{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35625/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35625","id":"gutenberg_35625","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35625","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME V\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\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\nVOLUME IX\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS--LONDON--NEW YORK--CHICAGO\n\n1901\n\n\n\n\n_The WORKS of VOLTAIRE_\n\n     _\"Between two servants of Humanity, who appeared eighteen hundred\n     years apart, there is a mysterious relation. * * * * Let us say it\n     with a sentiment of profound respect: JESUS WEPT: VOLTAIRE SMILED.\n     Of that divine tear and of that human smile is composed the\n     sweetness of the present civilization.\"_\n\n                                                    _VICTOR HUGO._\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES--VOL. V\n\n  SANS SOUCI _Frontispiece_\n  A LAND STORM\n  THE TEMPTATION OF ADAM\n  DESCARTES\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: SANS SOUCI]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY.\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVol. V\n\nFANATICISM--GREGORY VII\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nFANATICISM.\n\nSECTION I.\n\n\nFanaticism is the effect of a false conscience, which makes religion\nsubservient to the caprices of the imagination, and the excesses of the\npassions.\n\nIt arises, in general, from legislators entertaining too narrow views,\nor from their extending their regulations beyond the limits within which\nalone they were intended to operate. Their laws are made merely for a\nselect society. When extended by zeal to a whole people, and transferred\nby ambition from one climate to another, some changes of institution\nshould take place, some accommodation to persons, places, and\ncircumstances. But what, in fact, has been the case? Certain minds,\nconstituted in a great degree like those of the small original flock,\nhave received a system with equal ardor, and become its apostles, and\neven its martyrs, rather than abate a single iota of its demands.\nOthers, on the contrary, less ardent, or more attached to their\nprejudices of education, have struggled with energy against the new\nyoke, and consented to receive it only after considerable softenings and\nmitigations: hence the schism between rigorists and moderates, by which\nall are urged on to vehemence and madness--the one party for servitude\nand the other for freedom.\n\nLet us imagine an immense rotunda, a pantheon, with innumerable altars\nplaced under its dome. Let us figure to ourselves a devotee of every\nsect, whether at present existing or extinct, at the feet of that\ndivinity which he worships in his own peculiar way, under all the\nextravagant forms which human imagination has been able to invent. On\nthe right we perceive one stretched on his back upon a mat, absorbed in\ncontemplation, and awaiting the moment when the divine light shall come\nforth to inform his soul. On the left is a prostrate energumen striking\nhis forehead against the ground, with a view to obtain from it an\nabundant produce. Here we see a man with the air and manner of a\nmountebank, dancing over the grave of him whom he invokes. There we\nobserve a penitent, motionless and mute as the statue before which he\nhas bent himself in humiliation. One, on the principle that God will not\nblush at his own resemblance, displays openly what modesty universally\nconceals; another, as if the artist would shudder at the sight of his\nown work, covers with an impenetrable veil his whole person and\ncountenance; another turns his back upon the south, because from that\nquarter blows the devil's tempest. Another stretches out his arms\ntowards the east, because there God first shows His radiant face. Young\nwomen, suffused with tears, bruise and gash their lovely persons under\nthe idea of assuaging the demon of desire, although by means tending in\nfact rather to strengthen his influence; others again, in opposite\nattitudes, solicit the approaches of the Divinity. One young man, in\norder to mortify the most urgent of his feelings, attaches to particular\nparts of his frame large iron rings, as heavy as he can bear; another\nchecks still more effectually the tempter's violence by inhuman\namputation, and suspends the bleeding sacrifice upon the altar.\n\nLet us observe them quit the temple, and, full of the inspiration of\ntheir respective deities, spread the terror and delusion over the face\nof the earth. They divide the world between them; and the four\nextremities of it are almost instantly in flames: nations obey them, and\nkings tremble before them. That almost despotic power which the\nenthusiasm of a single person exercises over a multitude who see or hear\nhim; the ardor communicated to each other by assembled minds; numberless\nstrong and agitating influences acting in such circumstances, augmented\nby each individual's personal anxiety and distress, require but a short\ntime to operate, in order to produce universal delirium. Only let a\nsingle people be thus fascinated and agitated under the guidance of a\nfew impostors, the seduction will spread with the speed of wild-fire,\nprodigies will be multiplied beyond calculation, and whole communities\nbe led astray forever. When the human mind has once quitted the luminous\ntrack pointed out by nature, it returns to it no more; it wanders round\nthe truth, but never obtains of it more than a few faint glimmerings,\nwhich, mingling with the false lights of surrounding superstition, leave\nit, in fact, in complete and palpable obscurity.\n\nIt is dreadful to observe how the opinion that the wrath of heaven might\nbe appeased by human massacre spread, after being once started, through\nalmost every religion; and what various reasons have been given for the\nsacrifice, as though, in order to preclude, if possible, the escape of\nany one from extirpation. Sometimes they are enemies who must be\nimmolated to Mars the exterminator. The Scythians slay upon the altars\nof this deity a hundredth part of their prisoners of war; and from this\nusage attending victory, we may form some judgment of the justice of\nwar: accordingly, among other nations it was engaged in solely to supply\nthese human sacrifices, so that, having first been instituted, as it\nwould seem, to expiate the horrors of war, they at length came to serve\nas a justification of them.\n\nSometimes a barbarous deity requires victims from among the just and\ngood. The Get\u00e6 eagerly dispute the honor of personally conveying to\nZamolxis the vows and devotions of their country. He whose good fortune\nhas destined him to be the sacrifice is thrown with the greatest\nviolence upon a range of spears, fixed for the purpose. If on falling\nhe receives a mortal wound, it augurs well as to the success of the\nnegotiation and the merit of the envoy; but if he survives the wound, he\nis a wretch with whom the god would not condescend to hold any\ncommunication.\n\nSometimes children are demanded, and the respective divinities recall\nthe life they had but just imparted: \"Justice,\" says Montaigne,\n\"thirsting for the blood of innocence!\" Sometimes the call is for the\ndearest and nearest blood: the Carthaginians sacrificed their own sons\nto Saturn, as if Time did not devour them with sufficient speed.\nSometimes the demand was for the blood of the most beautiful. That\nAmestris, who had buried twelve men alive in order to obtain from Pluto,\nin return for so revolting an offering, a somewhat longer life--that\nsame Amestris further sacrifices to that insatiable divinity twelve\ndaughters of the highest personages in Persia; as the sacrificing\npriests have always taught men that they ought to offer on the altar the\nmost valuable of their possessions. It is upon this principle that among\nsome nations the first-born were immolated, and that among others they\nwere redeemed by offerings more valuable to the ministers of sacrifice.\nThis it is, unquestionably, which introduced into Europe the practice\nprevalent for centuries of devoting children to celibacy at the early\nage of five years, and shutting up in a cloister the brothers of an\nhereditary prince, just as in Asia the practice is to murder them.\n\nSometimes it is the purest blood that is demanded. We read of certain\nIndians, if I recollect rightly, who hospitably entertain all who visit\nthem and make a merit of killing every sensible and virtuous stranger\nwho enters their country, that his talents and virtues may remain with\nthem. Sometimes the blood required is that which is most sacred. With\nthe majority of idolaters, priests perform the office of executioner at\nthe altar; and among the Siberians, it is the practice to kill the\npriests in order to despatch them to pray in the other world for the\nfulfilment of the wishes of the people.\n\nBut let us turn our attention to other frenzies and other spectacles.\nAll Europe passes into Asia by a road inundated with the blood of Jews,\nwho commit suicide to avoid falling into the hands of their enemies.\nThis epidemic depopulates one-half of the inhabited world: kings,\npontiffs, women, the young and the aged, all yield to the influence of\nthe holy madness which, for a series of two hundred years, instigated\nthe slaughter of innumerable nations at the tomb of a god of peace. Then\nwere to be seen lying oracles, and military hermits, monarchs in\npulpits, and prelates in camps. All the different states constitute one\ndelirious populace; barriers of mountains and seas are surmounted;\nlegitimate possessions are abandoned to enable their owners to fly to\nconquests which were no longer, in point of fertility, the land of\npromise; manners become corrupted under foreign skies; princes, after\nhaving exhausted their respective kingdoms to redeem a country which\nhad never been theirs, complete the ruin of them for their personal\nransom; thousands of soldiers, wandering under the banners of many\nchieftains, acknowledge the authority of none and hasten their defeat by\ntheir desertion; and the disease terminates only to be succeeded by a\ncontagion still more horrible and desolating.\n\nThe same spirit of fanaticism cherished the rage for distant conquests:\nscarcely had Europe repaired its losses when the discovery of a new\nworld hastened the ruin of our own. At that terrible injunction, \"Go and\nconquer,\" America was desolated and its inhabitants exterminated; Africa\nand Europe were exhausted in vain to repeople it; the poison of money\nand of pleasure having enervated the species, the world became nearly a\ndesert and appeared likely every day to advance nearer to desolation by\nthe continual wars which were kindled on our continent, from the\nambition of extending its power to foreign lands.\n\nLet us now compute the immense number of slaves which fanaticism has\nmade, whether in Asia, where uncircumcision was a mark of infamy, or in\nAfrica, where the Christian name was a crime, or in America, where the\npretext of baptism absolutely extinguished the feelings of humanity. Let\nus compute the thousands who have been seen to perish either on\nscaffolds in the ages of persecution, or in civil wars by the hands of\ntheir fellow citizens, or by their own hands through excessive\nausterities, and maceration. Let us survey the surface of the earth, and\nglance at the various standards unfurled and blazing in the name of\nreligion; in Spain against the Moors, in France against the Turks, in\nHungary against the Tartars; at the numerous military orders, founded\nfor converting infidels by the point of the sword, and slaughtering one\nanother at the foot of the altar they had come to defend. Let us then\nlook down from the appalling tribunal thus raised on the bodies of the\ninnocent and miserable, in order to judge the living, as God, with a\nbalance widely different, will judge the dead.\n\nIn a word, let us contemplate the horrors of fifteen centuries, all\nfrequently renewed in the course of a single one; unarmed men slain at\nthe feet of altars; kings destroyed by the dagger or by poison; a large\nstate reduced to half its extent by the fury of its own citizens; the\nnation at once the most warlike and the most pacific on the face of the\nglobe, divided in fierce hostility against itself; the sword unsheathed\nbetween the sons and the father; usurpers, tyrants, executioners,\nsacrilegious robbers, and bloodstained parricides violating, under the\nimpulse of religion, every convention divine or human--such is the\ndeadly picture of fanaticism.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIf this term has at present any connection with its original meaning it\nis exceedingly slight.\n\n\"_Fanaticus_\" was an honorable designation. It signified the minister or\nbenefactor of a temple. According to the dictionary of Tr\u00e9voux some\nantiquaries have discovered inscriptions in which Roman citizens of\nconsiderable consequence assumed the title of \"_fanaticus_.\"\n\nIn Cicero's oration \"_pro domo sua_,\" a passage occurs in which the word\n\"_fanaticus_\" appears to me of difficult explanation. The seditious and\nlibertine Clodius, who had brought about the banishment of Cicero for\nhaving saved the republic, had not only plundered and demolished the\nhouses of that great man, but in order that Cicero might never be able\nto return to his city residence he procured the consecration of the land\non which it stood; and the priests had erected there a temple to\nliberty, or rather to slavery, in which C\u00e6sar, Pompey, Crassus, and\nClodius then held the republic. Thus in all ages has religion been\nemployed as an instrument in the persecution of great men. When at\nlength, in a happier period, Cicero was recalled, he pleaded before the\npeople in order to obtain the restoration of the ground on which his\nhouse had stood, and the rebuilding of the house at the expense of the\nRoman people. He thus expresses himself in the speech against Clodius\n(_Oratio pro Domo sua_, chap. xl): \"_Adspicite, adspicite, pontifices,\nhominem religiosum.... monete eum, modum quemdam esse religionis; nimium\nesse superstitiosum non oportere. Quid tibi necesse fuit anili\nsuperstitione, homo fanatice, sacrificium, quod ali\u00e6n\u00e6 domi fieret\ninvisere?_\"\n\nDoes the word \"_fanaticus_,\" as used above, mean senseless, pitiless,\nabominable fanatic, according to the present acceptation, or does it\nrather imply the pious, religious man, the frequenter and consecrator of\ntemples? Is it used here in the meaning of decided censure or ironical\npraise? I do not feel myself competent to determine, but will give a\ntranslation of the passage:\n\n\"Behold, reverend pontiffs, behold the pious man.... suggest to him that\neven religion itself has its limits, that a man ought not to be so\nover-scrupulous. What occasion was there for a sacred person, a fanatic\nlike yourself, to have recourse to the superstition of an old woman, in\norder to assist at a sacrifice performed in another person's house?\"\n\nCicero alludes here to the mysteries of the _Bona Dea_, which had been\nprofaned by Clodius, who, in the disguise of a female, and accompanied\nby an old woman, had obtained an introduction to them, with a view to an\nassignation with C\u00e6sar's wife. The passage is, in consequence, evidently\nironical.\n\nCicero calls Clodius a religious man, and the irony requires to be kept\nup through the whole passage. He employs terms of honorable meaning,\nmore clearly to exhibit Clodius's infamy. It appears to me, therefore,\nthat he uses the word in question, \"_fanaticus_\" in its respectable\nsense, as a word conveying the idea of a sacrificer, a pious man, a\nzealous minister of a temple.\n\nThe term might be afterwards applied to those who believed themselves\ninspired by the gods, who bestowed a somewhat curious gift on the\ninterpreters of their will, by ordaining that, in order to be a prophet,\nthe loss of reason is indispensable.\n\n     _Les Dieux \u00e0 leur interpr\u00e8te_\n       _Ont fait un \u00e9trange don;_\n     _Ne peut on \u00eatre proph\u00e8te_\n      _Sans qu'on perde la raison?_\n\nThe same dictionary of Tr\u00e9voux informs us that the old chronicles of\nFrance call Clovis fanatic and pagan. The reader would have been pleased\nto have had the particular chronicles specified. I have not found this\nepithet applied to Clovis in any of the few books I possess at my house\nnear Mount Krapak, where I now write.\n\nWe understand by fanaticism at present a religious madness, gloomy and\ncruel. It is a malady of the mind, which is taken in the same way as\nsmallpox. Books communicate it much less than meetings and discourses.\nWe seldom get heated while reading in solitude, for our minds are then\ntranquil and sedate. But when an ardent man of strong imagination\naddresses himself to weak imaginations, his eyes dart fire, and that\nfire rapidly spreads; his tones, his gestures, absolutely convulse the\nnerves of his auditors. He exclaims, \"The eye of God is at this moment\nupon you; sacrifice every mere human possession and feeling; fight the\nbattles of the Lord\"--and and they rush to the fight.\n\nFanaticism is, in reference to superstition, what delirium is to fever,\nor rage to anger. He who is involved in ecstasies and visions, who takes\ndreams for realities, and his own imaginations for prophecies, is a\nfanatical novice of great hope and promise, and will probably soon\nadvance to the highest form, and kill man for the love of God.\n\nBartholomew Diaz was a fanatical monk. He had a brother at Nuremberg\ncalled John Diaz, who was an enthusiastic adherent to the doctrines of\nLuther, and completely convinced that the pope was Antichrist, and had\nthe sign of the beast. Bartholomew, still more ardently convinced that\nthe pope was god upon earth, quits Rome, determined either to convert or\nmurder his brother; he accordingly murdered him! Here is a perfect case\nof fanaticism. We have noticed and done justice to this Diaz elsewhere.\n\nPolyeuctes, who went to the temple on a day of solemn festival, to throw\ndown and destroy the statues and ornaments, was a fanatic less horrible\nthan Diaz, but not less foolish. The assassins of Francis, duke of\nGuise, of William, prince of Orange, of King Henry III., of King Henry\nIV., and various others, were equally possessed, equally laboring under\nmorbid fury, with Diaz.\n\nThe most striking example of fanaticism is that exhibited on the night\nof St. Bartholomew, when the people of Paris rushed from house to house\nto stab, slaughter, throw out of the window, and tear in pieces their\nfellow citizens not attending mass. Guyon, Patouillet, Chaudon,\nNonnotte, and the ex-Jesuit Paulian, are merely fanatics in a\ncorner--contemptible beings whom we do not think of guarding against.\nThey would, however, on a day of St. Bartholomew, perform wonders.\n\nThere are some cold-blooded fanatics; such as those judges who sentence\nmen to death for no other crime than that of thinking differently from\nthemselves, and these are so much the more guilty and deserving of the\nexecration of mankind, as, not laboring under madness like the Clements,\nCh\u00e2tels, Ravaillacs, and Damiens, they might be deemed capable of\nlistening to reason.\n\nThere is no other remedy for this epidemical malady than that spirit of\nphilosophy, which, extending itself from one to another, at length\ncivilizes and softens the manners of men and prevents the access of the\ndisease. For when the disorder has made any progress, we should, without\nloss of time, fly from the seat of it, and wait till the air has become\npurified from contagion. Law and religion are not completely efficient\nagainst the spiritual pestilence. Religion, indeed, so far from\naffording proper nutriment to the minds of patients laboring under this\ninfectious and infernal distemper, is converted, by the diseased process\nof their minds, into poison. These malignant devotees have incessantly\nbefore their eyes the example of Ehud, who assassinated the king of\nEglon; of Judith, who cut off the head of Holofernes while in bed with\nhim; of Samuel, hewing in pieces King Agag; of Jehoiada the priest, who\nmurdered his queen at the horse-gate. They do not perceive that these\ninstances, which are respectable in antiquity, are in the present day\nabominable. They derive their fury from religion, decidedly as religion\ncondemns it.\n\nLaws are yet more powerless against these paroxysms of rage. To oppose\nlaws to cases of such a description would be like reading a decree of\ncouncil to a man in a frenzy. The persons in question are fully\nconvinced that the Holy Spirit which animates and fills them is above\nall laws; that their own enthusiasm is, in fact, the only law which they\nare bound to obey.\n\nWhat can be said in answer to a man who says he will rather obey God\nthan men, and who consequently feels certain of meriting heaven by\ncutting your throat?\n\nWhen once fanaticism has gangrened the brain of any man the disease may\nbe regarded as nearly incurable. I have seen Convulsionaries who, while\nspeaking of the miracles of St. Paris, gradually worked themselves up to\nhigher and more vehement degrees of agitation till their eyes became\ninflamed, their whole frames shook, their countenances became distorted\nby rage, and had any man contradicted them he would inevitably have been\nmurdered.\n\nYes, I have seen these wretched Convulsionaries writhing their limbs and\nfoaming at their mouths. They were exclaiming, \"We must have blood.\"\nThey effected the assassination of their king by a lackey, and ended\nwith exclaiming against philosophers.\n\nFanatics are nearly always under the direction of knaves, who place the\ndagger in their hands. These knaves resemble Montaigne's \"Old Man of the\nMountain,\" who, it is said, made weak persons imagine, under his\ntreatment of them, that they really had experienced the joys of\nparadise, and promised them a whole eternity of such delights if they\nwould go and assassinate such as he should point out to them. There has\nbeen only one religion in the world which has not been polluted by\nfanaticism and that is the religion of the learned in China. The\ndifferent sects of ancient philosophers were not merely exempt from this\npest of human society, but they were antidotes to it: for the effect of\nphilosophy is to render the soul tranquil, and fanaticism and\ntranquillity are totally incompatible. That our own holy religion has\nbeen so frequently polluted by this infernal fury must be imputed to the\nfoil and madness of mankind. Thus Icarus abused the wings which he\nreceived for his benefit. They were given him for his salvation and they\ninsured his destruction:\n\n     _Ainsi du plumage qu'il eut_\n       _Icare pervertit l'usage;_\n     _Il le re\u00e7ut pour son salut,_\n       _Il s'en servit pour son dommage._\n                     --BERTAUT, bishop of S\u00e9ez.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nFanatics do not always fight the battles of the Lord. They do not always\nassassinate kings and princes. There are tigers among them, but there\nare more foxes.\n\nWhat a tissue of frauds, calumnies, and robberies has been woven by\nfanatics of the court of Rome against fanatics of the court of Calvin,\nby Jesuits against Jansenists, and _vice versa_! And if you go farther\nback you will find ecclesiastical history, which is the school of\nvirtues, to be that of atrocities and abominations, which have been\nemployed by every sect against the others. They all have the same\nbandage over their eyes whether marching out to burn down the cities and\ntowns of their adversaries, to slaughter the inhabitants, or condemn\nthem to judicial execution; or when merely engaged in the comparatively\ncalm occupation of deceiving and defrauding, of acquiring wealth and\nexercising domination. The same fanaticism blinds them; they think that\nthey are doing good. Every fanatic is a conscientious knave, but a\nsincere and honest murderer for the good cause.\n\nRead, if you are able, the five or six thousand volumes in which, for a\nhundred years together, the Jansenists and Molinists have dealt out\nagainst each other their reproaches and revilings, their mutual\nexposures of fraud and knavery, and then judge whether Scapin or\nTrevelin can be compared with them.\n\nOne of the most curious theological knaveries ever practised is, in my\nopinion, that of a small bishop--the narrative asserts that he was a\nBiscayan bishop; however, we shall certainly, at some future period find\nout both his name and his bishopric--whose diocese was partly in Biscay\nand partly in France.\n\nIn the French division of his diocese there was a parish which had\nformerly been inhabited by some Moors. The lord of the parish or manor\nwas no Mahometan; he was perfectly catholic, as the whole universe\nshould be, for the meaning of catholic is universal. My lord the bishop\nhad some suspicions concerning this unfortunate seigneur, whose whole\noccupation consisted in doing good, and conceived that in his heart he\nentertained bad thoughts and sentiments savoring not a little of heresy.\nHe even accused him of having said, in the way of pleasantry, that there\nwere good people in Morocco as well as in Biscay, and that an honest\ninhabitant of Morocco might absolutely not be a mortal enemy of the\nSupreme Being, who is the father of all mankind.\n\nThe fanatic, upon this, wrote a long letter to the king of France, the\nparamount sovereign of our little manorial lord. In this letter he\nentreated his majesty to transfer the manor of this stray and\nunbelieving sheep either to Lower Brittany or Lower Normandy, according\nto his good pleasure, that he might be no longer able to diffuse the\ncontagion of heresy among his Biscayan neighbors, by his abominable\njests. The king of France and his council smiled, as may naturally be\nsupposed, at the extravagance and folly of the demand.\n\nOur Biscayan pastor learning, some time afterwards, that his French\nsheep was sick, ordered public notices to be fixed up at the church\ngates of the canton, prohibiting any one from administering the\ncommunion to him, unless he should previously give in a bill of\nconfession, from which it might appear that he was not circumcised; that\nhe condemned with his whole heart the heresy of Mahomet, and every other\nheresy of the like kind--as, for example, Calvinism and Jansenism; and\nthat in every point he thought like him, the said Biscayan bishop.\n\nBills of confession were at that time much in fashion. The sick man sent\nfor his parish priest, who was a simple and sottish man, and threatened\nto have him hanged by the parliament of Bordeaux if he did not instantly\nadminister the viaticum to him. The priest was alarmed, and accordingly\ncelebrated the sacred ordinance, as desired by the patient; who, after\nthe ceremony, declared aloud, before witnesses, that the Biscayan pastor\nhad falsely accused him before the king of being tainted with the\nMussulman religion; that he was a sincere Christian, and that the\nBiscayan was a calumniator. He signed this, after it had been written\ndown, in presence of a notary, and every form required by law was\ncomplied with. He soon after became better, and rest and a good\nconscience speedily completed his recovery.\n\nThe Biscayan, quite exasperated that the old patient should have thus\nexposed and disappointed him, resolved to have his revenge, and thus he\nset about it.