however, never\nproduce this testament. It should also be known whether this rich\ncountess had the power to dispose of her possessions, which were most of\nthem fiefs of the empire.\n\nThe Emperor Henry V., her heir, possessed himself of all, and recognized\nneither testament, donation, deed, nor right. The popes, in temporizing,\ngained more than the emperors in exerting their authority; and in time\nthese C\u00e6sars became so weak that the popes finally obtained the\nsuccession of Mathilda, which is now called the patrimony of St. Peter.\n\n_Donation of the Sovereignty of Naples to the Popes._\n\nThe Norman gentlemen who were the first instruments of the conquests of\nNaples and Sicily achieved the finest exploit of chivalry that was ever\nheard of. From forty to fifty men only delivered Salerno at the moment\nit was taken by an army of Saracens. Seven other Norman gentlemen, all\nbrothers, sufficed to chase these same Saracens from all the country,\nand to take prisoner the Greek emperor, who had treated them\nungratefully. It was quite natural that the people, whom these heroes\nhad inspired with valor, should be led to obey them through admiration\nand gratitude.\n\nSuch were the first rights to the crown of the two Sicilies. The bishops\nof Rome could no more give those states in fief than the kingdoms of\nBoutan or Cachemire. They could not even grant the investiture which\nwould have been demanded of them; for, in the time of the anarchy of the\nfiefs, when a lord would hold his free land as a fief for his\nprotection, he could only address himself to the sovereign or the chief\nof the country in which it was situated. And certainly the pope was\nneither the sovereign of Naples, Apulia, nor Calabria.\n\nMuch has been written about this pretended vassalage, but the source has\nnever been discovered. I dare say that it is as much the fault of the\nlawyers as of the theologians. Every one deduces from a received\nprinciple consequences the most favorable to himself or his party. But\nis the principle true? Is the first fact by which it is supported\nincontestable? It is this which should be examined. It resembles our\nancient romance writers, who all take it for granted that Francus\nbrought the helmet of Hector to France. This casque was impenetrable, no\ndoubt; but had Hector really worn it? The holy Virgin's milk is also\nvery respectable; but do the twenty sacristies, who boast of having a\ngill of it, really possess it?\n\nMen of the present time, as wicked as foolish, do not shrink from the\ngreatest crimes, and yet fear an excommunication, which would render\nthem execrable to people still more wicked and foolish than themselves.\n\nRobert and Richard Guiscard, the conquerors of Apulia and Calabria, were\nexcommunicated by Pope Leo IX. They were declared vassals of the empire;\nbut the emperor, Henry III., discontented with these feudatory\nconquerors, engaged Leo IX. to launch the excommunication at the head of\nan army of Germans. The Normans, who did not fear these thunderbolts\nlike the princes of Italy, beat the Germans and took the pope prisoner.\nBut to prevent the popes and emperors hereafter from coming to trouble\nthem in their possessions, they offered their conquests to the Church\nunder the name of _oblata._ It was thus that England paid the Peter's\npence; that the first kings of Spain and Portugal, on recovering their\nstates from the Saracens, promised two pounds of gold a year to the\nChurch of Rome. But England, Spain, nor Portugal never regarded the pope\nas their sovereign master.\n\nDuke Robert, _oblat_ of the Church, was therefore no feudatory of the\npope; he could not be so, since the popes were not the sovereigns of\nRome. This city was then governed by its senate, and the bishop\npossessed only influence. The pope was at Rome precisely what the\nelector is at Cologne. There is a prodigious difference between the\n_oblat_ of a saint and the feudatory of a bishop.\n\nBaronius, in his \"Acts,\" relates the pretended homage done by Robert,\nduke of Apulia and Calabria, to Nicholas II.; but this deed is\nsuspected, like many others; it has never been seen, it has never been\nfound in any archives. Robert entitled himself \"duke by the grace of God\nand St. Peter\"; but certainly St. Peter had given him nothing, nor was\nthat saint king of Rome.\n\nThe other popes, who were kings no more than St. Peter, received without\ndifficulty the homage of all the princes who presented themselves to\nreign over Naples, particularly when these princes were the most\npowerful.\n\n_Donation of England and Ireland to the Popes by King John._\n\nIn 1213, King John, vulgarly called Lackland, or more properly\nLackvirtue, being excommunicated and seeing his kingdom laid under an\ninterdict, gave it away to Pope Innocent III. and his successors. \"Not\nconstrained with fear, but with my full consent and the advice of my\nbarons, for the remission of my sins against God and the Church, I\nresign England and Ireland to God, St. Peter, St. Paul, and our lord the\nPope Innocent, and to his successors in the apostolic chair.\"\n\nHe declared himself feudatory lieutenant of the pope, paid about eight\nthousand pounds sterling in ready money to the legate Pandulph, promised\nto pay a thousand more every year, gave the first year in advance to the\nlegate who trampled upon him, and swore on his knees that he submitted\nto lose all in the event of not paying at the time appointed. The jest\nof this ceremony was that the legate departed with the money and forgot\nto remove the excommunication.\n\n_Examination of the Vassalage of Naples and England._\n\nIt may be asked which was the more valuable, the donation of Robert\nGuiscard or that of John Lackland; both had been excommunicated, both\nhad given their states to St. Peter and became only the farmers of them.\nIf the English barons were indignant at the infamous bargain of their\nking with the pope, and cancelled it, the Neapolitan barons could have\nequally cancelled that of Baron Robert; and that which they could have\ndone formerly they certainly can do at present.\n\nWere England and Apulia given to the pope, according to the law of the\nChurch or of the fiefs, as to a bishop or a sovereign? If to a bishop,\nit is precisely contrary to the law of Jesus, who so often forbids his\ndisciples to take anything, and who declares to them that His kingdom is\nnot of this world.\n\nIf as to a sovereign, it was high treason to his imperial majesty; the\nNormans had already done homage to the emperor. Thus no right,\nspiritual or temporal, belonged to the popes in this affair. When the\nprinciple is erroneous, all the deductions are so of course. Naples no\nmore belonged to the pope than England.\n\nThere is still another method of providing against this ancient bargain;\nit is the right of the people, which is stronger than the right of the\nfiefs. The people's right will not suffer one sovereign to belong to\nanother, and the most ancient law is to be master of our own, at least\nwhen we are not the weakest.\n\n_Of Donations Made by the Popes._\n\nIf principalities have been given to the bishops of Rome, they have\ngiven away many more. There is not a single throne in Europe to which\nthey have not made a present. As soon as a prince had conquered a\ncountry, or even wished to do it, the popes granted it in the name of\nSt. Peter. Sometimes they even made the first advances, and it may be\nsaid that they have given away every kingdom but that of heaven.\n\nFew people in France know that Julius II. gave the states of King Louis\nXII. to the Emperor Maximilian, who could not put himself in possession\nof them. They do not sufficiently remember that Sixtus V., Gregory XIV.,\nand Clement VIII., were ready to make a present of France to whomsoever\nPhilip II. would have chosen for the husband of his daughter Clara\nEugenia.\n\nAs to the emperors, there is not one since Charlemagne that the court of\nRome has not pretended to nominate. This is the reason why Swift, in his\n\"Tale of a Tub,\" says \"that Lord Peter became suddenly mad, and that\nMartin and Jack, his brothers, confined him by the advice of their\nrelations.\" We simply relate this drollery as a pleasant blasphemy of an\nEnglish priest against the bishop of Rome.\n\nAll these donations disappear before that of the East and West Indies,\nwith which Alexander VI. of his divine power and authority invested\nSpain and Portugal. It was giving almost all the earth. He could in the\nsame manner have given away the globes of Jupiter and Saturn with their\nsatellites.\n\n_Particular Donations._\n\nThe donations of citizens are treated quite differently. The codes are\nunanimously agreed that no one can give away the property of another as\nwell as that no person can take it. It is a universal law.\n\nIn France, jurisprudence was uncertain on this object, as on almost all\nothers, until the year 1731, when the equitable Chancellor d'Aguesseau,\nhaving conceived the design of making the law uniform, very weakly began\nthe great work by the edict on donations. It is digested in forty-seven\narticles, but, in wishing to render all the formalities concerning\ndonations uniform, Flanders was excepted from the general law, and in\nexcepting Flanders, Artois was forgotten, which should have enjoyed the\nsame exception; so that in six years after the general law, a particular\none was obliged to be made for Artois.\n\nThese new edicts concerning donations and testaments were principally\nmade to do away with all the commentators who had considerably embroiled\nthe laws, having already compiled six commentaries upon them.\n\nIt may be remarked that donations, or deeds of gift, extend much farther\nthan to the particular person to whom a present is made. For every\npresent there must be paid to the farmers of the royal domain--the duty\nof control, the duty of \"_insinuation_\" the duty of the hundredth penny,\nthe tax of two sous in the livre, the tax of eight sous in the livre,\netc.\n\nSo that every time you make a present to a citizen you are much more\nliberal than you imagine. You have also the pleasure of contributing to\nthe enriching of the farmers-general, but, after all, this money does\nnot go out of the kingdom like that which is paid to the court of Rome.\n\n\n\n\nDRINKING HEALTHS.\n\n\nWhat was the origin of this custom? Has it existed since drinking\ncommenced? It appears natural to drink wine for our own health, but not\nfor the health of others.\n\nThe \"_propino_\" of the Greeks, adopted by the Romans, does not signify\n\"I drink to your good health,\" but \"I drink first that you may drink\nafterwards\"--I invite you to drink.\n\nIn their festivals they drink to celebrate a mistress, not that she\nmight have good health. See in Martial: \"_Naevia sex cyathis, septem\nJustina bibatur_\"--\"Six cups for Naevia, for Justina seven.\"\n\nThe English, who pique themselves upon renewing several ancient customs,\ndrink to the honor of the ladies, which they call toasting, and it is a\ngreat subject of dispute among them whether a lady is toastworthy or\nnot--whether she is worthy to be toasted.\n\nThey drank at Rome for the victories of Augustus, and for the return of\nhis health. Dion Cassius relates that after the battle of Actium the\nsenate decreed that, in their repasts, libations should be made to him\nin the second service. It was a strange decree. It is more probable that\nflattery had voluntarily introduced this meanness. Be it as it may, we\nread in Horace:\n\n     _Hinc ad vina redit l\u00e6tus, et alteris_\n     _Te mensis adhibet Deum,_\n     _Te multa prece; te prosequitur nero_\n     _Defuso pateris; et labiis tuum_\n     _Miscet numen; uti Graecia Castoris_\n       _Et magni nemore Herculis._\n     _Longas o utinam, dux bone ferias_\n     _Praestes Hesperiae; dicimus integro_\n     _Sicci mane die, dicimus uvidi,_\n     _Quum sol oceano subest._\n\n     To thee he chants the sacred song,\n       To thee the rich libation pours;\n     Thee placed his household gods among,\n       With solemn daily prayer adores;\n     So Castor and great Hercules of old\n     Were with her gods by graceful Greece enrolled.\n     Gracious and good, beneath thy reign\n       May Rome her happy hours employ,\n     And grateful hail thy just domain\n     With pious hymn and festal joy.\n     Thus, with the rising sun we sober pray,\n     Thus, in our wine beneath his setting ray.\n\nIt is very likely that hence the custom arose among barbarous nations of\ndrinking to the health of their guests, an absurd custom, since we may\ndrink four bottles without doing them the least good.\n\nThe dictionary of Tr\u00e9voux tells us that we should not drink to the\nhealth of our superiors in their presence. This may be the case in\nFrance or Germany, but in England it is a received custom. The distance\nis not so great from one man to another at London as at Vienna.\n\nIt is of importance in England to drink to the health of a prince who\npretends to the throne; it is to declare yourself his partisan. It has\ncost more than one Scotchman and Hibernian dear for having drank to the\nhealth of the Stuarts.\n\nAll the Whigs, after the death of King William, drank not to his health,\nbut to his memory. A Tory named Brown, bishop of Cork in Ireland, a\ngreat enemy to William in Ireland, said, \"that he would put a _cork_ in\nall those bottles which were drunk to the glory of this monarch.\" He did\nnot stop at this silly pun; he wrote, in 1702, an episcopal address to\nshow the Irish that it was an atrocious impiety to drink to the health\nof kings, and, above all, to their memory; that the latter, in\nparticular, is a profanation of these words of Jesus Christ: \"Drink\nthis in remembrance of me.\"\n\nIt is astonishing that this bishop was not the first who conceived such\na folly. Before him, the Presbyterian Prynne had written a great book\nagainst the impious custom of drinking to the health of Christians.\n\nFinally, there was one John Geza, vicar of the parish of St. Faith, who\npublished \"The Divine Potion to Preserve Spiritual Health, by the Cure\nof the Inveterate Malady of Drinking Healths; with Clear and Solid\nArguments against this Criminal Custom, all for the Satisfaction of the\nPublic, at the Request of a Worthy Member of Parliament, in the Year of\nOur Salvation 1648.\"\n\nOur reverend Father Garasse, our reverend Father Patouillet, and our\nreverend Father Nonnotte are nothing superior to these profound\nEnglishmen. We have a long time wrestled with our neighbors for the\nsuperiority--To which is it due?\n\n\n\n\nTHE DRUIDS.\n\n\n_The Scene is in Tartarus. The Furies Entwined with Serpents, and Whips\nin Their Hands._\n\nCome along, Barbaquincorix, Celtic druid, and thou, detestable Grecian\nhierophant, Calchas, the moment of your just punishment has returned\nagain; the hour of vengeance has arrived--the bell has sounded!\n\n\n\nTHE DRUID AND CALCHAS.\n\nOh, heavens! my head, my sides, my eyes, my ears! pardon, ladies,\npardon!\n\nCALCHAS.\n\nMercy! two vipers are penetrating my eye-balls!\n\nDRUID.\n\nA serpent is devouring my entrails!\n\nCALCHAS.\n\nAlas, how am I mangled! And must my eyes be every day restored, to be\ntorn again from my head?\n\nDRUID.\n\nMust my skin be renewed only to dangle in ribbons from my lacerated\nbody?\n\nTISIPHONE.\n\nIt will teach you how to palm off a miserable parasitical plant for a\nuniversal remedy another time. Will you still sacrifice boys and girls\nto your god Theutates, priest? still burn them in osier baskets to the\nsound of a drum?\n\nDRUID.\n\nNever, never; dear lady, a little mercy, I beseech you.\n\nTISIPHONE.\n\nYou never had any yourself. Seize him, serpents, and now another lash!\n\nALECTO.\n\nLet them curry well this Calchas, who advances towards us, \"With cruel\neye, dark mien, and bristled hair.\"\n\nCALCHAS.\n\nMy hair is torn away; I am scorched, flayed, impaled!\n\nALECTO.\n\nWretch! Will you again cut the throat of a beautiful girl, in order to\nobtain a favorable gale, instead of uniting her to a good husband?\n\nCALCHAS AND THE DRUID.\n\nOh, what torments! and yet we die not.\n\nTISIPHONE.\n\nHey-dey! God forgive me, but I hear music! It is Orpheus; why our\nserpents, sister, have become as gentle as lambs!\n\nCALCHAS.\n\nMy sufferings cease; how very strange!\n\nTHE DRUID.\n\nI am altogether recovered. Oh, the power of good music! And who are you,\ndivine man, who thus cures wounds, and rejoices hell itself?\n\nORPHEUS.\n\nMy friends, I am a priest like yourselves, but I never deceived anyone,\nnor cut the throat of either boy or girl in my life. When on earth,\ninstead of making the gods hated, I rendered them beloved, and softened\nthe manners of the men whom you made ferocious. I shall exert myself in\nthe like manner in hell. I met, just now, two barbarous priests whom\nthey were scourging beyond measure; one of them formerly hewed a king in\npieces before the Lord, and the other cut the throat of his queen and\nsovereign at the horse gate. I have terminated their punishment, and,\nhaving played to them a tune on the violin, they have promised me that\nwhen they return into the world they will live like honest men.\n\nDRUID AND CALCHAS.\n\nWe promise the same thing, on the word of a priest.\n\nORPHEUS.\n\nYes, but \"_Passato il pericolo, gabbato il santo._\" [_The scene closes\nwith a-figure Dance, performed by Orpheus, the Condemned, and the\nFuries, to light and agreeable music._]\n\n\n\n\nEASE.\n\n\nEasy applies not only to a thing easily done, but also to a thing which\nappears to be so. The pencil of Correggio is easy, the style of Quinault\nis much more easy than that of Despr\u00e9aux, and the style of Ovid\nsurpasses in facility that of Persius.\n\nThis facility in painting, music, eloquence, and poetry, consists in a\nnatural and spontaneous felicity, which admits of nothing that implies\nresearch, strength, or profundity. Thus the pictures of Paul Veronese\nhave a much more easy and less finished air than those of Michel Angelo.\nThe symphonies of Rameau are superior to those of Lulli, but appear\nless easy. Bossuet is more truly eloquent and more easy than Fl\u00e9chier.\nRousseau, in his epistles, has not near the facility and truth of\nDespr\u00e9aux.\n\nThe commentator of Despr\u00e9aux says that \"this exact and laborious poet\ntaught the illustrious Racine to make verses with difficulty, and that\nthose which appear easy are those which have been made with the most\ndifficulty.\"\n\nIt is true that it often costs much pains to express ourselves with\nclearness, as also that the natural may be arrived at by effort; but it\nis also true that a happy genius often produces easy beauties without\nany labor, and that enthusiasm goes much farther than art.\n\nMost of the impassioned expressions of our good poets have come finished\nfrom their pen, and appear easy, as if they had in reality been composed\nwithout labor; the imagination, therefore, often conceives and brings\nforth easily. It is not thus with didactic works, which require art to\nmake them appear easy. For example, there is much less ease than\nprofundity in Pope's \"Essay on Man.\"\n\nBad works may be rapidly constructed, which, having no genius, will\nappear easy, and it is often the lot of those who, without genius, have\nthe unfortunate habit of composing. It is in this sense that a personage\nof the old comedy, called the \"Italian,\" says to another: \"Thou makest\nbad verses admirably well.\"\n\nThe term \"easy\" is an insult to a woman, but is sometimes in society\npraise for a man; it is, however, a fault in a statesman. The manners of\nAtticus were easy; he was the most amiable of the Romans; the easy\nCleopatra gave herself as easily to Antony as to C\u00e6sar; the easy\nClaudius allowed himself to be governed by Agrippina; easy applied to\nClaudius is only a lenitive, the proper expression is _weak_.\n\nAn easy man is in general one possessed of a mind which easily gives\nitself up to reason and remonstrance--a heart which melts at the prayers\nwhich are made to it; while a weak man is one who allows too much\nauthority over him.\n\n\n\n\nECLIPSE.\n\n\nIn the greatest part of the known world every extraordinary phenomenon\nwas for a long time believed to be the presage of some happy or\nmiserable event. Thus the Roman historians have not failed to observe\nthat an eclipse of the sun accompanied the birth of Romulus, that\nanother announced his death, and that a third attended the foundation of\nthe city of Rome.\n\nWe have already spoken of the article entitled \"The Vision of\nConstantine,\" of the apparition of the cross which preceded the triumph\nof Christianity, and under the article on \"Prophecy,\" we shall treat of\nthe new star which enlightened the birth of Jesus. We will, therefore,\nhere confine ourselves to what has been said of the darkness with which\nall the earth was covered when He gave up the ghost.\n\nThe writers of the Greek and Romish Churches have quoted as authentic\ntwo letters attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, in which he relates\nthat being at Heliopolis in Egypt, with his friend Apollophanes, he\nsuddenly saw, about the sixth hour, the moon pass underneath the sun,\nwhich caused a great eclipse. Afterwards, in the ninth hour, they\nperceived the moon quitting the place which she occupied and return to\nthe opposite side of the diameter. They then took the rules of Philip\nArid\u00e6us, and, having examined the course of the stars, they found that\nthe sun could not have been naturally eclipsed at that time. Further,\nthey observed that the moon, contrary to her natural motion, instead of\ngoing to the west to range herself under the sun, approached on the\neastern side and that she returned behind on the same side, which caused\nApollophanes to say, \"These, my dear Dionysius, are changes of Divine\nthings,\" to which Dionysius replied, \"Either the author of nature\nsuffers, or the machine of the universe will be soon destroyed.\"\n\nDionysius adds that having remarked the exact time and year of this\nprodigy, and compared them with what Paul afterwards told him, he\nyielded up to the truth as well as his friend. This is what led to the\nbelief that the darkness happening at the death of Jesus Christ was\ncaused by a supernatural eclipse; and what has extended this opinion is\nthat Maldonat says it is that of almost all the Catholics. How is it\npossible to resist the authority of an ocular, enlightened, and\ndisinterested witness, since it was supposed that when he saw this\neclipse Dionysius was a pagan?\n\nAs these pretended letters of Dionysius were not forged until towards\nthe fifteenth or sixteenth century, Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea was contented\nwith quoting the evidence of Phlegon, a freed man of the emperor Adrian.\nThis author was also a pagan, and had written \"The History of the\nOlympiads,\" in sixteen books, from their origin to the year 140 of the\nvulgar era. He is made to say that in the fourth year of the two hundred\nand second Olympiad there was the greatest eclipse of the sun that had\never been seen; the day was changed to night at the sixth hour, the\nstars were seen, and an earthquake overthrew several edifices in the\ncity of Nic\u00e6a in Bithynia. Eusebius adds that the same events are\nrelated in the ancient monuments of the Greeks, as having happened in\nthe eighteenth year of Tiberius. It is thought that Eusebius alluded to\nThallus, a Greek historian already cited by Justin, Tertullian, and\nJulius Africanus, but neither the work of Thallus, nor that of Phlegon\nhaving reached us, we can only judge of the accuracy of these two\nquotations of reasoning.\n\nIt is true that the Paschal \"Chronicle of the Greeks,\" as well as St.\nJerome Anastatius, the author of the \"_Historia Miscella_,\" and\nFreculphus of Luxem, among the Latins, all unite in representing the\nfragment of Phlegon in the same manner. But it is known that these five\nwitnesses, so uniform in their dispositions, translated or copied the\npassage, not from Phlegon himself, but from Eusebius; while John\nPhiloponus, who had read Phlegon, far from agreeing with Eusebius,\ndiffers from him by two years. We could also name Maximus and Maleba,\nwho lived when the work of Phlegon still existed, and the result of an\nexamination of the whole is that five of the quoted authors copy\nEusebius. Philoponus, who really saw the work of Phlegon, gives a second\nreading, Maximus a third, and Maleba a fourth, so that they are far from\nrelating the passage in the same manner.\n\nIn short, the calculations of Hodgson, Halley, Whiston, and Gale Morris\nhave demonstrated that Phlegon and Thallus speak of a natural eclipse\nwhich happened November 24, in the first year of the two hundred and\nsecond Olympiad, and not in the fourth year, as Eusebius pretends. Its\nsize at Nic\u00e6a in Bithynia, was, according to Whiston, only from nine to\nten digits, that is to say, two-thirds and a half of the sun's disc. It\nbegan at a quarter past eight, and ended at five minutes past ten, and\nbetween Cairo in Egypt, and Jerusalem, according to Mr. Gale Morris, the\nsun was totally obscured for nearly two minutes. At Jerusalem the middle\nof the eclipse happened about an hour and a quarter after noon.\n\nBut what ought to spare all this discussion is that Tertullian says the\nday became suddenly dark while the sun was in the midst of his career;\nthat the pagans believed that it was an eclipse, not knowing that it had\nbeen predicted by the prophet Amos in these words: \"I will cause the sun\nto go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in the clear day.\"\n\"They,\" adds Tertullian, \"who have sought for the cause of this event\nand could not discover it, have denied it; but the fact is certain, and\nyou will find it noted in your archives.\"\n\nOrigen, on the contrary, says that it is not astonishing foreign authors\nhave said nothing about the darknesses of which the evangelists speak,\nsince they only appeared in the environs of Jerusalem; Jud\u00e6a, according\nto him, being designated under the name of all the earth in more than\none place in Scripture. He also avows that the passage in the Gospel of\nSt. Luke, in which we read that in his time all the earth was covered\nwith darkness, on account of an eclipse of the sun, had been thus\nfalsified by some ignorant Christian who thought thereby to throw a\nlight on the text of the evangelist, or by some ill-intentioned enemy\nwho wished a pretext to calumniate the Church, as if the evangelists had\nremarked an eclipse at a time when it was very evident that it could not\nhave happened. \"It is true,\" adds he, \"that Phlegon says that there was\none under Tiberius, but as he does not say that it happened at the full\nmoon there is nothing wonderful in that.\"\n\n\"These obscurations,\" continues Origen, \"were of the nature of those\nwhich covered Egypt in the time of Moses, and were not felt in the\nquarter in which the Israelites dwelt. Those of Egypt lasted three days,\nwhile those of Jerusalem only lasted three hours; the first were after\nthe manner of the second, and even as Moses raised his hands to heaven\nand invoked the Lord to draw them down on Egypt, so Jesus Christ, to\ncover Jerusalem with darkness, extended his hands on the cross against\nan ungrateful people who had cried: 'Crucify him, crucify him!'\"\n\nWe may, in this case, exclaim with Plutarch, that the darkness of\nsuperstition is more dangerous than that of eclipses.\n\n\n\n\nECONOMY (RURAL).\n\n\nThe primitive economy, that which is the foundation of all the rest, is\nrural. In early times it was exhibited in the patriarchal life and\nespecially in that of Abraham, who made a long journey through the arid\ndeserts of Memphis to buy corn. I shall continue, with due respect, to\ndiscard all that is divine in the history of Abraham, and attend to his\nrural economy alone.\n\nI do not learn that he ever had a house; he quitted the most fertile\ncountry of the universe and towns in which there were commodious houses,\nto go wandering in countries, the languages of which he did not\nunderstand.\n\nHe went from Sodom into the desert of Gerar without forming the least\nestablishment. When he turned away Hagar and the child Ishmael it was\nstill in a desert and all the food he gave them was a morsel of bread\nand a cruse of water. When he was about to sacrifice his son Isaac to\nthe Lord it was again in a desert. He cut the wood himself to burn the\nvictim and put it on the back of Isaac, whom he was going to immolate.\n\nHis wife died in a place called Kirgath-arba, or Hebron; he had not six\nfeet of earth in which to bury her, but was obliged to buy a cave to\ndeposit her body. This was the only piece of land which he ever\npossessed.\n\nHowever, he had many children, for, without reckoning Isaac and his\nposterity, his second wife Keturah, at the age of one hundred and forty\nyears, according to the ordinary calculation, bore him five male\nchildren, who departed towards Arabia.\n\nIt is not said that Isaac had a single piece of land in the country in\nwhich his father died; on the contrary, he went into the desert of Gerar\nwith his wife, Rebecca, to the same Abimelech, king of Gerar, who had\nbeen in love with his mother.\n\nThe king of the desert became also amorous of Rebecca, whom her husband\ncaused to pass for his sister, as Abraham had acted with regard to Sarah\nand this same King Abimelech forty years before. It is rather\nastonishing that in this family the wife always passed for the sister\nwhen there was anything to be gained, but as these facts are\nconsecrated, it is for us to maintain a respectful silence.\n\nScripture says that Abraham enriched himself in this horrible country,\nwhich became fertile for his benefit, and that he became extremely\npowerful. But it is also mentioned that he had no water to drink; that\nhe had a great quarrel with the king's herdsmen for a well; and it is\neasy to discover that he still had not a house of his own.\n\nHis children, Esau and Jacob, had not a greater establishment than their\nfather. Jacob was obliged to seek his fortune in Mesopotamia, whence\nAbraham came; he served seven years for one of the daughters of Laban,\nand seven other years to obtain the second daughter. He fled with his\nwives and the flocks of his father-in-law, who pursued him. A precarious\nfortune, that of Jacob.\n\nEsau is represented as wandering like Jacob. None of the twelve\npatriarchs, the children of Jacob, had any fixed dwelling, or a field of\nwhich they were the proprietors. They reposed in their tents like\nBedouin Arabs.