\n\nHe procured, fifteen days after the event just mentioned, the\nfabrication, in his own language or patois, of a profession of faith\nwhich the priest pretended to have heard and received. It was signed by\nthe priest and three or four peasants, who had not been present at the\nceremony; and the forged instrument was then passed through the\nnecessary and solemn form of verification and registry, as if this form\ncould give it authenticity.\n\nAn instrument not signed by the party alone interested, signed by\npersons unknown, fifteen days after the event, an instrument disavowed\nby the real and credible witnesses of that event, involved evidently the\ncrime of forgery; and, as the subject of the forgery was a matter of\nfaith, the crime clearly rendered both the priest and the witnesses\nliable to the galleys in this world, and to hell in the other.\n\nOur lord of the manor, however, who loved a joke, but had no gall or\nmalice in his heart, took compassion both upon the bodies and souls of\nthese conspirators. He declined delivering them over to human justice,\nand contented himself with giving them up to ridicule. But he declared\nthat after the death of the Biscayan he would, if he survived, have the\npleasure of printing an account of all his proceedings and man\u0153uvres\non this business, together with the documents and evidences, just to\namuse the small number of readers who might like anecdotes of that\ndescription; and not, as is often pompously announced, with a view to\nthe instruction of the universe. There are so many authors who address\nthemselves to the universe, who really imagine they attract, and perhaps\nabsorb, the attention of the universe, that he conceived he might not\nhave a dozen readers out of the whole who would attend for a moment to\nhimself. But let us return to fanaticism.\n\nIt is this rage for making proselytes, this intensely mad desire which\nmen feel to bring others over to partake of their own peculiar cup or\ncommunion, that induced the Jesuit Ch\u00e2tel and the Jesuit Routh to rush\nwith eagerness to the deathbed of the celebrated Montesquieu. These two\ndevoted zealots desired nothing better than to be able to boast that\nthey had persuaded him of the merits of contrition and of sufficing\ngrace. We wrought his conversion, they said. He was, in the main, a\nworthy soul: he was much attached to the society of Jesus. We had some\nlittle difficulty in inducing him to admit certain fundamental truths;\nbut as in these circumstances, in the crisis of life and death, the\nmind is always most clear and acute, we soon convinced him.\n\nThis fanatical eagerness for converting men is so ardent, that the most\ndebauched monk in his convent would even quit his mistress, and walk to\nthe very extremity of the city, for the sake of making a single convert.\n\nWe have all seen Father Poisson, a Cordelier of Paris, who impoverished\nhis convent to pay his mistresses, and who was imprisoned in consequence\nof the depravity of his manners. He was one of the most popular\npreachers at Paris, and one of the most determined and zealous of\nconverters.\n\nSuch also was the celebrated preacher Fantin, at Versailles. The list\nmight be easily enlarged; but it is unnecessary, if not also dangerous,\nto expose the freaks and freedoms of constituted authorities. You know\nwhat happened to Ham for having revealed his father's shame. He became\nas black as a coal.\n\nLet us merely pray to God, whether rising or lying down, that he would\ndeliver us from fanatics, as the pilgrims of Mecca pray that they may\nmeet with no sour faces on the road.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nLudlow, who was rather an enthusiast for liberty than a fanatic in\nreligion--that brave man, who hated Cromwell more than he did Charles\nI., relates that the parliamentary forces were always defeated by the\nroyal army in the beginning of the civil war; just as the regiment of\nporters (_portes-coch\u00e8res_) were unable to stand the shock of conflict,\nin the time of the Fronde against the great Cond\u00e9. Cromwell said to\nGeneral Fairfax: \"How can you possibly expect a rabble of London porters\nand apprentices to resist a nobility urged on by the principle, or\nrather the phantom, of honor? Let us actuate them by a more powerful\nphantom--fanaticism! Our enemies are fighting only for their king; let\nus persuade our troops they are fighting for their God.\n\n\"Give me a commission, and I will raise a regiment of brother murderers,\nwhom I will pledge myself soon to make invincible fanatics!\"\n\nHe was as good as his word; he composed his regiment of red-coated\nbrothers, of gloomy religionists, whom he made obedient tigers. Mahomet\nhimself was never better served by soldiers.\n\nBut in order to inspire this fanaticism, you must be seconded and\nsupported by the spirit of the times. A French parliament at the present\nday would attempt in vain to raise a regiment of such porters as we have\nmentioned; it could, with all its efforts, merely rouse into frenzy a\nfew women of the fish-market.\n\nOnly the ablest men have the power to make and to guide fanatics. It is\nnot, however, sufficient to possess the profoundest dissimulation and\nthe most determined intrepidity; everything depends, after these\nprevious requisites are secured, on coming into the world at a proper\ntime.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\nGeometry then, it seems, is not always connected with clearness and\ncorrectness of understanding. Over what precipices do not men fall,\nnotwithstanding their boasted leading-strings of reason! A celebrated\nProtestant, who was esteemed one of the first mathematicians of the age,\nand who followed in the train of the Newtons, the Leibnitzes, and\nBernouillis, at the beginning of the present century, struck out some\nvery singular corollaries. It is said that with a grain of faith a man\nmay remove mountains; and this man of science, following up the method\nof pure geometrical analysis, reasoned thus with himself: I have many\ngrains of faith, and can, therefore, remove many mountains. This was the\nman who made his appearance at London in 1707; and, associating himself\nwith certain men of learning and science, some of whom, moreover, were\nnot deficient in sagacity, they publicly announced that they would raise\nto life a dead person in any cemetery that might be fixed upon. Their\nreasoning was uniformly synthetical. They said, genuine disciples must\nhave the power of performing miracles; we are genuine disciples, we\ntherefore shall be able to perform as many as we please. The mere\nunscientific saints of the Romish church have resuscitated many worthy\npersons; therefore, _a fortiori_, we, the reformers of the reformed\nthemselves, shall resuscitate as many as we may desire.\n\nThese arguments are irrefragable, being constructed according to the\nmost correct form possible. Here we have at a glance the explanation why\nall antiquity was inundated with prodigies; why the temples of\n\u00c6sculapius at Epidaurus, and in other cities, were completely filled\nwith _ex-votos_; the roofs adorned with thighs straightened, arms\nrestored, and silver infants: all was miracle.\n\nIn short, the famous Protestant geometrician whom I speak of appeared so\nperfectly sincere; he asserted so confidently that he would raise the\ndead, and his proposition was put forward with so much plausibility and\nstrenuousness, that the people entertained a very strong impression on\nthe subject, and Queen Anne was advised to appoint a day, an hour, and a\ncemetery, such as he should himself select, in which he might have the\nopportunity of performing his miracle legally, and under the inspection\nof justice. The holy geometrician chose St. Paul's cathedral for the\nscene of his exertion: the people ranged themselves in two rows;\nsoldiers were stationed to preserve order both among the living and the\ndead; the magistrates took their seats; the register procured his\nrecord; it was impossible that the new miracles could be verified too\ncompletely. A dead body was disinterred agreeably to the holy man's\nchoice and direction; he then prayed, he fell upon his knees, and made\nthe most pious and devout contortions possible; his companions imitated\nhim; the dead body exhibited no sign of animation; it was again\ndeposited in its grave, and the professed resuscitator and his adherents\nwere slightly punished. I afterwards saw one of these misled creatures;\nhe declared to me that one of the party was at the time under the stain\nof a venial sin, for which the dead person suffered, and but for which\nthe resurrection would have been infallible.\n\nWere it allowable for us to reveal the disgrace of those to whom we owe\nthe sincerest respect, I should observe here, that Newton, the great\nNewton himself, discovered in the \"Apocalypse\" that the pope was\nAntichrist, and made many other similar discoveries. I should also\nobserve that he was a decided Arian. I am aware that this deviation of\nNewton, compared to that of the other geometrician, is as unity to\ninfinity. But if the exalted Newton imagined that he found the modern\nhistory of Europe in the \"Apocalypse,\" we may say: Alas, poor human\nbeings!\n\nIt seems as if superstition were an epidemic disease, from which the\nstrongest minds are not always exempt. There are in Turkey persons of\ngreat and strong sense, who would undergo empalement for the sake of\ncertain opinions of Abubeker. These principles being once admitted, they\nreason with great consistency; and the Navaricians, the Radarists, and\nthe Jabarites mutually consign each other to damnation in conformity to\nvery shrewd and subtle argument. They all draw plausible consequences,\nbut they never dare to examine principles.\n\nA report is publicly spread abroad by some person, that there exists a\ngiant seventy feet high; the learned soon after begin to discuss and\ndispute about the color of his hair, the thickness of his thumb, the\nmeasurement of his nails; they exclaim, cabal, and even fight upon the\nsubject. Those who maintain that the little finger of the giant is only\nfifteen lines in diameter burn those who assert that it is a foot thick.\n\"But, gentlemen,\" modestly observes a stranger passing by, \"does the\ngiant you are disputing about really exist?\" \"What a horrible doubt!\"\nall the disputants cry out together. \"What blasphemy! What absurdity!\" A\nshort truce is then brought about to give time for stoning the poor\nstranger; and, after having duly performed that murderous ceremony, they\nresume fighting upon the everlasting subject of the nails and little\nfinger.\n\n\n\n\nFANCY.\n\n\nFancy formerly signified imagination, and the term was used simply to\nexpress that faculty of the soul which receives sensible objects.\n\nDescartes and Gassendi, and all the philosophers of their day, say that\n\"the form or images of things are painted in the fancy.\" But the greater\npart of abstract terms are, in the course of time, received in a sense\ndifferent from their original one, like tools which industry applies to\nnew purposes.\n\nFancy, at present, means \"a particular desire, a transient taste\"; he\nhas a fancy for going to China; his fancy for gaming and dancing has\npassed away. An artist paints a fancy portrait, a portrait not taken\nfrom any model. To have fancies is to have extraordinary tastes, but of\nbrief duration. Fancy, in this sense, falls a little short of oddity\n(_bizarrerie_) and caprice.\n\nCaprice may express \"a sudden and unreasonable disgust.\" He had a fancy\nfor music, and capriciously became disgusted with it. Whimsicality gives\nan idea of inconsistency and bad taste, which fancy does not; he had a\nfancy for building, but he constructed his house in a whimsical taste.\n\nThere are shades of distinction between having fancies and being\nfantastic; the fantastic is much nearer to the capricious and the\nwhimsical. The word \"fantastic\" expresses a character unequal and\nabrupt. The idea of charming or pleasant is excluded from it; whereas\nthere are agreeable fancies.\n\nWe sometimes hear used in conversation \"odd fancies\" (_des fantasies\nmusqu\u00e9es_); but the expression was never understood to mean what the\n\"Dictionary of Tr\u00e9voux\" supposes--\"The whims of men of superior rank\nwhich one must not venture to condemn;\" on the contrary, that expression\nis used for the very object and purpose of condemning them; and\n_musqu\u00e9e_, in this connection, is an expletive adding force to the term\n\"fancies,\" as we say, _Sottise pomm\u00e9e_, _folie fieff\u00e9e_, to express\nnonsense and folly.\n\n\n\n\nFASTI.\n\n_Of the Different Significations of this Word._\n\n\nThe Latin word \"_fasti_\" signifies festivals, and it is in this sense\nthat Ovid treats of it in his poem entitled \"The Fasti.\"\n\nGodeau has composed the Fasti of the church on this model, but with less\nsuccess. The religion of the Roman Pagans was more calculated for poetry\nthan that of the Christians; to which it may be added, that Ovid was a\nbetter poet than Godeau.\n\nThe consular fasti were only the list of consuls.\n\nThe fasti of the magistrates were the days in which they were permitted\nto plead; and those on which they did not plead were called _nefasti_,\nbecause then they could not plead for justice.\n\nThe word \"_nefastus_\" in this sense does not signify unfortunate; on the\ncontrary, _nefastus_ and _nefandus_ were the attributes of unfortunate\ndays in another sense, signifying days in which people must not plead;\ndays worthy only to be forgotten; _\"ille nefasto te posuit die.\"_\n\nBesides other fasti, the Romans had their _fasti urbis_, _fasti\nrustici_, which were calendars of the particular usages, and ceremonies\nof the city and the country.\n\nOn these days of solemnity, every one sought to astonish by the grandeur\nof his dress, his equipage, or his banquet. This pomp, invisible on\nother days, was called _fastus_. It expresses magnificence in those who\nby their station can afford it, but vanity in others.\n\nThough the word \"_fastus_\" may not be always injurious, the word\n\"pompous\" is invariably so. A devotee who makes a parade of his virtue\nrenders humility itself pompous.\n\n\n\n\nFATHERS--MOTHERS--CHILDREN.\n\n_Their Duties._\n\n\nThe \"Encyclop\u00e6dia\" has been much exclaimed against in France; because it\nwas produced in France, and has done France honor. In other countries,\npeople have not cried out; on the contrary, they have eagerly set about\npirating or spoiling it, because money was to be gained thereby.\n\nBut we, who do not, like the encyclop\u00e6dists of Paris, labor for glory;\nwe, who are not, like them, exposed to envy; we, whose little society\nlies unnoticed in Hesse, in W\u00fcrtemberg, in Switzerland, among the\nGrisons, or at Mount Krapak; and have, therefore, no apprehension of\nhaving to dispute with the doctor of the _Com\u00e9die Italienne_, or with a\ndoctor of the Sorbonne; we, who sell not our sheets to a bookseller, but\nare free beings, and lay not black on white until we have examined, to\nthe utmost of our ability, whether the said black may be of service to\nmankind; we, in short, who love virtue, shall boldly declare what we\nthink.\n\n\"Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long--\" I would\nventure to say, \"Honor thy father and thy mother, _though this day shall\nbe thy last_.\"\n\nTenderly love and joyfully serve the mother who bore you in her womb,\nfed you at her breast, and patiently endured all that was disgusting in\nyour infancy. Discharge the same duties to your father, who brought you\nup.\n\nWhat will future ages say of a Frank, named Louis the Thirteenth, who,\nat the age of sixteen, began the exercise of his authority with having\nthe door of his mother's apartment walled up, and sending her into\nexile, without giving the smallest reason for so doing, and solely\nbecause it was his favorite's wish?\n\n\"But, sir, I must tell you in confidence that my father is a drunkard,\nwho begot me one day by chance, not caring a jot about me; and gave me\nno education but that of beating me every day when he came home\nintoxicated. My mother was a coquette, whose only occupation was\nlove-making. But for my nurse, who had taken a liking to me, and who,\nafter the death of her son, received me into her house for charity, I\nshould have died of want.\"\n\n\"Well, then, honor your nurse; and bow to your father and mother when\nyou meet them. It is said in the Vulgate, '_Honora patrem tuum et\nmatrem tuam_'--not _dilige_.\"\n\n\"Very well, sir, I shall love my father and my mother if they do me\ngood; I shall honor them if they do me ill. I have thought so ever since\nI began to think, and you confirm me in my maxims.\"\n\n\"Fare you well, my child, I see you will prosper, for you have a grain\nof philosophy in your composition.\"\n\n\"One word more, sir. If my father were to call himself Abraham, and me\nIsaac, and were to say to me, 'My son, you are tall and strong; carry\nthese fagots to the top of that hill, to burn you with after I have cut\noff your head; for God ordered me to do so when He came to see me this\nmorning,'--what would you advise me to do in such critical\ncircumstances?\"\n\n\"Critical, indeed! But what would you do of yourself? for you seem to be\nno blockhead.\"\n\n\"I own, sir, that I should ask him to produce a written order, and that\nfrom regard for himself, I should say to him--'Father, you are among\nstrangers, who do not allow a man to assassinate his son without an\nexpress condition from God, duly signed, sealed and delivered. See what\nhappened to poor Calas, in the half French, half Spanish town of\nToulouse. He was broken on the wheel; and the _procureur-g\u00e9n\u00e9ral_ Riquet\ndecided on having Madame Calas, the mother, burned--all on the bare and\nvery ill-conceived suspicion, that they had hung up their son, Mark\nAntony Calas, for the love of God. I should fear that his conclusions\nwould be equally prejudicial to the well-being of yourself and your\nsister or niece, Madame Sarah, my mother. Once more I say, show me a\n_lettre de cachet_ for cutting my throat, signed by God's own hand, and\ncountersigned by Raphael, Michael, or Beelzebub. If not, father--your\nmost obedient: I will go to Pharaoh of Egypt, or to the king of the\ndesert of Gerar, who both have been in love with my mother, and will\ncertainly be kind to me. Cut my brother Ishmael's throat, if you like;\nbut rely upon it, you shall not cut mine.'\"\n\n\"Good; this is arguing like a true sage. The 'Encyclop\u00e6dia' itself could\nnot have reasoned better. I tell you, you will do great things. I admire\nyou for not having said an ill word to your father Abraham--for not\nhaving been tempted to beat him. And tell me: had you been that Cram,\nwhom his father, the Frankish King Clothaire, had burned in a barn; a\nDon Carlos, son of that fox, Philip the Second; a poor Alexis, son of\nthat Czar Peter, half hero, half tiger--\"\n\n\"Ah, sir, say no more of those horrors; you will make me detest human\nnature.\"\n\n\n\n\nFAVOR.\n\n_Of What is Understood by the Word._\n\n\nFavor, from the Latin word \"_favor_,\" rather signifies a benefit than a\nrecompense.\n\nWe earnestly beg a favor; we merit and loudly demand a recompense. The\ngod Favor, according to the Roman mythologists, was the son of Beauty\nand Fortune. All favor conveys the idea of something gratuitous; he has\ndone me the favor of introducing me, of presenting me, of recommending\nmy friend, of correcting my work. The favor of princes is the effect of\ntheir fancy, and of assiduous complaisance. The favor of the people\nsometimes implies merit, but is more often attributable to lucky\naccident.\n\nFavor differs much from kindness. That man is in favor with the king,\nbut he has not yet received any kindnesses from him. We say that he has\nbeen received into the good graces of a person, not he has been received\ninto favor; though we say to be in favor, because favor is supposed to\nbe an habitual taste; while to receive into grace is to pardon, or, at\nleast, is less than to bestow a favor.\n\nTo obtain grace is the effect of a moment; to obtain favor is a work of\ntime. Nevertheless, we say indifferently, do me the kindness and do me\nthe favor, to recommend my friend.\n\nLetters of recommendation were formerly called letters of favor. Severus\nsays, in the tragedy of Polyeuctes:\n\n     _Je mourrais mille fois plut\u00f4t que d'abuser_\n     _Des lettres de faveur que j'ai pour l'\u00e9pouser._\n\n     \"Letters of favor,\" though I have to wed her,\n     I'd rather die a thousand times than use them.\n\nWe have the favor and good-will, not the kindness of the prince and the\npublic. We may obtain the favor of our audience by modesty, but it will\nnot be gracious if we are tedious.\n\nThis expression \"favor,\" signifies a gratuitous good-will, which we seek\nto obtain from the prince or the public. Gallantry has extended it to\nthe complaisance of the ladies; and though we do not say that we have\nthe favors of the king, we say that we have the favors of a lady.\n\nThe equivalent to this expression is unknown in Asia, where the women\npossess less influence. Formerly, ribbons, gloves, buckles, and\nsword-knots given by a lady, were called favors. The earl of Essex wore\na glove of Queen Elizabeth's in his hat, which he called the queen's\nfavor.\n\n\n\n\nFAVORITE.\n\n\nThis word has sometimes a bounded and sometimes an extended sense.\n\"Favorite\" sometimes conveys the idea of power; and sometimes it only\nsignifies a man who pleases his master.\n\nHenry III. had favorites who were only play-things, and he had those who\ngoverned the state, as the dukes of Joyeuse and \u00c9pernon. A favorite may\nbe compared to a piece of gold, which is valued at whatever the prince\npleases.\n\nAn ancient writer has asked, \"Who ought to be the king's favorite?--the\npeople!\" Good poets are called the favorites of the muses, as prosperous\nmen are called the favorites of fortune, because both are supposed to\nreceive these gifts without laboring for them. It is thus, that a\nfertile and well-situated land is called the favorite of nature.\n\nThe woman who pleases the sultan most is called the favorite sultana.\nSomebody has written the history of favorites; that is to say, the\nmistresses of the greatest princes.\n\nSeveral princes in Germany have country houses which they call\nfavorites.\n\nA lady's favorite is now only to be found in romances and stories of the\nlast century.\n\n\n\n\nFEASTS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nA poor gentleman of the province of Hagenau, cultivated his small\nestate, and St. Ragonda, or Radegonda, was the patron of his parish.\n\nNow it happened, on the feast of St. Ragonda, that it was necessary to\ndo something to this poor gentleman's field, without which great loss\nwould be incurred. The master, with all his family, after having\ndevoutly assisted at mass, went to cultivate his land, on which depended\nthe subsistence of his family, while the rector and the other\nparishioners went to tipple as usual.\n\nThe rector, while enjoying his glass, was informed of the enormous\noffence committed in his parish by this profane laborer, and went,\nburning with wine and anger, to seek the cultivator. \"Sir, you are very\ninsolent and very impious to dare to cultivate your field, instead of\ngoing to the tavern like other people.\" \"I agree, sir,\" replied the\ngentleman, \"that it is necessary to drink to the honor of the saint; but\nit is also necessary to eat, and my family would die of hunger if I did\nnot labor.\" \"Drink and die, then,\" said the vicar. \"In what law, in what\nbook is it so written?\" said the laborer. \"In Ovid,\" replied the vicar.\n\"I think you are mistaken,\" said the gentleman; \"in what part of Ovid\nhave you read that I should go to the tavern rather than cultivate my\nfield on St. Ragonda's day?\"\n\nIt should be remarked that both the gentleman and the pastor were well\neducated men. \"Read the metamorphoses of the daughters of Minyas,\" said\nthe vicar. \"I have read it,\" replied the other, \"and I maintain that\nthey have no relation to my plough.\" \"How, impious man! do you not\nremember that the daughters of Minyas were changed into bats for having\nspun on a feast day?\" \"The case is very different,\" replied the\ngentleman, \"these ladies had not rendered any homage to Bacchus. I have\nbeen at the mass of St. Ragonda, you can have nothing to say to me; you\ncannot change me into a bat.\" \"I will do worse,\" said the priest, \"I\nwill fine you.\" He did so. The poor gentleman was ruined: he quitted the\ncountry with his family--went into a strange one--became a Lutheran--and\nhis ground remained uncultivated for several years.\n\nThis affair was related to a magistrate of good sense and much piety.\nThese are the reflections which he made upon it:\n\n\"They were no doubt innkeepers,\" said he, \"that invented this prodigious\nnumber of feasts; the religion of peasants and artisans consists in\ngetting tipsy on the day of a saint, whom they only know by this kind of\nworship. It is on these days of idleness and debauchery that all crimes\nare committed; it is these feasts which fill the prisons, and which\nsupport the police officers, registers, lieutenants of police, and\nhangmen; the only excuse for feast-days among us. From this cause\nCatholic countries are scarcely-cultivated at all; whilst heretics, by\ndaily cultivating their lands, produce abundant crops.\"\n\nIt is all very well that the shoemakers should go in the morning to mass\non St. Crispin's day, because _crepido_ signifies the upper leather of a\nshoe; that the brush-makers should honor St. Barbara their patron; that\nthose who have weak eyes should hear the mass of St. Clara: that St.----\nshould be celebrated in many provinces; but after having paid their\ndevoirs to the saints they should become serviceable to men, they should\ngo from the altar to the plough; it is the excess of barbarity, and\ninsupportable slavery, to consecrate our days to idleness and vice.\nPriests, command, if it be necessary that the saints Roche, Eustace, and\nFiacre, be prayed to in the morning; but, magistrates, order your fields\nto be cultivated as usual. It is labor that is necessary; the greater\nthe industry the more the day is sanctified.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nLetter from a Weaver of Lyons to the Gentlemen of the Commission\nestablished at Paris, for the Reformation of Religious Orders, printed\nin the public papers in 1768.\n\n     \"Gentlemen: I am a silk-weaver, and have worked at Lyons for\n     nineteen years. My wages have increased insensibly; at present I\n     get thirty-five sous per day. My wife, who makes lace, would get\n     fifteen more, if it were possible for her to devote her time to it;\n     but as the cares of the house, illness, or other things,\n     continually hinder her, I reduce her profit to ten sous, which\n     makes forty-five sous daily. If from the year we deduct eighty-two\n     Sundays, or holidays, we shall have two hundred and eighty-four\n     profitable days, which at forty-five sous make six hundred and\n     thirty-nine livres. That is my revenue; the following are my\n     expenses:\n\n     \"I have eight living children, and my wife is on the point of being\n     confined with the eleventh; for I have lost two. I have been\n     married fifteen years: so that I annually reckon twenty-four livres\n     for the expenses of her confinements and baptisms, one hundred and\n     eight livres for two nurses, having generally two children out at\n     nurse, and sometimes even three. I pay fifty-seven livres rent and\n     fourteen taxes.\n\n     \"My income is then reduced to four hundred and thirty-six livres,\n     or twenty-five sous three deniers a day, with which I have to\n     clothe and furnish my family, buy wood and candles, and support my\n     wife and six children.\n\n     \"I look forward to holidays with dismay. I confess that I often\n     almost curse their institution. They could only have been\n     instituted by usurers and innkeepers.\n\n     \"My father made me study hard in my youth, and wished me to become\n     a monk, showing me in that state a sure asylum against want; but I\n     always thought that every man owes his tribute to society, and that\n     monks are useless drones who live upon the labor of the bees.\n     Notwithstanding, I acknowledge that when I see John C----, with\n     whom I studied, and who was the most idle boy in the college,\n     possessing the first place among the _pr\u00e9montr\u00e9s_, I cannot help\n     regretting that I did not listen to my father's advice.\n\n     \"This is the third holiday in Christmas, I have pawned the little\n     furniture I had, I am in a week's debt with my tradesman, and I\n     want bread--how are we to get over the fourth? This is not all; I\n     have the prospect of four more next week. Great God! Eight holidays\n     in ten days; you cannot have commanded it!\n\n     \"One year I hoped that rents would diminish by the suppression of\n     one of the monasteries of the Capuchins and Cordeliers. What\n     useless houses in the centre of Lyons are those of the Jacobins,\n     nuns of St. Peter, etc. Why not establish them in the suburbs if\n     they are thought necessary? How many more useful inhabitants would\n     supply their places!\n\n     \"All these reflections, gentlemen, have induced me to address\n     myself to you who have been chosen by the king for the task of\n     rectifying abuses. I am not the only one who thinks thus. How many\n     laborers in Lyons and other places, how many laborers in the\n     kingdom are reduced to the same extremities as myself? It is\n     evident that every holiday costs the state several millions\n     (livres). These considerations will lead you to take more to heart\n     the interests of the people, which are rather too little attended\n     to.\n\n     \"I have the honor to be, etc.,\n\n     \"BOCEN.\"\n\nThis request, which was really presented, will not be misplaced in a\nwork like the present.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nThe feast given to the Roman people by Julius C\u00e6sar and the emperors who\nsucceeded him are well known. The feast of twenty-two thousand tables\nserved by twenty-two thousand purveyors; the naval fights on artificial\nlakes, etc., have not, however, been imitated by the Herulian, Lombard,\nand Frankish chieftains, who would have their festivity equally\ncelebrated.\n\n\n\n\nFERRARA.\n\n\nWhat we have to say of Ferrara has no relation to literature, but it has\na very great one to justice, which is much more necessary than the\nbelles-lettres, and much less cultivated, at least in Italy.\n\nFerrara was constantly a fief of the empire, like Parma and Placentia.\nPope Clement VIII. robbed C\u00e6sar d'Este of it by force of arms, in 1597.\nThe pretext for this tyranny was a very singular one for a man who\ncalled himself the humble vicar of Jesus Christ.\n\nAlphonso d'Este, the first of the name, sovereign of Ferrara, Modena,\nEste, Carpio, and Rovigno, espoused a simple gentlewoman of Ferrara,\nnamed Laura Eustochia, by whom he had three children before marriage.\nThese children he solemnly acknowledged in the face of the Church. None\nof the formalities prescribed by the laws were wanting at this\nrecognition. His successor, Alphonso d'Este, was acknowledged duke of\nFerrara; he espoused Julia d'Urbino, the daughter of Francis, duke\nd'Urbino, by whom he had the unfortunate C\u00e6sar d'Este, the incontestable\nheir of all the property of all the family, and declared so by the last\nduke, who died October 27, 1597. Pope Clement VIII., surnamed\nAldobrandino, and originally of the family of a merchant of Florence,\ndared to pretend that the grandmother of C\u00e6sar d'Este was not\nsufficiently noble, and that the children that she had brought into the\nworld ought to be considered bastards. The first reason is ridiculous\nand scandalous in a bishop, the second is unwarrantable in every\ntribunal in Europe. If the duke was not legitimate, he ought to have\nlost Modena and his other states also; and if there was no flaw in his\ntitle, he ought to have kept Ferrara as well as Modena.\n\nThe acquisition of Ferrara was too fine a thing for the pope not to\nprocure all the decretals and decisions of those brave theologians, who\ndeclare that the pope can render just that which is unjust. Consequently\nhe first excommunicated C\u00e6sar d'Este, and as excommunication necessarily\ndeprives a man of all his property, the common father of the faithful\nraised his troops against the excommunicated, to rob him of his\ninheritance in the name of the Church. These troops were defeated, but\nthe duke of Modena soon saw his finances exhausted, and his friends\nbecome cool.\n\nTo make his case still more deplorable, the king of France, Henry IV.,\nbelieved himself obliged to take the side of the pope, in order to\nbalance the credit of Philip II. at the court of Rome; in the same\nmanner that good King Louis XII. less excusably dishonored himself by\nuniting with that monster Alexander VI., and his execrable bastard, the\nduke of Borgia. The duke was obliged to return, and the pope caused\nFerrara to be invaded by Cardinal Aldobrandino, who entered this\nflourishing city at the head of a thousand horse and five thousand foot\nsoldiers.\n\nIt is a great pity that such a man as Henry IV. descended to this\nunworthiness which is called politic. The Catos, Metelluses, Scipios,\nand Fabriciuses would not thus have betrayed justice to please a\npriest--and such a priest!\n\nFrom this time Ferrara became a desert; its uncultivated soil was\ncovered with standing marshes. This province, under the house of Este,\nhad been one of the finest in Italy; the people always regretted their\nancient masters. It is true that the duke was indemnified; he was\nnominated to a bishopric and a benefice; he was even furnished with some\nmeasures of salt from the mines of Servia. But it is no less true that\nthe house of Modena has incontestable and imprescriptable rights to the\nduchy of Ferrara, of which it was thus shamefully despoiled.\n\nNow, my dear reader, let us suppose that this scene took place at the\ntime in which Jesus Christ appeared to his apostles after his\nresurrection, and that Simon Barjonas, surnamed Peter, wished to possess\nhimself of the states of this poor duke of Ferrara. Imagine the duke\ncoming to Bethany to demand justice of the Lord Jesus. Our Lord sends\nimmediately for Peter and says to him, \"Simon, son of Jonas, I have\ngiven thee the keys of heaven, but I have not given thee those of the\nearth. Because thou hast been told that the heavens surround the globe,\nand that the contained is in the containing, dost thou imagine that\nkingdoms here below belong to thee, and that thou hast only to possess\nthyself of whatever thou likest? I have already forbidden thee to draw\nthe sword. Thou appearest to me a very strange compound; at one time\ncutting off the ear of Malchus, and at another even denying me. Be more\nlenient and decorous, and take neither the property nor the ears of any\none for fear of thine own.\"\n\n\n\n\nFEVER.\n\n\nIt is not as a physician, but as a patient, that I wish to say a word or\ntwo on fever. We cannot help now and then speaking of our enemies; and\nthis one has been attacking me for more than twenty years; not Fr\u00e9ron\nhimself has been more implacable.\n\nI ask pardon of Sydenham, who defined fever to be \"an effort of nature,\nlaboring with all its power to expel the peccant matter.\" We might thus\ndefine smallpox, measles, diarrh\u0153a, vomitings, cutaneous eruptions,\nand twenty other diseases. But, if this physician defined ill, he\npractised well. He cured, because he had experience, and he knew how to\nwait.\n\nBoerhaave says, in his \"Aphorisms\": \"A more frequent opposition, and an\nincreased resistance about the capillary vessels, give an absolute idea\nof an acute fever.\" These are the words of a great master; but he sets\nout with acknowledging that the nature of fever is profoundly hidden.\n\nHe does not tell us what that secret principle is which develops itself\nat regular periods in intermittent fever--what that internal poison is,\nwhich, after the lapse of a day, is renewed--where that flame is, which\ndies and revives at stated moments.\n\nWe know fairly well that we are liable to fever after excess, or in\nunseasonable weather. We know that quinine, judiciously administered,\nwill cure it. This is quite enough; the _how_ we do not know.\n\nEvery animal that does not perish suddenly dies by fever. The fever\nseems to be the inevitable effect of the fluids that compose the blood,\nor that which is in the place of blood. The structure of every animal\nproves to natural philosophers that it must, at all times, have enjoyed\na very short life.\n\nTheologians have held, as have promulgated other opinions. It is not for\nus to examine this question. The philosophers and physicians have been\nright _in sensu humano_, and the theologians, _in sensu divino_. It is\nsaid in Deuteronomy, xxviii, 22, that if the Jews do not serve the law\nthey shall be smitten \"with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an\ninflammation, and with an extreme burning.\" It is only in Deuteronomy,\nand in Moli\u00e8re's \"Physician in Spite of Himself,\" that people have been\nthreatened with fever.\n\nIt seems impossible that fever should not be an accident natural to an\nanimate body, in which so many fluids circulate; just as it is\nimpossible for an animate body not to be crushed by the falling of a\nrock.\n\nBlood makes life; it furnishes the viscera, the limbs, the skin, the\nvery extremities of the hairs and nails with the fluids, the humors\nproper for them.\n\nThis blood, by which the animal has life, is formed by the chyle. During\npregnancy this chyle is transmitted from the uterus to the child, and,\nafter the child is born, the milk of the nurse produces this same chyle.\nThe greater diversity of aliments it afterwards receives, the more the\nchyle is liable to be soured. This alone forming the blood, and this\nblood, composed of so many different humors so subject to corruption,\ncirculating through the whole human body more than five hundred and\nfifty times in twenty-four hours, with the rapidity of a torrent, it is\nnot only astonishing that fever is not more frequent, it is astonishing\nthat man lives. In every articulation, in every gland, in every passage,\nthere is danger of death; but there are also as many succors as there\nare dangers. Almost every membrane extends or contracts as occasion\nrequires. All the veins have sluices which open and shut, giving passage\nto the blood and preventing a return, by which the machine would be\ndestroyed. The blood, rushing through all these canals, purifies itself.\nIt is a river that carries with it a thousand impurities; it discharges\nitself by perspiration, by transpiration, by all the secretions. Fever\nis itself a succor; it is a rectification when it does not kill.\n\nMan, by his reason, accelerates the cure by administering bitters, and,\nabove all, by regimen. This reason is an oar with which he may row for\nsome time on the sea of the world when disease does not swallow him up.\n\nIt is asked: How is it that nature has abandoned the animals, her work,\nto so many horrible diseases, almost always accompanied by fever? How\nand why is it that so many disorders exist with so much order,\nformation, and destruction everywhere, side by side? This is a\ndifficulty that often gives me a fever, but I beg you will read the\nletters of Memmius. Then, perhaps, you will be inclined to suspect that\nthe incomprehensible artificer of vegetables, animals, and worlds,\nhaving made all for the best, could not have made anything better.\n\n\n\n\nFICTION.\n\n\nIs not a fiction, which teaches new and interesting truths, a fine\nthing? Do you not admire the Arabian story of the sultan who would not\nbelieve that a little time could appear long, and who disputed with his\ndervish on the nature of duration? The latter to convince him of it,\nbegged him only to plunge his head for a moment into the basin in which\nhe was washing. Immediately the sultan finds himself transported into a\nfrightful desert; he is obliged to labor to get a livelihood; he\nmarries, and has children who grow up and ill treat him; finally he\nreturns to his country and his palace and he there finds the dervish who\nhas caused him to suffer so many evils for five and twenty years. He is\nabout to kill him, and is only appeased when he is assured that all\npassed in the moment in which, with his eyes shut, he put his head into\nthe water.\n\nYou still more admire the fiction of the loves of Dido and \u00c6neas, which\ncaused the mortal hatred between Carthage and Rome, as also that which\nexhibits in Elysium the destinies of the great men of the Roman Empire.\n\nYou also like that of Alcina, in Ariosto, who possesses the dignity of\nMinerva with the beauty of Venus, who is so charming to the eyes of her\nlovers, who intoxicates them with voluptuous delights, and unites all\nthe loves and graces, but who, when she is at last reduced to her true\nself and the enchantment has passed away, is nothing more than a little\nshrivelled, disgusting, old woman.\n\nAs to fictions which represent nothing, teach nothing, and from which\nnothing results, are they anything more than falsities? And if they are\nincoherent and heaped together without choice, are they anything better\nthan dreams?\n\nYou will possibly tell me that there are ancient fictions which are very\nincoherent, without ingenuity, and even absurd, which are still admired;\nbut is it not rather owing to the fine images which are scattered over\nthese fictions than to the inventions which introduce them? I will not\ndispute the point, but if you would be hissed at by all Europe, and\nafterwards forgotten forever, write fictions similar to those which you\nadmire.\n\n\n\n\nFIERT\u00c9.\n\n\nFiert\u00e9 is one of those expressions, which, having been originally\nemployed in an offensive sense, are afterwards used in a favorable one.\nIt is censure when this word signifies high-flown, proud, haughty, and\ndisdainful. It is almost praise when it means the loftiness of a noble\nmind.\n\nIt is a just eulogium on a general who marches towards the enemy with\n_fiert\u00e9_. Writers have praised the _fiert\u00e9_ of the gait of Louis XIV.;\nthey should have contented themselves with remarking its nobleness.\n\n_Fiert\u00e9_, without dignity, is a merit incompatible with modesty. It is\nonly _fiert\u00e9_ in air and manners which offends; it then displeases, even\nin kings.\n\n_Fiert\u00e9_ of manner in society is the expression of pride; _fiert\u00e9_ of\nsoul is greatness. The distinctions are so nice that a proud spirit is\ndeemed blamable, while a proud soul is a theme of praise. By the former\nis understood one who thinks advantageously of himself while the latter\ndenotes one who entertains elevated sentiments.\n\n_Fiert\u00e9_, announced by the exterior, is so great a fault that the weak,\nwho abjectly praise it in the great are obliged to soften it, or rather\nto extol it, by speaking of \"this noble _fiert\u00e9_.\" It is not simply\nvanity, which consists in setting a value upon little things; it is not\npresumption, which believes itself capable of great ones; it is not\ndisdain, which adds contempt of others to a great opinion of self; but\nit is intimately allied to all these faults.\n\nThis word is used in romances, poetry, and above all, in operas, to\nexpress the severity of female modesty. We meet with vain _fiert\u00e9_,\nvigorous _fiert\u00e9_, etc. Poets are, perhaps, more in the right than they\nimagine. The _fiert\u00e9_ of a woman is not only rigid modesty and love of\nduty, but the high value which she sets upon her beauty. The _fiert\u00e9_ of\nthe pencil is sometimes spoken of to signify free and fearless touches.\n\n\n\n\nFIGURE.\n\n\nEvery one desirous of instruction should read with attention all the\narticles in the \"_Dictionnaire Encyclop\u00e9dique_,\" under the head\n\"Figure,\" viz.:\n\n\"Figure of the Earth,\" by M. d'Alembert--a work both clear and profound,\nin which we find all that can be known on the subject.\n\n\"Figure of Rhetoric,\" by C\u00e9sar Dumarsais--a piece of instruction which\nteaches at once to think and to write; and, like many other articles,\nmake us regret that young people in general have not a convenient\nopportunity of reading things so useful.\n\n\"Human Figure,\" as relating to painting and sculpture--an excellent\nlesson given to every artist, by M. Watelet.\n\n\"Figure,\" in physiology--a very ingenious article, by M. de Caberoles.\n\n\"Figure,\" in arithmetic and in algebra--by M. Mallet.\n\n\"Figure,\" in logic, in metaphysics, and in polite literature, by M. le\nChevalier de Jaucourt--a man superior to the philosophers of antiquity,\ninasmuch as he has preferred retirement, real philosophy, and\nindefatigable labor, to all the advantages that his birth might have\nprocured him, in a country where birth is set above all beside,\nexcepting money.\n\n_Figure or Form of the Earth._\n\nPlato, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Posidonius, and all the geometricians of\nAsia, of Egypt, and of Greece, having acknowledged the sphericity of our\nglobe, how did it happen that we, for so long a time, imagined that the\nearth was a third longer than it was broad, and thence derived the terms\n\"_longitude_\" and \"_latitude_,\" which continually bear testimony to our\nancient ignorance?\n\nThe reverence due to the \"Bible,\" which teaches us so many truths more\nnecessary and more sublime, was the cause of this, our almost universal\nerror. It had been found, in Psalm ciii, that God had stretched the\nheavens over the earth like a skin; and as a skin is commonly longer\nthan it is wide, the same was concluded of the earth.\n\nSt. Athanasius expresses himself as warmly against good astronomers as\nagainst the partisans of Arius and Eusebius. \"Let us,\" says he, \"stop\nthe mouths of those barbarians, who, speaking without proof, dare to\nassert that the heavens also extend under the earth.\" The fathers\nconsidered the earth as a great ship, surrounded by water, with the prow\nto the east, and the stern to the west. We still find, in \"Cosmos,\" a\nwork of the fourth century, a sort of geographical chart, in which the\nearth has this figure.\n\nTortato, bishop of Avila, near the close of the fifteenth century,\ndeclares in his commentary on Genesis, that the Christian faith is\nshaken, if the earth is believed to be round. Columbus, Vespucius, and\nMagellan, not having the fear of excommunication by this learned bishop\nbefore their eyes, the earth resumed its rotundity in spite of him.\n\nThen man went from one extreme to the other, and the earth was regarded\nas a perfect sphere. But the error of the perfect sphere was the mistake\nof philosophers, while that of a long, flat earth was the blunder of\nidiots.\n\nWhen once it began to be clearly known that our globe revolves on its\nown axis every twenty-four hours, it might have been inferred from that\nalone that its form could not be absolutely round. Not only does the\ncentrifugal zone considerably raise the waters in the region of the\nequator, by the motion of the diurnal rotation, but they are moreover\nelevated about twenty-five feet, twice a day, by the tides; the lands\nabout the equator must then be perfectly inundated. But they are not so;\ntherefore the region of the equator is much more elevated, in\nproportion, than the rest of the earth: then the earth is a spheroid\nelevated at the equator, and cannot be a perfect sphere. This proof,\nsimple as it is, had escaped the greatest geniuses: because a universal\nprejudice rarely permits investigation.\n\nWe know that, in 1762, in a voyage to Cayenne, near the line, undertaken\nby order of Louis XIV., under the auspices of Colbert, the patron of all\nthe arts, Richer, among many other observations, found that the\noscillations or vibrations of his timepiece did not continue so frequent\nas in the latitude of Paris, and that it was absolutely necessary to\nshorten the pendulum one line and something more than a quarter. Physics\nand geometry were at that time not nearly so much cultivated as they now\nare; what man would have believed that an observation so trivial in\nappearance, a line more or less, could lead to the knowledge of the\ngreatest physical truths? It was first of all discovered that the weight\nmust necessarily be less on the equator than in our latitudes, since\nweight alone causes the oscillation of a pendulum. Consequently, the\nweight of bodies being the less the farther they are from the centre of\nthe earth, it was inferred that the region of the equator must be much\nmore elevated than our own--much more remote from the centre; so the\nearth could not be an exact sphere.\n\nMany philosophers acted, on the occasion of these discoveries, as all\nmen act when an opinion is to be changed--they disputed on Richer's\nexperiment; they pretended that our pendulums made their vibrations more\nslowly about the equator only because the metal was lengthened by the\nheat; but it was seen that the heat of the most burning summer lengthens\nit but one line in thirty feet; and here was an elongation of a line and\na quarter, a line and a half, or even two lines, in an iron rod, only\nthree feet and eight lines long.\n\nSome years after MM. Varin, Deshayes, Feuill\u00e9e, and Couplet, repeated\nthe same experiment on the pendulum, near the equator; and it was always\nfound necessary to shorten it, although the heat was very often less on\nthe line than fifteen or twenty degrees from it. This experiment was\nagain confirmed by the academicians whom Louis XV. sent to Peru; and who\nwere obliged, on the mountains about Quito, where it froze, to shorten\nthe second pendulum about two lines.\n\nAbout the same time, the academicians who went to measure an arc of the\nmeridian in the north, found that at Pello, within the Polar circle, it\nwas necessary to lengthen the pendulum, in order to have the same\noscillations as at Paris: consequently weight is greater at the polar\ncircle than in the latitude of France, as it is greater in our latitude\nthan at the equator. Weight being greater in the north, the north was\ntherefore nearer the centre of the earth than the equator; therefore the\nearth was flattened at the poles.\n\nNever did reasoning and experiment so fully concur to establish a truth.\nThe celebrated Huygens, by calculating centrifugal forces, had proved\nthat the consequent diminution of weight on the surface of a sphere was\nnot great enough to explain the phenomena, and that therefore the earth\nmust be a spheroid flattened at the poles. Newton, by the principles of\nattraction, had found nearly the same relations: only it must be\nobserved, that Huygens believed this force inherent in bodies\ndetermining them towards the centre of the globe, to be everywhere the\nsame. He had not yet seen the discoveries of Newton; so that he\nconsidered the diminution of weight by the theory of centrifugal forces\nonly. The effect of centrifugal forces diminishes the primitive gravity\non the equator. The smaller the circles in which this centrifugal force\nis exercised become, the more it yields to the force of gravity; thus,\nat the pole itself the centrifugal force being null, must leave the\nprimitive gravity in full action. But this principle of a gravity always\nequal, falls to nothing before the discovery made by Newton, that a body\ntransported, for instance, to the distance of ten diameters from the\ncentre of the earth, would weigh one hundred times less than at the\ndistance of one diameter.\n\nIt is then by the laws of gravitation, combined with those of the\ncentrifugal force, that the real form of the earth must be shown. Newton\nand Gregory had such confidence in this theory that they did not\nhesitate to advance that experiments on weight were a surer means of\nknowing the form of the earth than any geographical measurement.\n\nLouis XIV. had signalized his reign by that meridian which was drawn\nthrough France: the illustrious Dominico Cassini had begun it with his\nson; and had, in 1701, drawn from the feet of the Pyrenees to the\nobservatory a line as straight as it could be drawn, considering the\nalmost insurmountable obstacles which the height of mountains, the\nchanges of refraction in the air, and the altering of instruments were\nconstantly opposing to the execution of so vast and delicate an\nundertaking; he had, in 1701, measured six degrees eighteen minutes of\nthat meridian. But, from whatever cause the error might proceed, he had\nfound the degrees towards Paris, that is towards the north, shorter than\nthose towards the Pyrenees and the south. This measurement gave the lie\nboth to the theory of Norwood and to the new theory of the earth\nflattened at the poles. Yet this new theory was beginning to be so\ngenerally received that the academy's secretary did not hesitate, in his\nhistory of 1701, to say that the new measurements made in France proved\nthe earth to be a spheroid flattened at the poles. The truth was, that\nDominico Cassini's measurement led to a conclusion directly opposite;\nbut, as the figure of the earth had not yet become a question in France,\nno one at that time was at the trouble of combating this false\nconclusion. The degrees of the meridian from Collioure to Paris were\nbelieved to be exactly measured; and the pole, which from that\nmeasurement must necessarily be elongated, was believed to be flattened.\n\nAn engineer, named M. de Roubais, astonished at this conclusion,\ndemonstrated that, by the measurements taken in France, the earth must\nbe an oblate spheroid, of which the meridian passing through the poles\nmust be longer than the equator, the poles being elongated. But of all\nthe natural philosophers to whom he addressed his dissertation, not one\nwould have it printed; because it seemed that the academy had pronounced\nit as too bold in an individual to raise his voice. Some time after the\nerror of 1701 was acknowledged, that which had been said was unsaid; and\nthe earth was lengthened by a just conclusion drawn from a false\nprinciple. The meridian was continued in the same principle from Paris\nto Dunkirk; and the degrees were still found to grow shorter as they\napproached the north. People were still mistaken respecting the figure\nof the earth, as they had been concerning the nature of light. About the\nsame time, some mathematicians who were performing the same operations\nin China were astonished to find a difference among their degrees,\nwhich they had expected to find alike; and to discover, after many\nverifications, that they were shorter towards the north than towards the\nsouth. This accordance of the mathematicians of France with those of\nChina was another powerful reason for believing in the oblate spheroid.\nIn France they did still more; they measured parallels to the equator.\nIt is easily understood that on an oblate spheroid our degrees of\nlongitude must be shorter than on a sphere. M. de Cassini found the\nparallel which passes through St. Malo to be shorter by one thousand and\nthirty-seven toises than it would have been on a spherical earth.