\n\nIt is clear that this patriarchal life would not conveniently suit the\ntemperature of our atmosphere. A good cultivator, such as Pignoux of\nAuvergne, must have a convenient house with an aspect towards the east,\nlarge barns and stables, stalls properly built, the whole amounting to\nabout fifty thousand francs of our present money in value. He must sow a\nhundred acres with corn, besides having good pastures; he should\npossess some acres of vineyard, and about fifty for inferior grain and\nherbs, thirty acres of wood, a plantation of mulberries, silkworms, and\nbees. With all these advantages well economized, he can maintain a\nfamily in abundance. His land will daily improve; he will support them\nwithout fearing the irregularity of the seasons and the weight of taxes,\nbecause one good year repairs the damages of two bad ones. He will enjoy\nin his domain a real sovereignty, which will be subject only to the\nlaws. It is the most natural state of man, the most tranquil, the most\nhappy, and, unfortunately, the most rare.\n\nThe son of this venerable patriarch, seeing himself rich, is disgusted\nwith paying the humiliating tax of the taille. Having unfortunately\nlearned some Latin he repairs to town, buys a post which exempts him\nfrom the tax and which bestows nobility. He sells his domain to pay for\nhis vanity, marries a girl brought up in luxury who dishonors and ruins\nhim; he dies in beggary, and his only son wears a livery in Paris.\n\n\n\n\nECONOMY OF SPEECH--\n\nTO SPEAK BY ECONOMY.\n\n\nThis is an expression consecrated in its appropriation by the fathers of\nthe Church and even by the primitive propagators of our holy religion.\nIt signifies the application of oratory to circumstances.\n\nFor example: St. Paul, being a Christian, comes to the temple of the\nJews to perform the Judaic rites, in order to show that he does not\nforsake the Mosaic law; he is recognized at the end of a week and\naccused of having profaned the temple. Loaded with blows, he is dragged\nalong by the mob; the tribune of the cohort--_tribunis cohortis_\n--arrives, and binds him with a double chain. The next day this tribune\nassembles the council and carries Paul before it, when the High Priest\nAnanias commences proceedings by giving him a box on the ear, on which\nPaul salutes him with the epithet of \"a whited wall.\"\n\n\"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other\nPharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Men and brethren, I am a\nPharisee, the son of a Pharisee, of the hope and resurrection of the\ndead I am called in question.' And when he had so said there arose a\ndiscussion between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the multitude\nwas divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection,\nneither angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees confess both.\"\n\nIt is very evident from the text that Paul was not a Pharisee after he\nbecame a Christian and that there was in this affair no question either\nof resurrection or hope, of angel or spirit.\n\nThe text shows that Paul spoke thus only to embroil the Pharisees and\nSadducees. This was speaking with economy, that is to say, with\nprudence; it was a pious artifice which, perhaps, would not have been\npermitted to any but an apostle.\n\nIt is thus that almost all the fathers of the Church have spoken \"with\neconomy.\" St. Jerome develops this method admirably in his fifty-fourth\nletter to Pammachus. Weigh his words. After having said that there are\noccasions when it is necessary to present a loaf and to throw a stone,\nhe continues thus:\n\n\"Pray read Demosthenes, read Cicero, and if these rhetoricians displease\nyou because their art consists in speaking of the seeming rather than\nthe true, read Plato, Theophrastus, Xenophon, Aristotle, and all those\nwho, having dipped into the fountain of Socrates, drew different waters\nfrom it. Is there among them any candor, any simplicity? What terms\namong them are not ambiguous, and what sense do they not make free with\nto bear away the palm of victory? Origen, Methodius, Eusebius,\nApollinarus, have written a million of arguments against Celsus and\nPorphyry. Consider with what artifice, with what problematic subtlety\nthey combat the spirit of the devil. They do not say what they think,\nbut what it is expedient to say: _Non quod sentiunt, sed quod necesse\nest dicunt_. And not to mention other Latins--Tertullian, Cyprian,\nMinutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, and Hilarius--whom I will not cite\nhere; I will content myself with relating the example of the Apostle\nPaul,\" etc.\n\nSt. Augustine often writes with economy. He so accommodates himself to\ntime and circumstances that in one of his epistles he confesses that he\nexplained the Trinity only because he must say something.\n\nAssuredly this was not because he doubted the Holy Trinity, but he felt\nhow ineffable this mystery is and wished to content the curiosity of the\npeople.\n\nThis method was always received in theology. It employed an argument\nagainst the Eucratics, which was the cause of triumph to the\nCarpocratians; and when it afterwards disputed with the Carpocratians\nits arms were changed.\n\nIt is asserted that Jesus Christ died for many when the number of\nrejected is set forth, but when his universal bounty is to be manifested\nhe is said to have died for all. Here you take the real sense for the\nfigurative; there the figurative for the real, as prudence and\nexpediency direct.\n\nSuch practices are not admitted in justice. A witness would be punished\nwho told the _pour_ and _contre_ of a capital offence. But there is an\ninfinite difference between vile human interests, which require the\ngreatest clearness, and divine interests, which are hidden in an\nimpenetrable abyss. The same judges who require indubitable\ndemonstrative proofs will be contented in sermons with moral proofs, and\neven with declamations exhibiting no proofs at all.\n\nSt. Augustine speaks with economy, when he says, \"I believe, because it\nis absurd; I believe, because it is impossible.\" These words, which\nwould be extravagant in all worldly affairs, are very respectable in\ntheology. They signify that what is absurd and impossible to mortal eyes\nis not so to the eyes of God; God has revealed to me these pretended\nabsurdities, these apparent impossibilities, therefore I ought to\nbelieve them.\n\nAn advocate would not be allowed to speak thus at the bar. They would\nconfine in a lunatic asylum a witness who might say, \"I assert that the\naccused, while shut up in a country house in Martinique, killed a man in\nParis, and I am the more certain of this homicide because it is absurd\nand impossible.\" But revelations, miracles, and faith are quite a\ndistinct order of things.\n\nThe same St. Augustine observes in his one hundred and fifty-third\nletter, \"It is written that the whole world belongs to the faithful, and\ninfidels have not an obolus that they possess legitimately.\"\n\nIf upon this principle a brace of bankers were to wait upon me to assure\nme that they were of the faithful, and in that capacity had appropriated\nthe property belonging to me, a miserable worldling, to themselves, it\nis certain that they would be committed to the Ch\u00e2telet, in spite of the\neconomy of the language of St. Augustine.\n\nSt. Iren\u00e6us asserts that we must not condemn the incest of the two\ndaughters of Lot, nor that of Thamar with her father-in-law, because the\nHoly Scripture has not expressly declared them criminal. This verbal\neconomy prevents not the legal punishment of incest among ourselves. It\nis true that if the Lord expressly ordered people to commit incest it\nwould not be sinful, which is the economy of Iren\u00e6us. His laudable\nobject is to make us respect everything in the Holy Scriptures, but as\nGod has not expressly praised the foregoing doings of the daughters of\nLot and of Judah we are permitted to condemn them.\n\nAll the first Christians, without exception, thought of war like the\nQuakers and Dunkards of the present day, and the Brahmins, both ancient\nand modern. Tertullian is the father who is most explicit against this\nlegal species of murder, which our vile human nature renders expedient.\n\"No custom, no rule,\" says he, \"can render this criminal destruction\nlegitimate.\"\n\nNevertheless, after assuring us that no Christian can carry arms, he\nsays, \"by economy,\" in the same book, in order to intimidate the Roman\nEmpire, \"although of such recent origin, we fill your cities and your\n_armies_.\"\n\nIt is in the same spirit that he asserts that Pilate was a Christian in\nhis heart, and the whole of his apology is filled with similar\nassertions, which redoubled the zeal of his proselytes.\n\nLet us terminate these examples of the economical style, which are\nnumberless, by a passage of St. Jerome, in his controversy with Jovian\nupon second marriages. The holy Jerome roundly asserts that it is plain,\nby the formation of the two sexes--in the description of which he is\nrather particular--that they are destined for each other, and for\npropagation. It follows, therefore, that they are to make love without\nceasing, in order that their respective faculties may not be bestowed in\nvain. This being the case, why should not men and women marry again?\nWhy, indeed, is a man to deny his wife to his friend if a cessation of\nattention on his own part be personally convenient? He may present the\nwife of another with a loaf of bread if she be hungry, and why may not\nher other wants be supplied, if they are urgent? Functions are not given\nto lie dormant, etc.\n\nAfter such a passage it is useless to quote any more, but it is\nnecessary to remark, by the way, that the economical style, so\nintimately connected with the polemical, ought to be employed with the\ngreatest circumspection, and that it belongs not to the profane to\nimitate the things hazarded by the saints, either as regards the heat of\ntheir zeal or the piquancy of their delivery.\n\n\n\n\nELEGANCE.\n\n\nAccording to some authors this word comes from \"_electus_,\" chosen; it\ndoes not appear that its etymology can be derived from any other Latin\nword, since all is choice that is elegant. Elegance is the result of\nregularity and grace.\n\nThis word is employed in speaking of painting and sculpture. _Elegans\nsignum_ is opposed to _signum rigens_--a proportionate figure, the\nrounded outlines of which are expressed with softness, to a cold and\nbadly-finished figure.\n\nThe severity of the ancient Romans gave an odious sense to the word\n\"_elegantia_.\" They regarded all kinds of elegance as affectation and\nfar-fetched politeness, unworthy the gravity of the first ages. \"_Vit\u00e6\nnon laudi fuit_,\" says Aulus Gellius. They call him an \"elegant man,\"\nwhom in these days we designate a _petit-ma\u00eetre (bellus homuncio),_ and\nwhich the English call a \"beau\"; but towards the time of Cicero, when\nmanners received their last degree of refinement, _elegans_ was always\ndeemed laudatory. Cicero makes use of this word in a hundred places to\ndescribe a man or a polite discourse. At that time even a repast was\ncalled elegant, which is scarcely the case among us.\n\nThis term among the French, as among the ancient Romans, is confined to\nsculpture, painting, eloquence, and still more to poetry; it does not\nprecisely mean the same thing as grace.\n\nThe word \"grace\" applies particularly to the countenance, and we do not\nsay an elegant face, as we say elegant contours; the reason is that\ngrace always relates to something in motion, and it is in the\ncountenance that the mind appears; thus we do not say an elegant gait,\nbecause gait includes motion.\n\nThe elegance of a discourse is not its eloquence; it is a part of it; it\nis neither the harmony nor metre alone; it is clearness, metre, and\nchoice of words, united.\n\nThere are languages in Europe in which nothing is more scarce than an\nelegant expression. Rude terminations, frequent consonants, and\nauxiliary-verbs grammatically repeated in the same sentence, offend the\nears even of the natives themselves.\n\nA discourse may be elegant without being good, elegance being, in\nreality, only a choice of words; but a discourse cannot be absolutely\ngood without being elegant. Elegance is still more necessary to poetry\nthan eloquence, because it is a part of that harmony so necessary to\nverse.\n\nAn orator may convince and affect even without elegance, purity, or\nnumber; a poet cannot really do so without being elegant: it is one of\nthe principal merits of Virgil. Horace is much less elegant in his\nsatires and epistles, so that he is much less of a poet _sermoni\nproprior_.\n\nThe great point in poetry and the oratorical art is that the elegance\nshould never appear forced; and the poet in that, as in other things,\nhas greater difficulties than the orator, for harmony being the base of\nhis art, he must not permit a succession of harsh syllables. He must\neven sometimes sacrifice a little of the thought to elegance of\nexpression, which is a constraint that the orator never experiences.\n\nIt should be remarked that if elegance always appears easy, all that is\neasy and natural is not, however, elegant.\n\nIt is seldom said of a comedy that it is elegantly written. The\nsimplicity and rapidity of a familiar dialogue exclude this merit, so\nproper to all other poetry. Elegance would seem inconsistent with the\ncomic. A thing elegantly said would not be laughed at, though most of\nthe verses of Moli\u00e8re's \"_Amphitryon,_\" with the exception of those of\nmere pleasantry, are elegantly written. The mixture of gods and men in\nthis piece, so unique in its kind, and the irregular verses, forming a\nnumber of madrigals, are perhaps the cause.\n\nA madrigal requires to be more elegant than an epigram, because the\nmadrigal bears somewhat the nature of the ode, and the epigram belongs\nto the comic. The one is made to express a delicate sentiment, and the\nother a ludicrous one.\n\nElegance should not be attended to in the sublime: it would weaken it.\nIf we read of the elegance of the Jupiter Olympus of Phidias, it would\nbe a satire. The elegance of the \"Venus of Praxiteles\" may be properly\nalluded to.\n\n\n\n\nELIAS OR ELIJAH, AND ENOCH.\n\n\nElias and Enoch are two very important personages of antiquity. They are\nthe only mortals who have been taken out of the world without having\nfirst tasted of death. A very learned man has pretended that these are\nallegorical personages. The father and mother of Elias are unknown. He\nbelieves that his country, Gilead, signifies nothing but the\ncirculation of time. He proves it to have come from Galgala, which\nsignifies revolution. But what signifies the name of the village of\nGalgala!\n\nThe word Elias has a sensible relation to that of Elios, the sun. The\nburned sacrifice offered by Elias, and lighted by fire from heaven, is\nan image of that which can be done by the united rays of the sun. The\nrain which falls, after great heats, is also a physical truth.\n\nThe chariot of fire and the fiery horses, which bore Elias to heaven,\nare a lively image of the four horses of the sun. The return of Elias at\nthe end of the world seems to accord with the ancient opinion, that the\nsun would extinguish itself in the waters, in the midst of the general\ndestruction that was expected, for almost all antiquity was for a long\ntime persuaded that the world would sooner or later be destroyed.\n\nWe do not adopt these allegories; we only stand by those related in the\nOld Testament.\n\nEnoch is as singular a personage as Elias, only that Genesis names his\nfather and son, while the family of Elias is unknown. The inhabitants of\nboth East and West have celebrated this Enoch.\n\nThe Holy Scripture, which is our infallible guide, informs us that Enoch\nwas the father of Methuselah, or Methusalem, and that he only dwelt on\nthe earth three hundred and sixty-five years, which seems a very short\nlife for one of the first patriarchs. It is said that he walked in the\nway of God and that he appeared no longer because God carried him away.\n\"It is that,\" says Calmet, \"which makes the holy fathers and most of the\ncommentators assure us that Enoch still lives; that God has borne him\nout of the world as well as Elias; that both will come before the last\njudgment to oppose the antichrist; that Elias will preach to the Jews,\nand Enoch to the Gentiles.\"\n\nSt. Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews--which has been contested--says\nexpressly, \"by faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see death,\nbecause death had translated him.\"\n\nSt. Justin, or somebody who had taken his name, says that Elias and\nEnoch are in a terrestrial paradise, and that they there wait the second\ncoming of Jesus Christ.\n\nSt. Jerome, on the contrary, believes that Enoch and Elias are in\nheaven. It is the same Enoch, the seventh man after Adam, who is\npretended to have written the book quoted by St. Jude.\n\nTertullian says that this work was preserved in the ark, and even that\nEnoch made a second copy of it after the deluge.\n\nThis is what the Holy Scripture and the holy fathers relate of Enoch;\nbut the profane writers of the East tell us much more. They believe that\nthere really was an Enoch, and that he was the first who made slaves of\nprisoners of war; they sometimes call him Enoc, and sometimes Edris.\nThey say that he was the same who gave laws to the Egyptians under the\nname of Thaut, called by the Greeks Hermes Trismegistus. They give him a\nson named Sabi, the author of the religion of the Sab\u00e6ans.\n\nThere was a tradition in Phrygia on a certain Anach, the same whom the\nHebrews call Enoch. The Phrygians held this tradition from the Chald\u00e6ans\nor Babylonians, who also recognized an Enoch, or Anach, as the inventor\nof astronomy.\n\nThey wept for Enoch one day in the year in Phrygia, as they wept for\nAdonis among the Ph\u0153nicians.\n\nThe ingenious and profound writer, who believes Elias a person purely\nallegorical, thinks the same of Enoch. He believes that Enoch, Anach,\nAnnoch, signified the year; that the Orientals wept for it, as for\nAdonis, and that they rejoiced at the commencement of the new year; that\nJanus, afterwards known in Italy, was the ancient Anach, or Annoch, of\nAsia; that not only Enoch formerly signified, among all nations, the\nbeginning and end of the year, but the last day of the week; that the\nnames of Anne, John, Januarius, Janvier, and January, all come from the\nsame source.\n\nIt is difficult to penetrate the depths of ancient history. When we\nseize truth in the dark, we are never sure of retaining her. It is\nabsolutely necessary for a Christian to hold by the Scriptures, whatever\ndifficulty he may have in understanding them.\n\n\n\n\nELOQUENCE.\n\n\nEloquence was created before the rules of rhetoric, as the languages are\nformed before grammar.\n\nNature renders men eloquent under the influence of great interests or\npassions. A person much excited sees things with a different eye from\nother men. To him all is the object of rapid comparison and metaphor.\nWithout premeditation, he vivifies all, and makes all who listen to him\npartake of his enthusiasm.\n\nA very enlightened philosopher has remarked that people often express\nthemselves by figures; that nothing is more common or more natural than\nthe turns called tropes.\n\nThus, in all languages, the heart burns, courage is kindled, the eyes\nsparkle; the mind is oppressed, it is divided, it is exhausted; the\nblood freezes, the head is turned upside down; we are inflated with\npride, intoxicated with vengeance. Nature is everywhere painted in these\nstrong images, which have become common.\n\nIt is from her that instinct learns to assume a modest tone and air,\nwhen it is necessary. The natural desire of captivating our judges and\nmasters; the concentrated energies of a profoundly stricken soul, which\nprepares to display the sentiments which oppress it, are the first\nteachers of this art.\n\nIt is the same nature which sometimes inspires lively and animated\nsallies; a strong impulse or a pressing danger prompts the imagination\nsuddenly. Thus a captain of the first caliphs, seeing the Mussulmans fly\nfrom the field of battle, cried out, \"Where are you running to? Your\nenemies are not there.\"\n\nThis speech has been given to many captains; it is attributed to\nCromwell. Strong minds much oftener accord than fine wits.\n\nRasi, a Mussulman, captain of the time of Mahomet, seeing his Arabs\nfrightened at the death of their general, Derar, said to them, \"What\ndoes it signify that Derar is dead? God is living, and observes your\nactions.\"\n\nWhere is there a more eloquent man than that English sailor who decided\nthe war against Spain in 1740? \"When the Spaniards, having mutilated me,\nwere going to kill me, I recommended my soul to God, and my vengeance to\nmy country!\"\n\nNature, then, elicits eloquence; and if it be said that poets are\ncreated and orators formed, it is applicable only when eloquence is\nforced to study the laws, the genius of the judges, and the manners of\nthe times. Nature alone is spontaneously eloquent.\n\nThe precepts always follow the art. Tisias was the first who collected\nthe laws of eloquence, of which nature gives the first rules. Plato\nafterwards said, in his \"_Gorgias_,\" that an orator should have the\nsubtlety of the logician, the science of the philosopher, almost the\ndiction of the poet, and the voice and gesture of the greatest actors.\n\nAristotle, also, showed that true philosophy is the secret guide to\nperfection in all the arts. He discovered the sources of eloquence in\nhis \"Book of Rhetoric.\" He showed that logic is the foundation of the\nart of persuasion, and that to be eloquent is to know how to\ndemonstrate.\n\nHe distinguished three kinds of eloquence: the deliberative, the\ndemonstrative, and the judiciary. The deliberative is employed to exhort\nthose who deliberate in taking a part in war, in peace, etc.; the\ndemonstrative, to show that which is worthy of praise or blame; the\njudiciary, to persuade, absolve, condemn, etc.\n\nHe afterwards treats of the manners and passions with which all orators\nshould be acquainted.\n\nHe examines the proofs which should be employed in these three species\nof eloquence, and finally he treats of elocution, without which all\nwould languish. He recommends metaphors, provided they are just and\nnoble; and, above all, he requires consistency and decorum.\n\nAll these precepts breathe the enlightened precision of a philosopher,\nand the politeness of an Athenian; and, in giving the rules of\neloquence, he is eloquent with simplicity.\n\nIt is to be remarked, that Greece was the only country in the world in\nwhich the laws of eloquence were then known, because it was the only one\nin which true eloquence existed.\n\nThe grosser art was known to all men; sublime traits have everywhere\nescaped from nature at all times; but to rouse the minds of the whole of\na polished nation--to please, convince, and affect at the same time,\nbelonged only to the Greeks.\n\nThe Orientals were almost all slaves; and it is one of the\ncharacteristics of servitude to exaggerate everything. Thus the Asiatic\neloquence was monstrous. The West was barbarous in the time of\nAristotle.\n\nTrue eloquence began to show itself in the time of the Gracchi, and was\nnot perfected until the time of Cicero. Mark Antony, the orator\nHortensius, Curion, C\u00e6sar, and several others, were eloquent men.\n\nThis eloquence perished with the republic, like that of Athens. Sublime\neloquence, it is said, belongs only to liberty; it consists in telling\nbold truths, in displaying strong reasons and representations. A man\noften dislikes truth, fears reason, and likes a well-turned compliment\nbetter than the sublimest eloquence.\n\nCicero, after having given the examples in his harangues, gave the\nprecepts in his \"Book of the Orator\"; he followed almost all the methods\nof Aristotle, and explained himself in the style of Plato.\n\nIt distinguishes the simple species, the temperate, and the sublime.\n\nRollin has followed this division in his \"Treatise on Study\"; and he\npretends that which Cicero does not, that the \"temperate\" is a\nbeautiful river, shaded with green forests on both sides; the \"simple,\"\na properly-served table, of which all the meats are of excellent flavor,\nand from which all refinement is banished; that the \"sublime\" thunders\nforth, and is an impetuous current which overthrows all that resists it.\n\nWithout sitting down to this table, without following this thunderbolt,\nthis current, or this river, every man of sense must see that simple\neloquence is that which has simple things to expose, and that clearness\nand elegance are all that are necessary to it.\n\nThere is no occasion to read Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian, to feel\nthat an advocate who begins by a pompous exordium on the subject of a\npartition wall is ridiculous; it was, however, the fault of the bar\nuntil the middle of the seventeenth century; they spoke with emphasis of\nthe most trivial things. Volumes of these examples may be compiled; but\nall might be reduced to this speech of a witty advocate, who, observing\nthat his adversary was speaking of the Trojan war and of Scamander,\ninterrupted him by saying, \"The court will observe that my client is not\ncalled Scamander, but Michaut.\" The sublime species can only regard\npowerful interests, treated of in a great assembly.\n\nThere may still be seen lively traces of it in the Parliament of\nEngland': several harangues partook of it which were pronounced there in\n1739, when they debated about declaring war against Spain. The spirits\nof Cicero and Demosthenes seem to have dictated several passages in\ntheir speeches; but they will not descend to posterity like those of the\nGreeks and Romans, because they want the art and charm of diction, which\nplace the seal of immortality on good works.\n\nThe temperate species is that of those preparatory discourses, of those\npublic speeches, and of those studied compliments, in which the\ndeficiency of matter must be concealed with flowers.\n\nThese three species are often mingled, as also the three objects of\neloquence, according to Aristotle: the great merit of the orator\nconsists in uniting them with judgment.\n\nGreat eloquence can scarcely be known to the bar in France, because it\ndoes not conduct to honors, as in Athens, Rome, and at present in\nLondon; neither has it great public interests for its object; it is\nconfined to funeral orations, in which it borders a little upon poetry.\n\nBossuet, and after him Fl\u00e9chier, seem to have obeyed that precept of\nPlato, which teaches us that the elocution of an orator may sometimes be\nthe same as that of a poet.\n\nPulpit oratory had been almost barbarous until P. Bourdaloue; he was one\nof the first who caused reason to be spoken there.\n\nThe English did not arrive at that art until a later date, as is avowed\nby Burnet, bishop of Salisbury. They knew not the funeral oration; they\navoided, in their sermons, all those vehement turns which appeared not\nto them consistent with the simplicity of the Gospel; and they were\ndiffident of using those far-fetched divisions which are condemned by\nArch-bishop F\u00e9nelon, in his dialogues \"_Sur l'\u00c9loquence_.\"\n\nThough our sermons turn on the most important subjects to man, they\nsupply few of those striking parts which, like the fine passages of\nCicero and Demosthenes, are fit to become the models of all the western\nnations. The reader will therefore be glad to learn the effect produced\nby M. Massillon, since bishop of Clermont, the first time that he\npreached his famous sermon on the small number of the elect. A kind of\ntransport seized all the audience; they rose involuntarily; the murmurs\nof acclamation and surprise were so great as to disturb the orator; and\nthis confusion only served to augment the pathos of his discourse. The\nfollowing is the passage:\n\n\"I will suppose that this is our last hour, that the heavens open over\nour heads, that time is past, and that eternity commences; that Jesus\nChrist is going to appear to judge us according to our works, and that\nwe are all here to receive from Him the sentence of eternal life or\ndeath: I ask you, overwhelmed with terror like yourselves, without\nseparating my lot from your own, and putting myself in the same\nsituation in which we must all one day appear before God our judge--if\nJesus Christ were now to make the terrible separation of the just from\nthe unjust, do you believe that the greater part would be saved? Do you\nbelieve that the number of the righteous would be in the least degree\nequal to the number of the sinners? Do you believe that, if He now\ndiscussed the works of the great number who are in this church, He would\nfind ten righteous souls among us? Would He find a single one?\"\n\nThere are several different editions of this discourse, but the\nsubstance is the same in all of them.\n\nThis figure, the boldest which was ever employed, and the best timed, is\none of the finest turns of eloquence which can be read either among the\nancients or moderns; and the rest of the discourse is not unworthy of\nthis brilliant appeal.\n\nPreachers who cannot imitate these fine models would do well to learn\nthem by heart, and deliver them to their congregations--supposing that\nthey have the rare talent of declamation--instead of preaching to them,\nin a languishing style, things as common-place as they are useless.\n\nIt is asked, if eloquence be permitted to historians? That which belongs\nto them consists in the art of arranging events, in being always elegant\nin their expositions, sometimes lively and impressive, sometimes\nelaborate and florid; in being strong and true in their pictures of\ngeneral manners and principal personages, and in the reflections\nnaturally incorporated with the narrative, so that they should not\nappear to be obtruded. The eloquence of Demosthenes belongs not to\nThucydides; a studied harangue, put into the mouth of a hero who never\npronounced it is, in the opinion of many enlightened minds, nothing more\nthan a splendid defect.