\n\nAll these measurements proved that the degrees had been found as it was\nwished to find them. They overturned, for a time, in France, the\ndemonstrations of Newton and Huygens; and it was no longer doubted that\nthe poles were of a form precisely contrary to that which had at first\nbeen attributed to them. In short, nothing at all was known about the\nmatter.\n\nAt length, other academicians, who had visited the polar circle in 1736,\nhaving found, by new measurements, that the degree was longer there than\nin France, people doubted between them and the Cassinis. But these\ndoubts were soon after removed: for these same astronomers, returning\nfrom the pole, examined afresh the degree to the north of Paris,\nmeasured by Picard, in 1677, and found it to be a hundred and\ntwenty-three toises longer than it was according to Picard's\nmeasurement. If, then, Picard, with all his precautions, had made his\ndegree one hundred and twenty-three toises too short, it was not at all\nunlikely that the degrees towards the south had in like manner been\nfound too long. Thus the first error of Picard, having furnished the\nfoundations for the measurements of the meridian, also furnished an\nexcuse for the almost inevitable errors which very good astronomers\nmight have committed in the course of these operations.\n\nUnfortunately, other men of science found that, at the Cape of Good\nHope, the degrees of the meridian did not agree with ours. Other\nmeasurements, taken in Italy, likewise contradicted those of France, and\nall were falsified by those of China. People again began to doubt, and\nto suspect, in my opinion quite reasonably, that the earth had\nprotuberances. As for the English, though they are fond of travelling,\nthey spared themselves the fatigue, and held fast their theory.\n\nThe difference between one diameter and the other is not more than five\nor six of our leagues--a difference immense in the eyes of a disputant,\nbut almost imperceptible to those who consider the measurement of the\nglobe only in reference to the purposes of utility which it may serve. A\ngeographer could scarcely make this difference perceptible on a map; nor\nwould a pilot be able to discover whether he was steering on a spheroid\nor on a sphere. Yet there have been men bold enough to assert that the\nlives of navigators depended on this question. Oh quackery! will you\nspare no degrees--not even those of the meridian?\n\n\n\n\nFIGURED--FIGURATIVE.\n\n\nWe say, a truth \"figured\" by a fable, by a parable; the church \"figured\"\nby the young spouse in Solomon's Song; ancient Rome \"figured\" by\nBabylon. A figurative style is constituted by metaphorical expressions,\nfiguring the things spoken of--and disfiguring them when the metaphors\nare not correct.\n\nArdent imagination, passion, desire--frequently deceived--produce the\nfigurative style. We do not admit it into history, for too many\nmetaphors are hurtful, not only to perspicuity, but also to truth, by\nsaying more or less than the thing itself.\n\nIn didactic works, this style should be rejected. It is much more out of\nplace in a sermon than in a funeral oration, because the sermon is a\npiece of instruction in which the truth is to be announced; while the\nfuneral oration is a declaration in which it is to be exaggerated.\n\nThe poetry of enthusiasm, as the epopee and the ode, is that to which\nthis style is best adapted. It is less admissible in tragedy, where the\ndialogue should be natural as well as elevated; and still less in\ncomedy, where the style must be more simple.\n\nThe limits to be set to the figurative style, in each kind, are\ndetermined by taste. Baltasar Gracian says, that \"our thoughts depart\nfrom the vast shores of memory, embark on the sea of imagination, arrive\nin the harbor of intelligence, and are entered at the custom house of\nthe understanding.\"\n\nThis is precisely the style of Harlequin. He says to his master, \"The\nball of your commands has rebounded from the racquet of my obedience.\"\nMust it not be owned that such is frequently that oriental style which\npeople try to admire? Another fault of the figurative style is the\naccumulating of incoherent figures. A poet, speaking of some\nphilosophers, has called them:\n\n                   _D'ambitieux pygm\u00e9es_\n     _Qui sur leurs pieds vainement redress\u00e9s_\n     _Et sur des monts d'argumens entass\u00e9s_\n     _De jour en jour superbes Encelades,_\n     _Vont redoublant leurs folles escalades._\n\nWhen philosophers are to be written against, it should be done better.\nHow do ambitious pygmies, reared on their hind legs on mountains of\narguments, continue escalades? What a false and ridiculous image! What\nelaborate dulness!\n\nIn an allegory by the same author, entitled the \"Liturgy of Cytherea,\"\nwe find these lines:\n\n     _De toutes parts, autour de l'inconnue,_\n     _Ils vont tomber comme gr\u00eale menue,_\n     _Moissons des c\u0153urs sur la terre jonch\u00e9s,_\n     _Et des Dieux m\u00eame \u00e0 son char attach\u00e9s._\n     _De par Venus nous venons cette affaire_\n     _Si s'en retourne aux cieux dans son s\u00e9rail,_\n     _En ruminant comment il pourra faire_\n     _Pour ramener la brebis au bercail._\n\nHere we have harvests of hearts thrown on the ground like small hail;\nand among these hearts palpitating on the ground, are gods bound to the\ncar of the unknown; while love, sent by Venus, ruminates in his seraglio\nin heaven, what he shall do to bring back to the fold this lost mutton\nsurrounded by scattered hearts. All this forms a figure at once so\nfalse, so puerile, and so incoherent--so disgusting, so extravagant, so\nstupidly expressed, that we are astonished that a man, who made good\nverses of another kind, and was not devoid of taste, could write\nanything so miserably bad.\n\nFigures, metaphors, are not necessary in an allegory; what has been\ninvented with imagination may be told with simplicity. Plato has more\nallegories than figures; he often expresses them elegantly and without\nostentation.\n\nNearly all the maxims of the ancient orientals and of the Greeks were in\nthe figurative style. All those sentences are metaphors, or short\nallegories; and in them the figurative style has great effect in rousing\nthe imagination and impressing the memory.\n\nWe know that Pythagoras said, \"In the tempest adore the echo,\" that is,\nduring civil broils retire to the country; and \"Stir not the fire with\nthe sword,\" meaning, do not irritate minds already inflamed. In every\nlanguage, there are many common proverbs which are in the figurative\nstyle.\n\n\n\n\nFIGURE IN THEOLOGY.\n\n\nIt is quite certain, and is agreed by the most pious men, that figures\nand allegories have been carried too far. Some of the fathers of the\nchurch regard the piece of red cloth, placed by the courtesan Rahab at\nher window, for a signal to Joshua's spies, as a figure of the blood of\nJesus Christ. This is an error of an order of mind which would find\nmystery in everything.\n\nNor can it be denied that St. Ambrose made very bad use of his taste for\nallegory, when he says, in his book of \"Noah and the Ark,\" that the back\ndoor of the ark was a figure of our hinder parts.\n\nAll men of sense have asked how it can be proved that these Hebrew\nwords, \"_maher, salas-has-has_,\" (take quick the spoils) are a figure of\nJesus Christ? How is Judah, tying his ass to a vine, and washing his\ncloak in the wine, also a figure of Him. How can Ruth, slipping into bed\nto Boaz, figure the church, how are Sarah and Rachel the church, and\nHagar and Leah the synagogue? How, do the kisses of the Shunamite typify\nthe marriage of the church? A volume might be made of these enigmas,\nwhich, to the best theologians of later times, have appeared to be\nrather far-fetched than edifying.\n\nThe danger of this abuse is fully admitted by Abb\u00e9 Fleury, the author of\nthe \"Ecclesiastical History.\" It is a vestige of rabbinism; a fault\ninto which the learned St. Jerome never fell. It is like oneiromancy,\nor the explanation of dreams. If a girl sees muddy water, when dreaming,\nshe will be ill-married; if she sees clear water, she will have a good\nhusband; a spider denotes money, etc. In short, will enlightened\nposterity believe it? The understanding of dreams has, for more than\nfour thousand years, been made a serious study.\n\n_Symbolical Figures._\n\nAll nations have made use of them, as we have said in the article\n\"emblem.\" But who began? Was it the Egyptians? It is not likely. We\nthink we have already more than once proved that Egypt is a country\nquite new, and that many ages were requisite to save the country from\ninundations, and render it habitable. It is impossible that the\nEgyptians should have invented the signs of the zodiac, since the\nfigures denoting our seed-time and harvest cannot coincide with theirs.\nWhen we cut our corn, their land is covered with water; and when we sow,\ntheir reaping time is approaching. Thus the bull of our zodiac and the\ngirl bearing ears of corn cannot have come from Egypt.\n\nHere is also an evident proof of the falsity of the new paradox, that\nthe Chinese are an Egyptian colony. The characters are not the same. The\nChinese mark the course of the sun by twenty-eight constellations and\nthe Egyptians, after the Chald\u00e6ans, reckoned only twelve, like\nourselves.\n\nThe figures that denote the planets are in China and in India all\ndifferent from those of Egypt and of Europe; so are the signs of the\nmetals; so is the method of guiding the hand in writing. Nothing could\nhave been more chimerical than to send the Egyptians to people China.\n\nAll these fabulous foundations, laid in fabulous times, have caused an\nirreparable loss of time to a prodigious multitude of the learned, who\nhave all been bewildered in their laborious researches, which might have\nbeen serviceable to mankind if directed to arts of real utility.\n\nPluche, in his History, or rather his fable, of the Heavens, assures us\nthat Ham, son of Noah, went and reigned in Egypt, where there was nobody\nto reign over; that his son Menes was the greatest of legislators, and\nthat Thoth was his prime minister.\n\nAccording to him and his authorities, this Thoth, or somebody else,\ninstituted feasts in honor of the deluge; and the joyful cry of \"_Io\nBacche_,\" so famous among the Greeks, was, among the Egyptians, a\nlamentation. \"_Bacche_\" came from the Hebrew \"_beke_\" signifying _sobs_,\nand that at a time when the Hebrew people did not exist. According to\nthis explanation, \"_joy_\" means \"_sorrow_,\" and \"_to sing_\" signifies\n\"_to weep_.\"\n\nThe Iroquois have more sense. They do not take the trouble to inquire\nwhat passed on the shores of Lake Ontario some thousand years ago:\ninstead of making systems, they go hunting.\n\nThe same authors affirm that the sphinxes, with which Egypt was adorned,\nsignified superabundance, because some interpreters have asserted that\nthe Hebrew word \"_spang_\" meant an \"excess\"; as if the Egyptians had\ntaken lessons from the Hebrew tongue, which is, in great part, derived\nfrom the Ph\u0153nician: besides, what relation has a sphinx to an\nabundance of water? Future schoolmen will maintain, with greater\nappearance of reason, that the masks which decorate the keystones of our\nwindows are emblems of our masquerades; and that these fantastic\nornaments announced that balls were given in every house to which they\nwere affixed.\n\n_Figure, Figurative, Allegorical, Mystical, Topological, Typical, etc._\n\nThis is often the art of finding in books everything but what they\nreally contain. For instance, Romulus killing his brother Remus shall\nsignify the death of the duke of Berry, brother of Louis XI.; Regulus,\nimprisoned at Carthage, shall typify St. Louis captive at Mansurah.\n\nIt is very justly remarked in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" that many fathers of\nthe church have, perhaps, carried this taste for allegorical figures a\nlittle too far; but they are to be reverenced, even in their wanderings.\nIf the holy fathers used and then abused this method, their little\nexcesses of imagination may be pardoned, in consideration of their holy\nzeal.\n\nThe antiquity of the usage may also be pleaded in justification, since\nit was practised by the earliest philosophers. But it is true that the\nsymbolical figures employed by the fathers are in a different taste.\n\nFor example: When St. Augustine wishes to make it appear that the\nforty-two generations of the genealogy of Jesus are announced by St.\nMatthew, who gives only forty-one, he says that Jechonias must be\ncounted twice, because Jechonias is a corner-stone belonging to two\nwalls; that these two walls figure the old and the new law; and that\nJechonias, being thus the corner-stone, figures Jesus Christ, who is the\nreal corner-stone.\n\nThe same saint, in the same sermon, says that the number forty must\nprevail; and at once abandons Jechonias and his corner-stone, counted as\ntwo. The number forty, he says, signifies life; ten, which is perfect\nbeatitude, being multiplied by four, which, being the number of the\nseasons, figures time.\n\nAgain, in the same sermon, he explains why St. Luke gives Jesus Christ\nseventy-seven ancestors: fifty-six up to the patriarch Abraham, and\ntwenty-one from Abraham up to God himself. It is true that, according to\nthe Hebrew text, there would be but seventy-six; for the Hebrew does not\nreckon a Cainan, who is interpolated in the Greek translation called\n\"The Septuagint.\"\n\nThus said Augustine: \"The number seventy-seven figures the abolition of\nall sins by baptism.... the number ten signifies justice and beatitude,\nresulting from, the creature, which makes seven with the Trinity, which\nis three: therefore it is that God's commandments are ten in number. The\nnumber eleven denotes sin, because it transgresses ten.... This number\nseventy-seven is the product of eleven, figuring sin, multiplied by\nseven, and not by ten, for seven is the symbol of the creature. Three\nrepresents the soul, which is in some sort an image of the Divinity; and\nfour represents the body, on account of its four qualities.\" In these\nexplanations, we find some trace of the cabalistic mysteries and the\nquaternary of Pythagoras. This taste was very long in vogue.\n\nSt. Augustine goes much further, concerning the dimensions of matter.\nBreadth is the dilatation of the heart, which performs good works;\nlength is perseverance; depth is the hope of reward. He carries the\nallegory very far, applying it to the cross, and drawing great\nconsequences therefrom. The use of these figures had passed from the\nJews to the Christians long before St. Augustine's time. It is not for\nus to know within what bounds it was right to stop.\n\nThe examples of this fault are innumerable. No one who has studied to\nadvantage will hazard the introduction of such figures, either in the\npulpit or in the school. We find no such instances among the Romans or\nthe Greeks, not even in their poets.\n\nIn Ovid's \"Metamorphoses\" themselves, we find only ingenious deductions\ndrawn from fables which are given as fables. Deucalion and Pyrrha threw\nstones behind them between their legs, and men were produced therefrom.\nOvid says:\n\n     _Inde genus durum sumus, experiensque laborum,_\n     _Et documenta damus qua simus origine nati._\n\n     Thence we are a hardened and laborious race,\n     Proving full well our stony origin.\n\nApollo loves Daphne, but Daphne does not love Apollo. This is because\nlove has two kinds of arrows; the one golden and piercing, the other\nleaden and blunt. Apollo has received in his heart a golden arrow,\nDaphne a leaden one.\n\n     _Ecce sagittifera prompsit duo tela pharetra_\n     _Diversorum operum; fugat hoc, facit illud amorem_\n     _Quod facit auratum est, et cuspide fulget acuta;_\n     _Quod fugat obtusum est, et habet sub arundine plumbum...._\n\n     Two different shafts he from his quiver draws;\n     One to repel desire, and one to cause.\n     One shaft is pointed with refulgent gold,\n     To bribe the love, and make the lover bold;\n     One blunt and tipped with lead, whose base allay\n     Provokes disdain, and drives desire away.--DRYDEN.\n\nThese figures are all ingenious, and deceive no one.\n\nThat Venus, the goddess of beauty, should not go unattended by the\nGraces, is a charming truth. These fables, which were in the mouths of\nall--these allegories, so natural and attractive--had so much sway over\nthe minds of men, that perhaps the first Christians imitated while they\nopposed them.\n\nThey took up the weapons of mythology to destroy it, but they could not\nwield them with the same address. They did not reflect that the sacred\nausterity of our holy religion placed these resources out of their\npower, and that a Christian hand would have dealt but awkwardly with the\nlyre of Apollo.\n\nHowever, the taste for these typical and prophetic figures was so firmly\nrooted that every prince, every statesman, every pope, every founder of\nan order, had allegories or allusions taken from the Holy Scriptures\napplied to him. Satire and flattery rivalled each other in drawing from\nthis source.\n\nWhen Pope Innocent III. made a bloody crusade against the court of\nToulouse, he was told, \"_Innocens eris a maledictione_.\" When the order\nof the Minimes was established, it appeared that their founder had been\nforetold in Genesis: \"_Minimus cum patre nostro_.\"\n\nThe preacher who preached before John of Austria after the celebrated\nbattle of Lepanto, took for his text, \"_Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui\nnomen erat Johannes_;\" A man sent from God, whose name was John; and\nthis allusion was very fine, if all the rest were ridiculous. It is said\nto have been repeated for John Sobieski, after the deliverance of\nVienna; but this latter preacher was nothing more than a plagiarist.\n\nIn short, so constant has been this custom that no preacher of the\npresent day has ever failed to take an allegory for his text. One of the\nmost happy instances is the text of the funeral oration over the duke of\nCandale, delivered before his sister, who was considered a pattern of\nvirtue: \"_Die, quia soror, mea es, ut mihi bene eveniat propter,\nte_.\"--\"Say, I pray thee, that thou art my sister, that it may be well\nwith me for thy sake.\"\n\nIt is not to be wondered at that the Cordeliers carried these figures\nrather too far in favor of St. Francis of Assisi, in the famous but\nlittle-known book, entitled, \"Conformities of St. Francis of Assisi with\nJesus Christ.\" We find in it sixty-four predictions of the coming of St.\nFrancis, some in the Old Testament, others in the New; and each\nprediction contains three figures, which signify the founding of the\nCordeliers. So that these fathers find themselves foretold in the Bible\na hundred and ninety-two times.\n\nFrom Adam down to St. Paul, everything prefigured the blessed Francis of\nAssisi. The Scriptures were given to announce to the universe the\nsermons of Francis to the quadrupeds, the fishes, and the birds, the\nsport he had with a woman of snow, his frolics with the devil, his\nadventures with brother Elias and brother Pacificus.\n\nThese pious reveries, which amounted even to blasphemy, have been\ncondemned. But the Order of St. Francis has not suffered by them, having\nrenounced these extravagancies so common to the barbarous ages.\n\n\n\n\nFINAL CAUSES.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nVirgil says (\"\u00c6neid,\" book vi. 727):\n\n     _Mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet._\n\n     This active mind infused, through all the space\n     Unites and mingles with the mighty mass.--DRYDEN.\n\nVirgil said well: and Benedict Spinoza, who has not the brilliancy of\nVirgil, nor his merit, is compelled to acknowledge an intelligence\npresiding over all. Had he denied this, I should have said to him:\nBenedict, you are a fool; you possess intelligence, and you deny it, and\nto whom do you deny it?\n\nIn the year 1770, there appeared a man, in some respects far superior to\nSpinoza, as eloquent as the Jewish Hollander is dry, less methodical,\nbut infinitely more perspicuous; perhaps equal to him in mathematical\nscience; but without the ridiculous affectation of applying mathematical\nreasonings to metaphysical and moral subjects. The man I mean is the\nauthor of the \"System of Nature.\" He assumed the name of Mirabaud, the\nsecretary of the French Academy. Alas! the worthy secretary was\nincapable of writing a single page of the book of our formidable\nopponent. I would recommend all you who are disposed to avail yourselves\nof your reason and acquire instruction, to read the following eloquent\nthough dangerous passage from the \"System of Nature.\" (Part II. v. 153.)\n\nIt is contended that animals furnish us with a convincing evidence that\nthere is some powerful cause of their existence; the admirable\nadaptation of their different parts, mutually receiving and conferring\naid towards accomplishing their functions, and maintaining in health and\nvigor the entire being, announce to us an artificer uniting power to\nwisdom. Of the power of nature, it is impossible for us to doubt; she\nproduces all the animals that we see by the help of combinations of that\nmatter, which is in incessant action; the adaptation of the parts of\nthese animals is the result of the necessary laws of their nature, and\nof their combination. When the adaptation ceases, the animal is\nnecessarily destroyed. What then becomes of the wisdom, the\nintelligence, or the goodness of that alleged cause, to which was\nascribed all the honor of this boasted adaptation? Those animals of so\nwonderful a structure as to be pronounced the works of an immutable God,\ndo not they undergo incessant changes; and do not they end in decay and\ndestruction? Where is the wisdom, the goodness, the fore-sight, the\nimmutability of an artificer, whose sole object appears to be to derange\nand destroy the springs of those machines which are proclaimed to be\nmasterpieces of his power and skill? If this God cannot act otherwise\nthan thus, he is neither free nor omnipotent. If his will changes, he is\nnot immutable. If he permits machines, which he has endowed with\nsensibility, to experience pain, he is deficient in goodness. If he has\nbeen unable to render his productions solid and durable, he is deficient\nin skill. Perceiving as we do the decay and ruin not only of all\nanimals, but of all the other works of deity, we cannot but inevitably\nconclude, either that everything performed in the course of nature is\nabsolutely necessary--the unavoidable result of its imperative and\ninsuperable laws, or that the artificer who impels her various\noperations is destitute of plan, of power, of constancy, of skill, and\nof goodness.\n\n\"Man, who considers himself the master-work of the Divinity, supplies us\nmore readily and completely than any other production, with evidence of\nthe incapacity or malignity of his pretended author. In this being,\npossessed of feeling, intuition, and reason, which considers itself as\nthe perpetual object of divine partiality, and forms its God on the\nmodel of itself, we see a machine more changeable, more frail, more\nliable to derangement from its extraordinary complication, than that of\nthe coarsest and grossest beings. Beasts, which are destitute of our\nmental powers and acquirements; plants, which merely vegetate; stones,\nwhich are unendowed with sensation, are, in many respects, beings far\nmore favored than man. They are, at least, exempt from distress of mind,\nfrom the tortures of thought, and corrosions of care, to which the\nlatter is a victim. Who would not prefer being a mere unintelligent\nanimal, or a senseless stone, when his thoughts revert to the\nirreparable loss of an object dearly beloved? Would it not be infinitely\nmore desirable to be an inanimate mass, than the gloomy votary and\nvictim of superstition, trembling under the present yoke of his\ndiabolical deity, and anticipating infinite torments in a future\nexistence? Beings destitute of sensation, life, memory, and thought\nexperience no affliction from the idea of what is past, present, or to\ncome; they do not believe there is any danger of incurring eternal\ntorture for inaccurate reasoning; which is believed, however, by many of\nthose favored beings who maintain that the great architect of the world\nhas created the universe for themselves.\n\n[Illustration: NATURE IS NOT A WORK]\n\n\"Let us not be told that we have no idea of a work without having that\nof the artificer distinguished from the work. _Nature is not a work._\nShe has always existed of herself. Every process takes place in her\nbosom. She is an immense manufactory, provided with materials, and she\nforms the instruments by which she acts; all her works are effects of\nher own energy, and of agents or causes which she frames, contains, and\nimpels. Eternal, uncreated elements--elements indestructible, ever in\nmotion, and combining in exquisite and endless diversity, originate all\nthe beings and all the phenomena that we behold; all the effects, good\nor evil, that we feel; the order or disorder which we distinguish,\nmerely by different modes in which they affect ourselves; and, in a\nword, all those wonders which excite our meditation and confound our\nreasoning. These elements, in order to effect objects thus comprehensive\nand important, require nothing beyond their own properties, individual\nor combined, and the motion essential to their very existence; and thus\npreclude the necessity of recurring to an unknown artificer, in order to\narrange, mould, combine, preserve, and dissolve them.\n\n\"But, even admitting for a moment, that it is impossible to conceive of\nthe universe without an artificer who formed it, and who preserves and\nwatches over his work, where shall we place that artificer? Shall he be\nwithin or without the universe? Is he matter or motion? Or is he mere\nspace, nothingness, vacuity? In each of these cases, he will either be\nnothing, or he will be comprehended in nature, and subjected to her\nlaws. If he is in nature, I think I see in her only matter in motion,\nand cannot but thence conclude that the agent impelling her is corporeal\nand material, and that he is consequently liable to dissolution. If this\nagent is out of nature, then I have no idea of what place he can occupy,\nnor of an immaterial being, nor of the manner in which a spirit, without\nextension, can operate upon the matter from which it is separated. Those\nunknown tracts of space which imagination has placed beyond the visible\nworld may be considered as having no existence for a being who can\nscarcely see to the distance of his own feet; the ideal power which\ninhabits them can never be represented to my mind, unless when my\nimagination combines at random the fantastic colors which it is always\nforced to employ in the world on which I am. In this case, I shall\nmerely reproduce in idea what my senses have previously actually\nperceived; and that God, which I, as it were, compel myself to\ndistinguish from nature, and to place beyond her circuit, will ever, in\nopposition to all my efforts, necessarily withdraw within it.\n\n\"It will be observed and insisted upon by some that if a statue or a\nwatch were shown to a savage who had never seen them, he would\ninevitably acknowledge that they were the productions of some\nintelligent agent, more powerful and ingenious than himself; and hence\nit will be inferred that we are equally bound to acknowledge that the\nmachine of the universe, that man, that the phenomena of nature, are the\nproductions of an agent, whose intelligence and power are far superior\nto our own.\n\n\"I answer, in the first place, that we cannot possibly doubt either the\ngreat power or the great skill of nature; we admire her skill as often\nas we are surprised by the extended, varied and complicated effects\nwhich we find in those of her works that we take the pains to\ninvestigate; she is not, however, either more or less skilful in any one\nof her works than in the rest. We no more comprehend how she could\nproduce a stone or a piece of metal than how she could produce a head\norganized like that of Newton. We call that man skilful who can perform\nthings which we are unable to perform ourselves. Nature can perform\neverything; and when anything exists, it is a proof that she was able to\nmake it. Thus, it is only in relation to ourselves that we ever judge\nnature to be skilful; we compare it in those cases with ourselves; and,\nas we possess a quality which we call intelligence, by the aid of which\nwe produce works, in which we display our skill, we thence conclude that\nthe works of nature, which must excite our astonishment and admiration,\nare not in fact hers, but the productions of an artificer, intelligent\nlike ourselves, and whose intelligence we proportion, in our minds, to\nthe degree of astonishment excited in us by his works; that is, in fact,\nto our own weakness and ignorance.\"\n\nSee the reply to these arguments under the articles on \"Atheism\" and\n\"God,\" and in the following section, written long before the \"System of\nNature.\"\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIf a clock is not made in order to tell the time of the day, I will then\nadmit that final causes are nothing but chimeras, and be content to go\nby the name of a final-cause-finder--in plain language, fool--to the end\nof my life.\n\nAll the parts, however, of that great machine, the world, seem made for\none another. Some philosophers affect to deride final causes, which were\nrejected, they tell us, by Epicurus and Lucretius. But it seems to me\nthat Epicurus and Lucretius rather merit the derision. They tell you\nthat the eye is not made to see; but that, since it was found out that\neyes were capable of being used for that purpose, to that purpose they\nhave been applied. According to them, the mouth is not formed to speak\nand eat, nor the stomach to digest, nor the heart to receive the blood\nfrom the veins and impel it through the arteries, nor the feet to walk,\nnor the ears to hear. Yet, at the same time, these very shrewd and\nconsistent persons admitted that tailors made garments to clothe them,\nand masons built houses to lodge them; and thus ventured to deny\nnature--the great existence, the universal intelligence--what they\nconceded to the most insignificant artificers employed by themselves.\n\nThe doctrine of final causes ought certainly to be preserved from being\nabused. We have already remarked that M. le Prieur, in the \"Spectator of\nNature,\" contends in vain that the tides were attached to the ocean to\nenable ships to enter more easily into their ports, and to preserve the\nwater from corruption; he might just as probably and successfully have\nurged that legs were made to wear boots, and noses to bear spectacles.\n\nIn order to satisfy ourselves of the truth of a final cause, in any\nparticular instance, it is necessary that the effect produced should be\nuniform and invariably in time and place. Ships have not existed in all\ntimes and upon all seas; accordingly, it cannot be said that the ocean\nwas made for ships. It is impossible not to perceive how ridiculous it\nwould be to maintain that nature had toiled on from the very beginning\nof time to adjust herself to the inventions of our fortuitous and\narbitrary arts, all of which are of so late a date in their discovery;\nbut it is perfectly clear that if noses were not made for spectacles,\nthey were made for smelling, and there have been noses ever since there\nwere men. In the same manner, hands, instead of being bestowed for the\nsake of gloves, are visibly destined for all those uses to which the\nmetacarpus, the phalanges of the fingers, and the movements of the\ncircular muscle of the wrist, render them applicable by us. Cicero, who\ndoubted everything else, had no doubt about final causes.\n\nIt appears particularly difficult to suppose that those parts of the\nhuman frame by which the perpetuation of the species is conducted should\nnot, in fact, have been intended and destined for that purpose, from\ntheir mechanism so truly admirable, and the sensation which nature has\nconnected with it more admirable still. Epicurus would be at least\nobliged to admit that pleasure is divine, and that that pleasure is a\nfinal cause, in consequence of which beings, endowed with sensibility,\nbut who could never have communicated it to themselves, have been\nincessantly introduced into the world as others have passed away from\nit.\n\nThis philosopher, Epicurus, was a great man for the age in which he\nlived. He saw that Descartes denied what Gassendi affirmed and what\nNewton demonstrated--that motion cannot exist without a vacuum. He\nconceived the necessity of atoms to serve as constituent parts of\ninvariable species. These are philosophical ideas. Nothing, however,\nwas more respectable than the morality of genuine Epicureans; it\nconsisted in sequestration from public affairs, which are incompatible\nwith wisdom, and in friendship, without which life is but a burden. But\nas to the rest of the philosophy of Epicurus, it appears not to be more\nadmissible than the grooved or tubular matter of Descartes. It is, as it\nappears to me, wilfully to shut the eyes and the understanding, and to\nmaintain that there is no design in nature; and if there is design,\nthere is an intelligent cause--there exists a God.\n\nSome point us to the irregularities of our globe, the volcanoes, the\nplains of moving sand, some small mountains swallowed up in the ocean,\nothers raised by earthquakes, etc. But does it follow from the naves of\nyour chariot wheel taking fire, that your chariot was not made expressly\nfor the purpose of conveying you from one place to another?\n\nThe chains of mountains which crown both hemispheres, and more than six\nhundred rivers which flow from the foot of these rocks towards the sea;\nthe various streams that swell these rivers in their courses, after\nfertilizing the fields through which they pass; the innumerable\nfountains which spring from the same source, which supply necessary\nrefreshment, and growth, and beauty to animal and vegetable life; all\nthis appears no more to result from a fortuitous concourse and an\nobliquity of atoms, than the retina which receives the rays of light, or\nthe crystalline humor which refracts it, or the drum of the ear which\nadmits sound, or the circulation of the blood in our veins, the systole\nand diastole of the heart, the regulating principle of the machine of\nlife.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIt would appear that a man must be supposed to have lost his senses\nbefore he can deny that stomachs are made for digestion, eyes to see,\nand ears to hear.\n\nOn the other hand, a man must have a singular partiality for final\ncauses, to assert that stone was made for building houses, and that\nsilkworms are produced in China that we may wear satins in Europe.\n\nBut, it is urged, if God has evidently done one thing by design, he has\nthen done all things by design. It is ridiculous to admit Providence in\nthe one case and to deny it in the others. Everything that is done was\nforeseen, was arranged. There is no arrangement without an object, no\neffect without a cause; all, therefore, is equally the result, the\nproduct of the final cause; it is, therefore, as correct to say that\nnoses were made to bear spectacles, and fingers to be adorned with\nrings, as to say that the ears were formed to hear sounds, the eyes to\nreceive light.\n\nAll that this objection amounts to, in my opinion, is that everything is\nthe result, nearer or more remote, of a general final cause; that\neverything is the consequence of eternal laws. When the effects are\ninvariably the same in all times and places, and when these uniform\neffects are independent of the beings to which they attach, then there\nis visibly a final cause.\n\nAll animals have eyes and see; all have ears and hear; all have mouths\nwith which they eat; stomachs, or something similar, by which they\ndigest their food; all have suitable means for expelling the f\u00e6ces; all\nhave the organs requisite for the continuation of their species; and\nthese natural gifts perform their regular course and process without any\napplication or intermixture of art. Here are final causes clearly\nestablished; and to deny a truth so universal would be a perversion of\nthe faculty of reason.\n\nBut stones, in all times and places, do not constitute the materials of\nbuildings. All noses do not bear spectacles; all fingers do not carry a\nring; all legs are not covered with silk stockings. A silkworm,\ntherefore, is not made to cover my legs, exactly as your mouth is made\nfor eating, and another part of your person for the \"garderobe.\" There\nare, therefore, we see, immediate effects produced from final causes,\nand effects of a very numerous description, which are remote productions\nfrom those causes.\n\nEverything belonging to nature is uniform, immutable, and the immediate\nwork of its author. It is he who has established the laws by which the\nmoon contributes three-fourths to the cause of the flux and reflux of\nthe ocean, and the sun the remaining fourth. It is he who has given a\nrotatory motion to the sun, in consequence of which that orb\ncommunicates its rays of light in the short space of seven minutes and a\nhalf to the eyes of men, crocodiles, and cats.\n\nBut if, after a course of ages, we started the inventions of shears and\nspits, to clip the wool of sheep with the one, and with the other to\nroast in order to eat them, what else can be inferred from such\ncircumstances, but that God formed us in such a manner that, at some\ntime or other, we could not avoid becoming ingenious and carnivorous?\n\nSheep, undoubtedly, were not made expressly to be roasted and eaten,\nsince many nations abstain from such food with horror. Mankind are not\ncreated essentially to massacre one another, since the Brahmins, and the\nrespectable primitives called Quakers, kill no one. But the clay out of\nwhich we are kneaded frequently produces massacres, as it produces\ncalumnies, vanities, persecutions, and impertinences. It is not\nprecisely that the formation of man is the final cause of our madnesses\nand follies, for a final cause is universal, and invariable in every age\nand place; but the horrors and absurdities of the human race are not at\nall the less included in the eternal order of things. When we thresh our\ncorn, the flail is the final cause of the separation of the grain. But\nif that flail, while threshing my grain, crushes to death a thousand\ninsects, that occurs not by an express and determinate act of my will,\nnor, on the other hand, is it by mere chance; the insects were, on this\noccasion, actually under my flail, and could not but be there.\n\nIt is a consequence of the nature of things that a man should be\nambitious; that he should enroll and discipline a number of other men;\nthat he should be a conqueror, or that he should be defeated; but it can\nnever be said that the man was created by God to be killed in war.\n\nThe organs with which nature has supplied us cannot always be final\ncauses in action. The eyes which are bestowed for seeing are not\nconstantly open. Every sense has its season for repose. There are some\nsenses that are even made no use of. An imbecile and wretched female,\nfor example, shut up in a cloister at the age of fourteen years, mars\none of the final causes of her existence; but the cause, nevertheless,\nequally exists, and whenever it is free it will operate.\n\n\n\n\nFINESSE, FINENESS, ETC.\n\n_Of the Different Significations of the Word._\n\n\nFineness either in its proper or its figurative sense does not signify\neither light, slender, fine, or of a rare thin texture; this word\nexpresses something delicate and finished. Light cloth, soft linen, thin\nlace, or slender galloon, are not always fine.\n\nThis word has a relation to the verb \"to finish,\" whence come the\nfinishings of art; thus, we say, the finishings of Vanderwerff's pencil\nor of Mieris; we say, a fine horse, fine gold, a fine diamond. A fine\nhorse is opposed to a clumsy one; the fine diamond to a false one; fine\nor refined gold to gold mixed with alloy.\n\nFineness is generally applied to delicate things and lightness of\nmanufacture. Although we say a fine horse, we seldom say, \"the fineness\nof a horse.\" We speak of the fineness of hair, lace, or stuff. When by\nthis word we should express the fault or wrong use of anything, we add\nthe adverb \"too\"; as--This thread is broken, it was too fine; this stuff\nis too fine for the season.\n\nFineness or finesse, in a figurative sense, applies to conduct, speech,\nand works of mind. In conduct, finesse always expresses, as in the arts,\nsomething delicate or subtile; it may sometimes exist without ability,\nbut it is very rarely unaccompanied by a little deception; politics\nadmit it, and society reproves it.\n\nFinesse is not exactly subtlety; we draw a person into a snare with\nfinesse; we escape from it with subtlety. We act with finesse, and we\nplay a subtle trick. Distrust is inspired by an unsparing use of\nfinesse; yet we almost always deceive ourselves if we too generally\nsuspect it.\n\nFinesse, in works of wit, as in conversation, consists in the art of not\nexpressing a thought clearly, but leaving it so as to be easily\nperceived. It is an enigma to which people of sense readily find the\nsolution.\n\nA chancellor one day offering his protection to parliament, the first\npresident turning towards the assembly, said: \"Gentlemen, thank the\nchancellor; he has given us more than we demanded of him\"--a very witty\nreproof.\n\nFinesse, in conversation and writing, differs from delicacy; the first\napplies equally to piquant and agreeable things, even to blame and\npraise; and still more to indecencies, over which a veil is drawn,\nthrough which we cannot penetrate without a blush. Bold things may be\nsaid with finesse.\n\nDelicacy expresses soft and agreeable sentiments and ingenious praise;\nthus finesse belongs more to epigram, and delicacy to madrigal. It is\ndelicacy which enters into a lover's jealousies, and not finesse.\n\nThe praises given to Louis XIV. by Despr\u00e9aux are not always equally\ndelicate; satires are not always sufficiently ingenious in the way of\nfinesse. When Iphigenia, in Racine, has received from her father the\norder never to see Achilles more, she cries: \"_Dieux plus doux, vous\nn'aviez demand\u00e9 que ma vie!_\"--\"More gentle gods, you only ask my life!\"\nThe true character of this partakes rather of delicacy than of finesse.\n\n\n\n\nFIRE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nIs fire anything more than an element which lights, warms, and burns us?\nIs not light always fire, though fire is not always light? And is not\nBoerhaave in the right?\n\nIs not the purest fire extracted from our combustibles, always gross,\nand partaking of the bodies consumed, and very different from elementary\nfire? How is fire distributed throughout nature, of which it is the\nsoul?\n\n     _Ignis ubique latet, naturam amplectitur omnem,_\n     _Cuncta parit, renovat, dividit, unit, alit._\n\nWhy did Newton, in speaking of rays of light, always say, \"_De natura\nradiorum lucis, utrum corpora sint necne non disputamus_\"; without\nexamining whether they were bodies or not?\n\nDid he only speak geometrically? In that case, this doubt was useless.\nIt is evident that he doubted of the nature of elementary fire, and\ndoubted with reason.\n\nIs elementary fire a body like others, as earth and water? If it was a\nbody of this kind, would it not gravitate like all other matter? Would\nit escape from the luminous body in the right line? Would it have a\nuniform progression? And why does light never move out of a right line\nwhen it is unimpeded in its rapid course?\n\nMay not elementary fire have properties of matter little known to us,\nand properties of substance entirely so? May it not be a medium between\nmatter and substances of another kind? And who can say that there are\nnot a million of these substances? I do not say that there are, but I\nsay it is not proved that there may not be.\n\nIt was very difficult to believe about a hundred years ago that bodies\nacted upon one another, not only without touching, and without emission,\nbut at great distances; it is, however, found to be true, and is no\nlonger doubted. At present, it is difficult to believe that the rays of\nthe sun are penetrable by each other, but who knows what may happen to\nprove it?\n\nHowever that may be, I wish, for the novelty of the thing, that this\nincomprehensible penetrability could be admitted. Light has something so\ndivine that we should endeavor to make it a step to the discovery of\nsubstances still more pure.\n\nCome to my aid, Empedocles and Democritus; come and admire the wonders\nof electricity; see if the sparks which traverse a thousand bodies in\nthe twinkling of an eye are of ordinary matter; judge if elementary fire\ndoes not contract the heart, and communicate that warmth which gives\nlife! Judge if this element is not the source of all sensation, and if\nsensation is not the origin of thought; though ignorant and insolent\npedants have condemned the proposition, as one which should be\npersecuted.\n\nTell me, if the Supreme Being, who presides over all nature, cannot\nforever preserve these elementary atoms which he has so rarely endowed?\n_\"Igneus est ollis vigor et c\u0153lestis origo._\"\n\nThe celebrated Le Cat calls this vivifying fluid \"an amphibious being,\nendowed by its author with a superior refinement which links it to\nimmaterial beings, and thereby ennobles and elevates it into that medium\nnature which we recognize, and which is the source of all its\nproperties.\"\n\nYou are of the opinion of Le Cat? I would be so too if I could; but\nthere are so many fools and villains that I dare not. I can only think\nquietly in my own way at Mount Krapak. Let others think as well as they\nare allowed to think, whether at Salamanca or Bergamo.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_What is Understood by Fire Used Figuratively._\n\nFire, particularly in poetry, often signifies love, and is employed more\nelegantly in the plural than in the singular. Corneille often says \"_un\nbeau feu_\" for a virtuous and noble love. A man has fire in his\nconversation; that does not mean that he has brilliant and enlightened\nideas, but lively expressions animated by action.\n\nFire in writing does not necessarily imply lightness and beauty, but\nvivacity, multiplied figures, and spontaneous ideas. Fire is a merit in\nspeech and writing only when it is well managed. It is said that poets\nare animated with a divine fire when they are sublime; genius cannot\nexist without fire, but fire may be possessed without genius.\n\n\n\n\nFIRMNESS.\n\n\nFirmness comes from firm, and has a different signification from\nsolidity and hardness; a squeezed cloth, a beaten negro, have firmness\nwithout being hard or solid.\n\nIt must always be remembered that modifications of the soul can only be\nexpressed by physical images; we say firmness of soul, and of mind,\nwhich does not signify that they are harder or more solid than usual.\n\nFirmness is the exercise of mental courage; it means a decided\nresolution; while obstinacy, on the contrary, signifies blindness. Those\nwho praise the firmness of Tacitus are not so much in the wrong as P.\nBouhours pretends; it is an accidental ill-chosen term, which expresses\nenergy and strength of thought and of style. It may be said that La\nBruy\u00e8re has a firm style, and that many other writers have only a hard\none.\n\n\n\n\nFLATTERY.\n\n\nI find not one monument of flattery in remote antiquity; there is no\nflattery in Hesiod--none in Homer. Their stories are not addressed to a\nGreek, elevated to some dignity, nor to his lady; as each canto of\nThomson's \"Seasons\" is dedicated to some person of rank, or as so many\nforgotten epistles in verse have been dedicated, in England, to\ngentlemen or ladies of quality, with a brief eulogy, and the arms of\nthe patron or patroness placed at the head of the work.\n\nNor is there any flattery in Demosthenes. This way of asking alms\nharmoniously began, if I mistake not, with Pindar. No hand can be\nstretched out more emphatically.\n\nIt appears to me that among the Romans great flattery is to be dated\nfrom the time of Augustus. Julius C\u00e6sar had scarcely time to be\nflattered. There is not, extant, any dedicatory epistle to Sulla,\nMarius, or Carbo, nor to their wives, or their mistresses. I can well\nbelieve that very bad verses were presented to Lucullus and Pompey; but,\nthank God, we do not have them.\n\nIt is a great spectacle to behold Cicero equal in dignity to C\u00e6sar,\nspeaking before him as advocate for a king of Bithynia and Lesser\nArmenia, named Deiotarus, accused of laying ambuscades for him, and even\ndesigning to assassinate him. Cicero begins with acknowledging that he\nis disconcerted in his presence. He calls him the vanquisher of the\nworld--\"_victorem orbis terrarum_.\" He flatters him; but this adulation\ndoes not yet amount to baseness; some sense of shame still remains.\n\nBut with Augustus there are no longer any bounds; the senate decrees his\napotheosis during his lifetime. Under the succeeding emperors this\nflattery becomes the ordinary tribute, and is no longer anything more\nthan a style. It is impossible to flatter any one, when the most\nextravagant adulation has become the ordinary currency.\n\nIn Europe, we have had no great monuments of flattery before Louis XIV.\nHis father, Louis XIII., had very little incense offered him. We find no\nmention of him, except in one or two of Malherbe's odes. There, indeed,\naccording to custom, he is called \"thou greatest of kings\"--as the\nSpanish poets say to the king of Spain, and the English poets (laureate)\nto the king of England; but the better part of the poet's praises is\nbestowed on Cardinal Richelieu, whose soul is great and fearless; who\npractises so well the healing art of government, and who knows how to\ncure all our evils:\n\n     _Dont l'\u00e2me toute grande est une \u00e2me hard\u00eee,_\n     _Qui pratique si bien l'art de nous secourir,_\n     _Que, pourvu qu'il soit cru, nous n'avons maladie,_\n     _Qu'il ne sache gu\u00e9rir._\n\nUpon Louis XIV. flattery came in a deluge. But he was not like the man\nsaid to have been smothered by the rose leaves heaped upon him; on the\ncontrary, he thrived the more.\n\nFlattery, when it has some plausible pretext, may not be so pernicious\nas it has been thought; it sometimes encourages to great acts; but its\nexcess is vicious, like the excess of satire. La Fontaine says, and\npretends to say it after \u00c6sop:\n\n     _On ne peut trop louer trois sortes de personnes;_\n     _Les dieux, sa maitresse, et son roi._\n     _\u00c6sope le disait; j'y souscris quant \u00e0 moi;_\n     _Ces sont maximes toujours bonnes._\n\n     Your flattery to three sorts of folks apply:--\n     You cannot say too civil things\n     To gods, to mistresses, and kings;\n     So honest \u00c6sop said--and so say I.\n\nHonest \u00c6sop said no such thing; nor do we find that he flattered any\nking, or any concubine. It must not be thought that kings are in reality\nflattered by all the flatteries that are heaped upon them; for the\ngreater number never reach them.\n\nOne common folly of orators is that of exhausting themselves in praising\nsome prince who will never hear of their praises. But what is most\nlamentable of all is that Ovid should have praised Augustus even while\nhe was dating \"_de Ponto_.\"\n\nThe perfection of the ridiculous might be found in the compliments which\npreachers address to kings, when they have the happiness of exhibiting\nbefore their majesties.--\"To the reverend Father Gaillard, preacher to\nthe king.\" Ah! most reverend father, do you preach only for the king?\nAre you like the monkey at the fair, which leaps \"only for the king?\"\n\n\n\n\nFORCE (PHYSICAL).\n\n\nWhat is \"force?\" Where does it reside? Whence does it come? Does it\nperish? Or is it ever the same?\n\nIt has pleased us to denominate \"force\" that weight which one body\nexercises upon another. Here is a ball of two hundred pounds' weight on\nthis floor; it presses the floor, you say, with a force of two hundred\npounds. And this you call a \"dead force.\" But are not these words\n\"dead\" and \"force\" a little contradictory? Might we not as well say\n\"dead alive\"--yes and no at once?\n\nThis ball \"weighs.\" Whence comes this \"weight?\" and is this weight a\n\"force?\" If the ball were not impeded, would it go directly to the\ncentre of the earth? Whence has it this incomprehensible property?\n\nIt is supported by my floor; and you freely give to my floor the \"_vis\ninerti\u00e6_\"--\"inerti\u00e6\" signifying \"inactivity,\" \"impotence.\" Now is it not\nsingular that \"impotence\" should be denominated \"force?\"\n\nWhat is the living force which acts in your arm and your leg? What is\nthe source of it? How can it be supposed that this force exists when you\nare dead? Does it go and take up its abode elsewhere, as a man goes to\nanother house when his own is in ruins?\n\nHow can it have been said that there is always the same force in nature?\nThere must, then, have been always the same number of men, or of active\nbeings equivalent to men. Why does a body in motion communicate its\nforce to another body with which it comes in contact?\n\nThese are questions which neither geometry, nor mechanics, nor\nmetaphysics can answer. Would you arrive at the first principle of the\nforce of bodies, and of motion, you must ascend to a still superior\nprinciple. Why is there \"anything?\"\n\n\n\n\nFORCE--STRENGTH.\n\n\nThese words have been transplanted from simple to figurative speech.\nThey are applied to all the parts of the body that are in motion, in\naction--the force of the heart, which some have made four hundred\npounds, and some three ounces; the force of the viscera, the lungs, the\nvoice; the force of the arm.\n\nThe metaphor which has transported these words into morals has made them\nexpress a cardinal virtue. Strength, in this sense, is the courage to\nsupport adversity, and to undertake virtuous and difficult actions; it\nis the \"_animi fortitudo_.\"\n\nThe strength of the mind is penetration and depth--\"_ingenii vis_.\"\nNature gives it as she gives that of the body; moderate labor increases\nand excessive labor diminishes it.\n\nThe force of an argument consists in a clear exposition of\nclearly-exhibited proofs, and a just conclusion; with mathematical\ntheorems it has nothing to do; because the evidence of a demonstration\ncan be made neither more nor less; only it may be arrived at by a longer\nor a shorter path--a simpler or more complicated method. It is in\ndoubtful questions that the force of reasoning is truly applicable.