\n\nIf, however, these licences be permitted, the following is an occasion\nin which M\u00e9zeray, in his great history, may obtain grace for a boldness\nso approved by the ancients, to whom he is equal, at least on this\noccasion. It is at the commencement of the reign of Henry IV., when that\nprince, with very few troops, was opposed near Dieppe by an army of\nthirty thousand men, and was advised to retire into England, M\u00e9zeray\nexcels himself in making a speech for Marshal Biron, who really was a\nman of genius, and might have said a part of that which the historian\nattributes to him:\n\n\"What, sire, are you advised to cross the sea, as if there was no other\nway of preserving your kingdom than by quitting it? If you were not in\nFrance, your friends would have you run all hazards and surmount all\nobstacles to get there; and now you are here, they would have you\ndepart--would have you voluntarily do that to which the greatest efforts\nof your enemies ought not to constrain you! In your present state, to go\nout of France only for four-and-twenty hours would be to banish yourself\nfrom it forever. As to the danger, it is not so great as represented;\nthose who think to overcome us are either the same whom we shut up so\neasily in Paris, or people who are not much better, and will rapidly\nhave more subjects of dispute among themselves than against us. In\nshort, sire, we are in France, and we must remain here; we must show\nourselves worthy of it; we must either conquer it or die for it; and\neven when there is no other safety for your sacred person than in\nflight, I well know that you would a thousand times rather die planted\nin the soil, than save yourself by such means. Your majesty would never\nsuffer it to be said that a younger brother of the house of Lorraine had\nmade you retire, and, still less, that you had been seen to beg at the\ndoor of a foreign prince. No, no, sire--there is neither crown nor honor\nfor you across the sea; if you thus demand the succor of England, it\nwill not be granted; if you present yourself at the port of Rochelle, as\na man anxious to save himself, you will only meet with reproaches and\ncontempt. I cannot believe that you would rather trust your person to\nthe inconstancy of the waves, or the mercy of a stranger, than to so\nmany brave gentlemen and old soldiers, who are ready to serve you as\nramparts and bucklers; and I am too much devoted to your majesty to\nconceal from you, that if you seek your safety elsewhere than in their\nvirtue, they will be obliged to seek theirs in a different party from\nyour own.\"\n\nThis fine speech which M\u00e9zeray puts into the mouth of Marshal Biron is\nno doubt what Henry IV. felt in his heart.\n\nMuch more might be said upon the subject; but the books treating of\neloquence have already said too much; and in an enlightened age,\ngenius, aided by examples, knows more of it than can be taught by all\nthe masters in the world.\n\n\n\n\nEMBLEMS.\n\nFIGURES, ALLEGORIES, SYMBOLS, ETC.\n\n\nIn Antiquity, everything is emblematical and figurative. The Chald\u00e6ans\nbegan with placing a ram, two kids, and a bull among the constellations,\nto indicate the productions of the earth in spring. In Persia, fire is\nthe emblem of the divinity; the celestial dog gives notice to the\nEgyptians of the inundations of the Nile; the serpent, concealing its\ntail in its head, becomes the image of eternity. All nature is painted\nand disguised.\n\nThere are still to be found in India many of those gigantic and terrific\nstatues which we have already mentioned, representing virtue furnished\nwith ten arms, with which it may successfully contend against the vices,\nand which our poor missionaries mistook for representations of the\ndevil; taking it for granted, that all those who did not speak French or\nItalian were worshippers of the devil.\n\nShow all these symbols devised by antiquity to a man of clear sense, but\nwho has never heard them at all mentioned or alluded to, and he will not\nhave the slightest idea of their meaning. It would be to him a perfectly\nnew language.\n\nThe ancient poetical theologians were under the necessity of ascribing\nto the deity eyes, hands, and feet; of describing him under the figure\nof a man.\n\nSt. Clement of Alexandria quotes verses from Xenophanes the Colophonian,\nwhich state that every species of animal supplies metaphor to aid the\nimagination in its ideas of the deity--the wings of the bird, the speed\nof the horse, and the strength of the lion. It is evident, from these\nverses of Xenophanes, that it is by no means a practice of recent date\nfor men to represent God after their own image. The ancient Thracian\nOrpheus, the first theologian among the Greeks, who lived long before\nHomer, according to the same Clement of Alexandria, describes God as\nseated upon the clouds, and tranquilly ruling the whirlwind and the\nstorm. His feet reach the earth, and His hands extend from one ocean to\nthe other. He is the beginning, middle, and end of all things.\n\nEverything being thus represented by figure and emblem, philosophers,\nand particularly those among them who travelled to India, employed the\nsame method; their precepts were emblems, were enigmas.\n\n\"Stir not the fire with a sword:\" that is, aggravate not men who are\nangry.\n\n\"Place not a lamp under a bushel:\" conceal not the truth from men.\n\n\"Abstain from beans:\" frequent not popular assemblies, in which votes\nwere given by white or black beans.\n\n\"Have no swallows about your house:\" keep away babblers.\n\n\"During a tempest, worship the echo:\" while civil broils endure,\nwithdraw into retirement.\n\n\"Never write on snow:\" throw not away instruction upon weak and imbecile\nminds.\n\n\"Never devour either your heart or your brains:\" never give yourself up\nto useless anxiety or intense study.\n\nSuch are the maxims of Pythagoras, the meaning of which is sufficiently\nobvious.\n\nThe most beautiful of all emblems is that of God, whom Tim\u00e6us of Locris\ndescribes under the image of \"A circle whose centre is everywhere and\ncircumference nowhere.\" Plato adopted this emblem, and Pascal inserted\nit among his materials for future use, which he entitled his \"Thoughts.\"\n\nIn metaphysics and in morals, the ancients have said everything. We\nalways encounter or repeat them. All modern books of this description\nare merely repetitions.\n\nThe farther we advance eastward, the more prevalent and established we\nfind the employment of emblems and figures: but, at the same time, the\nimages in use are more remote from our own manners and customs.\n\nThe emblems which appear most singular to us are those which were in\nfrequent if not in sacred use among the Indians, Egyptians, and Syrians.\nThese people bore aloft in their solemn processions, and with the most\nprofound respect, the appropriate organs for the perpetuation of the\nspecies--the symbols of life. We smile at such practices, and consider\nthese people as simple barbarians. What would they have said on seeing\nus enter our temples wearing at our sides the weapons of destruction?\n\nAt Thebes, the sins of the people were represented by a goat. On the\ncoast of Ph\u0153nicia, a naked woman with the lower part of her body like\nthat of a fish was the emblem of nature.\n\nWe cannot be at all surprised if this employment of symbols extended to\nthe Hebrews, as they constituted a people near the Desert of Syria.\n\n_Of Some Emblems Used by the Jewish Nation._\n\nOne of the most beautiful emblems in the Jewish books, is the following\nexquisite passage in Ecclesiastes:\n\n\"When the grinders shall cease because they are few; when those that\nlook out of the windows shall be darkened; when the almond tree shall\nflourish; when the grasshopper shall become a burden; when desire shall\nfail; the silver cord be loosed; the golden bowl be fractured: and the\npitcher broken at the fountain.\"\n\nThe meaning is, that the aged lose their teeth; that their sight becomes\nimpaired; that their hair becomes white, like the blossom of the almond\ntree; that their feet become like the grasshopper; that their hair drops\noff like the leaves of the fir tree; that they have lost the power of\ncommunicating life; and that it is time for them to prepare for their\nlong journey.\n\nThe \"Song of Songs,\" as is well known, is a continued emblem of the\nmarriage of Jesus Christ with the church.\n\n\"Let him kiss me with a kiss of his mouth, for thy breasts are better\nthan wine. Let him put his left hand under my head, and embrace me with\nhis right hand. How beautiful art thou, my love: thy eyes are like those\nof the dove; thy hair is as a flock of goats; thy lips are like a ribbon\nof scarlet, and thy cheeks like pomegranates; how beautiful is thy neck!\nhow thy lips drop honey! my beloved put in his hand by the hole of the\ndoor, and my bowels were moved for him; thy navel is like a round\ngoblet; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies; thy two\nbreasts are like two young roes that are twins; thy neck is like a tower\nof ivory; thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon; thy head is like Mount\nCarmel; thy stature is that of a palm tree. I said, I will ascend the\npalm tree and will gather of its fruits. What shall we do for our little\nsister? she has no breasts. If she be a wall, we will build upon her a\ntower of silver; if she be a door, we will enclose her with boards of\ncedar.\"\n\nIt would be necessary to translate the whole canticle, in order to see\nthat it is an emblem from beginning to end. The ingenious Calmet, in\nparticular, demonstrates that the palm tree which the lover ascended is\nthe cross to which our Lord Jesus Christ was condemned. It must however\nbe confessed, that sound and pure moral doctrine is preferable to these\nallegories.\n\nWe find in the books of this people a great number of emblems and types\nwhich shock at the present day, and excite at once our incredulity and\nridicule, but which, to the Asiatics, appear clear, natural, and\nunexceptionable.\n\nGod appeared to Isaiah, the son of Amos, and said to him, \"Go take thy\ngirdle from thy loins and thy shoes from thy feet,\" and he did so,\nwalking naked and barefoot. And the Lord said, \"Like as my servant\nIsaiah hath walked naked and barefoot for three years for a sign upon\nEgypt and Ethiopia, so shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptian\nand Ethiopian prisoners, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their\nhind parts uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.\"\n\nThis appears to us exceedingly strange: but let us inform ourselves a\nlittle about what is passing in our own times among Turks, and Africans,\nand in India, where we go to trade with so much avidity and so little\nsuccess. We shall learn that it is by no means unusual to see the\nsantons there absolutely naked, and not only in that state preaching to\nwomen, but permitting them to salute particular parts of their body, yet\nneither indulging or inspiring the slightest portion of licentious or\nunchaste feeling. We shall see on the banks of the Ganges an\ninnumerable company both of men and women naked from head to foot,\nextending their arms towards heaven, and waiting for the moment of an\neclipse to plunge into the river. The citizens of Paris and Rome should\nnot be too ready to think all the rest of the world bound down to the\nsame modes of living and thinking as themselves.\n\nJeremiah, who prophesied in the reign of Jehoiakim, king of Jerusalem,\nin favor of the king of Babylon, puts chains and cords about his neck,\nby order of the Lord, and sends them to the kings of Edom, Ammon, Tyre\nand Sidon, by their ambassadors who had been sent to Zedekiah at\nJerusalem. He commands them to address their master in these words:\n\n\"Thus saith the Lord of Hosts the God of Israel, thus shall ye say unto\nyour masters: I have made the earth, the men, and the beasts of burden\nwhich are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm,\nand have given it unto whom it seemed good unto me. And now have I given\nall these lands into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon,\nmy servant, and all the beasts of the field have I given him besides,\nthat they may serve him. I spake also all these words to Zedekiah, king\nof Judah, saying unto him, submit your neck to the yoke of the king of\nBabylon, serve him, him and his people, and you shall live,\" etc.\n\nAccordingly, Jeremiah was accused of betraying his king, and of\nprophesying in favor of the enemy for the sake of money. It has even\nbeen asserted that he was stoned. It is clear that the cords and chains\nwere the emblem of that servitude to which Jeremiah was desirous that\nthe nation should submit.\n\nIn a similar manner we are told by Herodotus, that one of the kings of\nScythia sent Darius a present of a bird, a mouse, a frog, and five\narrows. This emblem implied that, if Darius did not fly as fast as a\nbird, a mouse, or a frog, he would be pierced by the arrows of the\nScythians. The allegory of Jeremiah was that of weakness; the emblem of\nthe Scythians was that of courage.\n\nThus, also, when Sextus Tarquinius consulted his father, whom we call\nTarquinius Superbus, about the policy he should adopt to the Gabii,\nTarquin, who was walking in his garden, answered only by striking off\nthe heads of the tallest poppies. His son caught his meaning, and put to\ndeath the principal citizens among them. This was the emblem of tyranny.\n\nMany learned men have been of opinion that the history of Daniel, of the\ndragon, of the den of seven lions who devoured every day two sheep and\ntwo men, and the history of the angel who transported Habakkuk by the\nhair of his head to dine with Daniel in the lion's den, are nothing more\nthan a visible allegory, an emblem of the continual vigilance with which\nGod watches over his servants. But it seems to us a proof of greater\npiety to believe that it is a real history, like many we find in the\nSacred Scriptures, displaying without figure and type the divine power,\nand which profane minds are not permitted to explore. Let us consider\nthose only as genuine emblems and allegories, which are indicated to us\nas such by Holy Scripture itself.\n\n\"In the thirteenth year and the fifteenth day of the fourth month, as I\nwas in the midst of the captives on the banks of the river Chobar, the\nheavens were opened, and I saw the visions of God,\" etc. \"The word of\nthe Lord came to Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the\nChald\u00e6ans by the river Chobar, and the hand of the Lord was upon him.\"\n\nIt is thus that Ezekiel begins his prophecy; and, after having seen a\nfire and a whirlwind, and in the midst of the fire four living animals\nresembling a man, having four faces and four wings with feet resembling\nthose of calves, and a wheel which was upon the earth, and which had\nfour parts, the four parts of the wheel going at the same time, etc.\n\nHe goes on to say, \"The spirit entered into me, and placed me firm upon\nmy feet.... Then the Lord said unto me: 'Son of man, eat that thou\nfindest; eat this book, and go and speak to the children of Israel.' So\nI opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book. And the spirit\nentered into me and made me stand upon my feet. And he said unto me: 'Go\nand shut thyself up in the midst of thy house. Son of man, these are the\nchains with which thou shalt set thy face firm against it; thou shalt\nbe bound,'\" etc. \"'And thou, son of man, take a tile and place it before\nthee and portray thereon the city of Jerusalem.'\"\n\n\"'Take also a pan of iron, and thou shalt place it as a wall of iron\nbetween thee and the city; thou shalt be before Jerusalem as if thou\ndidst besiege it; it is a sign to the house of Israel.'\"\n\nAfter this command God orders him to sleep three hundred and ninety days\non his left side, on account of the iniquities of the house of Judah.\n\nBefore we go further we will transcribe the words of that judicious\ncommentator Calmet, on this part of Ezekiel's prophecy, which is at once\na history and an allegory, a real truth and an emblem. These are the\nremarks of that learned Benedictine:\n\n\"There are some who think that the whole of this occurred merely in\nvision; that a man cannot continue lying so long on the same side\nwithout a miracle; that, as the Scripture gives us no intimation that\nthis is a prodigy, we ought not to multiply miraculous acts without\nnecessity; that, if the prophet continued lying in that manner for three\nhundred and ninety days, it was only during the nights; in the day he\nwas at liberty to attend to his affairs. But we do not see any necessity\nfor recurring to a miracle, nor for any circuitous explanation of the\ncase here stated. It is by no means impossible for a man to continue\nchained and lying on his side for three hundred and ninety days. We\nhave every day before us cases which prove the possibility among\nprisoners, sick persons, and persons deranged and chained in a state of\nraving madness. Prado testifies that he saw a mad person who continued\nbound and lying quite naked on his side upwards of fifteen years. If all\nthis had occurred only in vision, how could' the Jews of the captivity\nhave comprehended what Ezekiel meant to say to them? How would that\nprophet have been able to execute the divine commands? We must in that\ncase admit likewise that he did not prepare the plan of Jerusalem, that\nhe did not represent the siege, that he was not bound, that he did not\neat the bread of different kinds of grain in any other than the same\nway; namely, that of vision, or ideally.\"\n\nWe cannot but adopt the opinion of the learned Calmet, which is that of\nthe most respectable interpreters. It is evident that the Holy Scripture\nrecounts the matter as a real truth, and that such truth is the emblem,\ntype, and figure of another truth.\n\n\"Take unto thee wheat and barley, and beans and lentils, and millet and\nvetches, and make cakes of them for as many days as thou art to sleep on\nthy side. Thou shalt eat for three hundred and ninety days ... thou\nshalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt cover it with human ordure.\nThus shall the children of Israel eat their bread defiled.\"\n\nIt is evident that the Lord was desirous that the Israelites should eat\ntheir bread defiled. It follows therefore that the bread of the prophet\nmust have been defiled also. This defilement was so real that Ezekiel\nexpressed actual horror at it. \"Alas!\" he exclaimed, \"my life (my soul)\nhas not hitherto been polluted,\" etc. And the Lord says to him, \"I allow\nthee, then, cow's dung instead of man's, and with that shalt thou\nprepare thy bread.\"\n\nIt appears, therefore, to have been absolutely essential that the food\nshould be defiled in order to its becoming an emblem or type. The\nprophet in fact put cow-dung with his bread for three hundred and ninety\ndays, and the case includes at once a fact and a symbol.\n\n_Of the Emblem of Aholah and Aholibah._\n\nThe Holy Scripture expressly declares that Aholah is the emblem of\nJerusalem. \"Son of man, cause Jerusalem to know her abominations; thy\nfather was an Amorite, and thy mother was a Hittite.\" The prophet then,\nwithout any apprehension of malignant interpretations or wanton\nrailleries, addresses the young Aholah in the following words:\n\n\"_Ubera tua intumuerunt, et pilus tuus germinavit; et eras nuda et\nconfusione plena_.\"--\"Thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair was\ngrown, and thou wast naked and confused.\"\n\n\"_Et transivi per te; et ecce tempus tuum, tempus amantium; et expandi\namictum meum super te et operui ignominiam tuam. Et juravi tibi, et\ningressus sum pactum tecum (ait Dominus Deus), et facta es mihi_.\"--\"I\npassed by and saw thee; and saw thy time was come, thy time for lovers;\nand I spread my mantle over thee and concealed thy shame. And I swore\nto thee, and entered into a contract with thee, and thou becamest mine.\"\n\n\"_Et habens fiduciam in pulchritudine tua fornicata es in nomine tuo; et\nexposuisti fornicationem tuam omni transeunti, at ejus fieres_.\"--\"And,\nproud of thy beauty, thou didst commit fornication without disguise, and\nhast exposed thy fornication to every passerby, to become his.\"\n\n\"_Et \u00e6dificavisti tibi lupanar, et fecisti tibi prostibulum in cunctis\nplateis_.\"--\"And thou hast built a high place for thyself, and a place\nof eminence in every public way.\"\n\n\"_Et divisisti pedes tuos omni transeunti, et multiplicasti\nfornicationes tuas_.\"--\"And thou hast opened thy feet to every passerby,\nand hast multiplied thy fornications.\"\n\n\"_Et fornicata es cum filiis Egypti vicinis tuis, magnarum carnium; et\nmultiplicasti fornicationem tuam ad irritandum me_.\"--\"And thou hast\ncommitted fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbors, powerful in the\nflesh; and thou hast multiplied thy fornication to provoke me.\"\n\nThe article of Aholibah, which signifies Samaria, is much stronger and\nstill further removed from the propriety and decorum of modern manners\nand language.\n\n\"_Denudavit quoque fornicationes suas, discooperuit ignominiam\nsuam_.\"--\"And she has made bare her fornications and discovered her\nshame.\"\n\n\"_Multiplicavit enim fornicationes suas, recordans dies adolescenti\u00e6\nsu\u00e6_.\"--\"For she has multiplied her fornications, remembering the days\nof her youth.\"\n\n\"_Et insanivit libidine super concubitum eorum carnes sunt ut carnes\nasinorum, et sicut fluxus equorum, fluxus eorum_.\"--\"And she has\nmaddened for the embraces of those whose flesh is as the flesh of asses,\nand whose issue is as the issue of horses.\"\n\nThese images strike us as licentious and revolting. They were at that\ntime simply plain and ingenuous. There are numerous instances of the\nlike in the \"Song of Songs,\" intended to celebrate the purest of all\npossible unions. It must be attentively considered that these\nexpressions and images are always delivered with seriousness and\ngravity, and that in no book of equally high antiquity is the slightest\njeering or raillery ever applied to the great subject of human\nproduction. When dissoluteness is condemned, it is so in natural and\nundisguised terms, but such are never used to stimulate voluptuousness\nor pleasantry.\n\nThis high antiquity has not the slightest touch of similarity to the\nlicentiousness of Martial, Catullus, or Petronius.\n\n_Of Hosea, and Some Other Emblems._\n\nWe cannot regard as a mere vision, as simply a figure, the positive\ncommand given by the Lord to Hosea to take to himself a wife of\nwhoredoms and have by her three children. Children are not produced in\na dream. It is not in a vision that he made a contract with Gomer, the\ndaughter of Diblaim, by whom he had two boys and a girl. It was not in a\nvision that he afterwards took to himself an adulteress by the express\norder of the Lord, giving her fifteen pieces of silver and a measure and\na half of barley.\n\nThe first of these disgraced women signified Jerusalem and the second\nSamaria. But the two unions with these worthless persons, the three\nchildren, the fifteen pieces of silver, and the bushel and a half of\nbarley, were not the less real for having included or been intended as\nan emblem.\n\nIt was not in a vision that the patriarch Salmon married the harlot\nRahab, the grandmother of David. It was not in a vision that Judah\ncommitted incest with his daughter-in-law Thamar, from which incest\nsprang David. It was not in a vision that Ruth, David's other\ngrandmother, placed herself in the bed with Boaz. It was not in a vision\nthat David murdered Uriah and committed adultery with Bathsheba, of whom\nwas born King Solomon. But, subsequently, all these events became\nemblems and figures, after the things which they typified were\naccomplished.\n\nIt is perfectly clear, from Ezekiel, Hosea, Jeremiah, and all the Jewish\nprophets, and all the Jewish books, as well as from all other books\nwhich give us any information concerning the usages of the Chald\u00e6ans,\nPersians, Ph\u0153nicians, Syrians, Indians, and Egyptians; it is, I say,\nperfectly clear that their manners were very different from ours, and\nthat the ancient world was scarcely in a single point similar to the\nmodern one.\n\nPass from Gibraltar to Mequinez, and the decencies and decorums of life\nare no longer the same; you no longer find the same ideas. Two sea\nleagues have changed everything.\n\n\n\n\nENCHANTMENT.\n\nMAGIC, CONJURATION, SORCERY, ETC.\n\n\nIt is not in the smallest degree probable that all those abominable\nabsurdities are owing, as Pluche would have us believe, to the foliage\nwith which the heads of Isis and Osiris were formerly crowned. What\nconnection can this foliage have with the art of charming serpents, with\nthat of resuscitating the dead, killing men by mere words, inspiring\npersons with love, or changing men into beasts?\n\nEnchantment (_incantatio_) comes, say some, from a Chaldee word, which\nthe Greeks translate \"productive song.\" _Incantatio_ comes from the\nChaldee. Truly, the Bocharts are great travellers and proceed from Italy\nto Mesopotamia in a twinkling! The great and learned Hebrew nation is\nrapidly explored, and all sorts of books, and all sorts of usages, are\nthe fruits of the journey; the Bocharts are certainly not charlatans.\n\nIs not a large portion of the absurd superstitions which have prevailed\nto be ascribed to very natural causes? There are scarcely any animals\nthat may not be accustomed to approach at the sound of a bagpipe, or a\nsingle horn, to take their food. Orpheus, or some one of his\npredecessors, played the bagpipe better than other shepherds, or\nemployed singing. All the domestic animals flocked together at the sound\nof his voice. It was soon supposed that bears and tigers were among the\nnumber collected; this first step accomplished, there was no difficulty\nin believing that Orpheus made stones and trees dance.\n\nIf rocks and pine-trees can be thus made to dance a ballet, it will cost\nlittle more to build cities by harmony, and the stones will easily\narrange themselves at Amphion's song. A violin only will be wanted to\nbuild a city, and a ram's horn to destroy it.\n\nThe charming of serpents may be attributed to a still more plausible\ncause. The serpent is neither a voracious nor a ferocious animal. Every\nreptile is timid. The first thing a reptile does, at least in Europe, on\nseeing a man, is to hide itself in a hole, like a rabbit or a lizard.\nThe instinct of a man is to pursue everything that flies from him, and\nto fly from all that pursue him, except when he is armed, when he feels\nhis strength, and, above all, when he is in the presence of many\nobservers.\n\nThe serpent, far from being greedy of blood and flesh, feeds only upon\nherbs, and passes a considerable time without eating at all; if he\nswallows a few insects, as lizards and chameleons do, he does us a\nservice.\n\nAll travellers relate that there are some very large and long ones;\nalthough we know of none such in Europe. No man or child was ever\nattacked there by a large serpent or a small one. Animals attack only\nwhat they want to eat; and dogs never bite passengers but in defence of\ntheir masters. What could a serpent do with a little infant? What\npleasure could it derive from biting it? It could not swallow even the\nfingers. Serpents do certainly bite, and squirrels also, but only when\nthey are injured, or are fearful of being so.\n\nI am not unwilling to believe that there have been monsters among\nserpents as well as among men. I will admit that the army of Regulus was\nput under arms in Africa against a dragon; and that there has since been\na Norman there who fought against the waterspout. But it will be\ngranted, on the other hand, that such cases are exceedingly rare.\n\nThe two serpents that came from Tenedos for the express purpose of\ndevouring Laocoon, and two great lads twenty years of age, in the\npresence of the whole Trojan army, form a very fine prodigy, and one\nworthy of being transmitted to posterity by hexameter verses, and by\nstatues which represent Laocoon like a giant, and his stout boys as\npygmies.\n\nI conceive this event to have happened in those times when a prodigious\nwooden horse took cities which had been built by the gods, when rivers\nflowed backward to their fountains, when waters were changed to blood,\nand both sun and moon stood still on the slightest possible occasion.\n\nEverything that has been related about serpents was considered probable\nin countries in which Apollo came down from heaven to slay the serpent\nPython.\n\nSerpents were also supposed to be exceedingly sensible animals. Their\nsense consists in not running so fast as we do, and in suffering\nthemselves to be cut in pieces.\n\nThe bite of serpents, and particularly of vipers, is not dangerous,\nexcept when irritation has produced the fermentation of a small\nreservoir of very acid humor which they have under their gums. With this\nexception, a serpent is no more dangerous than an eel.\n\nMany ladies have tamed and fed serpents, placed them on their toilets,\nand wreathed them about their arms. The negroes of Guinea worship a\nserpent which never injures any one.\n\nThere are many species of those reptiles, and some are more dangerous\nthan others in hot countries; but in general, serpents are timid and\nmild animals; it is not uncommon to see them sucking the udder of a cow.\n\nThose who first saw men more daring than themselves domesticate and feed\nserpents, inducing them to come to them by a hissing sound in a similar\nway to that by which we induce the approach of bees, considered them as\npossessing the power of enchantment. The Psilli and Mars\u00e6, who\nfamiliarly handled and fondled serpents, had a similar reputation. The\napothecaries of Poitou, who take up vipers by the tail, might also, if\nthey chose, be respected as magicians of the first order.\n\nThe charming of serpents was considered as a thing regular and constant.\nThe Sacred Scripture itself, which always enters into our weaknesses,\ndeigned to conform itself to this vulgar idea.\n\n\"The deaf adder, which shuts its ears that it may not hear the voice of\nthe charmer.\"\n\n\"I will send among you serpents which will resist enchantments.\"\n\n\"The slanderer is like the serpent, which yields not to the enchanter.\"\n\nThe enchantment was sometimes so powerful as to make serpents burst\nasunder. The natural philosophy of antiquity made this animal immortal.\nIf any rustic found a dead serpent in his road, some enchanter must\ninevitably have deprived it of its right to immortality:\n\n     _Frigidus in pratis cantando rumpitur anguis._\n                                     --VIRG. _Eclogue_ viii. 71.\n     Verse breaks the ground, and penetrates the brake,\n     And in the winding cavern splits the snake.\n                                                  --DRYDEN.\n\n_Enchantment of the Dead, or Evocation._\n\nTo enchant a dead person, to resuscitate him, or barely to evoke his\nshade to speak to him, was the most simple thing in the world. It is\nvery common to see the dead in dreams, in which they are spoken to and\nreturn answers. If any one has seen them during sleep, why may he not\nsee them when he is awake? It is only necessary to have a spirit like\nthe pythoness; and, to bring this spirit of python-ism into successful\noperation it is only necessary that one party should be a knave and the\nother a fool; and no one can deny that such _rencontres_ very frequently\noccur.\n\nThe evocation of the dead was one of the sublimest mysteries of magic.\nSometimes there was made to pass before the eyes of the inquiring\ndevotee a large, black figure, moved by secret springs in dimness and\nobscurity. Sometimes the performers, whether sorcerers or witches,\nlimited themselves to declaring that _they_ saw the shade which was\ndesired to be evoked, and their word was sufficient; this was called\nnecromancy. The famous witch of Endor has always been a subject of great\ndispute among the fathers of the Church. The sage Theodoret, in his\nsixty-second question on the Book of Kings, asserts that it is\nuniversally the practice for the dead to appear with the head downwards,\nand that what terrified the witch was Samuel's being upon his legs.