\n\nThe force of eloquence is not merely a train of just and vigorous\nreasoning, which is not incompatible with dryness; this force, requires\nfloridity, striking images, and energetic expressions. Thus it has been\nsaid, that the sermons of Bourdaloue have force, those of Massillon\nmore elegance. Verses may have strength, and want every other beauty.\nThe strength of a line in our language consists principally in saying\nsomething in each hemistich.\n\nStrength in painting is the expression of the muscles, which, by feeling\ntouches, are made to appear under the flesh that covers them. There is\ntoo much strength when the muscles are too strongly articulated. The\nattitudes of the combatants have great strength in the battles of\nConstantine, drawn by Raphael and Julio Romano; and in those of C\u00e6sar,\npainted by Lebrun. Inordinate strength is harsh in painting and\nbombastic in poetry.\n\nSome philosophers have asserted that force is a property inherent in\nmatter; that each invisible particle, or rather _monad_, is endowed with\nan active force; but it would be as difficult to demonstrate this\nassertion as it would be to prove that whiteness is a quality inherent\nin matter, as the Tr\u00e9voux dictionary says in the article \"Inherent.\"\n\nThe strength of every animal has arrived at the highest when the animal\nhas attained its full growth. It decreases when the muscles no longer\nreceive the same quantity of nourishment: and this quantity ceases to be\nthe same when the animal spirits no longer communicate to the muscles\ntheir accustomed motion. It is probable that the animal spirits are of\nfire, inasmuch as old men want motion and strength in proportion as they\nwant warmth.\n\n\n\n\nFRANCHISE.\n\n\nA word which always gives an idea of liberty in whatever sense it is\ntaken; a word derived from the Franks, who were always free. It is so\nancient, that when the Cid besieged and took Toledo, in the eleventh\ncentury, franchies or franchises were given to all the French who went\non this expedition, and who established themselves at Toledo. All walled\ncities had franchises, liberties, and privileges, even in the greatest\nanarchy of feudal power. In all countries possessing assemblies or\nstates, the sovereign swore, on his accession, to guard their liberties.\n\nThis name, which has been given generally to the rights of the people,\nto immunities, and to sanctuaries or asylums, has been more particularly\napplied to the quarters of the ambassadors of the court of Rome. It was\na plot of ground around their palaces, which was larger or smaller\naccording to the will of the ambassador. The ground was an asylum for\ncriminals, who could not be there pursued. This franchise was\nrestricted, under Innocent XI. to the inside of their palaces. Churches\nand convents had the same privileges in Italy, but not in other states.\nThere are in Paris several places of sanctuary, in which debtors cannot\nbe seized for their debts by common justice, and where mechanics can\npursue their trades without being freemen. Mechanics have this privilege\nin the Faubourg St. Antoine, but it is not an asylum like the Temple.\n\nThe word \"franchise,\" which usually expresses the liberties of a nation,\ncity, or person, is sometimes used to signify liberty of speech, of\ncounsel, or of a law proceeding; but there is a great difference between\nspeaking with frankness and speaking with liberty. In a speech to a\nsuperior, liberty is a studied or excessive boldness--frankness\noutstepping its just bounds. To speak with liberty is to speak without\nfear; to speak with frankness is to conduct yourself openly and nobly.\nTo speak with too much liberty is to become audacious; to speak with too\nmuch frankness is to be too open-hearted.\n\n\n\n\nFRANCIS XAVIER.\n\n\nIt would not be amiss to know something true concerning the celebrated\nFrancis Xavero, whom we call Xavier, surnamed the Apostle of the Indies.\nMany people still imagine that he established Christianty along the\nwhole southern coast of India, in a score of islands, and above all in\nJapan. But thirty years ago, even a doubt on the subject was hardly to\nbe tolerated in Europe. The Jesuits have not hesitated to compare him to\nSt. Paul. His travels and miracles had been written in part by\nTursellinus and Orlandini, by Levena, and by Partoli, all Jesuits, but\nvery little known in France; and the less people were acquainted with\nthe details the greater was his reputation.\n\nWhen the Jesuit Bouhours composed his history, he (Bouhours) was\nconsidered as a man of very enlightened mind, and was living in the best\ncompany in Paris; I do not mean the company of Jesus, but that of men of\nthe world the most distinguished for intellect and knowledge. No one\nwrote in a purer or more unaffected style; it was even proposed in the\nFrench Academy that it should trespass against the rules of its\ninstitution, by receiving Father Bouhours into its body. He had another\ngreat advantage in the influence of his order, which then, by an almost\ninconceivable illusion, governed all Catholic princes.\n\nSound criticism was, it is true, beginning to rear its head; but its\nprogress was slow: men were, in general, more anxious to write ably than\nto write what was true.\n\nBouhours wrote the lives of St. Ignatius and St. Francis Xavier almost\nwithout encountering a single objection. Even his comparison of St.\nIgnatius to C\u00e6sar, and Xavier to Alexander, passed without\nanimadversion; it was tolerated as a flower of rhetoric.\n\nI have seen in the Jesuit's college, Rue St. Jacques, a picture twelve\nfeet long and twelve high, representing Ignatius and Xavier ascending to\nheaven, each in a magnificent chariot drawn by four milk-white horses;\nand above, the Eternal Father, adorned with a fine white beard\ndescending to His waist, with Jesus and the Virgin beside him; the Holy\nGhost beneath them, in the form of a dove; and angels joining their\nhands, and bending down to receive Father Ignatius and Father Xavier.\n\nHad anyone publicly made a jest of this picture, the reverend Father La\nChaise, confessor to the king, would infallibly have had the\nsacrilegious scoffer honored with a _lettre de cachet_.\n\nIt cannot be denied that Francis Xavier is comparable to Alexander,\ninasmuch as they both went to India--so is Ignatius to C\u00e6sar, both\nhaving been in Gaul. But Xavier, the vanquisher of the devil, went far\nbeyond Alexander, the conqueror of Darius. How gratifying it is to see\nhim going, in the capacity of a volunteer converter, from Spain into\nFrance, from France to Rome, from Rome to Lisbon, and from Lisbon to\nMozambique, after making the tour of Africa. He stays a long time at\nMozambique, where he receives from God the gift of prophecy: he then\nproceeds to Melinda, where he disputes on the Koran with the Mahometans,\nwho doubtless understand his religion as well as he understands theirs,\nand where he even finds caciques, although they are to be found nowhere\nbut in America. The Portuguese vessel arrives at the island of Zocotora,\nwhich is unquestionably that of the Amazons: there he converts all the\nislanders, and builds a church. Thence he reaches Goa, where he finds a\npillar on which St. Thomas had engraved, that one day St. Xavier should\ncome and re-establish the Christian religion, which had flourished of\nold in India. Xavier has no difficulty whatever in perusing the ancient\ncharacters, whether Indian or Hebrew, in which this prophecy is\nexpressed. He forthwith takes up a hand-bell, assembles all the little\nboys around him, explains to them the creed, and baptizes them--but his\ngreat delight was to marry the Indians to their mistresses.\n\nFrom Goa he speeds to Cape Comorin, to the fishing coast, to the kingdom\nof Travancore. His greatest anxiety, on arriving in any country, is to\nquit it. He embarks in the first Portuguese ship he finds, whithersoever\nit is bound, it matters not to Xavier; provided only that he is\ntravelling somewhere, he is content. He is received through charity, and\nreturns two or three times to Goa, to Cochin, to Cori, to Negapatam, to\nMeliapour. A vessel is departing for Malacca, and Xavier accordingly\ntakes his passage for Malacca, in great despair that he has not yet had\nan opportunity of seeing Siam, Pegu, and Tonquin. We find him in the\nisland of Sumatra, at Borneo, at Macassar, in the Moluccas, and\nespecially at Ternate and Amboyna. The king of Ternate had, in his\nimmense seraglio, a hundred women in the capacity of wives, and seven or\neight hundred in that of concubines. The first thing Xavier does is to\nturn them all out. Please to observe that the island of Ternate is two\nleagues across.\n\nThence finding another Portugese vessel bound for Ceylon, he returns to\nCeylon, where he makes various excursions to Goa and to Cochin. The\nPortuguese were already trading to Japan. A ship sails for that country:\nXavier takes care to embark in it, and visits all the Japan islands. In\nshort (says the Jesuit Bouhours), the whole length of Xavier's routes,\njoined together, would reach several times around the globe.\n\nBe it observed, that he set out on his travels in 1542, and died in\n1552. If he had time to learn the languages of all the nations he\nvisited, it was no trifling miracle: if he had the gift of tongues, it\nwas a greater miracle still. But unfortunately, in several of his\nletters, he says that he is obliged to employ an interpreter; and in\nothers he acknowledges that he finds extreme difficulty in learning the\nJapanese language, which he cannot pronounce.\n\nThe Jesuit Bouhours, in giving some of his letters, has no doubt that\n\"St. Francis Xavier had the gift of tongues\"; but he acknowledges that\n\"he had it not always.\" \"He had it,\" says he, \"on several occasions;\nfor, without having learned the Chinese tongue, he preached to the\nChinese every morning at Amanguchi, which is the capital of a province\nin Japan.\"\n\nHe must have been perfectly acquainted with all the languages of the\nEast; for he made songs in them of the Paternoster, Ave-Maria, and\nCredo, for the instruction of the little boys and girls.\n\nBut the best of all is, that this man, who had occasion for a dragoman,\nspoke every tongue at once, like the apostles; and when he spoke\nPortuguese, in which language Bouhours acknowledges that the saint\nexplained himself very ill, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the\ninhabitants of Ceylon and of Sumatra, all understood him perfectly.\n\nOne day in particular, when he was preaching on the immateriality of the\nsoul, the motion of the planets, the eclipses of the sun and moon, the\nrainbow, sin and grace, paradise and purgatory, he made himself\nunderstood to twenty persons of different nations.\n\nIs it asked how such a man could make so many converts in Japan? The\nsimple answer is that he did not make any; but other Jesuits, who staid\na long time in the country, by favor of the treaties between the kings\nof Portugal and the emperors of Japan, converted so many people, that a\ncivil war ensued, which is said to have cost the lives of nearly four\nhundred thousand men. This is the most noted prodigy that the\nmissionaries have worked in Japan.\n\nBut those of Francis Xavier are not without their merit. Among his host\nof miracles, we find no fewer than eight children raised from the dead.\n\"Xavier's greatest miracle,\" says the Jesuit Bouhours, \"was not his\nraising so many of the dead to life, but his not himself dying of\nfatigue.\"\n\nBut the pleasantest of his miracles is, that having dropped his crucifix\ninto the sea, near the island of Baranura, which I am inclined to think\nwas the island of Barataria, a crab came, four-and-twenty hours after,\nbringing the cane between its claws.\n\nThe most brilliant of all, and after which no other deserves to be\nrelated, is that in a storm which lasted three days, he was constantly\nin two ships, a hundred and fifty leagues apart, and served one of them\nas a pilot. The truth of this miracle was attested by all the\npassengers, who could neither deceive nor be deceived.\n\nYet all this was written seriously and with success in the age of Louis\nXIV., in the age of the \"Provincial Letters,\" of Racine's tragedies, of\n\"Bayle's Dictionary,\" and of so many other learned works.\n\nIt would appear to be a sort of miracle that a man of sense, like\nBouhours, should have committed such a mass of extravagance to the\npress, if we did not know to what excesses men can be carried by the\ncorporate spirit in general, and the monachal spirit in particular. We\nhave more than two hundred volumes entirely in this taste, compiled by\nmonks; but what is most to be lamented is, that the enemies of the monks\nalso compile. They compile more agreeably, and are read. It is most\ndeplorable that, in nineteen-twentieths of Europe, there is no longer\nthat profound respect and just veneration for the monks which is still\nfelt for them in some of the villages of Aragon and Calabria.\n\nThe miracles of St. Francis Xavier, the achievements of Don Quixote,\nthe Comic Romance, and the convulsionaries of St. Medard, have an equal\nclaim on our admiration and reverence.\n\nAfter speaking of Francis Xavier it would be useless to discuss the\nhistory of the other Francises. If you would be instructed thoroughly,\nconsult the conformities of St. Francis of Assisi.\n\nSince the fine history of St. Francis Xavier by the Jesuit Bouhours, we\nhave had the history of St. Francis R\u00e9gis by the Jesuit Daubenton,\nconfessor to Philip V. of Spain: but this is small-beer after brandy. In\nthe history of the blessed R\u00e9gis, there is not even a single\nresuscitation.\n\n\n\n\nFRANKS--FRANCE--FRENCH\n\n\nItaly has always preserved its name, notwithstanding the pretended\nestablishment of \u00c6neas, which should have left some traces of the\nlanguage, characters, and manners of Phrygia, if he ever came with\nAchates and so many others, into the province of Rome, then almost a\ndesert. The Goths, Lombards, Franks, Allemani or Germans, who have by\nturns invaded Italy, have at least left it its name.\n\nThe Tyrians, Africans, Romans, Vandals, Visigoths, and Saracens, have,\none after the other, been masters of Spain, yet the name of Spain\nexists. Germany has also always preserved its own name; it has merely\njoined that of Allemagne to it, which appellation it did not receive\nfrom any conqueror.\n\nThe Gauls are almost the only people in the west who have lost their\nname. This name was originally Walch or Welsh; the Romans always\nsubstituted a G for the W, which is barbarous: of \"Welsh\" they made\nGalli, Gallia. They distinguished the Celtic, the Belgic, and the\nAquitanic Gaul, each of which spoke a different jargon.\n\nWho were, and whence came these Franks, who in such small numbers and\nlittle time possessed themselves of all the Gauls, which in ten years\nC\u00e6sar could not entirely reduce? I am reading an author who commences by\nthese words: \"The Franks from whom we descend.\" ... Ha! my friend, who\nhas told you that you descend in a right line from a Frank? Clovodic,\nwhom we call Clovis, probably had not more than twenty thousand men,\nbadly clothed and armed, when he subjugated about eight or ten millions\nof Welsh or Gauls, held in servitude by three or four Roman legions. We\nhave not a single family in France which can furnish, I do not say the\nleast proof, but the least probability, that it had its origin from a\nFrank.\n\nWhen the pirates of the Baltic Sea came, to the number of seven or eight\nthousand, to give Normandy in fief, and Brittany in _arri\u00e8re fief_, did\nthey, leave any archives by which it may be seen whether they were the\nfathers of all the Normans of the present day?\n\nIt has been a long time believed that the Franks came from the Trojans.\nAmmianus Marcellinus, who lived in the fourth century, says: \"According\nto several ancient writers, troops of fugitive Trojans established\nthemselves on the borders of the Rhine, then a desert.\" As to \u00c6neas, he\nmight easily have sought an asylum at the extremity of the\nMediterranean, but Francus, the son of Hector, had too far to travel to\ngo towards D\u00fcsseldorf, Worms, Solm, Ehrenbreitstein.\n\nFredegarius doubts not that the Franks at first retired into Macedonia,\nand carried arms under Alexander, after having fought under Priam; on\nwhich alleged facts the monk Otfried compliments the emperor, Louis the\nGerman.\n\nThe geographer of Ravenna, less fabulous, assigns the first habitation\nof the horde of Franks among the Cimbrians, beyond the Elbe, towards the\nBaltic Sea. These Franks might well be some remains of these barbarian\nCimbri defeated by Marius; and the learned Leibnitz is of this opinion.\n\nIt is very certain that, in the time of Constantine, beyond the Rhine,\nthere were hordes of Franks or Sicambri, who lived by pillage. They\nassembled under bandit captains, chiefs whom historians have had the\nfolly to call kings. Constantine himself pursued them to their haunts,\ncaused several to be hanged, and others to be delivered to wild beasts,\nin the amphitheatre of Trier, for his amusement. Two of their pretended\nkings perished in this manner, at which the panegyrists of Constantine\nare in ecstasies.\n\nThe Salic law, written, it is said, by these barbarians, is one of the\nabsurd chimeras with which we have always been pestered. It would be\nvery strange if the Franks had written such a considerable code in their\nmarshes, and the French had not any written usages until the close of\nthe reign of Charles VII. It might as well be said that the Algonquins\nand Chicachas had written laws. Men are never governed by authentic\nlaws, consigned to public records, until they have been assembled into\ncities, and have a regular police, archives, and all that characterizes\na civilized nation. When you find a code in a nation which was barbarous\nat the time it was written, who lived upon rapine and pillage, and which\nhad not a walled town, you may be sure that this code is a pretended\none, which has been made in much later times. Fallacies and suppositions\nnever obliterate this truth from the minds of the wise.\n\nWhat is more ridiculous still, this Salic law has been given to us in\nLatin; as if savages, wandering beyond the Rhine, had learnt the Latin\nlanguage. It is supposed to have been first digested by Clovis, and it\nran thus: \"While the illustrious nation of the Franks was still\nconsidered barbarous, the heads of this nation dictated the Salic law.\nThey chose among themselves four chiefs, Visogast, Bodogast, Sologast,\nVindogast\"--taking, according to La Fontaine's fable, the names of\nplaces for those of men:\n\n     _Notre magot prit pour ce coup_\n     _Le nom d'un port pour un nom d'homme._\n\nThese names are those of some Frank cantons in the province of Worms.\nWhatever may be the epoch in which the customs denominated the Salic law\nwere constructed on an ancient tradition, it is very clear that the\nFranks were not great legislators.\n\nWhat is the original meaning of the word \"Frank?\" That is a question of\nwhich we know nothing, and which above a hundred authors have endeavored\nto find out. What is the meaning of Hun, Alan, Goth, Welsh, Picard? And\nwhat do these words signify?\n\nWere the armies of Clovis all composed of Franks? It does not appear so.\nChilderic the Frank had made inroads as far as Tournay. It is said that\nClovis was the son of Childeric, and Queen Bazine, the wife of King\nBazin. Now Bazin and Bazine are assuredly not German names, and we have\nnever seen the least proof that Clovis was their son. All the German\ncantons elected their chiefs, and the province of Franks had no doubt\nelected Clovis as they had done his father. He made his expedition\nagainst the Gauls, as all the other barbarians had undertaken theirs\nagainst the Roman Empire.\n\nDo you really and truly believe that the Herulian Odo, surnamed Acer by\nthe Romans, and known to us by the name of Odoacer, had only Herulians\nin his train, and that Genseric conducted Vandals alone into Africa? All\nthe wretches without talent or profession, who have nothing to lose, do\nthey not always join the first captain of robbers who raises the\nstandard of destruction?\n\nAs soon as Clovis had the least success, his troops were no doubt joined\nby all the Belgians who panted for booty; and this army is nevertheless\ncalled the army of Franks. The expedition is very easy. The Visigoths\nhad already invaded one-third of Gaul, and the Burgundians another. The\nrest submitted to Clovis. The Franks divided the land of the vanquished,\nand the Welsh cultivated it.\n\nThe word \"Frank\" originally signified a free possessor, while the others\nwere slaves. Hence come the words \"franchise,\" and \"to enfranchise\"--\"I\nmake you a Frank,\" \"I render you a free man.\" Hence, _francalenus_,\nholding freely; _frank aleu_, _frank dad_, _frank chamen_, and so many\nother terms half Latin and half barbarian, which have so long composed\nthe miserable patois spoken in France.\n\nHence, also, a franc in gold or silver to express the money of the king\nof the Franks, which did not appear until a long time after, but which\nreminds us of the origin of the monarchy. We still say twenty francs,\ntwenty livres, which signifies nothing in itself; it gives no idea of\nthe weight or value of the money, being only a vague expression, by\nwhich ignorant people have been continually deceived, not knowing really\nhow much they receive or how much they pay.\n\nCharlemagne did not consider himself as a Frank; he was born in\nAustrasia, and spoke the German language. He was of the family of\nArnold, bishop of Metz, preceptor to Dagobert. Now it is not probable\nthat a man chosen for a preceptor was a Frank. He made the greatest\nglory of the most profound ignorance, and was acquainted only with the\nprofession of arms. But what gives most weight to the opinion that\nCharlemagne regarded the Franks as strangers to him is the fourth\narticle of one of his capitularies on his farms. \"If the Franks,\" said\nhe, \"commit any ravages on our possessions, let them be judged according\nto their laws.\"\n\nThe Carlovingian race always passed for German: Pope Adrian IV., in his\nletter to the archbishops of Mentz, Cologne, and Trier, expresses\nhimself in these remarkable terms: \"The emperor was transferred from the\nGreeks to the Germans. Their king was not emperor until after he had\nbeen crowned by the pope.... all that the emperor possessed he held from\nus. And as Zacharius gave the Greek Empire to the Germans, we can give\nthat of the Germans to the Greeks.\"\n\nHowever, France having been divided into eastern and western, and the\neastern being Austrasia, this name of France prevailed so far, that even\nin the time of the Saxon emperors, the court of Constantinople always\ncalled them pretended Frank emperors, as may be seen in the letters of\nBishop Luitgrand, sent from Rome to Constantinople.\n\n_Of the French Nation._\n\nWhen the Franks established themselves in the country of the first\nWelsh, which the Romans called Gallia, the nation was composed of\nancient Celts or Gauls, subjugated by C\u00e6sar, Roman families who were\nestablished there, Germans who had already emigrated there, and finally\nof the Franks, who had rendered themselves masters of the country under\ntheir chief Clovis. While the monarchy existed, which united Gaul and\nGermany, all the people, from the source of the Weser to the seas of\nGaul, bore the name of Franks. But when at the congress of Verdun, in\n843, under Charles the Bald, Germany and Gaul were separated, the name\nof Franks remained to the people of western France, which alone retained\nthe name of France.\n\nThe name of French was scarcely known until towards the tenth century.\nThe foundation of the nation is of Gallic families, and traces of the\ncharacter of the ancient Gauls have always existed.\n\nIndeed, every people has its character, as well as every man; and this\ncharacter is generally formed of all the resemblances caused by nature\nand custom among the inhabitants of the varieties which distinguish\nthem. Thus French character, genius, and wit, result from that which has\nbeen common to the different provinces in the kingdom. The people of\nGuienne and those of Normandy differ much; there is, however, found in\nthem the French genius, which forms a nation of these different\nprovinces, and distinguishes them from the Indians and Germans. Climate\nand soil evidently imprint unchangeable marks on men, as well as on\nanimals and plants. Those which depend on government, religion, and\neducation are different. That is the knot which explains how people have\nlost one part of their ancient character and preserved the other. A\npeople who formerly conquered half the world are no longer recognized\nunder sacerdotal government, but the seeds of their ancient greatness of\nsoul still exist, though hidden beneath weakness.\n\nIn the same manner the barbarous government of the Turks has enervated\nthe Egyptians and the Greeks, without having been able to destroy the\noriginal character or temper of their minds.\n\nThe present character of the French is the same as C\u00e6sar ascribed to the\nGauls--prompt to resolve, ardent to combat, impetuous in attack, and\neasily discouraged. C\u00e6sar, Agatius, and others say, that of all the\nbarbarians the Gauls were the most polished. They are still in the most\ncivilized times the model of politeness to all their neighbors, though\nthey occasionally discover the remains of their levity, petulance, and\nbarbarity.\n\nThe inhabitants of the coasts of France were always good seamen; the\npeople of Guienne always compose the best infantry; \"those who inhabit\nthe provinces of Blois and Tours are not,\" says Tasso, \"robust and\nindefatigable, but bland and gentle, like the land which they inhabit.\"\n\n     _.... Gente robusta, e faticosa,_\n     _La terra molle, e lieta, e dilettosa_\n     _Simili a se gli abitator, produce._\n\nBut how can we reconcile the character of the Parisians of our day with\nthat which the Emperor Julian, the first of princes and men after Marcus\nAurelius, gave to the Parisians of his time?--\"I love this people,\" says\nhe in his \"_Misopogon_,\" \"because they are serious and severe like\nmyself.\" This seriousness, which seems at present banished from an\nimmense city become the centre of pleasure, then reigned in a little\ntown destitute of amusements: in this respect the spirit of the\nParisians has changed notwithstanding the climate.\n\nThe affluence, opulence, and idleness of the people who may occupy\nthemselves with pleasures and the arts, and not with the government,\nhave given a new turn of mind to a whole nation.\n\nFurther, how is it to be explained by what degrees this people have\npassed from the fierceness which characterized them in the time of King\nJohn, Charles VI., Charles IX., Henry III., and Henry IV., to the soft\nfacility of manners for which they are now the admiration of Europe? It\nis that the storms of government and religion forced constitutional\nvivacity into paroxysms of faction and fanaticism; and that this same\nvivacity, which always will exist, has at present no object but the\npleasures of society. The Parisian is impetuous in his pleasures as he\nformerly was in his fierceness. The original character which is caused\nby the climate is always the same. If at present he cultivates the\narts, of which he was so long deprived, it is not that he has another\nmind, since he has not other organs; but it is that he has more relief,\nand this relief has not been created by himself, as by the Greeks and\nFlorentines, among whom the arts flourished like the natural fruits of\ntheir soil. The Frenchman has only received them, but having happily\ncultivated and adopted these exotics, he has almost perfected them.\n\nThe French government was originally that of all the northern\nnations--of all those whose policy was regulated in general assemblies\nof the nation. Kings were the chief of these assemblies; and this was\nalmost the only administration of the French in the first two\ngenerations, before Charles the Simple.\n\nWhen the monarchy was dismembered, in the decline of the Carlovingian\nrace, when the kingdom of Aries arose, and the provinces were occupied\nby vassals little dependent on the crown, the name of French was more\nrestricted. Under Hugh Capet, Henry, and Philip, the people on this side\nthe Loire only, were called French. There was then seen a great\ndiversity of manners and of laws in the provinces held from the crown of\nFrance. The particular lords who became the masters of these provinces\nintroduced new customs into their new states. A Breton and a Fleming\nhave at present some conformity, notwithstanding the difference of\ntheir character, which they hold from the sun and the climate, but\noriginally there was not the least similitude between them.\n\nIt is only since the time of Francis I. that there has been any\nuniformity in manners and customs. The court, at this time, first began\nto serve for a model to the United Provinces; but in general,\nimpetuosity in war, and a lax discipline, always formed the predominant\ncharacter of the nation.\n\nGallantry and politeness began to distinguish the French under Francis\nI. Manners became odious after the death of Francis II. However, in the\nmidst of their horrors, there was always a politeness at court which the\nGermans and English endeavored to imitate. The rest of Europe, in aiming\nto resemble the French, were already jealous of them. A character in one\nof Shakespeare's comedies says that it is difficult to be polite without\nhaving been at the court of France.\n\nThough the nation has been taxed with frivolity by C\u00e6sar, and by all\nneighboring nations, yet this kingdom, so long dismembered, and so often\nready to sink, is united and sustained principally by the wisdom of its\nnegotiations, address, and patience; but above all, by the divisions of\nGermany and England. Brittany alone has been united to the kingdom by a\nmarriage; Burgundy by right of fee, and by the ability of Louis XI.;\nDauphiny by a donation, which was the fruit of policy; the county of\nToulouse by a grant, maintained by an army; Provence by money. One\ntreaty of peace has given Alsace, another Lorraine. The English have\nbeen driven from France, notwithstanding the most signal victories,\nbecause the kings of France have known how to temporize, and profit on\nall favorable occasions;--all which proves, that if the French youth are\nfrivolous, the men of riper age, who govern it, have always been wise.\nEven at present the magistracy are severe in manners, as in the time of\nthe Emperor Julian. If the first successes in Italy, in the time of\nCharles VIII., were owing to the warlike impetuosity of the nation, the\ndisgraces which followed them were caused by the blindness of a court\nwhich was composed of young men alone. Francis I. was only unfortunate\nin his youth, when all was governed by favorites of his own age, and he\nrendered his kingdom more flourishing at a more advanced age.\n\nThe French have always used the same arms as their neighbors, and have\nnearly the same discipline in war, but were the first who discarded the\nlance and pike. The battle of Ivry discouraged the use of lances, which\nwere soon abolished, and under Louis XIV. pikes were also discontinued.\nThey wore tunics and robes until the sixteenth century. Under Louis the\nYoung they left off the custom of letting the beards grow, and retook to\nit under Francis I. Only under Louis XIV. did they begin to shave the\nentire face. Their dress is continually changing, and at the end of each\ncentury the French might take the portraits of their grandfathers for\nthose of foreigners.\n\n\n\n\nFRAUD.\n\n_Whether pious Frauds should be practised upon the People._\n\nOnce upon a time the fakir Bambabef met one of the disciples of\nConfutzee (whom we call Confucius), and this disciple was named Whang.\nBambabef maintained that the people require to be deceived, and Whang\nasserted that we should never deceive any one. Here is a sketch of their\ndispute:\n\nBAMBABEF.--We must imitate the Supreme Being, who does not show us\nthings as they are. He makes us see the sun with a diameter of two or\nthree feet, although it is a million of times larger than the earth. He\nmakes us see the moon and the stars affixed to one and the same blue\nsurface, while they are at different elevations; he chooses that a\nsquare tower should appear round to us at a distance; he chooses that\nfire should appear to us to be hot, although it is neither hot nor cold;\nin short, he surrounds us with errors, suitable to our nature.\n\nWHANG.--What you call error is not so. The sun, such as it is, placed at\nmillions of millions of lis from our globe, is not that which we see,\nthat which we really perceive: we perceive only the sun which is painted\non our retina, at a determinate angle. Our eyes were not given us to\nknow sizes and distances: to know these, other aids and other\noperations are necessary.\n\nBambabef seemed much astonished at this position. Whang, being very\npatient, explained to him the theory of optics; and Bambabef, having\nsome conception, was convinced by the demonstrations of the disciple of\nConfucius. He then resumed in these terms:\n\nBAMBABEF.--If God does not, as I thought, deceive us by the ministry of\nour senses, you will at least acknowledge that our physicians are\nconstantly deceiving children for their good. They tell them that they\nare giving them sugar, when in reality they are giving them rhubarb. I,\na fakir, may then deceive the people, who are as ignorant as children.\n\nWHANG.--I have two sons; I have never deceived them. When they have been\nsick, I have said to them: \"Here is a nauseous medicine; you must have\nthe courage to take it; if it were pleasant, it would injure you.\" I\nhave never suffered their nurses and tutors to make them afraid of\nghosts, goblins, and witches. I have thereby made them wise and\ncourageous citizens.\n\nBAMBABEF.--The people are not born so happily as your family.\n\nWHANG.--Men all nearly resemble one another; they are born with the same\ndispositions. Their nature ought not to be corrupted.\n\nBAMBABEF.--We teach them errors, I own; but it is for their good. We\nmake them believe that if they do not buy our blessed nails, if they do\nnot expiate their sins by giving us money, they will, in another life,\nbecome post-horses, dogs, or lizards. This intimidates them, and they\nbecome good people.\n\nWHANG.--Do you not see that you are perverting these poor folks? There\nare among them many more than you think there are who reason, who make a\njest of your miracles and your superstitions; who see very clearly that\nthey will not be turned into lizards, nor into post-horses. What is the\nconsequence? They have good sense enough to perceive that you talk to\nthem very impertinently; but they have not enough to elevate themselves\nto a religion pure and untrammelled by superstition like ours. Their\npassions make them think there is no religion, because the only one that\nis taught them is ridiculous: thus you become guilty of all the vices\ninto which they plunge.\n\nBAMBABEF.--Not at all, for we teach them none but good morals.\n\nWHANG.--The people would stone you if you taught impure morals. Men are\nso constituted that they like very well to do evil, but they will not\nhave it preached to them. But a wise morality should not be mixed up\nwith absurd fables: for by these impostures, which you might do without,\nyou weaken that morality which you are forced to teach.\n\nBAMBABEF.--What! do you think that truth can be taught to the people\nwithout the aid of fables?\n\nWHANG.--I firmly believe it. Our literati are made of the same stuff as\nour tailors, our weavers, and our laborers. They worship a creating,\nrewarding, and avenging God. They do not sully their worship by absurd\nsystems, nor by extravagant ceremonies. There are much fewer crimes\namong the lettered than among the people; why should we not condescend\nto instruct our working classes as we do our literati?\n\nBAMBABEF.--That would be great folly; as well might you wish them to\nhave the same politeness, or to be all jurisconsults. It is neither\npossible nor desirable. There must be white bread for the master, and\nbrown for the servant.\n\nWHANG.--I own that men should not all have the same science; but there\nare things necessary to all. It is necessary that each one should be\njust; and the surest way of inspiring all men with justice is to inspire\nthem with religion without superstition.\n\nBAMBABEF.--That is a fine project, but it is impracticable. Do you think\nit is sufficient for men to believe in a being that rewards and\npunishes? You have told me that the more acute among the people often\nrevolt against fables. They will, in like manner, revolt against truth.\nThey will say: Who shall assure me that God rewards and punishes? Where\nis the proof? What mission have you? What miracle have you worked that I\nshould believe in you? They will laugh at you much more than at me.\n\nWHANG.--Your error is this: You imagine that men will spurn an idea that\nis honest, likely, and useful to every one; an idea which accords with\nhuman reason, because they reject things which are dishonest, absurd,\nuseless, dangerous, and shocking to good sense.\n\nThe people are much disposed to believe their magistrates; and when\ntheir magistrates propose to them only a rational belief, they embrace\nit willingly. There is no need of prodigies to believe in a just God,\nwho reads the heart of man: this is an idea too natural, too necessary,\nto be combated. It is not necessary to know precisely how God rewards\nand punishes: to believe in His justice is enough. I assure you that I\nhave seen whole towns with scarcely any other tenet; and that in them I\nhave seen the most virtue.\n\nBAMBABEF.--Take heed what you say. You will find philosophers in these\ntimes, who will deny both pains and rewards.\n\nWHANG.--But you will acknowledge that these philosophers will much more\nstrongly deny your inventions; so you will gain nothing by that.\nSupposing that there are philosophers who do not agree with my\nprinciples, they are not the less honest men; they do not the less\ncultivate virtue, which should be embraced through love, and not through\nfear. Moreover, I maintain that no philosopher can ever be assured that\nProvidence does not reserve pains for the wicked, and rewards for the\ngood. For, if they ask me who has told me that God punishes, I shall ask\nthem who has told them that God does not punish. In short, I maintain\nthat the philosophers, far from contradicting, will aid me. Will you be\na philosopher?\n\nBAMBABEF.--With all my heart. But do not tell the fakirs. And let us,\nabove all, remember that if a philosopher would be of service to human\nsociety, he must announce a God.\n\n\n\n\nFREE-WILL.\n\n\nFrom the commencement of the time in which men began to reason,\nphilosophers have agitated this question, which theologians have\nrendered unintelligible by their absurd subtleties upon grace. Locke is\nperhaps the first who, without having the arrogance of announcing a\ngeneral principle, has examined human nature by analysis. It has been\ndisputed for three thousand years, whether the will is free or not;\nLocke shows that the question is absurd, and that liberty cannot belong\nto the will any more than color and motion.\n\nWhat is meant by the expression to be free? It signifies power, or\nrather it has no sense at all. To say that the will _can_, is in itself\nas ridiculous as if we said that it is yellow, or blue, round, or\nsquare.\n\nWill is will, and liberty is power. Let us gradually examine the chain\nof what passes within us, without confusing our minds with any\nscholastic terms, or antecedent principle.\n\nIt is proposed to you to ride on horseback; it is absolutely necessary\nfor you to make a choice, for it is very clear that you must either go\nor not; there is no medium, you must absolutely do the one or the other.\nSo far it is demonstrated that the will is not free. You will get on\nhorseback; why? Because I will to do so, an ignoramus will say. This\nreply is an absurdity; nothing can be done without reason or cause. Your\nwill then is caused by what? The agreeable idea which is presented to\nyour brain; the predominant, or determined idea; but, you will say,\ncannot I resist an idea which predominates over me? No, for what would\nbe the cause of your resistance? An idea by which your will is swayed\nstill more despotically.\n\nYou receive your ideas, and, therefore, receive your will. You will then\nnecessarily; consequently, the word \"liberty\" belongs not to will in any\nsense.\n\nYou ask me how thought and will are formed within you? I answer that I\nknow nothing about it. I no more know how ideas are created than I know\nhow the world was formed. We are only allowed to grope in the dark in\nreference to all that inspires our incomprehensible machine.\n\nWill, then, is not a faculty which can be called free. \"Free-will\" is a\nword absolutely devoid of sense, and that which scholars have called\n\"indifference,\" that is to say, will without cause, is a chimera\nunworthy to be combated.\n\nIn what then consists liberty? In the power of doing what we will? I\nwould go into my cabinet; the door is open, I am free to enter. But, say\nyou, if the door is shut and I remain where I am, I remain freely. Let\nus explain ourselves--you then exercise the power that you possess of\nremaining; you possess this power, but not the power of going out.\n\nLiberty, then, on which so many volumes have been written, reduced to\nits proper sense, is only the power of acting.\n\nIn what sense must the expression \"this man is free\" be spoken? In the\nsame sense in which we use the words \"health,\" \"strength,\" and\n\"happiness.\" Man is not always strong, healthy, or happy. A great\npassion, a great obstacle, may deprive him of his liberty, or power of\naction.\n\nThe words \"liberty\" and \"free-will\" are, then, abstractions, general\nterms, like beauty, goodness, justice. These terms do not signify that\nall men are always handsome, good, and just, neither are they always\nfree.\n\nFurther, liberty being only the power of acting, what is this power? It\nis the effect of the constitution, and the actual state of our organs.\nLeibnitz would solve a problem of geometry, but falls into an apoplexy;\nhe certainly has not the liberty to solve his problem. A vigorous young\nman, passionately in love, who holds his willing mistress in his arms,\nis he free to subdue his passion? Doubtless not. He has the power of\nenjoying, and has not the power to abstain. Locke then is very right in\ncalling liberty, power. When can this young man abstain, notwithstanding\nthe violence of his passion? When a stronger idea shall determine the\nsprings of his soul and body to the contrary.\n\nBut how? Have other animals the same liberty, the same power? Why not?\nThey have sense, memory, sentiment, and perceptions like ourselves; they\nact spontaneously as we do. They must, also, like us, have the power of\nacting by virtue of their perception, and of the play of their organs.\n\nWe exclaim: If it be thus, all things are machines merely; everything in\nthe universe is subjected to the eternal laws. Well, would you have\neverything rendered subject to a million of blind caprices? Either all\nis the consequence of the nature of things, or all is the effect of the\neternal order of an absolute master; in both cases, we are only wheels\nto the machine of the world.\n\nIt is a foolish, common-place expression that without this pretended\nfreedom of will, rewards and punishments are useless. Reason, and you\nwill conclude quite the contrary.\n\nIf, when a robber is executed, his accomplice, who sees him suffer, has\nthe liberty of not being frightened at the punishment; if his will\ndetermines of itself, he will go from the foot of the scaffold to\nassassinate on the high road; if struck with horror, he experiences an\ninsurmountable terror, he will no longer thieve. The punishment of his\ncompanion will become useful to him, and moreover prove to society that\nhis will is not free.\n\nLiberty, then, is not and cannot be anything but the power of doing what\nwe will. That is what philosophy teaches us. But, if we consider liberty\nin the theological sense, it is so sublime a matter that profane eyes\nmay not be raised so high.\n\n\n\n\nFRENCH LANGUAGE.\n\n\nThe French language did not begin to assume a regular form until the\ntenth century; it sprang from the remains of the Latin and the Celtic,\nmixed with a few Teutonic words. This language was, in the first\ninstance, the provincial Roman, and the Teutonic was the language of the\ncourts, until the time of Charles the Bald. The Teutonic remained the\nonly language in Germany, after the grand epoch of the division in 433.\nThe rustic Roman prevailed in Western France; the inhabitants of the\nPays de Vaud, of the Valois, of the valley of Engadine, and some other\ncantons, still preserve some manifest vestiges of this idiom.\n\nAt the commencement of the eleventh century, French began to be written;\nbut this French retained more of Romance or rustic Roman than of the\nlanguage of the present day. The romance of Philomena, written in the\ntenth century, is not very different in language from that of the laws\nof the Normans. We cannot yet trace the original Celtic, Latin, and\nGerman. The words which signify the members of the human body, or\nthings in daily use, which have no relation to the Latin or German, are\nof ancient Gallic or Celtic, as _t\u00eate_, _jambe_, _sabre_, _point_,\n_alter_, _parler_, _\u00e9couter_, _regarder_, _crier_, _cotume_, _ensemble_,\nand many more of the same kind. The greater number of the warlike\nphrases were French or German, as _marche, halte, mar\u00e9chal, bivouac,\nlansquenet_. Almost, all the rest are Latin, and the Latin words have\nbeen all abridged, according to the usage and genius of the nations of\nthe north.\n\nIn the twelfth century, some terms were borrowed from the philosophy of\nAristotle; and toward the sixteenth century, Greek names were found for\nthe parts of the human body, and for its maladies and their remedies.\nAlthough the language was then enriched with Greek, and aided from the\ntime of Charles VIII. with considerable accessions from the Italian,\nalready arrived at perfection, it did not acquire a regular form.\nFrancis I. abolished the custom of pleading and of judging in Latin,\nwhich proved the barbarism of a language which could not be used in\npublic proceedings--a pernicious custom to the natives, whose fortunes\nwere regulated in a language which they could not understand. It then\nbecame necessary to cultivate the French, but the language was neither\nnoble nor regular, and its syntax was altogether capricious. The genius\nof its conversation being turned towards pleasantry, the language became\nfertile in smart and lively expressions, but exceedingly barren in\ndignified and harmonious phrases; whence it arises that in the\ndictionaries of rhymes, twenty suitable words are found for comic poetry\nfor one of poetry of a more elevated nature. This was the cause that\nMarot never succeeded in the serious style, and that Amyot was unable to\ngive a version of the elegant simplicity of Plutarch.\n\nThe French tongue acquired strength from the pen of Montaigne, but still\nwanted elevation and harmony. Ronsard injured the language by\nintroducing into French poetry the Greek compounds, derivable from the\nphysicians. Malherbe partly repaired the fault of Ronsard. It became\nmore lofty and harmonious by the establishment of the French Academy,\nand finally in the age of Louis XIV. acquired the perfection by which it\nis now distinguished.\n\nThe genius of the French language--for every language has its genius--is\nclearness and order. This genius consists in the facility which a\nlanguage possesses of expressing itself more or less happily, and of\nemploying or rejecting the familiar terms of other languages. The French\ntongue having no declensions, and being aided by articles, cannot adopt\nthe inversions of the Greek and the Latin; the words are necessarily\narranged agreeably to the course of the ideas. We can only say in one\nway, \"_Plancus a pris soin des affaires de C\u00e6sar_\"; but this phrase in\nLatin, \"_Res C\u00e6saris, Plancus diligenter curavit_\" may be arranged in a\nhundred and twenty different forms without injuring the sense or rules\nof the language. The auxiliary verbs, which lengthen and weaken phrases\nin the modern tongues, render that of France still less adapted to the\nlapidary style. Its auxiliary verbs, its pronouns, its articles, its\ndeficiency of declinable participles, and, lastly, its uniformity of\nposition, preclude the exhibition of much enthusiasm in poetry; it\npossesses fewer capabilities of this nature than the Italian and the\nEnglish; but this constraint and slavery render it more proper for\ntragedy and comedy than any language in Europe. The natural order in\nwhich the French people are obliged to express their thoughts and\nconstruct their phrases, infuses into their speech a facility and\namenity which please everybody; and the genius of the nation suiting\nwith the genius of the language, has produced a greater number of books\nagreeably written than are to be found among any other people.\n\nSocial freedom and politeness having been for a long time established in\nFrance, the language has acquired a delicacy of expression, and a\nnatural refinement which are seldom to be found out of it. This\nrefinement has occasionally been carried too far; but men of taste have\nalways known how to reduce it within due bounds.\n\nMany persons have maintained that the French language has been\nimpoverished since the days of Montaigne and Amyot, because expressions\nabound in these authors which are no longer employed; but these are for\nthe most part terms for which equivalents have been found. It has been\nenriched with a number of noble and energetic expressions, and, without\nadverting to the eloquence of matter, has certainly that of speech. It\nwas during the reign of Louis XIV., as already observed, that the\nlanguage was fixed. Whatever changes time and caprice may have in store,\nthe good authors of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries will always\nserve for models.\n\nCircumstances created no right to expect that France would be\ndistinguished in philosophy. A Gothic government extinguished all kind\nof illumination during more than twelve centuries; and professors of\nerror, paid for brutalizing human nature, more increased the darkness.\nNevertheless, there is more philosophy in Paris than in any town on\nearth, and possibly than in all the towns put together, excepting\nLondon. The spirit of reason has even penetrated into the provinces. In\na word, the French genius is probably at present equal to that of\nEngland in philosophy; while for the last four-score years France has\nbeen superior to all other nations in literature; and has undeniably\ntaken the lead in the courtesies of society, and in that easy and\nnatural politeness, which is improperly termed urbanity.\n\n\n\n\nFRIENDSHIP.\n\nThe temple of friendship has long been known by name, but it is well\nknown that it has been very little frequented; as the following verses\npleasantly observe, Orestes, Pylades, Pirithous, Achates, and the tender\nNisus, were all genuine friends and great heroes; but, alas, existent\nonly in fable:\n\n     _En vieux langage on voit sur la fa\u00e7ade,_\n     _Les noms sacr\u00e9s d'Oreste et de Pylade;_\n     _Le m\u00e9daillon du bon Pirithous,_\n     _Du sage Achate et du tendre Nisus;_\n     _Tous grands h\u00e9ros, tous amis v\u00e9ritables;_\n     _Ces noms sont beaux; mais ils sont dans les fables._\n\nFriendship commands more than love and esteem. Love your neighbor\nsignifies assist your neighbor, but not--enjoy his conversation with\npleasure, if he be tiresome; confide to him your secrets, if he be a\ntattler; or lend him your money, if he be a spendthrift.\n\nFriendship is the marriage of the soul, and this marriage is liable to\ndivorce. It is a tacit contract between two sensible and virtuous\npersons. I say sensible, for a monk or a hermit cannot be so, who lives\nwithout knowing friendship. I say virtuous, for the wicked only have\naccomplices--the voluptuous, companions--the interested, associates;\npoliticians assemble factions--the generality of idle men have\nconnections--princes, courtiers. Virtuous men alone possess friends.\n\nCethegus was the accomplice of Catiline, and M\u00e6cenas the courtier of\nOctavius; but Cicero was the friend of Atticus.\n\nWhat is caused by this contract between two tender, honest minds? Its\nobligations are stronger or weaker according to the degrees of\nsensibility, and the number of services rendered.\n\nThe enthusiasm of friendship has been stronger among the Greeks and\nArabs than among us. The tales that these people have imagined on the\nsubject of friendship are admirable; we have none to compare to them. We\nare rather dry and reserved--in everything. I see no great trait of\nfriendship in our histories, romances, or theatre.\n\nThe only friendship spoken of among the Jews, was that which existed\nbetween Jonathan and David. It is said that David loved him with a love\nstronger than that of women; but it is also said that David, after the\ndeath of his friend, dispossessed Mephibosheth, his son, and caused him\nto be put to death.\n\nFriendship was a point of religion and legislation among the Greeks. The\nThebans had a regiment of lovers--a fine regiment; some have taken it\nfor a regiment of nonconformists. They are deceived; it is taking a\nshameful accident for a noble principle. Friendship, among the Greeks,\nwas prescribed by the laws and religion. Manners countenanced abuses,\nbut the laws did not.\n\n\n\n\nFRIVOLITY.\n\n\nWhat persuades me still more of the existence of Providence, said the\nprofound author of \"_Bacha Billeboquet_,\" is that to console us for our\ninnumerable miseries, nature has made us frivolous. We are sometimes\nruminating oxen, overcome by the weight of our yoke; sometimes\ndispersed doves, tremblingly endeavoring to avoid the claws of the\nvulture, stained with the blood of our companions; foxes, pursued by\ndogs; and tigers, who devour one another. Then we suddenly become\nbutterflies; and forget, in our volatile winnowings, all the horrors\nthat we have experienced.\n\nIf we were not frivolous, what man without shuddering, could live in a\ntown in which the wife of a marshal of France, a lady of honor to the\nqueen, was burned, under the pretext that she had killed a white cock by\nmoonlight; or in the same town in which Marshal Marillac was\nassassinated according to form, pursuant to a sentence passed by\njudicial murderers appointed by a priest in his own country house, in\nwhich he embraced Marion de Lorme while these robed wretches executed\nhis sanguinary wishes?\n\nCould a man say to himself, without trembling in every nerve, and having\nhis heart frozen with horror: \"Here I am, in the very place which, it is\nsaid, was strewed with the dead and dying bodies of two thousand young\ngentlemen, murdered near the Faubourg St. Antoine, because one man in a\nred cassock displeased some others in black ones!