\n\nSt. Augustine, when interrogated by Simplicion, replies, in the second\nbook of his \"Questions,\" that there is nothing more extraordinary in a\nwitch's invoking a shade than in the devil's transporting Jesus Christ\nthrough the air to the pinnacle of the temple on the top of a mountain.\n\nSome learned men, observing that there were oracular spirits among the\nJews, have ventured to conclude that the Jews began to write only at a\nlate period, and that they built almost everything upon Greek fable; but\nthis opinion cannot be maintained.\n\n_Of Other Sorceries._\n\nWhen a man is sufficiently expert to evoke the dead by words, he may yet\nmore easily destroy the living, or at least threaten them with doing so,\nas the physician, _malgr\u00e9 lui_, told Lucas that he would give him a\nfever. At all events, it was not in the slightest degree doubtful that\nsorcerers had the power of killing beasts; and, to insure the stock of\ncattle, it was necessary to oppose sorcery to sorcery. But the ancients\ncan with little propriety be laughed at by us, who are ourselves\nscarcely even yet extricated from the same barbarism. A hundred years\nhave not yet expired since sorcerers were burned all over Europe; and\neven as recently as 1750, a sorceress, or witch, was burned at Wurzburg.\nIt is unquestionable that certain words and ceremonies will effectually\ndestroy a flock of sheep, if administered with a sufficient portion of\narsenic.\n\nThe \"Critical, History of Superstitious Ceremonies,\" by Lebrun of the\nOratory, is a singular work. His object is to oppose the ridiculous\ndoctrine of witchcraft, and yet he is himself so ridiculous as to\nbelieve in its reality. He pretends that Mary Bucaille, the witch, while\nin prison at Valognes, _appeared_ at some leagues distance, according to\nthe evidence given on oath to the judge of Valognes. He relates the\nfamous prosecution of the shepherds of Brie, condemned in 1691, by the\nParliament of Paris, to be hanged and burned. These shepherds had been\nfools enough to think themselves sorcerers, and villains enough to mix\nreal poisons with their imaginary sorceries.\n\nFather Lebrun solemnly asserts that there was much of what was\n\"supernatural\" in what they did, and that they were hanged in\nconsequence. The sentence of the parliament is in direct opposition to\nthis author's statement. \"The court declares the accused duly attainted\nand convicted of superstitions, impieties, sacrileges, profanations, and\npoisonings.\"\n\nThe sentence does not state that the death of the cattle was caused by\nprofanations, but by poison. A man may commit sacrilege without as well\nas with poison, without being a sorcerer.\n\nOther judges, I acknowledge, sentenced the priest Ganfredi to be burned,\nin the firm belief that, by the influence of the devil, he had an\nillicit commerce with all his female penitents. Ganfredi himself\nimagined that he was under that influence; but that was in 1611, a\nperiod when the majority of our provincial population was very little\nraised above the Caribs and negroes. Some of this description have\nexisted even in our own times; as, for example, the Jesuit Girard, the\nex-Jesuit Nonnotte, the Jesuit Duplessis, and the ex-Jesuit Malagrida;\nbut this race of imbeciles is daily hastening to extinction.\n\nWith respect to lycanthropy, that is, the transformation of men into\nwolves by the power of enchantment, we may observe that a young\nshepherd's having killed a wolf, and clothed himself with its skin, was\nenough to excite the terror of all the old women of the district, and to\nspread throughout the province, and thence through other provinces, the\nnotion of a man's having been changed into a wolf. Some Virgil will soon\nbe found to say:\n\n     _His ego s\u00e6pe lupum fieri, et se condere silvis_\n     _M\u0153rim s\u00e6pe animas imis exire sepulchris._\n\n     Smeared with these powerful juices on the plain.\n     He howls a wolf among the hungry train,\n     And oft the mighty necromancer boasts\n     With these to call from tombs the stalking ghosts.\n                                               --DRYDEN.\n\nTo see a man-wolf must certainly be a great curiosity; but to see human\nsouls must be more curious still; and did not the monks of Monte Cassino\nsee the soul of the holy Benedict, or Bennet? Did not the monks of Tours\nsee St. Martin's? and the monks of St. Denis that of Charles Martel?\n\n_Enchantments to Kindle Love._\n\nThese were for the young. They were vended by the Jews at Rome and\nAlexandria, and are at the present day sold in Asia. You will find some\nof these secrets in the \"_Petit Albert_\"; and will become further\ninitiated by reading the pleading composed by Apuleius on his being\naccused by a Christian, whose daughter he had married, of having\nbewitched her by philtres. Emilian, his father-in-law, alleged that he\nhad made use of certain fishes, since, Venus having been born of the\nsea, fishes must necessarily have prodigious influence in exciting women\nto love.\n\nWhat was generally made use of consisted of vervain, tenia, and\nhippomanes; or a small portion of the secundine of a mare that had just\nfoaled, together with a little bird called wagtail; in Latin\n_motacilla._\n\nBut Apuleius was chiefly accused of having employed shell-fish, lobster\npatties, she-hedgehogs, spiced oysters, and cuttle-fish, which was\ncelebrated for its productiveness.\n\nApuleius clearly explains the real philtre, or charm, which had excited\nPudentilla's affection for him. He undoubtedly admits, in his defence,\nthat his wife had called him a magician. \"But what,\" says he, \"if she\nhad called me a consul, would that have made me one?\"\n\nThe plant satyrion was considered both among the Greeks and Romans as\nthe most powerful of philtres. It was called _planto aphrodisia_, the\nplant of Venus. That called by the Latins _eruca_ is now often added to\nthe former.--_Et venerem revocans eruca morantem._\n\nA little essence of amber is frequently used. Mandragora has gone out\nof fashion. Some exhausted debauchees have employed cantharides, which\nstrongly affect the susceptible parts of the frame, and often produce\nsevere and painful consequences.\n\nYouth and health are the only genuine philtres. Chocolate was for a long\ntime in great celebrity with our debilitated _petits-ma\u00eetres_. But a man\nmay take twenty cups of chocolate without inspiring any attachment to\nhis person.--\"_... ut amoris amabilis esto_.\" (Ovid, A. A. ii.,\n107.)--\"Wouldst thou be loved, be amiable.\"\n\n\n\n\nEND OF THE WORLD.\n\n\nThe greater part of the Greek philosophers held the universe to be\neternal both with respect to commencement and duration. But as to this\npetty portion of the world or universe, this globe of stone and earth\nand water, of minerals and vapors, which we inhabit, it was somewhat\ndifficult to form an opinion; it was, however, deemed very destructible.\nIt was even said that it had been destroyed more than once, and would be\ndestroyed again. Every one judged of the whole world from his own\nparticular country, as an old woman judges of all mankind from those in\nher own nook and neighborhood.\n\nThis idea of the end of our little world and its renovation strongly\npossessed the imagination of the nations under subjection to the Roman\nEmpire, amidst the horrors of the civil wars between C\u00e6sar and Pompey.\nVirgil, in his \"Georgics\" (i., 468), alludes to the general apprehension\nwhich rilled the minds of the common people from this cause: \"_Impiaque\neternam timuerunt secula noctem_.\"--\"And impious men now dread eternal\nnight.\"\n\nLucan, in the following lines, expresses himself much more explicitly:\n\n     _Hos C\u00e6sar populos, si nunc non usserit ignis_\n     _Uret cum terris, uret cum gurgite ponti._\n     _Communis mundo superest rogus...._\n                                 --PHARS. vii. v. 812, 14.\n\n     Though now thy cruelty denies a grave,\n     These and the world one common lot shall have;\n     One last appointed flame, by fate's decree,\n     Shall waste yon azure heavens, the earth, and sea.\n                                                 --ROWE.\n\nAnd Ovid, following up the observations of Lucan, says:\n\n     _Esse quoque in fatis reminiscitur affore tempus,_\n     _Quo mare, quo tellus, correptaque regia c\u0153li_,\n     _Ardent et mundi moles operosa laboret._\n                                     --MET. i. v. 256, 58.\n\n     For thus the stern, unyielding fates decree,\n     That earth, air, heaven, with the capacious sea,\n     All shall fall victims to consuming fire,\n     And in fierce flames the blazing world expire.\n\nConsult Cicero himself, the philosophic Cicero. He tells us, in his book\nconcerning the \"Nature of the Gods,\" the best work perhaps of all\nantiquity, unless we make an exception in favor of his treatise on human\nduties, called \"The Offices\"; in that book, I say, he remarks:\n\n\"_Ex quo eventurum nostri putant id, de quo Pan\u0153tium addubitare\ndicebant; ut ad extremum omnis mundus ignosceret, cum, humore\nconsumpto, neque terra ali posset, neque remearet, aer cujus ortus, aqua\nomni exhausta, esse non posset; ita relinqui nihil pr\u00e6ter ignem, a quo\nrursum animante ac Deo renovatio mundi fieret; atque idem ornatus\noriretur._\"\n\n\"According to the Stoics, the whole world will eventually consist only\nof fire; the water being then exhausted, will leave no nourishment for\nthe earth; and the air, which derives its existence from water, can of\ncourse no longer be supplied. Thus fire alone will remain, and this\nfire, reanimating everything with, as it were, god-like power and\nenergy, will restore the world with improved beauty.\"\n\nThis natural philosophy of the Stoics, like that indeed of all\nantiquity, is not a little absurd; it shows, however, that the\nexpectation of a general conflagration was universal.\n\nPrepare, however, for greater astonishment than the errors of antiquity\ncan excite. The great Newton held the same opinion as Cicero. Deceived\nby an incorrect experiment of Boyle, he thought that the moisture of the\nglobe would at length be dried up, and that it would be necessary for\nGod to apply His reforming hand \"_manum emendatricem_.\" Thus we have the\ntwo greatest men of ancient Rome and modern England precisely of the\nsame opinion, that at some future period fire will completely prevail\nover water.\n\nThis idea of a perishing and subsequently to be renewed world was\ndeeply rooted in the minds of the inhabitants of Asia Minor, Syria, and\nEgypt, from the time of the civil wars of the successors of Alexander.\nThose of the Romans augmented the terror, upon this subject, of the\nvarious nations which became the victims of them. They expected the\ndestruction of the world and hoped for a new one. The Jews, who are\nslaves in Syria and scattered through every other land, partook of this\nuniversal terror.\n\nAccordingly, it does not appear that the Jews were at all astonished\nwhen Jesus said to them, according to St. Matthew and St. Luke: \"Heaven\nand earth shall pass away.\" He often said to them: \"The kingdom of God\nis at hand.\" He preached the gospel of the kingdom of God.\n\nSt. Peter announces that the gospel was preached to them that were dead,\nand that the end of the world drew near. \"We expect,\" says he, \"new\nheavens and a new earth.\"\n\nSt. John, in his first Epistle, says: \"There are at present many\nantichrists, which shows that the last hour draws near.\"\n\nSt. Luke, in much greater detail, predicts the end of the world and the\nlast judgment. These are his words:\n\n\"There shall be signs in the moon and in the stars, roarings of the sea\nand the waves; men's hearts failing them for fear shall look with\ntrembling to the events about to happen. The powers of heaven shall be\nshaken; and then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud, with\ngreat power and majesty. Verily I say unto you, the present generation\nshall not pass away till all this be fulfilled.\"\n\nWe do not dissemble that unbelievers upbraid us with this very\nprediction; they want to make us blush for our faith, when we consider\nthat the world is still in existence. The generation, they say, is\npassed away, and yet nothing at all of this is fulfilled. Luke,\ntherefore, ascribes language to our Saviour which he never uttered, or\nwe must conclude that Jesus Christ Himself was mistaken, which would be\nblasphemy. But we close the mouth of these impious cavillers by\nobserving that this prediction, which appears so false in its literal\nmeaning, is true in its spirit; that the whole world meant Jud\u00e6a, and\nthat the end of the world signified the reign of Titus and his\nsuccessors.\n\nSt. Paul expresses himself very strongly on the subject of the end of\nthe world in his Epistle to the Thessalonians: \"We who survive, and who\nnow address you, shall be taken up into the clouds to meet the Lord in\nthe air.\"\n\nAccording to these very words of Jesus and St. Paul, the whole world was\nto have an end under Tiberius, or at latest under Nero. St. Paul's\nprediction was fulfilled no more than St. Luke's.\n\nThese allegorical predictions were undoubtedly not meant to apply to the\ntimes of the evangelists and apostles, but to some future time, which\nGod conceals from all mankind.\n\n     _Tu ne quaesieris (scire nefas) quem mihi, quem tibi_\n       _Finem Dii dederint, Leuconoe, nec Babylonios_\n     _Tentaris numeros. Ut melius, quicquid erit, pati!_\n                                              --HORACE i. ode xl.\n\n     Strive not Leuconoe, to pry\n       Into the secret will of fate,\n     Nor impious magic vainly try\n       To know our lives' uncertain date.\n                                 --FRANCIS.\n\nIt is still perfectly certain that all nations then known entertained\nthe expectation of the end of the world, of a new earth and a new\nheaven. For more than sixteen centuries we see that donations to monkish\ninstitutions have commenced with these words: \"_Adventante mundi\nvespere_,\" etc.--\"The end of the world being at hand, I, for the good of\nmy soul, and to avoid being one of the number of the goats on the left\nhand.... leave such and such lands to such a convent.\" Fear influenced\nthe weak to enrich the cunning.\n\nThe Egyptians fixed this grand epoch at the end of thirty-six thousand\nfive hundred years; Orpheus is stated to have fixed it at the distance\nof a hundred and twenty thousand years.\n\nThe historian Flavius Josephus asserts that Adam, having predicted that\nthe world would be twice destroyed, once by water and next by fire, the\nchildren of Seth were desirous of announcing to the future race of men\nthe disastrous catastrophe. They engraved astronomical observations on\ntwo columns, one made of bricks, which should resist the fire that was\nto consume the world; the other of stones, which would remain uninjured\nby the water that was to drown it. But what thought the Romans, when a\nfew slaves talked to them about an Adam and a Seth unknown to all the\nworld besides? They smiled. Josephus adds that the column of stones was\nto be seen in his own time in Syria.\n\nFrom all that has been said, we may conclude that we know exceedingly\nlittle of past events--that we are but ill acquainted with those\npresent--that we know nothing at all about the future--and that we ought\nto refer everything relating to them to God, the master of those three\ndivisions of time and of eternity.\n\n\n\n\nENTHUSIASM.\n\n\nThis Greek word signifies \"emotion of the bowels, internal agitation.\"\nWas the word invented by the Greeks to express the vibrations\nexperienced by the nerves, the dilation and shrinking of the intestines,\nthe violent contractions of the heart, the precipitous course of those\nfiery spirits which mount from the viscera to the brain whenever we are\nstrongly and vividly affected?\n\nOr was the term \"enthusiasm,\" after painful affection of the bowels,\nfirst applied to the contortions of the Pythia, who, on the Delphian\ntripod, admitted the inspiration of Apollo in a place apparently\nintended for the receptacle of body rather than of spirit?\n\nWhat do we understand by enthusiasm? How many shades are there in our\naffections! Approbation, sensibility, emotion, distress, impulse,\npassion, transport, insanity, rage, fury. Such are the stages through\nwhich the miserable soul of man is liable to pass.\n\nA geometrician attends at the representation of an affecting tragedy. He\nmerely remarks that it is a judicious, well-written performance. A young\nman who sits next to him is so interested by the performance that he\nmakes no remark at all; a lady sheds tears over it; another young man is\nso transported by the exhibition that to his great misfortune he goes\nhome determined to compose a tragedy himself. He has caught the disease\nof enthusiasm.\n\nThe centurion or military tribune who considers war simply as a\nprofession by which he is to make his fortune, goes to battle coolly,\nlike a tiler ascending the roof of a house. C\u00e6sar wept at seeing the\nstatue of Alexander.\n\nOvid speaks of love only like one who understood it. Sappho expressed\nthe genuine enthusiasm of the passion, and if it be true that she\nsacrificed her life to it, her enthusiasm must have advanced to madness.\n\nThe spirit of party tends astonishingly to excite enthusiasm; there is\nno faction that has not its \"_energumens_\" its devoted and possessed\npartisans. An animated speaker who employs gesture in his addresses, has\nin his eyes, his voice, his movements, a subtle poison which passes\nwith an arrow's speed into the ears and hearts of his partial hearers.\nIt was on this ground that Queen Elizabeth forbade any one to preach,\nduring six months, without an express licence under her sign manual,\nthat the peace of her kingdom might be undisturbed.\n\nSt. Ignatius, who possessed very warm and susceptible feelings, read the\nlives of the fathers of the desert after being deeply read in romances.\nHe becomes, in consequence, actuated by a double enthusiasm. He\nconstitutes himself knight to the Virgin Mary, he performed the vigil of\narms; he is eager to fight for his lady patroness; he is favored--with\nvisions; the virgin appears and recommends to him her son, and she\nenjoins him to give no other name to his society than that of the\n\"Society of Jesus.\"\n\nIgnatius communicates his enthusiasm to another Spaniard of the name of\nXavier. Xavier hastens away to the Indies, of the language of which he\nis utterly ignorant, thence to Japan, without knowing a word of\nJapanese. That, however, is of no consequence; the flame of his\nenthusiasm catches the imagination of some young Jesuits, who, at\nlength, make themselves masters of that language. These disciples, after\nXavier's death, entertain not the shadow of a doubt that he performed\nmore miracles than ever the apostles did, and that he resuscitated seven\nor eight persons at the very least. In short, so epidemic and powerful\nbecomes the enthusiasm that they form in Japan what they denominate a\nChristendom (_une Chr\u00e9tient\u00e9_). This Christendom ends in a civil war, in\nwhich a hundred thousand persons are slaughtered: the enthusiasm then is\nat its highest point, fanaticism; and fanaticism has become madness.\n\nThe young fakir who fixes his eye on the tip of his nose when saying his\nprayers, gradually kindles in devotional ardor until he at length\nbelieves that if he burdens himself with chains of fifty pounds weight\nthe Supreme Being will be obliged and grateful to him. He goes to sleep\nwith an imagination totally absorbed by Brahma, and is sure to have a\nsight of him in a dream. Occasionally even in the intermediate state\nbetween sleeping and waking, sparks radiate from his eyes; he beholds\nBrahma resplendent with light; he falls into ecstasies, and the disease\nfrequently becomes incurable.\n\nWhat is most rarely to be met with is the combination of reason with\nenthusiasm. Reason consists in constantly perceiving things as they\nreally are. He, who, under the influence of intoxication, sees objects\ndouble is at the time deprived of reason.\n\nEnthusiasm is precisely like wine, it has the power to excite such a\nferment in the blood-vessels, and such strong vibrations in the nerves,\nthat reason is completely destroyed by it. But it may also occasion only\nslight agitations so as not to convulse the brain, but merely to render\nit more active, as is the case in grand bursts of eloquence and more\nespecially in sublime poetry. Reasonable enthusiasm is the patrimony of\ngreat poets.\n\nThis reasonable enthusiasm is the perfection of their art. It is this\nwhich formerly occasioned the belief that poets were inspired by the\ngods, a notion which was never applied to other artists.\n\nHow is reasoning to control enthusiasm? A poet should, in the first\ninstance, make a sketch of his design. Reason then holds the crayon. But\nwhen he is desirous of animating his characters, to communicate to them\nthe different and just expressions of the passions, then his imagination\nkindles, enthusiasm is in full operation and urges him on like a fiery\ncourser in his career. But his course has been previously traced with\ncoolness and judgment.\n\nEnthusiasm is admissible into every species of poetry which admits of\nsentiment; we occasionally find it even in the eclogue; witness the\nfollowing lines of Virgil (Eclogue x. v. 58):\n\n     _Jam mihi per rupes videor lucosque sonantes_\n     _Ire; libet Partho torquere cydonia cornu_\n     _Spicula; tanquam haec sint nostri medicina furoris,_\n     _Aut deus ille malis hominum mitescere discat!_\n\n     Nor cold shall hinder me, with horns and hounds\n     To thrid the thickets, or to leap the mounds.\n     And now, methinks, through steepy rocks I go,\n     And rush through sounding woods and bend the Parthian\n       bow:\n     As if with sports my sufferings I could ease,\n     Or by my pains the god of Love appease.\n\nThe style of epistles and satires represses enthusiasm, we accordingly\nsee little or nothing of it in the works of Boileau and Pope.\n\nOur odes, it is said by some, are genuine lyrical enthusiasm, but as\nthey are not sung with us, they are, in fact, rather collections of\nverses, adorned with ingenious reflections, than odes.\n\nOf all modern odes that which abounds with the noblest enthusiasm, an\nenthusiasm that never abates, that never falls into the bombastic or the\nridiculous, is \"Timotheus, or Alexander's Feast,\" by Dryden. It is still\nconsidered in England as an inimitable masterpiece, which Pope, when\nattempting the same style and the same subject, could not even approach.\nThis ode was sung, set to music, and if the musician had been worthy of\nthe poet it would have been the masterpiece of lyric poesy.\n\nThe most dangerous tendency of enthusiasm in this occurs in an ode on\nthe birth of a prince of the bast, rant, and burlesque. A striking\nexample of this occurs in an ode on the birth of a prince of the blood\nroyal:\n\n     _O\u00f9 suis-je? quel nouveau miracle_\n     _Tient encore mes sens enchant\u00e9s_\n     _Quel vaste, quel pompeux spectacle_\n     _Frappe mes yeux \u00e9pouvant\u00e9s?_\n     _Un nouveau monde vient d'\u00e9clore_\n     _L'univers se reforme encore_\n     _Dans les ab\u00eemes du chaos;_\n     _Et, pour r\u00e9parer ses ruines_\n     _Je vois des demeures divines_\n     _Descendre un peuple de h\u00e9ros._\n                                   --J.B. ROUSSEAU.\n     \"Ode on the Birth of the Duke of Brittany.\"\n\n\nHere we find the poet's senses enchanted and alarmed at the appearance\nof a prodigy--a vast and magnificent spectacle--a new birth which is to\nreform the universe and redeem it from a state of chaos, all which\nmeans simply that a male child is born to the house of Bourbon. This is\nas bad as \"_Je chante les vainqueurs, des vainqueurs de la terre_.\"\n\nWe will avail ourselves of the present opportunity to observe that there\nis a very small portion of enthusiasm in the \"Ode on the Taking of\nNamur.\"\n\n\n\n\nENVY.\n\n\nWe all know what the ancients said of this disgraceful passion and what\nthe moderns have repeated. Hesiod is the first classic author who has\nspoken of it.\n\n\"The potter envies the potter, the artisan the artisan, the poor even\nthe poor, the musician the musician--or, if any one chooses to give a\ndifferent meaning to the word _avidos_--the poet the poet.\"\n\nLong before Hesiod, Job had remarked, \"Envy destroys the little-minded.\"\n\nI believe Mandeville, the author of the \"Fable of the Bees,\" is the\nfirst who has endeavored to prove that envy is a good thing, a very\nuseful passion. His first reason is that envy was as natural to man as\nhunger and thirst; that it may be observed in all children, as well as\nin horses and dogs. If you wish your children to hate one another,\ncaress one more than the other; the prescription is infallible.\n\nHe asserts that the first thing two young women do when they meet\ntogether is to discover matter for ridicule, and the second to flatter\neach other.\n\nHe thinks that without envy the arts would be only moderately\ncultivated, and that Raphael would never have been a great painter if he\nhad not been jealous of Michael Angelo.\n\nMandeville, perhaps, mistook emulation for envy; perhaps, also,\nemulation is nothing but envy restricted within the bounds of decency.\n\nMichael Angelo might say to Raphael, your envy has only induced you to\nstudy and execute still better than I do; you have not depreciated me,\nyou have not caballed against me before the pope, you have not\nendeavored to get me excommunicated for placing in my picture of the\nLast Judgment one-eyed and lame persons in paradise, and pampered\ncardinals with beautiful women perfectly naked in hell! No! your envy is\na laudable feeling; you are brave as well as envious; let us be good\nfriends.\n\nBut if the envious person is an unhappy being without talents, jealous\nof merit as the poor are of the rich; if under the pressure at once of\nindigence and baseness he writes \"News from Parnassus,\" \"Letters from a\nCelebrated Countess,\" or \"Literary Annals,\" the creature displays an\nenvy which is in fact absolutely good for nothing, and for which even\nMandeville could make no apology.\n\nDescartes said: \"Envy forces up the yellow bile from the lower part of\nthe liver, and the black bile that comes from the spleen, which diffuses\nitself from the heart by the arteries.\" But as no sort of bile is\nformed in the spleen, Descartes, when he spoke thus, deserved not to be\nenvied for his physiology.\n\nA person of the name of Poet or Poetius, a theological blackguard, who\naccused Descartes of atheism, was exceedingly affected by the black\nbile. But he knew still less than Descartes how his detestable bile\ncirculated through his blood.\n\nMadame Pernelle is perfectly right: \"_Les envieux mourront, mais non\njamais l'envie_.\"--The envious will die, but envy never. (\"_Tartuffe_,\"\nAct V, Scene 3.)\n\nThat it is better to excite envy than pity is a good proverb. Let us,\nthen, make men envy us as much as we are able.\n\n\n\n\nEPIC POETRY.\n\n\nSince the word \"_epos_,\" among the Greeks, signified a discourse, an\nepic poem must have been a discourse, and it was in verse because it was\nnot then the custom to write in prose. This appears strange, but it is\nno less true. One Pherecydes is supposed to have been the first Greek\nwho made exclusive use of prose to compose one of those half-true,\nhalf-false histories so common to antiquity.\n\nOrpheus, Linus, Thamyris, and Mus\u00e6us, the predecessors of Homer, wrote\nin verse only. Hesiod, who was certainly contemporary with Homer, wrote\nhis \"Theogony\" and his poem of \"Works and Days\" entirely in verse. The\nharmony of the Greek language so invited men to poetry, a maxim turned\ninto verse was so easily engraved on the memory that the laws, oracles,\nmorals, and theology were all composed in verse.\n\n_Of Hesiod._\n\nHe made use of fables which had for a long time been received in Greece.\nIt is clearly seen by the succinct manner in which he speaks of\nPrometheus and Epimetheus that he supposes these notions already\nfamiliar to all the Greeks. He only mentions them to show that it is\nnecessary to labor, and that an indolent repose, in which other\nmythologists have made the felicity of man to consist, is a violation of\nthe orders of the Supreme Being.\n\nHesiod afterwards describes the four famous ages, of which he is the\nfirst who has spoken, at least among the ancient authors who remain to\nus. The first age is that which preceded Pandora--the time in which men\nlived with the gods. The iron age is that of the siege of Thebes and\nTroy. \"I live in the fifth,\" says he, \"and I would I had never been\nborn.\" How many men, oppressed by envy, fanaticism, and tyranny, since\nHesiod, have said the same!\n\nIt is in this poem of \"Works and Days\" that those proverbs are found\nwhich have been perpetuated, as--\"the potter is jealous of the potter,\"\nand he adds, \"the musician of the musician, and the poor even of the\npoor.\" We there find the original of our fable of the nightingale\nfallen into the claws of the vulture. The nightingale sings in vain to\nsoften him; the vulture devours her. Hesiod does not conclude that a\nhungry belly has no ears, but that tyrants are not to be mollified by\ngenius.\n\nA hundred maxims worthy of Xenophon and Cato are to be found in this\npoem.\n\nMen are ignorant of the advantage of society: they know not that the\nhalf is more valuable than the whole.\n\nIniquity is pernicious only to the powerless.\n\nEquity alone causes cities to flourish.\n\nOne unjust man is often sufficient to ruin his country.\n\nThe wretch who plots the destruction of his neighbor often prepares the\nway to his own.\n\nThe road to crime is short and easy. That of virtue is long and\ndifficult, but towards the end it is delightful.\n\nGod has placed labor as a sentinel over virtue.\n\nLastly, the precepts on agriculture were worthy to be imitated by\nVirgil. There are, also, very fine passages in his \"Theogony.\" Love, who\ndisentangles chaos; Venus, born of the sea from the genital parts of a\ngod nourished on earth, always followed by Love, and uniting heaven,\nearth, and sea, are admirable emblems.\n\nWhy, then, has Hesiod had less reputation than Homer? They seem to me of\nequal merit, but Homer has been preferred by the Greeks because he sang\ntheir exploits and victories over the Asiatics, their eternal enemies.\nHe celebrated all the families which in his time reigned in Achaia and\nPeloponnesus; he wrote the most memorable war of the first people in\nEurope against the most flourishing nation which was then known in Asia.\nHis poem was almost the only monument of that great epoch. There was no\ntown nor family which did not think itself honored by having its name\nmentioned in these records of valor. We are even assured that a long\ntime after him some differences between the Greek towns on the subject\nof adjacent lands were decided by the verses of Homer. He became, after\nhis death, the judge of cities in which it is pretended that he asked\nalms during his life, which proves, also, that the Greeks had poets long\nbefore they had geographers.\n\nIt is astonishing that the Greeks, so disposed to honor epic poems which\nimmortalized the combats of their ancestors, produced no one to sing the\nbattles of Marathon, Thermopyl\u00e6, Plat\u00e6a, and Salamis. The heroes of\nthese times were much greater men than Agamemnon, Achilles, and Ajax.\n\nTyrt\u00e6us, a captain, poet, and musician, like the king of Prussia in our\ndays, made war and sang it. He animated the Spartans against the\nMessenians by his verses, and gained the victory. But his works are\nlost. It does not appear that any epic poem was written-in the time of\nPericles. The attention of genius was turned towards tragedy, so that\nHomer stood alone, and his glory increased daily. We now come to his\n\"Iliad.\"\n\n_Of the Iliad._\n\nWhat confirms me in the opinion that Homer was of the Greek colony\nestablished at Smyrna is the oriental style of all his metaphors and\npictures: The earth which shook under the feet of the army when it\nmarched like the thunderbolts of Jupiter on the hills which overwhelmed\nthe giant Typhon; a wind blacker than night winged with tempests; Mars\nand Minerva followed by Terror, Flight, and insatiable Discord, the\nsister and companion of Homicide, the goddess of battles, who raises\ntumults wherever she appears, and who, not content with setting the\nworld by the ears, even exalts her proud head into heaven. The \"Iliad\"\nis full of these images, which caused the sculptor Bouchardon to say,\n\"When I read Homer I believe myself twenty feet high.\"\n\nHis poem, which is not at all interesting to us, was very precious to\nthe Greeks. His gods are ridiculous to reasonable but they were not so\nto partial eyes, and it was for partial eyes that he wrote.\n\nWe laugh and shrug our shoulders at these gods, who abused one another,\nfought one another, and combated with men--who were wounded and whose\nblood flowed, but such was the ancient theology of Greece and of almost\nall the Asiatic people. Every nation, every little village had its\nparticular god, which conducted it to battle.\n\nThe inhabitants of the clouds and of the stars which were supposed in\nthe clouds, had a cruel war. The combat of the angels against one\nanother was from time immemorial the foundation of the religion of the\nBrahmins. The battle of the Titans, the children of heaven and earth,\nagainst the chief gods of Olympus, was also the leading mystery of the\nGreek religion. Typhon, according to the Egyptians, had fought against\nOshiret, whom we call Osiris, and cut him to pieces.\n\nMadame Dacier, in her preface to the \"Iliad,\" remarks very sensibly,\nafter Eustathius, bishop of Thessalonica, and Huet, bishop of Avranches,\nthat every neighboring nation of the Hebrews had its god of war. Indeed,\ndoes not Jephthah say to the Ammonites, \"Wilt not thou possess that\nwhich Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So, whomsoever the Lord\nour God shall drive out from before us, from them will we possess.\"\n\nDo we not see the God of Judah a conqueror in the mountains and repulsed\nin the valleys?\n\nAs to men wrestling against divinities, that is a received idea. Jacob\nwrestled one whole night with an angel. If Jupiter sent a deceiving\ndream to the chief of the Greeks, the Lord also sent a deceiving spirit\nto King Ahab. These emblems were frequent and astonished nobody. Homer\nhas then painted the ideas of his own age; he could not paint those of\nthe generations which succeeded him.\n\nHomer has great faults. Horace confesses it, and all men of taste agree\nto it; there is only one commentator who is blind enough not to see\nthem. Pope, who was himself a translator of the Greek poet, says: \"It is\na vast but uncultivated country where we meet with all kinds of natural\nbeauties, but which do not present themselves as regularly as in a\ngarden; it is an abundant nursery which contains the seeds of all\nfruits; a great tree that extends superfluous branches which it is\nnecessary to prune.\"\n\nMadame Dacier sides with the vast country, the nursery and the tree, and\nwould have nothing curtailed. She was no doubt a woman superior to her\nsex, and has done great service to letters, as well as her husband, but\nwhen she became masculine and turned commentator, she so overacted her\npart that she piqued people into finding fault with Homer. She was so\nobstinate as to quarrel even with Monsieur de La Motte. She wrote\nagainst him like the head of a college, and La Motte answered like a\npolite and witty woman. He translated the \"Iliad\" very badly, but he\nattacked Madame Dacier very well.\n\nWe will not speak of the \"Odyssey\" here; we shall say something of that\npoem while treating of Ariosto.\n\n_Of Virgil._\n\nIt appears to me that the second, fourth, and sixth book of the \"\u00c6neid\"\nare as much above all Greek and Latin poets, without exception, as the\nstatues of Girardon are superior to all those which preceded them in\nFrance.\n\nIt is often said that Virgil has borrowed many of the figures of Homer,\nand that he is even inferior to him in his imitations, but he has not\nimitated him at all in the three books of which I am speaking; he is\nthere himself touching and appalling to the heart. Perhaps he was not\nsuited for terrific detail, but there had been battles enough. Horace\nhad said of him, before he attempted the \"\u00c6neid:\"\n\n                 _Molle atque facetum_\n     _Virgilio annuerunt gaudentes rure camoen\u00e6._\n\n     Smooth flow his lines, and elegant his style,\n     On Virgil all the rural muses smile.\n                                      --FRANCIS.\n\n\"_Facetum_\" does not here signify facetious but agreeable. I do not know\nwhether we shall not find a little of this happy and affecting softness\nin the fatal passion of Dido. I think at least that we shall there\nrecognize the author of those admirable verses which we meet with in his\nEclogues: \"_Ut vidi, ut perii, ut me malus abstulit error_!\"--I saw, I\nperished, yet indulged my pain.--(Dryden.)\n\nCertainly the description of the descent into hell would not be badly\nmatched with these lines from the fourth Eclogue:\n\n     _Ille Deum vitam accipiet, divisque videbit_\n     _Permistos heroas, et ipse videbitur illis--_\n     _Pacatumque reget patriis virtutibus orbem._\n\n     The sons shall lead the lives of gods, and be\n     By gods and heroes seen, and gods and heroes see.\n     The jarring nations he in peace shall bind,\n     And with paternal virtues rule mankind.\n                                           --DRYDEN.\n\nI meet with many of these simple, elegant, and affecting passages in the\nthree beautiful books of the \"\u00c6neid.\"\n\nAll the fourth book is filled with touching verses, which move those who\nhave any ear or sentiment at all, even to tears, and to point out all\nthe beauties of this book it would be necessary to transcribe the whole\nof it. And in the sombre picture of hell, how this noble and affecting\ntenderness breathes through every line.\n\nIt is well known how many tears were shed by the emperor Augustus, by\nLivia, and all the palace, at hearing this half line alone: \"_Tu\nMarcellus eris.\"_--A new Marcellus will in thee arise.\n\nHomer never produces tears. The true poet, according to my idea, is he\nwho touches the soul and softens it, others are only fine speakers. I am\nfar from proposing this opinion as a rule. \"I give my opinion,\" says\nMontaigne, \"not as being good, but as being my own.\"\n\n_Of Lucan._\n\nIf you look for unity of time and action in Lucan you will lose your\nlabor, but where else will you find it? If you expect to feel any\nemotion or any interest you will not experience it in the long details\nof a war, the subject of which is very dry and the expressions\nbombastic, but if you would have bold ideas, an eloquent expatiation on\nsublime and philosophical courage, Lucan is the only one among the\nancients in whom you will meet with it. There is nothing finer than the\nspeech of Labienus to Cato at the gates of the temple of Jupiter Ammon,\nif we except the answer of Cato itself:\n\n     _H\u0153remus cuncti superis? temploque tacente_\n     _Nil facimus non sponte Dei_\n     _.... Steriles num legit arenas._\n     _Ut caneret paucis; mersit ne hoc pulvere verum!_\n     _Estne Dei sedes nisi terra et pontus et aer,_\n     _Et c\u0153lum et virtus? Superos quid qu\u00e6rimus ultra?_\n     _Jupiter est quodcumque vides quocumque moveris._\n\n     And though our priests are mutes, and temples still,\n     We act the dictates of his mighty will;\n     Canst thou believe, the vast eternal mind,\n     Was e'er to Syrts and Libyan sands confined?\n     That he would choose this waste, this barren ground,\n     To teach the thin inhabitants around?\n     Is there a place that God would choose to love\n     Beyond this earth, the seas, yon heaven above,\n     And virtuous minds, the noblest throne of Jove?\n     Why seek we farther, then? Behold around;\n     How all thou seest doth with the God abound,\n     Jove is seen everywhere, and always to be found.\n                                                 --ROWE.\n\nPut together all that the ancients poets have said of the gods and it is\nchildish in comparison with this passage of Lucan, but in a vast\npicture, in which there are a hundred figures, it is not sufficient that\none or two of them are finely designed.\n\n_Of Tasso._\n\nBoileau has exposed the tinsel of Tasso, but if there be a hundred\nspangles of false gold in a piece of gold cloth, it is pardonable. There\nare many rough stones in the great marble building raised by Homer.\nBoileau knew it, felt it, and said nothing about it. We should be just.\n\nWe recall the reader's memory to what has been said of Tasso in the\n\"Essay on Epic Poetry,\" but we must here observe that his verses are\nknown by heart all over Italy. If at Venice any one in a boat sings a\nstanza of the \"Jerusalem Delivered,\" he is answered from a neighboring\nbark with the following one.\n\nIf Boileau had listened to these concerts he could have said nothing in\nreply. As enough is known of Tasso, I will not repeat here either\neulogies or criticisms. I will speak more at length of Ariosto.\n\n_Of Ariosto._\n\nHomer's \"Odyssey\" seems to have been the first model of the\n\"_Morgante_,\" of the \"_Orlando Innamorato,\"_ and the \"_Orlando\nFurioso_,\" and, what very seldom happens, the last of the poems is\nwithout dispute the best.\n\nThe companions of Ulysses changed into swine; the winds shut up in\ngoats' skins; the musicians with fishes' tails, who ate all those who\napproached them; Ulysses, who followed the chariot of a beautiful\nprincess who went to bathe quite naked; Ulysses, disguised as a beggar,\nwho asked alms, and afterwards killed all the lovers of his aged wife,\nassisted only by his son and two servants--are imaginations which have\ngiven birth to all the poetical romances which have since been written\nin the same style.\n\nBut the romance of Ariosto is so full of variety and so fertile in\nbeauties of all kinds that after having read it once quite through I\nonly wish to begin it again. How great the charm of natural poetry! I\nnever could read a single canto of this poem in a prose translation.\n\nThat which above all charms me in this wonderful work is that the author\nis always above his subject, and treats it playfully. He says the most\nsublime things without effort and he often finishes them by a turn of\npleasantry which is neither misplaced nor far-fetched. It is at once the\n\"Iliad,\" the \"Odyssey,\" and \"Don Quixote,\" for his principal\nknight-errant becomes mad like the Spanish hero, and is infinitely more\npleasant.\n\nThe subject of the poem, which consists of so many things, is precisely\nthat of the romance of \"Cassandra,\" which was formerly so much in\nfashion with us, and which has entirely lost its celebrity because it\nhad only the length of the \"_Orlando Furioso,_\" and few of its beauties,\nand even the few being in French prose, five or six stanzas of Ariosto\nwill eclipse them all. His poem closes with the greater part of the\nheroes and princesses who have not perished during the war all meeting\nin Paris, after a thousand adventures, just as the personages in the\nromance of \"Cassandra\" all finally meet again in the house of Palemon.\n\nThe \"_Orlando Furioso_\" possesses a merit unknown to the ancients--it is\nthat of its exordiums.\n\nEvery canto is like an enchanted palace, the vestibule of which is\nalways in a different taste--sometimes majestic, sometimes simple, and\neven grotesque. It is moral, lively, or gallant, and always natural and\ntrue.\n\n\n\n\nEPIPHANY.\n\n\n_The Manifestation, the Appearance, the Illustration, the Radiance._\n\nIt is not easy to perceive what relation this word can have to the three\nkings or magi, who came from the east under the guidance of a star. That\nbrilliant star was evidently the cause of bestowing on the day of its\nappearance the denomination of the Epiphany.\n\nIt is asked whence came these three kings? What place had they appointed\nfor their rendezvous? One of them, it is said, came from Africa; he did\nnot, then, come from the East. It is said they were three magi, but the\ncommon people have always preferred the interpretation of three kings.\nThe feast of the kings is everywhere celebrated, but that of the magi\nnowhere; people eat king's-cake and not magi-cake, and exclaim \"the king\ndrinks\"--not \"the magi drink.\"\n\nMoreover, as they brought with them much gold, incense, and myrrh, they\nmust necessarily have been persons of great wealth and consequence. The\nmagi of that day were by no means very rich. It was not then as in the\ntimes of the false Smerdis.\n\nTertullian is the first who asserted that these three travellers were\nkings. St. Ambrose, and St. C\u00e6sar of Arles, suppose them to be kings,\nand the following passages of Psalm lxxi. are quoted in proof of it:\n\"The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall offer him gifts. The kings\nof Arabia and of Saba shall bring him presents.\" Some have called these\nthree kings Magalat, Galgalat, and Saraim, others Athos, Satos, and\nParatoras. The Catholics knew them under the names of Gaspard, Melchior,\nand Balthazar. Bishop Osorio relates that it was a king of Cranganore,\nin the kingdom of Calicut, who undertook this journey with two magi, and\nthat this king on his return to his own country built a chapel to the\nHoly Virgin.\n\nIt has been inquired how much gold they gave Joseph and Mary. Many\ncommentators declare that they made them the richest presents; they\nbuilt on the authority of the \"Gospel of the Infancy,\" which states that\nJoseph and Mary were robbed in Egypt by Titus and Dumachus, \"but,\" say\nthey, \"these men would never have robbed them if they had not had a\ngreat deal of money.\" These two robbers were afterwards hanged; one was\nthe good thief and the other the bad one. But the \"Gospel of Nicodemus\"\ngives them other names; it calls them Dimas and Gestas.\n\nThe same \"Gospel of the Infancy\" says that they were magi and not kings\nwho came to Bethlehem; that they had in reality been guided by a star,\nbut that the star having ceased to appear while they were in the\nstable, an angel made its appearance in the form of a star to act in its\nstead. This gospel asserts that the visit of the three magi had been\npredicted by Zerdusht, whom we call Zoroaster.\n\nSuarez has investigated what became of the gold which the three kings or\nmagi presented; he maintains that the amount must have been very large,\nand that three kings could never make a small or moderate present. He\nsays that the whole sum was afterwards given to Judas, who, acting as\nsteward, turned out a rogue and stole the whole amount.\n\nAll these puerilities can do no harm to the Feast of the Epiphany, which\nwas first instituted by the Greek Church, as the term implies, and was\nafterwards celebrated by the Latin Church.\n\n\n\n\nEQUALITY.\n\n\nNothing can be clearer than that men, enjoying the faculties of their\ncommon nature, are in a state of equality; they are equal when they\nperform their animal functions, and exercise their understandings. The\nking of China, the great mogul, or the Turkish pasha cannot say to the\nlowest of his species, \"I forbid you to digest your food, to discharge\nyour f\u00e6ces, or to think.\" All animals of every species are on an\nequality with one another, and animals have by nature beyond ourselves\nthe advantages of independence. If a bull, while paying his attentions\nto a heifer, is driven away by the horns of another bull stronger than\nhimself, he goes to seek a new mistress in another meadow, and lives in\nfreedom. A cock, after being defeated, finds consolation in another\nhen-roost. It is not so with us. A petty vizier banishes a bostangi to\nLemnos; the vizier Azem banishes the petty vizier to Tenedos; the pasha\nbanishes the vizier Azem to Rhodes; the janissaries imprison the pasha\nand elect another who will banish the worthy Mussulmans just when and\nwhere he pleases, while they will feel inexpressibly obliged to him for\nso gentle a display of his authority.\n\nIf the earth were in fact what it might be supposed it should be--if men\nfound upon it everywhere an easy and certain subsistence, and a climate\ncongenial to their nature, it would be evidently impossible for one man\nto subjugate another. Let the globe be covered with wholesome fruits;\nlet the air on which we depend for life convey to us no diseases and\npremature death; let man require no other lodging than the deer or\nroebuck, in that case the Genghis Khans and Tamerlanes will have no\nother attendants than their own children, who will be very worthy\npersons, and assist them affectionately in their old age.\n\nIn that state of nature enjoyed by all undomesticated quadrupeds, and by\nbirds and reptiles, men would be just as happy as they are. Domination\nwould be a mere chimera--an absurdity which no one would think of, for\nwhy should servants be sought for when no service is required?\n\nIf it should enter the mind of any individual of a tyrannical\ndisposition and nervous arm to subjugate his less powerful neighbor, his\nsuccess would be impossible; the oppressed would be on the Danube before\nthe oppressor had completed his preparations on the Volga.\n\nAll men, then, would necessarily have been equal had they been without\nwants; it is the misery attached to our species which places one man in\nsubjection to another; inequality is not the real grievance, but\ndependence. It is of little consequence for one man to be called his\nhighness and another his holiness, but it is hard for me to be the\nservant of another.\n\nA numerous family has cultivated a good soil, two small neighboring\nfamilies live on lands unproductive and barren. It will therefore be\nnecessary for the two poor families to serve the rich one, or to destroy\nit. This is easily accomplished. One of the two indigent families goes\nand offers its services to the rich one in exchange for bread, the other\nmakes an attack upon it and is conquered. The serving family is the\norigin of domestics and laborers, the one conquered is the origin of\nslaves.\n\nIt is impossible in our melancholy world to prevent men living in\nsociety from being divided into two classes, one of the rich who\ncommand, the other of the poor who obey, and these two are subdivided\ninto various others, which have also their respective shades of\ndifference.\n\nYou come and say, after the lots are drawn, I am a man as well as you; I\nhave two hands and two feet; as much pride as yourself, or more; a mind\nas irregular, inconsequent, and contradictory as your own. I am a\ncitizen of San Marino, or Ragusa, or Vaugirard; give me my portion of\nland. In our known hemisphere are about fifty thousand millions of acres\nof cultivable land, good and bad. The number of our two-footed,\nfeatherless race within these bounds is a thousand millions; that is\njust fifty acres for each: do me justice; give me my fifty acres.\n\nThe reply is: go and take them among the Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and\nthe Samoyeds; arrange the matter amicably with them; here all the shares\nare filled up. If you wish to have food, clothing, lodging, and warmth\namong us, work for us as your father did--serve us or amuse us, and you\nshall be paid; if not, you will be obliged to turn beggar, which would\nbe highly degrading to your sublime nature, and certainly preclude that\nactual equality with kings, or even village curates, to which you so\nnobly pretend.\n\nAll the poor are not unhappy. The greater number are born in that state,\nand constant labor prevents them from too sensibly feeling their\nsituation; but when they do strongly feel it, then follow wars such as\nthose of the popular party against the senate at Rome, and those of the\npeasantry in Germany, England, and France. All these wars ended sooner\nor later in the subjection of the people, because the great have money,\nand money in a state commands everything; I say in a state, for the case\nis different between nation and nation. That nation which makes the best\nuse of iron will always subjugate another that has more gold but less\ncourage.\n\nEvery man is born with an eager inclination for power, wealth, and\npleasure, and also with a great taste for indolence. Every man,\nconsequently, would wish to possess the fortunes and the wives or\ndaughters of others, to be their master, to retain them in subjection to\nhis caprices, and to do nothing, or at least nothing but what is\nperfectly agreeable. You clearly perceive that with such amiable\ndispositions, it is as impossible for men to be equal as for two\npreachers or divinity professors not to be jealous of each other.\n\nThe human race, constituted as it is, cannot exist unless there be an\ninfinite number of useful individuals possessed of no property at all,\nfor most certainly a man in easy circumstances will not leave his own\nland to come and cultivate yours; and if you want a pair of shoes you\nwill not get a lawyer to make them for you. Equality, then, is at the\nsame time the most natural and the most chimerical thing possible.\n\nAs men carry everything to excess if they have it in their power to do\nso, this inequality has been pushed too far; it has been maintained in\nmany countries that no citizen has a right to quit that in which he was\nborn. The meaning of such a law must evidently be: \"This country is so\nwretched and ill-governed we prohibit every man from quitting it, under\nan apprehension that otherwise all would leave it.\" Do better; excite in\nall your subjects a desire to stay with you, and in foreigners a desire\nto come and settle among you.\n\nEvery man has a right to entertain a private opinion of his own equality\nto other men, but it follows not that a cardinal's cook should take it\nupon him to order his master to prepare his dinner. The cook, however,\nmay say: \"I am a man as well as my master; I was born like him in tears,\nand shall like him die in anguish, attended by the same common\nceremonies. We both perform the same animal functions. If the Turks get\npossession of Rome, and I then become a cardinal and my master a cook, I\nwill take him into my service.\" This language is perfectly reasonable\nand just, but, while waiting for the Grand Turk to get possession of\nRome, the cook is bound to do his duty, or all human society is\nsubverted.\n\nWith respect to a man who is neither a cardinal's cook nor invested with\nany office whatever in the state--with respect to an individual who has\nno connections, and is disgusted at being everywhere received with an\nair of protection or contempt, who sees quite clearly that many men of\nquality and title have not more knowledge, wit, or virtue than himself,\nand is wearied by being occasionally in their antechambers--what ought\nsuch a man to do? He ought to stay away.\n\n\n\n\nESSENIANS.\n\n\nThe more superstitious and barbarous any nation is, the more obstinately\nbent on war, notwithstanding its defeats; the more divided into\nfactions, floating between royal and priestly claims; and the more\nintoxicated it may be by fanaticism, the more certainly will be found\namong that nation a number of citizens associated together in order to\nlive in peace.\n\nIt happens during a season of pestilence that a small canton forbids all\ncommunication with large cities. It preserves itself from the prevailing\ncontagion, but remains a prey to other maladies.\n\nOf this description of persons were the Gymnosophists in India, and\ncertain sects of philosophers among the Greeks. Such also were the\nPythagoreans in Italy and Greece, and the Therapeut\u00e6 in Egypt. Such at\nthe present day are those primitive people called Quakers and Dunkards,\nin Pennsylvania, and very nearly such were the first Christians who\nlived together remote from cities.\n\nNot one of these societies was acquainted with the dreadful custom of\nbinding themselves by oath to the mode of life which they adopted, of\ninvolving themselves in perpetual chains, of depriving themselves, on a\nprinciple of religion, of the grand right and first principle of human\nnature, which is liberty; in short, of entering into what we call vows.\nSt. Basil was the first who conceived the idea of those vows, of this\noath of slavery. He introduced a new plague into the world, and\nconverted into a poison that which had been invented as a remedy.\n\nThere were in Syria societies precisely similar to those of the\nEssenians. This we learn from the Jew Philo, in his treatise on the\n\"Freedom of the Good.\" Syria was always superstitious and factious, and\nalways under the yoke of tyrants. The successors of Alexander made it a\ntheatre of horrors. It is by no means extraordinary that among such\nnumbers of oppressed and persecuted beings, some, more humane and\njudicious than the rest, should withdraw from all intercourse with great\ncities, in order to live in common, in honest poverty, far from the\nblasting eyes of tyranny.\n\nDuring the civil wars of the latter Ptolemies, similar asylums were\nformed in Egypt, and when that country was subjugated by the Roman arms,\nthe Therapeut\u00e6 established themselves in a sequestered spot in the\nneighborhood of Lake M\u0153ris.\n\nIt appears highly probable that there were Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish\nTherapeut\u00e6. Philo, after eulogizing Anaxagoras, Democritus, and other\nphilosophers, who embraced their way of life, thus expresses himself:\n\n\"Similar societies are found in many countries; Greece and other regions\nenjoy institutions of this consoling character. They are common in\nEgypt in every district, and particularly in that of Alexandria. The\nmost worthy and moral of the population have withdrawn beyond Lake\nM\u0153ris to a secluded but convenient spot, forming a gentle declivity.\nThe air is very salubrious, and the villages in the neighborhood\nsufficiently numerous,\" etc.\n\nThus we perceive that there have everywhere existed societies of men who\nhave endeavored to find a refuge from disturbances and factions, from\nthe insolence and rapacity of oppressors. All, without exception,\nentertained a perfect horror of war, considering it precisely in the\nsame light in which we contemplate highway robbery and murder.\n\nSuch, nearly, were the men of letters who united, in France and founded\nthe Academy. They quietly withdrew from the factious and cruel scenes\nwhich desolated the country in the reign of Louis XIII. Such also were\nthe men who founded the Royal Society at London, while the barbarous\nidiots called Puritans and Episcopalians were cutting one another's\nthroats about the interpretation of a few passages from three or four\nold and unintelligible books.\n\nSome learned men have been of opinion that Jesus Christ, who\ncondescended to make his appearance for some time in the small district\nof Capernaum, in Nazareth, and some other small towns of Palestine, was\none of those Essenians who fled from the tumult of affairs and\ncultivated virtue in peace. But the name \"Essenian,\" never even once\noccurs in the four Gospels, in the Apocrypha, or in the Acts, or the\nEpistles of the apostles.\n\nAlthough, however, the name is not to be found, a resemblance is in\nvarious points observable--confraternity, community of property,\nstrictness of moral conduct, manual labor, detachment from wealth and\nhonors; and, above all, detestation of war. So great is this\ndetestation, that Jesus Christ commands his disciples when struck upon\none cheek to offer the other also, and when robbed of a cloak to deliver\nup the coat likewise. Upon this principle the Christians conducted\nthemselves, during the two first centuries, without altars, temples, or\nmagistracies--all employed in their respective trades or occupations,\nall leading secluded and quiet lives.\n\nTheir early writings attest that they were not permitted to carry arms.\nIn this they perfectly resembled our Quakers, Anabaptists, and\nMennonites of the present day, who take a pride in following the literal\nmeaning of the gospel. For although there are in the gospel many\npassages which, when incorrectly understood, might breed violence--as\nthe case of the merchants scourged out of the temple avenues, the phrase\n\"compel them to come in,\" the dangers into which they were thrown who\nhad not converted their master's one talent into five talents, and the\ntreatment of those who came to the wedding without the wedding\ngarment--although, I say, all these may seem contrary to the pacific\nspirit of the gospel, yet there are so many other passages which enjoin\nsufferance instead of contest, that it is by no means astonishing that,\nfor a period of two hundred years, Christians held war in absolute\nexecration.\n\nUpon this foundation was the numerous and respectable society of\nPennsylvanians established, as were also the minor sects which have\nimitated them. When I denominate them respectable, it is by no means in\nconsequence of their aversion to the splendor of the Catholic church. I\nlament, undoubtedly, as I ought to do, their errors. It is their virtue,\ntheir modesty, and their spirit of peace, that I respect.\n\nWas not the great philosopher Bayle right, then, when he remarked that a\nChristian of the earliest times of our religion would be a very bad\nsoldier, or that a soldier would be a very bad Christian?\n\nThis dilemma appears to be unanswerable; and in this point, in my\nopinion, consists the great difference between ancient Christianity and\nancient Judaism.\n\nThe law of the first Jews expressly says, \"As soon as you enter any\ncountry with a view to possess it, destroy everything by fire and sword;\nslay, without mercy, aged men, women, and children at the breast; kill\neven all the animals; sack everything and burn everything. It is your\nGod who commands you so to do.\" This injunction is not given in a single\ninstance, but on twenty different occasions, and is always followed.\n\nMahomet, persecuted by the people of Mecca, defends himself like a brave\nman. He compels his vanquished persecutors to humble themselves at his\nfeet, and become his disciples. He establishes his religion by\nproselytism and the sword.\n\nJesus, appearing between the times of Moses and Mahomet, in a corner of\nGalilee, preaches forgiveness of injuries, patience, mildness, and\nforbearance, dies himself under the infliction of capital punishment,\nand is desirous of the same fate for His first disciples.\n\nI ask candidly, whether St. Bartholomew, St. Andrew, St. Matthew, and\nSt. Barnabas, would have been received among the cuirassiers of the\nemperor, or among the royal guards of Charles XII.?\n\nWould St. Peter himself, though he cut off Malchus' ear, have made a\ngood officer? Perhaps St. Paul, accustomed at first to carnage, and\nhaving had the misfortune to be a bloody persecutor, is the only one who\ncould have been made a warrior. The impetuosity of his temperament and\nthe fire of his imagination would have made him a formidable commander.\nBut, notwithstanding these qualities, he made no effort to revenge\nhimself on Gamaliel by arms. He did not act like the Judases, the\nTheudases, and the Barchochebases, who levied troops: he followed the\nprecepts of Jesus Christ; he suffered; and, according to an account we\nhave of his death, he was beheaded.\n\nTo compose an army of Christians, therefore, in the early period of\nChristianity, was a contradiction in terms.\n\nIt is certain that Christians were not enlisted among the troops of the\nempire till the spirit by which they were animated was changed. In the\nfirst two centuries they entertained a horror for temples, altars,\ntapers, incense, and lustral water. Porphyry compares them to the foxes\nwho said \"the grapes are sour.\" \"If,\" said he, \"you could have had\nbeautiful temples burnished with gold, and large revenues for a clergy,\nyou would then have been passionately fond of temples.\" They afterwards\naddicted themselves to all that they had abhorred. Thus, having detested\nthe profession of arms, they at length engaged in war. The Christians in\nthe time of Diocletian were as different from those of the time of the\napostles, as we are from the Christians of the third century.\n\nI cannot conceive how a mind so enlightened and bold as Montesquieu's\ncould severely censure another genius much more accurate than his own,\nand oppose the following just remark made by Bayle: \"a society of real\nChristians might live happily together, but they would make a bad\ndefence on being attacked by an enemy.\"\n\n\"They would,\" says Montesquieu, \"be citizens infinitely enlightened on\nthe subject of their duties, and ardently zealous to discharge them.\nThey would be fully sensible of the rights of natural defence. The more\nthey thought they owed religion, the more they would think they owed\ntheir country. The principles of Christianity deeply engraved on their\nhearts would be infinitely more powerful than the false honor of\nmonarchies, the human virtues of republics, or the servile fear which\noperates under despotism.\"\n\nSurely the author of the \"Spirit of Laws\" did not reflect upon the words\nof the gospel, when saying that real Christians would be fully sensible\nof the rights of natural defence. He did not recollect the command to\ndeliver up the coat after the cloak had been taken; and, after having\nreceived a blow upon one cheek, to present the other also. Here the\nprinciple of natural defence is most decidedly annihilated. Those whom\nwe call Quakers have always refused to fight; but in the war of 1756, if\nthey had not received assistance from the other English, and suffered\nthat assistance to operate, they would have been completely crushed.\n\nIs it not unquestionable that men who thought and felt as martyrs would\nfight very ill as grenadiers? Every sentence of that chapter of the\n\"Spirit of Laws\" appears to me false. \"The principles of Christianity\ndeeply engraved on their hearts, would be infinitely more powerful,\"\netc. Yes, more powerful to prevent their exercise of the sword, to make\nthem tremble at shedding their neighbor's blood, to make them look on\nlife as a burden of which it would be their highest happiness to be\nrelieved.\n\n\"If,\" says Bayle, \"they were appointed to drive back veteran corps of\ninfantry, or to charge regiments of cuirassiers, they would be seen like\nsheep in the midst of wolves.\"\n\nBayle was perfectly right. Montesquieu did not perceive that, while\nattempting to refute him, he contemplated only the mercenary and\nsanguinary soldiers of the present day, and not the early Christians. It\nwould seem as if he had been desirous of preventing the unjust\naccusations which he experienced from the fanatics, by sacrificing Bayle\nto them. But he gained nothing by it. They are two great men, who appear\nto be of different opinions, but who, if they had been equally free to\nspeak, would have been found to have the same.\n\n\"The false honor of monarchies, the human virtues of republics, the\nservile fear which operates under despotism;\" nothing at all of this\ngoes towards the composition of a soldier, as the \"Spirit of Laws\"\npretends. When we levy a regiment, of whom a quarter part will desert in\nthe course of a fortnight, not one of the men enlisted thinks about the\nhonor of the monarchy: they do not even know what it is. The mercenary\ntroops of the republic of Venice know their country; but nothing about\nrepublican virtue, which no one ever speaks of in the place of St. Mark.\nIn one word, I do not believe that there is a single man on the face of\nthe earth who has enlisted in his regiment from a principle of virtue.\n\nNeither, again, is it out of a servile fear that Turks and Russians\nfight with the fierceness and rage of lions and tigers. Fear does not\ninspire courage. Nor is it by devotion that the Russians have defeated\nthe armies of Mustapha. It would, in my opinion, have been highly\ndesirable that so ingenious a man should have sought for truth rather\nthan display. When we wish to instruct mankind, we ought to forget\nourselves, and have nothing in view but truth.\n\n\n\n\nETERNITY.\n\n\nIn my youth I admired all the reasonings of Samuel Clarke. I loved his\nperson, although he was a determined Arian as well as Newton, and I\nstill revere his memory, because he was a good man; but the impression\nwhich his ideas had stamped on my yet tender brain was effaced when that\nbrain became more firm. I found, for example, that he had contested the\neternity of the world with as little ability as he had proved the\nreality of infinite space.\n\nI have so much respect for the Book of Genesis, and for the church which\nadopts it, that I regard it as the only proof of the creation of the\nworld five thousand seven hundred and eighteen years ago, according to\nthe computation of the Latins, and seven thousand and seventy-eight\nyears, according to the Greeks. All antiquity believed matter, at least,\nto be eternal; and the greatest philosophers attributed eternity also to\nthe arrangement of the universe.\n\nThey are all mistaken, as we well know; but we may believe, without\nblasphemy, that the eternal Former of all things made other worlds\nbesides ours.\n\n\n\n\nEUCHARIST.\n\n\nOn this delicate subject, we shall not speak as theologians. Submitting\nin heart and mind to the religion in which we are born, and the laws\nunder which we live, we shall have nothing to do with controversy; it is\ntoo hostile to all religions which it boasts of supporting--to all laws\nwhich it makes pretensions to explain, and especially to that harmony\nwhich in every period it has banished from the world.\n\nOne-half of Europe anathematizes the other on the subject of the\nEucharist; and blood has flowed in torrents from the Baltic Sea to the\nfoot of the Pyrenees, for nearly two centuries, on account of a single\nword, which signifies gentle charity.\n\nVarious nations in this part of the world view with horror the system of\ntransubstantiation. They exclaim against this dogma as the last effort\nof human folly. They quote the celebrated passage of Cicero, who says\nthat men, having exhausted all the mad extravagancies they are capable\nof, have yet never entertained the idea of eating the God whom they\nadore. They say that as almost all popular opinions are built upon\nambiguities and abuse of words, so the system of the Roman Catholics\nconcerning the Eucharist and transubstantiation is founded solely on an\nambiguity; that they have interpreted literally what could only have\nbeen meant figuratively; and that for the sake of mere verbal contests,\nfor absolute misconceptions, the world has for six hundred years been\ndrenched in blood.\n\nTheir preachers in the pulpits, their learned in their publications, and\nthe people in their conversational discussions, incessantly repeat that\nJesus Christ did not take His body in His two hands to give His\ndisciples to eat; that a body cannot be in a hundred thousand places at\none time, in bread and in wine; that the God who formed the universe\ncannot consist of bread which is converted into f\u00e6ces, and of wine which\nflows off in urine; and that the doctrine may naturally expose\nChristianity to the derision of the least intelligent, and to the\ncontempt and execration of the rest of mankind.\n\nIn this opinion the Tillotsons, the Smallridges, the Claudes, the\nDaill\u00e9s, the Amyrauts, the Mestrezats, the Dumoulins, the Blondels, and\nthe numberless multitude of the reformers of the sixteenth century, are\nall agreed; while the peaceable Mahometan, master of Africa, and of the\nfinest part of Asia, smiles with disdain upon our disputes, and the rest\nof the world are totally ignorant of them.\n\nOnce again I repeat that I have nothing to do with controversy. I\nbelieve with a lively faith all that the Catholic apostolic religion\nteaches on the subject of the Eucharist, without comprehending a single\nword of it.\n\nThe question is, how to put the greatest restraint upon crimes. The\nStoics said that they carried God in their hearts. Such is the\nexpression of Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus, the most virtuous of\nmankind, and who might almost be called gods upon earth. They understood\nby the words \"I carry God within me,\" that part of the divine universal\nsoul which animates every intelligent being.\n\nThe Catholic religion goes further. It says, \"You shall have within you\nphysically what the Stoics had metaphysically. Do not set yourselves\nabout inquiring what it is that I give you to eat and drink, or merely\nto eat. Only believe that what I so give you is God. He is within you.\nShall your heart then be defiled by anything unjust or base? Behold then\nmen receiving God within them, in the midst of an august ceremonial, by\nthe light of a hundred tapers, under the influence of the most exquisite\nand enchanting music, and at the footstool of an altar of burnished\ngold. The imagination is led captive, the soul is rapt in ecstasy and\nmelted! The votary scarcely breathes; he is detached from every\nterrestrial object, he is united with God, He is in our flesh, and in\nour blood! Who will dare, or who even will be able, after this, to\ncommit a single fault, or to entertain even the idea of it? It was\nclearly impossible to devise a mystery better calculated to retain\nmankind in virtue.\"\n\nYet Louis XI., while receiving God thus within him, poisons his own\nbrother; the archbishop of Florence, while making God, and the Pazzi\nwhile receiving Him, assassinate the Medici in the cathedral. Pope\nAlexander VI., after rising from the bed of his bastard daughter,\nadministers God to C\u00e6sar Borgia, his bastard son, and both destroy by\nhanging, poison, and the sword, all who are in possession of two acres\nof land which they find desirable.\n\nJulius II. makes and eats God; but, with his cuirass on his back and his\nhelmet on his head, he imbrues his hands in blood and carnage. Leo X.\ncontains God in his body, his mistress in his arms, and the money\nextorted by the sale of indulgences, in his own and his sister's\ncoffers.\n\nTrolle, archbishop of Upsala, has the senators of Sweden slaughtered\nbefore his face, holding a papal bull in his hand. Von Galen, bishop of\nM\u00fcnster, makes war upon all his neighbors, and becomes celebrated for\nhis rapine.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 N---- is full of God, speaks of nothing but God, imparts God to\nall the women, or weak and imbecile persons that he can obtain the\ndirection of, and robs his penitents of their property.\n\nWhat are we to conclude from these contradictions? That all these\npersons never really believed in God; that they still less, if possible,\nbelieved that they had eaten His body and drunk His blood; that they\nnever imagined they had swallowed God; that if they had firmly so\nbelieved, they never would have committed any of those deliberate\ncrimes; in a word, that this most miraculous preventive of human\natrocities has been most ineffective? The more sublime such an idea, the\nmore decidedly is it secretly rejected by human obstinacy.\n\nThe fact is, that all our grand criminals who have been at the head of\ngovernment, and those also who have subordinately shared in authority,\nnot only never believed that they received God down their throats, but\nnever believed in God at all; at least they had entirely effaced such an\nidea from their minds. Their contempt for the sacrament which they\ncreated or administered was extended at length into a contempt of God\nHimself. What resource, then, have we remaining against depredation,\ninsolence, outrage, calumny, and persecution? That of persuading the\nstrong man who oppresses the weak that God really exists. He will, at\nleast, not laugh at this opinion; and, although he may not believe that\nGod is within him, he yet may believe that God pervades all nature. An\nincomprehensible mystery has shocked him. But would he be able to say\nthat the existence of a remunerating and avenging God is an\nincomprehensible mystery? Finally, although he does not yield his belief\nto a Catholic bishop who says to him, \"Behold, that is your God, whom a\nman consecrated by myself has put into your mouth;\" he may believe the\nlanguage of all the stars and of all animated beings, at once\nexclaiming: \"God is our creator!\"\n\n\n\n\nEXECUTION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nYes, we here repeat the observation, a man that is hanged is good for\nnothing; although some executioner, as much addicted to quackery as\ncruelty, may have persuaded the wretched simpletons in his neighborhood\nthat the fat of a person hanged is a cure for the epilepsy.\n\nCardinal Richelieu, when going to Lyons to enjoy the spectacle of the\nexecution of Cinq-Mars and de Thou, was informed that the executioner\nhad broken his leg. \"What a dreadful thing it is,\" says he to the\nchancellor S\u00e9guier, \"we have no executioner!\" I certainly admit that it\nmust have been a terrible disaster. It was a jewel wanting in his crown.\nAt last, however, an old worthy was found, who, after twelve strokes of\nthe sabre, brought low the head of the innocent and philosophic de Thou.\nWhat necessity required this death? What good could be derived from the\njudicial assassination of Marshal de Marillac?\n\nI will go farther. If Maximilian, duke of Sully, had not compelled that\nadmirable King Henry IV. to yield to the execution of Marshal Birou, who\nwas covered with wounds which had been received in his service, perhaps\nHenry would never have suffered assassination himself; perhaps that act\nof clemency, judiciously interposed after condemnation, would have\nsoothed the still raging spirit of the league; perhaps the outcry would\nnot then have been incessantly thundered into the ears of the\npopulace--the king always protects heretics, the king treats good\nCatholics shamefully, the king is a miser, the king is an old debauch\u00e9e,\nwho, at the age of fifty-seven fell in love with the young princess of\nCond\u00e9, and forced her husband to fly the kingdom with her. All these\nembers of universal discontent would probably not have been alone\nsufficient to inflame the brain of the fanatical Feuillant, Ravaillac.\n\nWith respect to what is ordinarily called justice, that is, the practice\nof killing a man because he has stolen a crown from his master; or\nburning him, as was the case with Simon Morin, for having said that he\nhad had conferences with the Holy Spirit; and as was the case also with\na mad old Jesuit of the name of Malagrida, for having printed certain\nconversations which the holy virgin held with St. Anne, her mother,\nwhile in the womb--this practice, it must be acknowledged, is neither\nconformable to humanity or reason, and cannot possibly be of the least\nutility.\n\nWe have already inquired what advantage could ensue to the state from\nthe execution of that poor man known under the name of the madman; who,\nwhile at supper with some monks, uttered certain nonsensical words, and\nwho, instead of being purged and bled, was delivered over to the\ngallows?\n\nWe further ask, whether it was absolutely necessary that another madman,\nwho was in the bodyguards, and who gave himself some slight cuts with a\nhanger, like many other impostors, to obtain remuneration, should be\nalso hanged by the sentence of the parliament? Was this a crime of such\ngreat enormity? Would there have been any imminent danger to society in\nsaving the life of this man?\n\nWhat necessity could there be that La Barre should have his hand chopped\noff and his tongue cut out, that he should be put to the question\nordinary and extraordinary, and be burned alive? Such was the sentence\npronounced by the Solons and Lycurguses of Abbeville! What had he done?\nHad he assassinated his father and mother? Had people reason to\napprehend that he would burn down the city? He was accused of want of\nreverence in some secret circumstances, which the sentence itself does\nnot specify. He had, it was said, sung an old song, of which no one\ncould give an account; and had seen a procession of capuchins pass at a\ndistance without saluting it.\n\nIt certainly appears as if some people took great delight in what\nBoileau calls murdering their neighbor in due form and ceremony, and\ninflicting on him unutterable torments. These people live in the\nforty-ninth degree of latitude, which is precisely the position of the\nIroquois. Let us hope that they may, some time or other, become\ncivilized.\n\nAmong this nation of barbarians, there are always to be found two or\nthree thousand persons of great kindness and amiability, possessed of\ncorrect taste, and constituting excellent society. These will, at\nlength, polish the others.\n\nI should like to ask those who are so fond of erecting gibbets, piles,\nand scaffolds, and pouring leaden balls through the human brain, whether\nthey are always laboring under the horrors of famine, and whether they\nkill their fellow-creatures from any apprehension that there are more of\nthem than can be maintained?\n\nI was once perfectly horror-struck at seeing a list of deserters made\nout for the short period merely of eight years. They amounted to sixty\nthousand. Here were sixty thousand co-patriots, who were to be shot\nthrough the head at the beat of drum; and with whom, if well maintained\nand ably commanded, a whole province might have been added to the\nkingdom.\n\nI would also ask some of these subaltern Dracos, whether there are no\nsuch things wanted in their country as highways or crossways, whether\nthere are no uncultivated lands to be broken up, and whether men who are\nhanged or shot can be of any service?\n\nI will not address them on the score of humanity, but of utility:\nunfortunately, they will often attend to neither; and, although M.\nBeccaria met with the applauses of Europe for having proved that\npunishments ought only to be proportioned to crimes, the Iroquois soon\nfound out an advocate, paid by a priest, who maintained that to torture,\nhang, rack, and burn in all cases whatsoever, was decidedly the best\nway.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nBut it is England which, more than any other country, has been\ndistinguished for the stern delight of slaughtering men with the\npretended sword of the law. Without mentioning the immense number of\nprinces of the blood, peers of the realm, and eminent citizens, who have\nperished by a public death on the scaffold, it is sufficient to call to\nmind the execution of Queen Anne Boleyn, Queen Catherine Howard, Lady\nJane Grey, Queen Mary Stuart, and King Charles I, in order to justify\nthe sarcasm which has been frequently applied, that the history of\nEngland ought to be written by the executioner.\n\nNext to that island, it is alleged that France is the country in which\ncapital punishments have been most common. I shall say nothing of that\nof Queen Brunehaut, for I do not believe it. I pass by innumerable\nscaffolds, and stop before that of Count Montecuculi, who was cut into\nquarters in the presence of Francis I. and his whole court, because\nFrancis, the dauphin, had died of pleurisy.\n\nThat event occurred in 1536. Charles V., victorious on all the coasts of\nEurope and Africa, was then ravaging both Provence and Picardy. During\nthat campaign which commenced advantageously for him, the young dauphin,\neighteen years of age, becomes heated at a game of tennis, in the small\ncity of Tournon. When in high perspiration he drinks iced water, and in\nthe course of five days dies of the pleurisy. The whole court and all\nFrance exclaim that the Emperor Charles V. had caused the dauphin of\nFrance to be poisoned. This accusation, equally horrible and absurd, has\nbeen repeated from time to time down to the present. Malherbe, in one of\nhis odes, speaks of Francis, whom Castile, unequal to cope with in arms,\nbereaved of his son.\n\nWe will not stop to examine whether the emperor was unequal to the arms\nof Francis I., because he left Provence after having completely sacked\nit, nor whether to poison a dauphin is to steal him; but these bad lines\ndecidedly show that the poisoning of the dauphin Francis by Charles V.\nwas received throughout France as an indisputable truth.\n\nDaniel does not exculpate the emperor. Henault, in his \"Chronological\nSummary,\" says: \"Francis, the dauphin, poisoned.\" It is thus that all\nwriters copy from one another. At length the author of the \"History of\nFrancis I.\" ventures, like myself, to investigate the fact.\n\nIt is certain that Count Montecuculi, who was in the service of the\ndauphin, was condemned by certain commissioners to be quartered, as\nguilty of having poisoned that prince.\n\nHistorians say that this Montecuculi was his cup-bearer. The dauphins\nhave no such officer: but I will admit that they had. How could that\ngentleman, just at the instant, have mixed up poison in a glass of\nfresh water? Did he always carry poison in his pocket, ready whenever\nhis master might call for drink? He was not the only person present with\nthe dauphin, who was, it appears, wiped and rubbed dry by some of his\nattendants after the game of tennis was finished. The surgeons who\nopened the body declared, it is said, that the prince had taken arsenic.\nHad the prince done so, he must have felt intolerable pains about his\nthroat, the water would have been colored, and the case would not have\nbeen treated as one of pleurisy. The surgeons were ignorant pretenders,\nwho said just what they were desired to say; a fact which happens every\nday.\n\n[Illustration: Francis I. and his sister.]\n\nWhat interest could this officer have in destroying his master? Who was\nmore likely to advance his fortune? But, it is said, it was intended\nalso to poison the king. Here is a new difficulty and a new\nimprobability.\n\nWho was to compensate him for this double crime? Charles V., it is\nreplied--another improbability equally strong. Why begin with a youth\nonly eighteen years and a half old, and who, moreover, had two brothers?\nHow was the king to be got at? Montecuculi did not wait at his table.\n\nCharles V. had nothing to gain by taking away the life of the young\ndauphin, who had never drawn a sword, and who certainly would have had\npowerful avengers. It would have been a crime at once base and useless.\nHe did not fear the father, we are to believe, the bravest knight of the\nFrench court; yet he was afraid of the son, who had scarcely reached\nbeyond the age of childhood!\n\nBut, we are informed, this Montecuculi, on the occasion of a journey to\nFerrara, his own country, was presented to the emperor, and that that\nmonarch asked him numerous questions relating to the magnificence of the\nking's table and the economy of his household. This certainly is\ndecisive evidence that the Italian was engaged by Charles V. to poison\nthe royal family!\n\nOh! but it was not the emperor himself who urged him to commit this\ncrime: he was impelled to it by Anthony de Leva and the Marquis di\nGonzaga. Yes, truly, Anthony de Leva, eighty years of age, and one of\nthe most virtuous knights in Europe! and this noble veteran, moreover,\nwas indiscreet enough to propose executing this scheme of poisoning in\nconjunction with a prince of Gonzaga. Others mention the Marquis del\nVasto, whom we call du Gast. Contemptible impostors! Be at least agreed\namong yourselves. You say that Montecuculi confessed the fact before his\njudges. Have you seen the original documents connected with the trial?\n\nYou state that the unfortunate man was a chemist. These then are your\nonly proofs, your only reasons, for subjecting him to the most dreadful\nof executions: he was an Italian, he was a chemist, and Charles V. was\nhated. His glory then provoked indeed a base revenge. Good God! Your\ncourt orders a man of rank to be cut into quarters upon bare suspicion,\nin the vain hope of disgracing that powerful emperor.\n\nSome time afterwards your suspicions, always light and volatile, charge\nthis poisoning upon Catherine de Medici, wife of Henry II., then dauphin\nand subsequently king of France. You say that, in order to reign, she\ndestroyed by poison the first dauphin, who stood between her husband and\nthe throne. Miserable impostors! Once again, I say, be consistent!\nCatherine de Medici was at that time only seventeen years of age.\n\nIt has been said that Charles V. himself imputed this murder to\nCatherine, and the historian Pera is quoted to prove it. This however,\nis an error. These are the historian's words:\n\n\"This year the dauphin of France died at Paris with decided indications\nof poison. His friends ascribed it to the orders of the Marquis del\nVasto and Anthony de Leva, which led to the execution of Count\nMontecuculi, who was in the habit of corresponding with them: base and\nabsurd suspicion of men so highly honorable, as by destroying the\ndauphin little or nothing could be gained. He was not yet known by his\nvalor any more than his brothers, who were next in the succession to\nhim.\n\n\"To one presumption succeeded another. It was pretended that this murder\nwas committed by order of the duke of Orleans, his brother, at the\ninstigation of his wife, Catherine de Medici, who was ambitious of\nbeing a queen, which, in fact, she eventually was. It is well remarked\nby a certain author, that the dreadful death of the duke of Orleans,\nafterwards Henry II., was the punishment of heaven upon him for\npoisoning his brother--at least, if he really did poison him--a practice\ntoo common among princes, by which they free themselves at little cost\nfrom stumbling-blocks in their career, but frequently and manifestly\npunished by God.\"\n\nSignor di Pera, we instantly perceive, is not an absolute Tacitus;\nbesides, he takes Montecuculi, or Montecuculo, as he calls him, for a\nFrenchman. He says the dauphin died at Paris, whereas it was at Tournon.\nHe speaks of decided indications of poison from public rumor; but it is\nclear that he attributes the accusation of Catherine de Medici only to\nthe French. This charge is equally unjust and extravagant with that\nagainst Montecuculi.\n\nIn fact, this volatile temperament, so characteristic of the French, has\nin every period of our history led to the most tragical catastrophes. If\nwe go back from the iniquitous execution of Montecuculi to that of the\nKnights Templars, we shall see a series of the most atrocious\npunishments, founded upon the most frivolous presumptions. Rivers of\nblood have flowed in France in consequence of the thoughtless character\nand precipitate judgment of the French people.\n\nWe may just notice the wretched pleasure that some men, and\nparticularly those of weak minds, secretly enjoy in talking or writing\nof public executions, like that they derive from the subject of miracles\nand sorceries. In Calmet's \"Dictionary of the Bible\" you may find a\nnumber of fine engravings of the punishments in use among the Hebrews.\nThese prints are absolutely sufficient to strike every person of feeling\nwith horror. We will take this opportunity to observe that neither the\nJews nor any other people ever thought of fixing persons to the cross by\nnails; and that there is not even a single instance of it. It is the\nfiction of some painter, built upon an opinion completely erroneous.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nYe sages who are scattered over the world--for some sages there\nare--join the philosophic Beccaria, and proclaim with all your strength\nthat punishments ought to be proportioned to crimes:\n\nThat after shooting through the head a young man of the age of twenty,\nwho has spent six months with his father and mother or his mistress,\ninstead of rejoining his regiment, he can no longer be of any service to\nhis country:\n\nThat if you hang on the public gallows the servant girl who stole a\ndozen napkins from her mistress, she will be unable to add to the number\nof your citizens a dozen children, whom you may be considered as\nstrangling in embryo with their parent; that there is no proportion\nbetween a dozen napkins and human life; and, finally, that you really\nencourage domestic theft, because no master will be so cruel as to get\nhis coachman hanged for stealing a few of his oats; but every master\nwould prosecute to obtain the infliction of a punishment which should be\nsimply proportioned to the offence:\n\nThat all judges and legislators are guilty of the death of all the\nchildren which unfortunate, seduced women desert, expose, or even\nstrangle, from a similar weakness to that which gave them birth.\n\nOn this subject I shall without scruple relate what has just occurred in\nthe capital of a wise and powerful republic, which however, with all its\nwisdom, has unhappily retained some barbarous laws from those old,\nunsocial, and inhuman ages, called by some the ages of purity of\nmanners. Near this capital a new-born infant was found dead; a girl was\napprehended on suspicion of being the mother; she was shut up in a\ndungeon; she was strictly interrogated; she replied that she could not\nhave been the mother of that child, as she was at the present time\npregnant. She was ordered to be visited by a certain number of what are\ncalled (perfectly malapropos in the present instance) wise women--by a\ncommission of matrons. These poor imbecile creatures declared her not to\nbe with child, and that the appearance of pregnancy was occasioned by\nimproper retention. The unfortunate woman was threatened with the\ntorture; her mind became alarmed and terrified; she confessed that she\nhad killed her supposed child; she was capitally convicted; and during\nthe actual passing of her sentence was seized with the pains of\nchildbirth. Her judges were taught by this most impressive case not\nlightly to pass sentences of death.\n\nWith respect to the numberless executions which weak fanatics have\ninflicted upon other fanatics equally weak, I will say nothing more\nabout them; although it is impossible to say too much.\n\nThere are scarcely any highway robberies committed in Italy without\nassassinations, because the punishment of death is equally awarded to\nboth crimes.\n\nIt cannot be doubted that M. de Beccaria, in his \"Treatise on Crimes and\nPunishments\" has noticed this very important fact.\n\n\n\n\nEXECUTIONER.\n\n\nIt may be thought that this word should not be permitted to degrade a\ndictionary of arts and sciences; it has a connection however with\njurisprudence and history. Our great poets have not disdained frequently\nto avail themselves of this word in tragedy: Clytemnestra, in Iphigenia,\ncalls Agamemnon the executioner of his daughter.\n\nIn comedy it is used with great gayety; Mercury in the \"Amphitryon\" (act\ni. scene 2), says: \"_Comment, bourreau! tu fais des cris_!\"--\"How,\nhangman! thou bellowest!\"\n\nAnd even the Romans permitted themselves to say: \"_Quorsum vadis,\ncarnifex?_\"--\"Whither goest thou, hangman?\"\n\nThe Encyclop\u00e6dia, under the word \"Executioner,\" details all the\nprivileges of the Parisian executioner; but a recent author has gone\nfarther. In a romance on education, not altogether equal to Xenophon's\n\"Cyrop\u00e6dia\" or F\u00e9nelon's \"Telemachus,\" he pretends that the monarch of a\ncountry ought, without hesitation, to bestow the daughter of an\nexecutioner in marriage on the heir apparent of the crown, if she has\nbeen well educated, and if she is of a sufficiently congruous\ndisposition with the young prince. It is a pity that he has not\nmentioned the precise sum she should carry with her as a dower, and the\nhonors that should be conferred upon her father on the day of marriage.\n\nIt is scarcely possible, with due _congruity_, to carry further the\nprofound morality, the novel rules of decorum, the exquisite paradoxes,\nand divine maxims with which the author I speak of has favored and\nregaled the present age. He would undoubtedly feel the perfect\n_congruity_ of officiating as bridesman at the wedding. He would compose\nthe princess's epithalamium, and not fail to celebrate the grand\nexploits of her father. The bride may then possibly impart some acrid\nkisses; for be it known that this same writer, in another romance called\n\"_H\u00e9loise_,\" introduces a young Swiss, who had caught a particular\ndisorder in Paris, saying to his mistress, \"Keep your kisses to\nyourself; they are too acrid.\"\n\nA time will come when it will scarcely be conceived possible that such\nworks should have obtained a sort of celebrity; had the celebrity\ncontinued, it would have done no honor to the age. Fathers of families\nsoon made up their minds that it was not exactly decorous to marry their\neldest sons to the daughters of executioners, whatever congruity might\nappear to exist between the lover and the lady. There is a rule in all\nthings, and certain limits which cannot be rationally passed.\n\n     _Est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines,_\n     _Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum._\n\n\n\n\nEXPIATION.\n\n_Dieu fit du repentir la vertu des mortels._\n\n\nThe repentance of man is accepted by God as virtue, and perhaps the\nfinest institution of antiquity was that solemn ceremony which repressed\ncrimes by announcing that they would be punished, and at the same time\nsoothed the despair of the guilty by permitting them to redeem their\ntransgressions by appointed modes of penance. Remorse, it is to be\nremembered, must necessarily have preceded expiation, for diseases are\nolder than medicine, and necessities than relief.\n\nThere was, then, previously to all public and legal forms of worship, a\nnatural and instinctive religion which inflicted grief upon the heart of\nany one who, through ignorance or passion, had committed an inhuman\naction. A man in a quarrel has killed his friend, or his brother, or a\njealous and frantic lover has taken the life of her without whom he felt\nas if it were impossible to live. The chief of a nation has condemned to\ndeath a virtuous man and useful citizen. Such men, if they retain their\nsenses and sensibility, become overwhelmed by despair. Their consciences\npursue and haunt them; two courses only are open to them, reparation or\nto become hardened in guilt. All who have the slightest feeling\nremaining choose the former; monsters adopt the latter.\n\nAs soon as religion was established, expiations were admitted. The\nceremonies attending them were, unquestionably, ridiculous; for what\nconnection is there between the water of the Ganges and a murder? How\ncould a man repair homicide by bathing? We have already commented on the\nexcess of absurdity and insanity which can imagine that what washes the\nbody, washes the soul also, and expunges from it the stain of evil\nactions.\n\nThe water of the Nile had afterwards the same virtue as that of the\nGanges; other ceremonies were added to these ablutions. The Egyptians\ntook two he-goats and drew lots which of the two should be cast out\nloaded with the sins of the guilty. This goat was called Hazazel, the\nexpiator. What connection is there, pray, between a goat and the crime\nof a human being?\n\nIt is certainly true that in after times this ceremony was sanctified\namong our fathers the Jews, who adopted many of the Egyptian rites; but\nthe souls of the Jews were undoubtedly purified, not by the goat but by\nrepentance.\n\nJason, having killed Absyrtus, his brother-in-law, went, we are told,\nwith Medea, who was more guilty than himself, to be absolved by Circe,\nthe queen and priestess of \u00c6a, who passed in those days for a most\npowerful sorceress. Circe absolved them with a sucking pig and salt\ncakes. This might possibly be a very good dish, but it could neither\ncompensate for the blood of Absyrtus, nor make Jason and Medea more\nworthy people, unless while eating their pig they also manifested the\nsincerity of their repentance.\n\nThe expiation of Orestes, who had avenged his father by the murder of\nhis mother, consisted in going and stealing a statue from the Tartars of\nthe Crimea. The statue was probably extremely ill executed, and there\nappeared nothing to be gained by such an enterprise. In later times\nthese things were contrived better: mysteries were invented, and the\noffenders might obtain absolution at these mysteries by submitting to\ncertain painful trials, and swearing to lead a new life. It is from this\noath that the persons taking it had attached to them, among all nations,\na name corresponding to that of initiated \"_qui ineunt vitam\nnovam_,\"--who begin a new career, who enter upon the path of virtue.\n\nWe have seen under the article on \"Baptism\" that the Christian\ncatechumens were not called initiated till after they had been baptized.\n\nIt is indisputable, that persons had not their sins washed away in these\nmysteries, but by virtue of their oath to become virtuous: the\nhierophant in all the Grecian mysteries, when dismissing the assembly,\npronounced the two Egyptian words, \"_Koth, ompheth_,\" \"watch, be pure\";\nwhich at once proves that the mysteries came originally from Egypt, and\nthat they were invented solely for the purpose of making mankind better.\n\nWise men, we thus see, have, in every age, done all in their power to\ninspire the love of virtue, and to prevent the weakness of man from\nsinking under despair; but, at the same time there have existed crimes\nof such magnitude and horror that no mystery could admit of their\nexpiation. Nero, although an emperor, could not obtain initiation into\nthe mysteries of Ceres. Constantine, according to the narrative of\nZosimus, was unable to procure the pardon of his crimes: he was polluted\nwith the blood of his wife, his son, and all his relations. It was\nnecessary, for the protection of the human race, that crimes so\nflagitious should be deemed incapable of expiation, that the prospect of\nabsolution might not invite to their committal, and that hideous\natrocity might be checked by universal horror.\n\nThe Roman Catholics have expiations which they call penances. We have\nseen, under the article on \"Austerities,\" how grossly so salutary an\ninstitution has been abused.\n\nAccording to the laws of the barbarians who subverted the Roman Empire,\ncrimes were expiated by money. This was called compounding: \"Let the\noffender compound by paying ten, twenty, thirty shillings.\" Two hundred\nsous constituted the composition price for killing a priest, and four\nhundred for killing a bishop; so that a bishop was worth exactly two\npriests.\n\nAfter having thus compounded with men, God Himself was compounded with,\nwhen the practice of confession became generally established. At length\nPope John XXII. established a tariff of sins.\n\nThe absolution of incest, committed by a layman, cost four livres\ntournois: \"_Ab incestu pro laico in foro conscientic\u00e6 turonenses\nquatuor_.\" For a man and woman who have committed incest, eighteen\nlivres tournois, four ducats, and nine carlines. This is certainly\nunjust; if one person pays only four livres tournois, two persons ought\nnot to pay more than eight.\n\nEven crimes against nature have actually their affixed rates, amounting\nto ninety livres tournois, twelve ducats, and six carlines: \"_Cum\ninhibitione turonenses 90, ducatos 12, carlinos 90_,\" etc.\n\nIt is scarcely credible that Leo X. should have been so imprudent as to\nprint this book of rates or indulgences in 1514, which, however, we are\nassured he did; at the same time it must be considered that no spark\nhad then appeared of that conflagration, kindled afterwards by the\nreformers; and that the court of Rome reposed implicitly upon the\ncredulity of the people, and neglected to throw even the slightest veil\nover its impositions. The public sale of indulgences, which soon\nfollowed, shows that that court took no precaution whatever to conceal\nits gross abominations from the various nations which had been so long\naccustomed to them. When the complaints against the abuses of the Romish\nchurch burst forth, it did all in its power to suppress this\npublication, but all was in vain.\n\nIf I may give my opinion upon this book of rates, I must say that I do\nnot believe the editions of it are genuine; the rates are not in any\nkind of proportion and do not at all coincide with those stated by\nd'Aubign\u00e9, the grandfather of Madame de Maintenon, in the confession of\nde Sancy. Depriving a woman of her virginity is estimated at six gros,\nand committing incest with a mother or a sister, at five gros. This is\nevidently ridiculous. I think that there really was a system of rates or\ntaxes established for those who went to Rome to obtain absolution or\npurchase dispensations, but that the enemies of the Holy See added\nlargely, in order to increase the odium against it. Consult Bayle, under\nthe articles on \"Bank,\" \"Dupinet,\" \"Drelincourt.\"\n\nIt is at least positively certain that these rates were never authorized\nby any council; that they constituted an enormous abuse, invented by\navarice, and respected by those who were interested in its not being\nabolished. The sellers and the purchasers equally found their account in\nit; and accordingly none opposed it before the breaking out of the\ndisturbances attending the Reformation. It must be acknowledged that an\nexact list of all these rates or taxes would be eminently useful in the\nformation of a history of the human mind.\n\n\n\n\nEXTREME.\n\n\nWe will here attempt to draw from the word \"extreme\" an idea that may be\nattended with some utility.\n\nIt is every day disputed whether in war success is ascribable to conduct\nor to fortune.\n\nWhether in diseases, nature or medicine is most operative in healing or\ndestroying.\n\nWhether in law it is not judicious for a man to compromise, although he\nis in the right, and to defend a cause although he is in the wrong.\n\nWhether the fine arts contribute to the glory or to the decline of a\nstate.\n\nWhether it is wise or injudicious to encourage superstition in a people.\n\nWhether there is any truth in metaphysics, history, or morals.\n\nWhether taste is arbitrary, and whether there is in reality a good and a\nbad taste.\n\nIn order to decide at once all these questions, take an advantage of\nthe extreme cases under each, compare these two extremes, and you will\nimmediately discover the truth.\n\nYou wish to know whether success in war can be infallibly decided by\nconduct; consider the most extreme case, the most opposed situations in\nwhich conduct alone will infallibly triumph. The hostile army must\nnecessarily pass through a deep mountain gorge; your commander knows\nthis circumstance; he makes a forced march, gets possession of the\nheights, and completely encloses the enemy in the defile; there they\nmust either perish or surrender. In this extreme case fortune can have\nno share in the victory. It is demonstrable, therefore, that skill may\ndecide the success of a campaign, and it hence necessarily follows that\nwar is an art.\n\nAfterwards imagine an advantageous but not a decisive position; success\nis not certain, but it is exceedingly probable. And thus, from one\ngradation to another, you arrive at what may be considered a perfect\nequality between the two armies. Who shall then decide? Fortune; that\nis, some unexpected circumstance or event; the death of a general\nofficer going to execute some important order; the derangement of a\ndivision in consequence of a false report, the operation of sudden\npanic, or various other causes for which prudence can find no remedy;\nyet it is still always certain that there is an art, that there is a\nscience in war.\n\nThe same must be observed concerning medicine; the art of operating\nwith the head or hand to preserve the life which appears likely to be\nlost.\n\nThe first who applied bleeding as speedily as possible to a patient\nunder apoplexy; the first who conceived the idea of plunging a bistoury\ninto the bladder to extract the stone from it, and of closing up the\nwound; the first who found out the method of stopping gangrene in any\npart of the human frame, were undoubtedly men, almost divine, and\ntotally unlike the physicians of Moli\u00e8re.\n\nDescend from this strong and decisive example to cases less striking and\nmore equivocal; you perceive fevers and various other maladies cured\nwithout its being possible to ascertain whether this is done by the\nphysician or by nature; you perceive diseases, the issue of which cannot\nbe judged; various physicians are mistaken in their opinions of the seat\nor nature of them; he who has the acutest genius, the keenest eye,\ndevelops the character of the complaint. There is then an art in\nmedicine, and the man of superior mind is acquainted with its niceties.\nThus it was that La Peyronie discovered that one of the courtiers had\nswallowed a sharp bone, which had occasioned an ulcer and endangered his\nlife; and thus also did Boerhaave discover the complaint, as unknown as\nit was dreadful, of a countess of Wassenaer. There is, therefore, it\ncannot be doubted, an art in medicine, but in every art there are\nVirgils and M\u00e6viuses.\n\nIn jurisprudence, take a case that is clear, in which the law\npronounces decisively; a bill of exchange correctly drawn and regularly\naccepted; the acceptor is bound to pay it in every country in the world.\nThere is, therefore, a useful jurisprudence, although in innumerable\ncases sentences are arbitrary, because, to the misery of mankind, the\nlaws are ill-framed.\n\nWould you wish to know whether the fine arts are beneficial to a nation?\nCompare the two extremes: Cicero and a perfect ignoramus. Decide whether\nthe fall of Rome was owing to Pliny or to Attila.\n\nIt is asked whether we should encourage superstition in the people.\nConsider for a moment what is the greatest extreme on this baleful\nsubject, the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the massacres of Ireland, or\nthe Crusades; and the question is decided.\n\nIs there any truth in metaphysics? Advert to those points which are most\nstriking and true. Something exists; something, therefore, has existed\nfrom all eternity. An eternal being exists of himself; this being cannot\nbe either wicked or inconsistent. To these truths we must yield; almost\nall the rest is open to disputation, and the clearest understanding\ndiscovers the truth.\n\nIt is in everything else as it is in colors; bad eyes can distinguish\nbetween black and white; better eyes, and eyes much exercised, can\ndistinguish every nicer gradation: \"_Usque adeo quod tangit idem est,\ntamen ultima distant._\"\n\n\n\n\nEZEKIEL.\n\n_Of Some Singular Passages in This Prophet, and of Certain Ancient\nUsages._\n\n\nIt is well known that we ought not to judge of ancient usages by modern\nones; he that would reform the court of Alcinous in the \"Odyssey,\" upon\nthe model of the Grand Turk, or Louis XIV., would not meet with a very\ngentle reception from the learned; he who is disposed to reprehend\nVirgil for having described King Evander covered with a bear's skin and\naccompanied by two dogs at the introduction of ambassadors, is a\ncontemptible critic.\n\nThe manners of the ancient Egyptians and Jews are still more different\nfrom ours than those of King Alcinous, his daughter Nausic\u00e1a, and the\nworthy Evander. Ezekiel, when in slavery among the Chald\u00e6ans, had a\nvision near the small river Chobar, which falls into the Euphrates.\n\nWe ought not to be in the least astonished at his having seen animals\nwith four faces, four wings, and with calves' feet; or wheels revolving\nwithout aid and \"instinct with life\"; these images are pleasing to the\nimagination; but many critics have been shocked at the order given him\nby the Lord to eat, for a period of three hundred and ninety days, bread\nmade of barley, wheat, or millet, covered with human ordure.\n\nThe prophet exclaimed in strong disgust, \"My soul has not hitherto been\npolluted\"; and the Lord replied, \"Well, I will allow you instead of\nman's ordure to use that of the cow, and with the latter you shall knead\nyour bread.\"\n\nAs it is now unusual to eat a preparation of bread of this description,\nthe greater number of men regard the order in question as unworthy of\nthe Divine Majesty. Yet it must be admitted that cow-dung and all the\ndiamonds of the great Mogul are perfectly equal, not only in the eyes of\na Divine Being, but in those of a true philosopher; and, with regard to\nthe reasons which God might have for ordering the prophet this repast,\nwe have no right to inquire into them. It is enough for us to see that\ncommands which appear to us very strange, did not appear so to the Jews.\n\nIt must be admitted that the synagogue, in the time of St. Jerome, did\nnot suffer \"Ezekiel\" to be read before the age of thirty; but this was\nbecause, in the eighteenth chapter, he says that the son shall not bear\nthe iniquity of his father, and it shall not be any longer said the\nfathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on\nedge.\n\nThis expression was considered in direct contradiction to Moses, who, in\nthe twenty-eighth chapter of \"Numbers,\" declares that the children bear\nthe iniquity of the fathers, even to the third and fourth generation.\n\nEzekiel, again, in the twentieth chapter, makes the Lord say that He has\ngiven to the Jews precepts which are not good. Such are the reasons for\nwhich the synagogue forbade young people reading an author likely to\nraise doubts on the irrefragability of the laws of Moses.\n\nThe censorious critics of the present day are still more astonished with\nthe sixteenth chapter of Ezekiel. In that chapter he thus takes it upon\nhim to expose the crimes of the city of Jerusalem. He introduces the\nLord speaking to a young woman; and the Lord said to her, \"When thou\nwast born, thy navel string was not cut, thou wast not salted, thou wast\nquite naked, I had pity on thee; thou didst increase in stature, thy\nbreasts were fashioned, thy hair was grown, I passed by thee, I observed\nthee, I knew that the time of lovers was come, I covered thy shame, I\nspread my skirt over thee; thou becamest mine; I washed and perfumed\nthee, and dressed and shod thee well; I gave thee a scarf of linen, and\nbracelets, and a chain for thy neck; I placed a jewel in thy nose,\npendants in thy ears, and a crown upon thy head.\"\n\n\"Then, confiding in thy beauty, thou didst in the height of thy renown,\nplay the harlot with every passer-by.... And thou hast built a high\nplace of profanation ... and thou hast prostituted thyself in public\nplaces, and opened thy feet to every one that passed ... and thou hast\ncommitted fornication with the Egyptians ... and finally thou hast paid\nthy lovers and made them presents, that they might lie with thee ... and\nby hiring them, instead of being hired, thou hast done differently from\nother harlots.... The proverb is, as is the mother, so is the daughter,\nand that proverb is used of thee,\" etc.\n\nStill more are they exasperated on the subject of the twenty-third\nchapter. A mother had two daughters, who early lost their virginity. The\nelder was called Ahola, and the younger Aholibah.... \"Aholah committed\nfornication with young lords and captains, and lay with the Egyptians\nfrom her early youth.... Aholibah, her sister, committed still greater\nfornication with officers and rulers and well-made cavaliers; she\ndiscovered her shame, she multiplied her fornications, she sought\neagerly for the embraces of those whose flesh was as that of asses, and\nwhose issue was as that of horses.\"\n\nThese descriptions, which so madden weak minds, signify, in fact, no\nmore than the iniquities of Jerusalem and Samaria; these expressions,\nwhich appear to us licentious, were not so then. The same vivacity is\ndisplayed in many other parts of Scripture without the slightest\napprehension. Opening the womb is very frequently mentioned. The terms\nmade use of to express the union of Boaz with Ruth, and of Judah with\nhis daughter-in-law, are not indelicate in the Hebrew language, but\nwould be so in our own.\n\nPeople who are not ashamed of nakedness, never cover it with a veil. In\nthe times under consideration, no blush could have been raised by the\nmention of particular parts of the frame of man, as they were actually\ntouched by the person who bound himself by any promise to another; it\nwas a mark of respect, a symbol of fidelity, as formerly among\nourselves, feudal lords put their hands between those of their\nsovereign.\n\nWe have translated the term adverted to by the word \"thigh.\" Eliezer\nputs his hand under Abraham's thigh. Joseph puts his hand under the\nthigh of Jacob. This custom was very ancient in Egypt. The Egyptians\nwere so far from attaching any disgrace to what we are desirous as much\nas possible to conceal and avoid the mention of, that they bore in\nprocession a large and characteristic image, called Phallus, in order to\nthank the gods for making the human frame so instrumental in the\nperpetuation of the human species.\n\nAll this affords sufficient proof that our sense of decorum and\npropriety is different from that of other nations. When do the Romans\nappear to have been more polished than in the time of Augustus? Yet\nHorace scruples not to say, in one of his moral pieces: \"_Nec metuo, ne\ndum futuo vir rure recurrat_\" (Satire II., book i., v. 127.) Augustus\nuses the same expression in an epigram on Fulvia.\n\nThe man who should among us pronounce the expression in our language\ncorresponding to it, would be regarded as a drunken porter; that word,\nas well as various others used by Horace and other authors, appears to\nus even more indecent than the expressions of Ezekiel. Let us then do\naway with our prejudices when we read ancient authors, or travel among\ndistant nations. Nature is the same everywhere, and usages are\neverywhere different.\n\nI once met at Amsterdam a rabbi quite brimful of this chapter. \"Ah! my\nfriend,\" says he, \"how very much we are obliged to you. You have\ndisplayed all the sublimity of the Mosaic law, Ezekiel's breakfast; his\ndelightful left-sided attitudes; Aholah and Aholibah are admirable\nthings; they are types, my brother--types which show that one day the\nJewish people will be masters of the whole world; but why did you admit\nso many others which are nearly of equal strength? Why did not you\nrepresent the Lord saying to the sage Hosea, in the second verse of the\nfirst chapter, 'Hosea, take to thyself a harlot, and make to her the\nchildren of a harlot?' Such are the very words. Hosea takes the young\nwoman and has a son by her, and afterwards a daughter, and then again a\nson; and it was a type, and that type lasted three years. That is not\nall; the Lord says in the third chapter, 'Go and take to thyself a woman\nwho is not merely a harlot, but an adulteress.' Hosea obeyed, but it\ncost him fifteen crowns and eighteen bushels of barley; for, you know,\nthere was very little wheat in the land of promise--but are you aware of\nthe meaning of all this?\" \"No,\" said I to him. \"Nor I neither,\" said the\nrabbi.\n\nA grave person then advanced towards us and said they were ingenious\nfictions and abounding in exquisite beauty. \"Ah, sir,\" remarked a young\nman, \"if you are inclined for fictions, give the preference to those of\nHomer, Virgil, and Ovid.\" He who prefers the prophecies of Ezekiel\ndeserves to breakfast with him.\n\n\n\n\nFABLE.\n\n\nIt is very likely that the more ancient fables, in the style of those\nattributed to \u00c6sop, were invented by the first subjugated people. Free\nmen would not have had occasion to disguise the truth; a tyrant can\nscarcely be spoken to except in parables; and at present, even this is a\ndangerous liberty.\n\nIt might also very well happen that men naturally liking images and\ntales, ingenious persons amused themselves with composing them, without\nany other motive. However that may be, fable is more ancient than\nhistory.\n\nAmong the Jews, who are quite a modern people in comparison with the\nChald\u00e6ans and Tyrians, their neighbors, but very ancient by their own\naccounts, fables similar to those of \u00c6sop existed in the time of the\nJudges, 1233 years before our era, if we may depend upon received\ncomputations.\n\nIt is said in the Book of Judges that Gideon had seventy sons born of\nhis many wives; and that, by a concubine, he had another son named\nAbimelech.\n\nNow, this Abimelech slew sixty-nine of his brethren upon one stone,\naccording to Jewish custom, and in consequence the Jews, full of\nrespect and admiration, went to crown him king, under an oak near\nMillo, a city which is but little known in history.\n\nJotham alone, the youngest of the brothers, escaped the carnage--as it\nalways happens in ancient histories--and harangued the Israelites,\ntelling them that the trees went one day to choose a king; we do not\nwell see how they could march, but if they were able to speak, they\nmight just as well be able to walk. They first addressed themselves to\nthe olive, saying, \"Reign thou over us.\" The olive replied, \"I will not\nquit the care of my oil to be promoted over you.\" The fig-tree said that\nhe liked his figs better than the trouble of the supreme power. The vine\ngave the preference to its grapes. At last the trees addressed\nthemselves to the bramble, which answered: \"If in truth ye anoint one\nking over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not,\nlet fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.\"\n\nIt is true that this fable falsifies throughout, because fire cannot\ncome from a bramble, but it shows the antiquity of the use of fables.\n\nThat of the belly and the members, which calmed a tumult in Rome about\ntwo thousand three hundred years ago, is ingenious and without fault.\nThe more ancient the fables the more allegorical they were.\n\nIs not the ancient fable of Venus, as related by Hesiod, entirely a\nfable of nature? This Venus is the goddess of beauty. Beauty ceases to\nbe lovely if unaccompanied by the graces. Beauty produces love. Love has\nfeatures which pierce all hearts; he wears a bandage, which conceals the\nfaults of those beloved. He has wings; he comes quickly and flies away\nthe same.\n\nWisdom is conceived in the brain of the chief of the gods, under the\nname of Minerva. The soul of man is a divine fire, which Minerva shows\nto Prometheus, who makes use of this divine fire to animate mankind.\n\nIt is impossible, in these fables, not to recognize a lively picture of\npure nature. Most other fables are either corruptions of ancient\nhistories or the caprices of the imagination. It is with ancient fables\nas with our modern tales; some convey charming morals, and others very\ninsipid ones.\n\nThe ingenious fables of the ancients have been grossly imitated by an\nunenlightened race--witness those of Bacchus, Hercules, Prometheus,\nPandora, and many others, which were the amusement of the ancient world.\nThe barbarians, who confusedly heard them spoken of, adopted them into\ntheir own savage mythology, and afterwards it is pretended that they\ninvented them. Alas! poor unknown and ignorant people, who knew no art\neither useful or agreeable--to whom even the name of geometry was\nunknown--dare you say that you have invented anything? You have not\nknown either how to discover truth, or to lie adroitly.\n\nThe most elegant Greek fable was that of Psyche; the most pleasant, that\nof the Ephesian matron. The prettiest among the moderns is that of\nFolly, who, having put out Love's eyes, is condemned to be his guide.\n\nThe fables attributed to \u00c6sop are all emblems; instructions to the weak,\nto guard them as much as possible against the snares of the strong. All\nnations, possessing a little wisdom, have adopted them. La Fontaine has\ntreated them with the most elegance. About eighty of them are\nmasterpieces of simplicity, grace, finesse, and sometimes even of\npoetry. It is one of the advantages of the age of Louis XIV. to have\nproduced a La Fontaine. He has so well discovered, almost without\nseeking it, the art of making one read, that he has had a greater\nreputation in France than genius itself.\n\nBoileau has never reckoned him among those who did honor to the great\nage of Louis XIV.; his reason or his pretext was that he had never\ninvented anything. What will better bear out Boileau is the great number\nof errors in language and the incorrectness of style; faults which La\nFontaine might have avoided, and which this severe critic could not\npardon. His grasshopper, for instance, having sung all the summer, went\nto beg from the ant, her neighbor, in the winter, telling her, on the\nword of an animal, that she would pay her principal and interest before\nmidsummer. The ant replies: \"You sang, did you? I am glad of it; then\nnow dance.\"\n\nHis astrologer, again, who falling into a ditch while gazing at the\nstars, was asked: \"Poor wretch! do you expect to be able to read things\nso much above you?\" Yet Copernicus, Galileo, Cassini, and Halley have\nread the heavens very well; and the best astronomer that ever existed\nmight fall into a ditch without being a poor wretch.\n\nJudicial astrology is indeed ridiculous charlatanism, but the\nridiculousness does not consist in regarding the heavens; it consists in\nbelieving, or in making believe, that you read what is not there.\nSeveral of these fables, either ill chosen or badly written, certainly\nmerit the censure of Boileau.\n\nNothing is more insipid than the fable of the drowned woman, whose\ncorpse was sought contrary to the course of the river, because in her\nlifetime she had always been contrary.\n\nThe tribute sent by the animals to King Alexander is a fable, which is\nnot the better for being ancient. The animals sent no money, neither did\nthe lion advise them to steal it.\n\nThe satyr who received a peasant into his hut should not have turned him\nout on seeing that he blew his fingers because he was cold; and\nafterwards, on taking the dish between his teeth, that he blew his\npottage because it was hot. The man was quite right, and the satyr was a\nfool. Besides, we do not take hold of dishes with our teeth.\n\nThe crab-mother, who reproached her daughter with not walking straight;\nand the daughter, who answered that her mother walked crooked, is not\nan agreeable fable.\n\nThe bush and the duck, in commercial partnership with the bat, having\ncounters, factors, agents, paying principal and interest, etc., has\nneither truth, nature, nor any kind of merit.\n\nA bush which goes with a bat into foreign countries to trade is one of\nthose cold and unnatural inventions which La Fontaine should not have\nadopted. A house full of dogs and cats, living together like cousins and\nquarrelling for a dish of pottage, seems also very unworthy of a man of\ntaste.\n\nThe chattering magpie is still worse. The eagle tells her that he\ndeclines her company because she talks too much. On which La Fontaine\nremarks that it is necessary at court to wear two faces.\n\nWhere is the merit of the fable of the kite presented by a bird-catcher\nto a king, whose nose he had seized with his claws? The ape who married\na Parisian girl and beat her is an unfortunate story presented to La\nFontaine, and which he has been so unfortunate as to put into verse.\n\nSuch fables as these; and some others, may doubtless justify Boileau; it\nmight even happen that La Fontaine could not distinguish the bad fables\nfrom the good.\n\nMadame de la Sabli\u00e8re called La Fontaine a fabulist, who bore fables as\nnaturally as a plum-tree bears plums. It is true that he had only one\nstyle, and that he wrote an opera in the style of his fables.\n\nNotwithstanding all this, Boileau should have rendered justice to the\nsingular merit of the good man, as he calls him, and to the public, who\nare right in being enchanted with the style of many of his fables.\n\nLa Fontaine was not an original or a sublime writer, a man of\nestablished taste, or one of the first geniuses of a brilliant era; and\nit is a very remarkable fault in him that he speaks not his own language\ncorrectly. He is in this respect very inferior to Phaedrus, but he was a\nman unique in the excellent pieces that he has left us. They are very\nnumerous, and are in the mouths of all those who have been respectably\nbrought up; they contribute even to their education. They will descend\nto posterity; they are adapted for all men and for all times, while\nthose of Boileau suit only men of letters.\n\n_Of Those Fanatics Who Would Suppress the Ancient Fables._\n\nThere is among those whom we call Jansenists a little sect of hard and\nempty heads, who would suppress the beautiful fables of antiquity, to\nsubstitute St. Prosper in the place of Ovid, and Santeuil in that of\nHorace. If they were attended to, our pictures would no longer represent\nIris on the rainbow, or Minerva with her aegis; but instead of them, we\nshould have Nicholas and Arnauld fighting against the Jesuits and\nProtestants; Mademoiselle Perrier cured of sore eyes by a thorn from the\ncrown of Jesus Christ, brought from Jerusalem to Port Royal; Counsellor\nCarr\u00e9 de Montgeron presenting the account of St. M\u00e9dard to Louis XV.;\nand St. Ovid resuscitating little boys.\n\nIn the eyes of these austere sages, F\u00e9nelon was only an idolater, who,\nfollowing the example of the impious poem of the \"\u00c6neid,\" introduced the\nchild Cupid with the nymph Eucharis.\n\nPluche, at the end of his fable of the Heavens, entitled \"Their\nHistory,\" writes a long dissertation to prove that it is shameful to\nhave tapestry worked in figures taken from Ovid's \"Metamorphoses\"; and\nthat Zephyrus and Flora, Vertumnus and Pomona, should be banished from\nthe gardens of Versailles. He exhorts the school of belles-lettres to\noppose itself to this bad taste; which reform alone, he says, is capable\nof re-establishing the belles-lettres.\n\nOther puritans, more severe than sage a little time ago, would have\nproscribed the ancient mythology as a collection of puerile tales,\nunworthy the acknowledged gravity of our manners. It would, however, be\na pity to burn Ovid, Horace, Hesiod, our fine tapestry pictures and our\nopera. If we were spared the familiar stories of \u00c6sop, why lay hands on\nthose sublime fables, which have been respected by mankind, whom they\nhave instructed? They are mingled with many insipidities, no doubt, but\nwhat good is without an alloy? All ages will adopt Pandora's box, at the\nbottom of which was found man's only consolation--hope; Jupiter's two\nvessels, which unceasingly poured forth good and evil; the cloud\nembraced by Ixion, which is the emblem and punishment of an ambitious\nman; and the death of Narcissus, which is the punishment of self-love.\nWhat is more sublime than the image of Minerva, the goddess of wisdom,\nformed in the head of the master of the gods? What is more true and\nagreeable than the goddess of beauty, always accompanied by the graces?\nThe goddesses of the arts, all daughters of memory--do they not teach\nus, as well as Locke, that without memory we cannot possess either\njudgment or wit? The arrows of Love, his fillet, and his childhood;\nFlora, caressed by Zephyrus, etc.--are they not all sensible\npersonifications of pure nature? These fables have survived the\nreligions which consecrated them. The temples of the gods of Egypt,\nGreece, and Rome are no more, but Ovid still exists. Objects of\ncredulity may be destroyed, but not those of pleasure; we shall forever\nlove these true and lively images. Lucretius did not believe in these\nfabulous gods, but he celebrated nature under the name of Venus.\n\n     _Alma Venus c\u0153li subter labentia signa_\n     _Qu\u00e6 mare navigerum, qu\u00e6 terras frugiferentes_\n     _Concelebras, per te quoniam genus omne animantum_\n     _Concipitur, visitque exortum lumina solis_, etc.\n\n     Kind Venus, glory of the blest abodes,\n     Parent of Rome, and joy of men and gods;\n     Delight of all, comfort of sea and earth,\n     To whose kind power all creatures owe their birth, etc.\n                                                      --CREECH.\n\nIf antiquity in its obscurity was led to acknowledge divinity in its\nimages, how is it to be blamed? The productive soul of the world was\nadored by the sages; it governed the sea under the name of Neptune, the\nair under the image of Juno, and the country under that of Pan. It was\nthe divinity of armies under the name of Mars; all these attributes were\nanimated personifications. Jupiter was the only _god_. The golden chain\nwith which he bound the inferior gods and men was a striking image of\nthe unity of a sovereign being. The people were deceived, but what are\nthe people to us?\n\nIt is continually asked why the Greek and Roman magistrates permitted\nthe divinities whom they adored in their temples to be ridiculed on\ntheir stage? This is a false supposition. The gods were not mocked in\ntheir theatres, but the follies attributed to these gods by those who\nhad corrupted the ancient mythology. The consuls and pr\u00e6tors found it\ngood to treat the adventure of the two Sosias wittily, but they would\nnot have suffered the worship of Jupiter and Mercury to be attacked\nbefore the people. It is thus that a thousand things which appear\ncontradictory are not so in reality. I have seen, in the theatre of a\nlearned and witty nation, pieces taken from the Golden Legend; will it,\non that account, be said that this nation permits its objects of\nreligion to be insulted? It need not be feared we shall become Pagans\nfor having heard the opera of Proserpine at Paris, or for having seen\nthe nuptials of Psyche, painted by Raphael, in the pope's palace at\nRome. Fable forms the taste, but renders no person idolatrous.\n\nThe beautiful fables of antiquity have also this great advantage over\nhistory: they are lessons of virtue, while almost all history narrates\nthe success of vice. Jupiter in the fable descends upon earth to punish\nTantalus and Lycaon; but in history our Tantaluses and Lycaons are the\ngods of the earth. Baucis and Philemon had their cabin changed into a\ntemple; our Baucises and Philemons are obliged to sell, for the\ncollector of the taxes, those kettles which, in Ovid, the gods changed\ninto vases of gold.\n\nI know how much history can instruct us and how necessary it is to know\nit; but it requires much ingenuity to be able to draw from it any rules\nfor individual conduct. Those who know politics only through books will\nbe often reminded of those lines of Corneille, which observe that\nexamples will seldom suffice for our guidance, as it often happens that\none person perishes by the very expedient which has proved the salvation\nof another.\n\n     _Les exemples recens suffiraient pour m'instruire_\n     _Si par l'exemple seul on devait se conduire;_\n     _Mais souvent l'un se perd o\u00f9 l'autre s'est sauv\u00e9,_\n     _Et par o\u00f9 l'un p\u00e9rit, un autre est conserv\u00e9._\n\nHenry VIII., the tyrant of his parliament, his ministers and his wives,\nof consciences and purses, lived and died peaceably. Charles I. perished\non the scaffold. Margaret of Anjou in vain waged war in person a dozen\ntimes with the English, the subjects of her husband, while William III.\ndrove James II. from England without a battle. In our days we have seen\nthe royal family of Persia murdered, and strangers upon the throne.\n\nTo look at events only, history seems to accuse Providence, and fine\nmoral fables justify it. It is clear that both the useful and agreeable\nmay be discovered in them, however exclaimed against by those who are\nneither the one nor the other. Let them talk on, and let us read Homer\nand Ovid, as well as Titus Livius and Rapin de Thoyras. Taste induces\npreferences and fanaticism exclusions. The arts are united, and those\nwho would separate them know nothing about them. History teaches us what\nwe are--fable what we ought to be.\n\n     _Tous les arts sont amis, ainsi qu ils sont divins;_\n     _Qui veut les s\u00e9parer est loin de les conna\u00eetre._\n     _L'histoire nous apprend ce que sont les humains,_\n     _La fable ce qu ils doivent \u00eatre._\n\n\n\n\nFACTION.\n\n_On the Meaning of the Word._\n\n\nThe word \"faction\" comes from the Latin \"_facere_\"; it is employed to\nsignify the state of a soldier at his post, on duty (_en faction_),\nsquadrons or troops of combatants in the circus; green, blue, red, and\nwhite factions.\n\nThe acceptation in which the term is generally used is that of a\nseditious party in the state. The term \"party\" in itself implies nothing\nthat is odious, that of faction is always odious.\n\nA great man, and even a man possessing only mediocrity of talent, may\neasily have a party at court, in the army, in the city, or in\nliterature. A man may have a party in consequence of his merit, in\nconsequence of the zeal and number of his friends, without being the\nhead of a party. Marshal Catinat, although little regarded at court, had\na large party in the army without making any effort to obtain it.\n\nA head of a party is always a head of a faction; such were Cardinal\nRetz, Henry, duke of Guise, and various others. A seditious party, while\nit is yet weak and has no influence in the government, is only a\nfaction.\n\nC\u00e6sar's faction speedily became a dominant party, which swallowed up the\nrepublic. When the emperor Charles VI. disputed the throne of Spain with\nPhilip V. he had a party in that kingdom, and at length he had no more\nthan a faction in it. Yet we may always be allowed to talk of the\n\"party\" of Charles VI.\n\nIt is different with respect to private persons. Descartes for a long\ntime had a party in France; it would be incorrect to say he had a\nfaction. Thus we perceive that words in many cases synonymous cease to\nbe so in others.\n\n\n\n\nFACULTY.\n\n\nAll the powers of matter and mind are faculties; and, what is still\nworse, faculties of which we know nothing, perfectly occult qualities;\nto begin with motion, of which no one has discovered the origin.\n\nWhen the president of the faculty of medicine in the \"_Malade\nImaginaire_,\" asks Thomas Diafoirus: \"_Quare opium facit dormire_?\"--Why\ndoes opium cause sleep? Thomas very pertinently replies, \"_Quia est in\neo virtus dormitiva qu\u00e6 facit sopire.\"_--Because it possesses a\ndormitive power producing sleep. The greatest philosophers cannot speak\nmore to the purpose.\n\nThe honest chevalier de Jaucourt acknowledges, under the article on\n\"Sleep,\" that it is impossible to go beyond conjecture with respect to\nthe cause of it. Another Thomas, and in much higher reverence than his\nbachelor namesake in the comedy, has, in fact, made no other reply to\nall the questions which are started throughout his immense volumes.\n\nIt is said, under the article on \"Faculty,\" in the grand \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\"\n\"that the vital faculty once established in the intelligent principle by\nwhich we are animated, it may be easily conceived that the faculty,\nstimulated by the expressions which the vital _sensorium_ transmits to\npart of the common _sensorium,_ determines the alternate influx of the\nnervous fluid into the fibres which move the vital organs in order to\nproduce the alternate contradiction of those organs.\"\n\nThis amounts precisely to the answer of the young physician Thomas:\n\"_Quia est in eo virtus alterniva qu\u00e6 facit alternare_.\" And Thomas\nDiafoirus has at least the merit of being shortest.\n\nThe faculty of moving the foot when we wish to do so, of recalling to\nmind past events, or of exercising our five senses; in short, any and\nall of our faculties will admit of no further or better explanation than\nthat of Diafoirus.\n\nBut consider thought! say those who understand the whole secret.\nThought, which distinguishes man from all animals besides: \"_Sanctius\nhis animal, mentisque capacius alt\u00e6_.\" (Ovid's Metamorph. i. 76.)--More\nholy man, of more exalted mind!\n\nAs holy as you like; it is on this subject, that of thought or mind,\nthat Diafoirus is more triumphant than ever. All would reply in\naccordance with him: \"_Quia est in eo virtus pensativa qu\u00e6 facit\npensare.\"_ No one will ever develop the mysterious process by which he\nthinks.\n\nThe case we are considering then might be extended to everything in\nnature. I know not whether there may not be found in this profound and\nunfathomable gulf of mystery an evidence of the existence of a Supreme\nBeing. There is a secret in the originating or conservatory principles\nof all beings, from a pebble on the seashore to Saturn's Ring and the\nMilky Way. But how can there be a secret which no one knows? It would\nseem that some being must exist who can develop all.\n\nSome learned men, with a view to enlighten our ignorance, tell us that\nwe must form systems; that we shall at last find the secret out. But we\nhave so long sought without obtaining any explanation that disgust\nagainst further search has very naturally succeeded. That, say they, is\nthe mere indolence of philosophy; no, it is the rational repose of men\nwho have exerted themselves and run an active race in vain. And after\nall, it must be admitted that indolent philosophy is far preferable to\nturbulent divinity and metaphysical delusion.\n\n\n\n\nFAITH.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWhat is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is\nperfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal,\nsupreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of\nreason. I have no merit in thinking that this eternal and infinite\nbeing, whom I consider as virtue, as goodness itself, is desirous that I\nshould be good and virtuous. Faith consists in believing not what seems\ntrue, but what seems false to our understanding. The Asiatics can only\nby faith believe the journey of Mahomet to the seven planets, and the\nincarnations of the god Fo, of Vishnu, Xaca, Brahma, and Sommonocodom.\nThey submit their understandings; they tremble to examine: wishing to\navoid being either impaled or burned, they say: \"I believe.\"\n\nWe do not here intend the slightest allusion to the Catholic faith. Not\nonly do we revere it, but we possess it. We speak of the false, lying\nfaith of other nations of the world, of that faith which is not faith,\nand which consists only in words.\n\nThere is a faith for things that are merely astonishing and prodigious,\nand a faith for things contradictory and impossible.\n\nVishnu became incarnate five hundred times; this is extremely\nastonishing, but it is not, however, physically impossible; for if\nVishnu possessed a soul, he may have transferred that soul into five\nhundred different bodies, with a view to his own felicity. The Indian,\nindeed, has not a very lively faith; he is not intimately and decidedly\npersuaded of these metamorphoses; but he will nevertheless say to his\nbonze, \"I have faith; it is your will and pleasure that Vishnu has\nundergone five hundred incarnations, which is worth to you an income of\nfive hundred rupees: very well; you will inveigh against me, and\ndenounce me, and ruin my trade if I have not faith; but I have faith,\nand here are ten rupees over and above for you.\" The Indian may swear to\nthe bonze that he believes without taking a false oath, for, after all,\nthere is no demonstration that Vishnu has not actually made five hundred\nvisits to India.\n\nBut if the bonze requires him to believe what is contradictory or\nimpossible, as that two and two make five, or that the same body may be\nin a thousand different places, or that to be and not to be are\nprecisely one and the same thing; in that case, if the Indian says he\nhas faith he lies, and if he swears that he believes he commits perjury.\nHe says, therefore, to the bonze: \"My reverend father, I cannot declare\nthat I believe in these absurdities, even though they should be worth to\nyou an income of ten thousand rupees instead of five hundred.\"\n\n\"My son,\" the bonze answers, \"give me twenty rupees and God will give\nyou grace to believe all that you now do not believe.\"\n\n\"But how can you expect or desire,\" rejoins the Indian, \"that God should\ndo that by me which He cannot do even by Himself? It is impossible that\nGod should either perform or believe contradictions. I am very willing\nto say, in order to give you satisfaction, that I believe what is\nobscure, but I cannot say that I believe what is impossible. It is the\nwill of God that we should be virtuous, and not that we should be\nabsurd. I have already given you ten rupees; here are twenty more;\nbelieve in thirty rupees; be an honest man if you can and do not trouble\nme any more.\"\n\nIt is not thus with Christians. The faith which they have for things\nwhich they do not understand is founded upon that which they do\nunderstand; they have grounds of credibility. Jesus Christ performed\nmiracles in Galilee; we ought, therefore, to believe all that He said.\nIn order to know what He said we must consult the Church. The Church has\ndeclared the books which announce Jesus Christ to us to be authentic. We\nought, therefore, to believe those books. Those books inform us that he\nwho will not listen to the Church shall be considered as a tax-gatherer\nor a Pagan; we ought, therefore, to listen to the Church that we may not\nbe disgraced and hated like the farmers-general. We ought to submit our\nreason to it, not with infantile and blind credulity, but with a docile\nfaith, such as reason itself would authorize. Such is Christian faith,\nparticularly the Roman faith, which is \"_the_ faith\" par excellence. The\nLutheran, Calvinistic, or Anglican faith is a wicked faith.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nDivine faith, about which so much has been written, is evidently nothing\nmore than incredulity brought under subjection, for we certainly have no\nother faculty than the understanding by which we can believe; and the\nobjects of faith are not those of the understanding. We can believe only\nwhat appears to be true; and nothing can appear true but in one of the\nthree following ways: by intuition or feeling, as I exist, I see the\nsun; by an accumulation of probability amounting to certainty, as there\nis a city called Constantinople; or by positive demonstration, as\ntriangles of the same base and height are equal.\n\nFaith, therefore, being nothing at all of this description, can no more\nbe a belief, a persuasion, than it can be yellow or red. It can be\nnothing but the annihilation of reason, a silence of adoration at the\ncontemplation of things absolutely incomprehensible. Thus, speaking\nphilosophically, no person believes the Trinity; no person believes that\nthe same body can be in a thousand places at once; and he who says, I\nbelieve these mysteries, will see, beyond the possibility of a doubt, if\nhe reflects for a moment on what passes in his mind, that these words\nmean no more than, I respect these mysteries; I submit myself to those\nwho announce them. For they agree with me, that my reason, or their own\nreason, believe them not; but it is clear that if my _reason_ is not\npersuaded, _I_ am not persuaded. I and my reason cannot possibly be two\ndifferent beings. It is an absolute contradiction that I should receive\nthat as true which my understanding rejects as false. Faith, therefore,\nis nothing but submissive or deferential incredulity.\n\nBut why should this submission be exercised when my understanding\ninvincibly recoils? The reason, we well know, is, that my understanding\nhas been persuaded that the mysteries of my faith are laid down by God\nHimself. All, then, that I can do, as a reasonable being, is to be\nsilent and adore. This is what divines call external faith; and this\nfaith neither is, nor can be, anything more than respect for things\nincomprehensible, in consequence of the reliance I place on those who\nteach them.\n\nIf God Himself were to say to me, \"Thought is of an olive color\"; \"the\nsquare of a certain number is bitter\"; I should certainly understand\nnothing at all from these words. I could not adopt them either as true\nor false. But I will repeat them, if He commands me to do it; and I will\nmake others repeat them at the risk of my life. This is not faith; it is\nnothing more than obedience.\n\nIn order to obtain a foundation then for this obedience, it is merely\nnecessary to examine the books which require it. Our understanding,\ntherefore, should investigate the books of the Old and New Testament,\njust as it would Plutarch or Livy; and if it finds in them incontestable\nand decisive evidences--evidences obvious to all minds, and such as\nwould be admitted by men of all nations--that God Himself is their\nauthor, then it is our incumbent duty to subject our understanding to\nthe yoke of faith.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nWe have long hesitated whether or not to publish the following article,\n\"Faith,\" which we met with in an old book. Our respect for the chair of\nSt. Peter restrained us. But some pious men having satisfied us that\nAlexander VI. and St. Peter had nothing in common, we have at last\ndetermined to publish this curious little production, and do it without\nthe slightest scruple.\n\nPrince Pico della Mirandola once met Pope Alexander VI. at the house of\nthe courtesan Emilia, while Lucretia, the holy father's daughter, was\nconfined in childbirth, and the people of Rome were discussing whether\nthe child of which she was delivered belonged to the pope, to his son\nthe Duke de Valentinois, or to Lucretia's husband, Alphonso of Aragon,\nwho was considered by many as impotent. The conversation immediately\nbecame animated and gay. Cardinal Bembo relates a portion of it. \"My\nlittle Pico,\" says the pope, \"whom do you think the father of my\ngrandson?\" \"I think your son-in-law,\" replied Pico. \"What! how can you\npossibly believe such nonsense?\" \"I believe it by faith.\" \"But surely\nyou know that an impotent man cannot be a father.\" \"Faith,\" replied\nPico, \"consists in believing things because they are impossible; and,\nbesides, the honor of your house demands that Lucretia's son should not\nbe reputed the offspring of incest. You require me to believe more\nincomprehensible mysteries. Am I not bound to believe that a serpent\nspoke; that from that time all mankind were damned; that the ass of\nBalaam also spoke with great eloquence; and that the walls of Jericho\nfell down at the sound of trumpets?\" Pico thus proceeded with a long\ntrain of all the prodigious things in which he believed. Alexander\nabsolutely fell back upon his sofa with laughing. \"I believe all that as\nwell as you,\" says he, \"for I well know that I can be saved only by\nfaith, as I can certainly never be so by works.\" \"Ah, holy father!\" says\nPico, \"you need neither works nor faith; they are well enough for such\npoor, profane creatures as we are; but you, who are absolutely a\nvice-god--you may believe and do just whatever you please.\n\n\"You have the keys of heaven; and St. Peter will certainly never shut the\ndoor in your face. But with respect to myself, who am nothing but a poor\nprince, I freely confess that I should have found some very powerful\nprotection necessary, if I had lain with my own daughter, or had\nemployed the stiletto and night-shade as often as your holiness.\"\nAlexander VI. understood raillery. \"Let us speak seriously,\" says he to\nthe prince. \"Tell me what merit there can be in a man's saying to God\nthat he is persuaded of things of which, in fact, he cannot be\npersuaded? What pleasure can this afford to God? Between ourselves, a\nman who says that he believes what is impossible to be believed, is--a\nliar.\"\n\nPico della Mirandola at this crossed himself in great agitation. \"My\nGod!\" says he, \"I beg your holiness' pardon; but you are not a\nChristian.\" \"I am not,\" says the pope, \"upon my faith.\" \"I suspected\nso,\" said Pico della Mirandola.\n\n\n\n\nFALSITY.\n\n\nFalsity, properly speaking, is the contrary to truth; not intentional\nlying.\n\nIt is said that there were a hundred thousand men destroyed by the great\nearthquake at Lisbon; this is not a lie--it is a falsity. Falsity is\nmuch more common than error; falsity falls more on facts, and error on\nopinions. It is an error to believe that the sun turns round the earth;\nbut it is a falsity to advance that Louis XIV. dictated the will of\nCharles II.\n\nThe falsity of a deed is a much greater crime than a simple lie; it is a\nlegal imposture--a fraud committed with the pen.\n\nA man has a false mind when he always takes things in a wrong sense,\nwhen, not considering the whole, he attributes to one side of an object\nthat which belongs to the other, and when this defect of judgment has\nbecome habitual.\n\nFalseheartedness is, when a person is accustomed to flatter, and to\nutter sentiments which he does not possess; this is worse than\ndissimulation, and is that which the Latins call _simulatio._\n\nThere is much falsity in historians; error among philosophers. Falsities\nabound in all polemical writings, and still more in satirical ones.\nFalse minds are insufferable, and false hearts are horrible.\n\n\n\n\nFALSITY OF HUMAN VIRTUES.\n\n\nWhen the Duke de la Rochefoucauld wrote his \"Thoughts on Self-Love,\" and\ndiscovered this great spring of human action, one M. Esprit of the\nOratory, wrote a book entitled \"Of the Falsity of Human Virtues.\" This\nauthor says that there is no virtue but by grace; and he terminates each\nchapter by referring to Christian charity. So that, according to M.\nEsprit, neither Cato, Aristides, Marcus Aurelius, nor Epictetus were\ngood men, who can be found only among the Christians. Among the\nChristians, again, there is no virtue except among the Catholics; and\neven among the Catholics, the Jesuits must be excepted as the enemies of\nthe Oratory; ergo, virtue is scarcely to be found anywhere except among\nthe enemies of the Jesuits.\n\nThis M. Esprit commences by asserting that prudence is not a virtue; and\nhis reason is that it is often deceived. It is as if he had said that\nC\u00e6sar was not a great captain because he was conquered at Dyrrachium.\n\nIf M. Esprit had been a philosopher, he would not have examined prudence\nas a virtue, but as a talent--as a useful and happy quality; for a great\nrascal may be very prudent, and I have known many such. Oh the age of\npretending that \"_Nul n'aura de vertu que nous et nos amis_!\"--None are\nvirtuous but ourself and friends!\n\nWhat is virtue, my friend? It is to do good; let us then do it, and that\nwill suffice. But we give you credit for the motive. What, then!\naccording to you, there is no difference between the President de Thou\nand Ravaillac? between Cicero and that Popilius whose life he saved, and\nwho afterwards cut off his head for money; and thou wilt pronounce\nEpictetus and Porphyrius rogues because they did not follow our dogmas?\nSuch insolence is disgusting; but I will say no more, for I am getting\nangry.\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 04","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":81318}