\"\n\nWho could pass the Rue de la F\u00e9ronerie without shedding tears and\nfalling into paroxysms of rage against the holy and abominable\nprinciples which plunged the sword into the heart of the best of men,\nand of the greatest of kings?\n\nWe could not walk a step in the streets of Paris on St. Bartholomew's\nday, without saying: \"It was here that one of my ancestors was murdered\nfor the love of God; it was here that one of my mother's family was\ndragged bleeding and mangled; it was here that one-half of my countrymen\nmurdered the other.\"\n\nHappily, men are so light, so frivolous, so struck with the present and\nso insensible to the past, that in ten thousand there are not above two\nor three who make these reflections.\n\nHow many boon companions have I seen, who, after the loss of children,\nwives, mistresses, fortune, and even health itself, have eagerly\nresorted to a party to retail a piece of scandal, or to a supper to tell\nhumorous stories. Solidity consists chiefly in a uniformity of ideas. It\nhas been said that a man of sense should invariably think in the same\nway; reduced to such an alternative, it would be better not to have been\nborn. The ancients never invented a finer fable than that which bestowed\na cup of the water of Lethe on all who entered the Elysian fields.\n\nIf you would tolerate life, mortals, forget yourselves, and enjoy it.\n\n\n\n\nGALLANT.\n\n\nThis word is derived from \"_gal_\" the original signification of which\nwas gayety and rejoicing, as may be seen in Alain Chartier, and in\nFroissart. Even in the \"Romance of the Rose\" we meet with the word\n\"_galand\u00e9_\" in the sense of ornamented, adorned.\n\n     _La belle fut bien attornie_\n     _Et d'un filet d'or galand\u00e9e._\n\nIt is probable that the _gala_ of the Italians, and the _galan_ of the\nSpaniards, are derived from the word \"_gal_\" which seems to be\noriginally Celtic; hence, was insensibly formed _gallant_, which\nsignifies a man forward, or eager to please. The term received an\nimproved and more noble signification in the times of chivalry, when the\ndesire to please manifested itself in feats of arms, and personal\nconflict. To conduct himself gallantly, to extricate himself from an\naffair gallantly, implies, even at present, a man's conducting himself\nconformably to principle and honor. A gallant man among the English,\nsignifies a man of courage; in France it means more--a man of noble\ngeneral demeanor. A gallant (_un homme galant_) is totally different\nfrom a gallant man (_un galant homme_); the latter means a man of\nrespectable and honorable feeling--the former, something nearer the\ncharacter of a _petit ma\u00eetre_ a man successfully addicted to intrigue.\nBeing gallant (_\u00eatre galant_) in general implies an assiduity to please\nby studious attentions, and flattering deference. \"He was exceedingly\ngallant to those ladies,\" means merely, he behaved more than politely to\nthem; but being the gallant of a lady is an expression of stronger\nmeaning; it signifies being her lover; the word is scarcely any longer\nin use in this sense, except in low or familiar poetry. A gallant is not\nmerely a man devoted to and successful in intrigue, but the term\nimplies, moreover, somewhat of impudence and effrontery, in which sense\nFontaine uses it in the following: \"_Mais un 'galant,' chercheur des\npucelages_.\"\n\nThus are various meanings attached to the same word. The case is similar\nwith the term \"gallantry,\" which sometimes signifies a disposition to\ncoquetry, and a habit of flattery; sometimes a present of some elegant\ntoy, or piece of jewelry; sometimes intrigue, with one woman or with\nmany; and, latterly, it has even been applied to signify ironically the\nfavors of Venus; thus, to talk gallantries, to give gallantries, to have\ngallantries, to contract a gallantry, express very different meanings.\nNearly all the terms which occur frequently in conversation acquire, in\nthe same manner, various shades of meaning, which it is difficult to\ndiscriminate; the meaning of terms of art is more precise and less\narbitrary.\n\n\n\n\nGARGANTUA.\n\n\nIf ever a reputation was fixed on a solid basis, it is that of\nGargantua. Yet in the present age of philosophy and criticism, some rash\nand daring minds have started forward, who have ventured to deny the\nprodigies believed respecting this extraordinary man--persons who have\ncarried their skepticism so far as even to doubt his very existence.\n\nHow is it possible, they ask, that there should have existed in the\nsixteenth century a distinguished hero, never mentioned by a single\ncontemporary, by St. Ignatius, Cardinal Capitan, Galileo, or\nGuicciardini, and respecting whom the registers of the Sorbonne do not\ncontain the slightest notice?\n\nInvestigate the histories of France, of Germany, of England, Spain, and\nother countries, and you find not a single word about Gargantua. His\nwhole life, from his birth to his death, is a tissue of inconceivable\nprodigies.\n\nHis mother, Gargamelle, was delivered of him from the left ear. Almost\nat the instant of his birth he called out for a drink, with a voice that\nwas heard even in the districts of Beauce and Vivarais. Sixteen ells of\ncloth were required to make him breeches, and a hundred hides of brown\ncows were used in his shoes. He had not attained the age of twelve years\nbefore he gained a great battle, and founded the abbey of Th\u00e9l\u00e8me.\nMadame Badebec was given to him in marriage, and Badebec is proved to be\na Syrian name.\n\nHe is represented to have devoured six pilgrims in a mere salad, and the\nriver Seine is stated to have flowed entirely from his person, so that\nthe Parisians are indebted for their beautiful river to him alone.\n\nAll this is considered contrary to nature by our carping philosophers,\nwho scruple to admit even what is probable, unless it is well supported\nby evidence.\n\nThey observe, that if the Parisians have always believed in Gargantua,\nthat is no reason why other nations should believe in him; that if\nGargantua had really performed one single prodigy out of the many\nattributed to him, the whole world would have resounded with it, all\nrecords would have noticed it, and a hundred monuments would have\nattested it. In short, they very unceremoniously treat the Parisians who\nbelieve in Gargantua as ignorant simpletons and superstitious idiots,\nwith whom are inter-mixed a few hypocrites, who pretend to believe in\nGargantua, in order to obtain some convenient priorship in the abbey of\nTh\u00e9l\u00e8me.\n\nThe reverend Father Viret, a Cordelier of full-sleeved dignity, a\nconfessor of ladies, and a preacher to the king, has replied to our\nPyrrhonean philosophers in a manner decisive and invincible. He very\nlearnedly proves that if no writer, with the exception of Rabelais, has\nmentioned the prodigies of Gargantua, at least, no historian has\ncontradicted them; that the sage de Thou, who was a believer in\nwitchcraft, divination, and astrology, never denied the miracles of\nGargantua. They were not even called in question by La Mothe le Vayer.\nM\u00e9zeray treated them with such respect as not to say a word against\nthem, or indeed about them. These prodigies were performed before the\neyes of all the world. Rabelais was a witness of them. It was impossible\nthat he could be deceived, or that he would deceive. Had he deviated\neven in the smallest degree from the truth, all the nations of Europe\nwould have been roused against him in indignation; all the gazetteers\nand journalists of the day would have exclaimed with one voice against\nthe fraud and imposture.\n\nIn vain do the philosophers reply--for they reply to everything--that,\nat the period in question, gazettes and journals were not in existence.\nIt is said in return that there existed what was equivalent to them, and\nthat is sufficient. Everything is impossible in the history of\nGargantua, and from this circumstance itself may be inferred its\nincontestable truth. For if it were not true, no person could possibly\nhave ventured to imagine it, and its incredibility constitutes the great\nproof that it ought to be believed.\n\nOpen all the \"Mercuries,\" all the \"Journals de Tr\u00e9voux\"; those immortal\nworks which teem with instruction to the race of man, and you will not\nfind a single line which throws a doubt on the history of Gargantua. It\nwas reserved for our own unfortunate age to produce monsters, who would\nestablish a frightful Pyrrhonism, under the pretence of requiring\nevidence as nearly approaching to mathematical as the case will admit,\nand of a devotion to reason, truth, and justice. What a pity! Oh, for a\nsingle argument to confound them!\n\nGargantua founded the abbey of Th\u00e9l\u00e8me. The title deeds, it is true,\nwere never found; it never had any; but it exists, and produces an\nincome of ten thousand pieces of gold a year. The river Seine exists,\nand is an eternal monument of the prodigious fountain from which\nGargantua supplied so noble a stream. Moreover, what will it cost you to\nbelieve in him? Should you not take the safest side? Gargantua can\nprocure for you wealth, honors, and influence. Philosophy can only\nbestow on you internal tranquillity and satisfaction, which you will of\ncourse estimate as a trifle. Believe, then, I again repeat, in\nGargantua; if you possess the slightest portion of avarice, ambition, or\nknavery, it is the wisest part you can adopt.\n\n\n\n\nGAZETTE.\n\n\nA narrative of public affairs. It was at the beginning of the\nseventeenth century that this useful practice was suggested and\nestablished at Venice, at the time when Italy still continued the centre\nof European negotiations, and Venice was the unfailing asylum of\nliberty. The leaves or sheets containing this narrative, which were\npublished once a week, were called \"Gazettes,\" from the word \"gazetta,\"\nthe name of a small coin, amounting nearly to one of our demi-sous, then\ncurrent at Venice. The example was afterwards followed in all the great\ncities of Europe.\n\nJournals of this description have been established in China from time\nimmemorial. The \"_Imperial Gazette_\" is published there every day by\norder of the court. Admitting this gazette to be true, we may easily\nbelieve it does not contain all that is true; neither in fact should it\ndo so.\n\nTh\u00e9ophraste Renaudot, a physician, published the first gazettes in\nFrance in 1601, and he had an exclusive privilege for the publication,\nwhich continued for a long time a patrimony to his family. The like\nprivilege became an object of importance at Amsterdam, and the greater\npart of the gazettes of the United Provinces are still a source of\nrevenue to many of the families of magistrates, who pay writers for\nfurnishing materials for them. The city of London alone publishes more\nthan twelve gazettes in the course of a week. They can be printed only\nupon stamped paper, and produce no inconsiderable income to the State.\n\nThe gazettes of China relate solely to that empire; those of the\ndifferent states of Europe embrace the affairs of all countries.\nAlthough they frequently abound in false intelligence, they may\nnevertheless be considered as supplying good material for history;\nbecause, in general, the errors of each particular gazette are corrected\nby subsequent ones, and because they contain authentic copies of almost\nall state papers, which indeed are published in them by order of the\nsovereigns or governments themselves. The French gazettes have always\nbeen revised by the ministry. It is on this account that the writers of\nthem have always adhered to certain forms and designations, with a\nstrictness apparently somewhat inconsistent with the courtesies of\npolished society, bestowing the title of monsieur only on some\nparticular descriptions of persons, and that of sieur upon others; the\nauthors having forgotten that they were not speaking in the name of\ntheir king. These public journals, it must be added, to their praise,\nhave never been debased by calumny, and have always been written with\nconsiderable correctness.\n\nThe case is very different with respect to foreign gazettes; those of\nLondon, with the exception of the court gazette, abound frequently in\nthat coarseness and licentiousness of observation which the national\nliberty allows. The French gazettes established in that country have\nbeen seldom written with purity, and have sometimes been not a little\ninstrumental in corrupting the language. One of the greatest faults\nwhich has found a way into them arises from the authors having concluded\nthat the ancient forms of expression used in public proclamations and in\njudicial and political proceedings and documents in France, and with\nwhich they were particularly conversant, were analogous to the regular\nsyntax of our language, and from their having accordingly imitated that\nstyle in their narrative. This is like a Roman historian's using the\nstyle of the law of the twelve tables.\n\nIn imitation of the political gazettes, literary ones began to be\npublished in France in 1665; for the first journals were, in fact,\nsimply advertisements of the works recently printed in Europe; to this\nmere announcement of publication was soon added a critical examination\nor review. Many authors were offended at it, notwithstanding its great\nmoderation.\n\nWe shall here speak only of those literary gazettes with which the\npublic, who were previously in possession of various journals from every\ncountry in Europe in which the sciences were cultivated, were completely\noverwhelmed. These gazettes appeared at Paris about the year 1723, under\nmany different names, as \"The Parnassian Intelligencer,\" \"Observations\non New Books,\" etc. The greater number of them were written for the\nsingle purpose of making money; and as money is not to be made by\npraising authors, these productions consisted generally of satire and\nabuse. They often contained the most odious personalities, and for a\ntime sold in proportion to the virulence of their malignity; but reason\nand good taste, which are always sure to prevail at last, consigned them\neventually to contempt and oblivion.\n\n\n\n\nGENEALOGY.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nMany volumes have been written by learned divines in order to reconcile\nSt. Matthew with St. Luke on the subject of the genealogy of Jesus\nChrist. The former enumerates only twenty-seven generations from David\nthrough Solomon, while Luke gives forty-two, and traces the descent\nthrough Nathan. The following is the method in which the learned Calmet\nsolves a difficulty relating to Melchizedek: The Orientals and the\nGreeks, ever abounding in fable and invention, fabricated a genealogy\nfor him, in which they give us the names of his ancestors. But, adds\nthis judicious Benedictine, as falsehood always betrays itself, some\nstate his genealogy according to one series, and others according to\nanother. There are some who maintain that he descended from a race\nobscure and degraded, and there are some who are disposed to represent\nhim as illegitimate.\n\nThis passage naturally applies to Jesus, of whom, according to the\napostle, Melchizedek was the type or figure. In fact, the gospel of\nNicomedes expressly states that the Jews, in the presence of Pilate,\nreproached Jesus with being born of fornication; upon which the learned\nFabricius remarks, that it does not appear from any clear and credible\ntestimony that the Jews directed to Jesus Christ during His life, or\neven to His apostles, that calumny respecting His birth which they so\nassiduously and virulently circulated afterwards. The Acts of the\nApostles, however, inform us that the Jews of Antioch opposed\nthemselves, blaspheming against what Paul spoke to them concerning\nJesus; and Origen maintains that the passage in St. John's gospel \"We\nare not born of fornication, we have never been in subjection unto any\nman\" was an indirect reproach thrown out by the Jews against Jesus on\nthe subject of His birth. For, as this father informs us, they pretended\nthat Jesus was originally from a small hamlet of Jud\u00e6a, and His mother\nnothing more than a poor villager subsisting by her labor, who, having\nbeen found guilty of adultery with a soldier of the name of Panther, was\nturned away by her husband, whose occupation was that of a carpenter;\nthat, after this disgraceful expulsion, she wandered about miserably\nfrom one place to another, and was privately delivered of Jesus, who,\npressed by the necessity of His circumstances, was compelled to go and\nhire Himself as a servant in Egypt, where He acquired some of those\nsecrets which the Egyptians turn to so good an account, and then\nreturned to His own country, in which, full of the miracles He was\nenabled to perform, He proclaimed Himself to be God.\n\nAccording to a very old tradition, the name of Panther, which gave\noccasion to the mistake of the Jews, was, as we are informed by St.\nEpiphanius, the surname of Joseph's father, or rather, as is asserted by\nSt. John Damascene, the proper name of Mary's grandfather.\n\nAs to the situation of servant, with which Jesus was reproached, He\ndeclares Himself that He came not to be served, but to serve. Zoroaster,\naccording to the Arabians, had in like manner been the servant of\nEsdras. Epictetus was even born in servitude. Accordingly, St. Cyril of\nJerusalem justly observed that it is no disgrace to any man.\n\nOn the subject of the miracles, we learn indeed from Pliny that the\nEgyptians had the secret of dyeing with different colors, stuffs which\nwere dipped in the very same furnace, and this is one of the miracles\nwhich the gospel of the Infancy attributes to Jesus. But, according to\nSt. Chrysostom, Jesus performed no miracle before His baptism, and those\nstated to have been wrought by Him before are absolute fabrications. The\nreason assigned by this father for such an arrangement is, that the\nwisdom of God determined against Christ's performing any miracles in His\nchildhood, lest they should have been regarded as impostures.\n\nEpiphanius in vain alleges that to deny the miracles ascribed by some to\nJesus during His infancy, would furnish heretics with a specious pretext\nfor saying that He became Son of God only in consequence of the effusion\nof the Holy Spirit, which descended upon Him at His baptism; we are\ncontending here, not against heretics, but against Jews.\n\nMr. Wagenseil has presented us with a Latin translation of a Jewish work\nentitled \"_Toldos Jeschu_,\" in which it is related that Jeschu, being at\nBethlehem in Judah, the place of his birth, cried out aloud, \"Who are\nthe wicked men that pretend I am a bastard, and spring from an impure\norigin? They are themselves bastards, themselves exceedingly impure! Was\nI not born of a virgin mother? And I entered through the crown of her\nhead!\"\n\nThis testimony appeared of such importance to M. Bergier, that that\nlearned divine felt no scruple about employing it without quoting his\nauthority. The following are his words, in the twenty-third page of the\n\"Certainty of the Proofs of Christianity\": \"Jesus was born of a virgin\nby the operation of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself frequently assured us\nof this with His own mouth; and to the same purpose is the recital of\nthe apostles.\" It is certain that these words are only to be found in\nthe \"_Toldos Jeschu_\"; and the certainty of that proof, among those\nadduced by M. Bergier, subsists, although St. Matthew applies to Jesus\nthe passage of \"Isaiah\": \"He shall not dispute, he shall not cry aloud,\nand no one shall hear his voice in the streets.\"\n\nAccording to St. Jerome, there was in like manner an ancient tradition\namong the Gymnosophists of India, that Buddha, the author of their\ncreed, was born of a virgin, who was delivered of him from her side. In\nthe same manner was born Julius C\u00e6sar, Scipio Africanus, Manlius, Edward\nVI. of England, and others, by means of an operation called by surgeons\nthe C\u00e6sarian operation, because it consists in abstracting the child\nfrom the womb by an incision in the abdomen of the mother. Simon,\nsurnamed the Magician, and Manes both pretended to have been born of\nvirgins. This might, however, merely mean, that their mothers were\nvirgins at the time of conceiving them. But in order to be convinced of\nthe uncertainty attending the marks and evidences of virginity, it will\nbe perfectly sufficient to read the commentary of M. de Pompignan, the\ncelebrated bishop of Puy en Velai, on the following passage in the Book\nof Proverbs: \"There are three things which are too wonderful for me,\nyea, four which I know not. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a\nserpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the\nway of a man in his youth.\" In order to give a literal translation of\nthe passage, according to this prelate (in the third chapter of the\nsecond part of his work entitled \"Infidelity Convinced by the\nProphecies\"), it would have been necessary to say, \"_Viam viri in\nvirgine adolescentula_\"--The way of a man with a maid. The translation\nof our Vulgate, says he, substitutes another meaning, exact indeed and\ntrue, but less conformable to the original text. In short, he\ncorroborates his curious interpretation by the analogy between this\nverse and the following one: \"Such is the life of the adulterous woman,\nwho, after having eaten, wipeth her mouth and saith, I have done no\nwickedness.\"\n\nHowever this may be, the virginity of Mary was not generally admitted,\neven at the beginning of the third century. \"Many have entertained the\nopinion and do still,\" said St. Clement of Alexandria, \"that Mary was\ndelivered of a son without that delivery producing any change in her\nperson; for some say that a midwife who visited her after the birth\nfound her to retain all the marks of virginity.\" It is clear that St.\nClement refers here to the gospel of the conception of Mary, in which\nthe angel Gabriel says to her, \"Without intercourse with man, thou, a\nvirgin, shalt conceive, thou, a virgin, shalt be delivered of a child,\nthou, a virgin, shalt give suck\"; and also to the first gospel of James,\nin which the midwife exclaims, \"What an unheard-of wonder! Mary has just\nbrought a son into the world, and yet retains all the evidences of\nvirginity.\" These two gospels were, nevertheless, subsequently rejected\nas apocryphal, although on this point they were conformable to the\nopinion adopted by the church; the scaffolding was removed after the\nbuilding was completed.\n\nWhat is added by Jeschu--\"I entered by the crown of the head\"--was\nlikewise the opinion held by the church. The Breviary of the Maronites\nrepresents the word of the Father as having entered by the ear of the\nblessed woman. St. Augustine and Pope Felix say expressly that the\nvirgin became pregnant through the ear. St. Ephrem says the same in a\nhymn, and Voisin, his translator, observes that the idea came originally\nfrom Gregory of Neoc\u00e6sarea, surnamed Thaumaturgos. Agobar relates that\nin his time the church sang in the time of public service: \"The Word\nentered through the ear of the virgin, and came out at the golden gate.\"\nEutychius speaks also of Elian, who attended at the Council of Nice, and\nwho said that the Word entered by the ear of the virgin, and came out\nin the way of childbirth. This Elian was a rural bishop, whose name\noccurs in Selden's published Arabic List of Fathers who attended the\nCouncil of Nice.\n\nIt is well known that the Jesuit Sanchez gravely discussed the question\nwhether the Virgin Mary contributed seminally in the incarnation of\nChrist, and that, like other divines before him, he concluded in the\naffirmative. But these extravagances of a prurient and depraved\nimagination should be classed with the opinion of Aretin, who introduces\nthe Holy Spirit on this occasion effecting his purpose under the figure\nof a dove; as mythology describes Jupiter to have succeeded with Leda in\nthe form of a swan, or as the most eminent authors of the church--St.\nAustin, Athenagoras, Tertullian, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Cyprian,\nLactantius, St. Ambrose--and others believed, after Philo and Josephus,\nthe historian, who were Jews, that angels had associated with the\ndaughters of men, and engaged in sexual connection with them. St.\nAugustine goes so far as to charge the Manich\u00e6ans with teaching, as a\npart of their religious persuasion, that beautiful young persons\nappeared in a state of nature before the princes of darkness, or evil\nangels, and deprived them of the vital substance which that father calls\nthe nature of God. Herodius is still more explicit, and says that the\ndivine majesty escaped through the productive organs of demons.\n\nIt is true that all these fathers believed angels to be corporeal. But,\nafter the works of Plato had established the idea of their spirituality,\nthe ancient opinion of a corporeal union between angels and women was\nexplained by the supposition that the same angel who, in a woman's form,\nhad received the embraces of a man, in turn held communication with a\nwoman, in the character of a man. Divines, by the terms \"incubus\" and\n\"succubus,\" designate the different parts thus performed by angels.\nThose who are curious on the subject of these offensive and revolting\nreveries may see further details in \"Various Readings of the Book of\nGenesis,\" by Otho Gualter; \"Magical Disquisitions,\" by Delvis, and the\n\"Discourses on Witchcraft,\" by Henry Boguet.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nNo genealogy, even although reprinted in Mor\u00e9ri, approaches that of\nMahomet or Mahommed, the son of Abdallah, the son of Abd'all Montaleb,\nthe son of Ashem; which Mahomet was, in his younger days, groom of the\nwidow Khadijah, then her factor, then her husband, then a prophet of\nGod, then condemned to be hanged, then conqueror and king of Arabia; and\nwho finally died an enviable death, satiated with glory and with love.\n\nThe German barons do not trace back their origin beyond Witikind; and\nour modern French marquises can scarcely any of them show deeds and\npatents of an earlier date than Charlemagne. But the race of Mahomet, or\nMohammed, which still exists, has always exhibited a genealogical tree,\nof which the trunk is Adam, and of which the branches reach from Ishmael\ndown to the nobility and gentry who at the present day bear the high\ntitle of cousins of Mahomet.\n\nThere is no difficulty about this genealogy, no dispute among the\nlearned, no false calculations to be rectified, no contradictions to\npalliate, no impossibilities to be made possible.\n\nYour pride cavils against the authenticity of these titles. You tell me\nthat you are descended from Adam as well as the greatest prophet, if\nAdam was the common father of our race; but that this same Adam was\nnever known by any person, not even by the ancient Arabs themselves;\nthat the name has never been cited except in the books of the Jews; and\nthat, consequently, you take the liberty of writing down _false_ against\nthe high and noble claims of Mahomet, or Mohammed.\n\nYou add that, in any case, if there has been a first man, whatever his\nname might be, you are a descendant from him as decidedly as Khadijah's\nillustrious groom; and that, if there has been no first man, if the\nhuman race always existed, as so many of the learned pretend, then you\nare clearly a gentleman from all eternity.\n\nIn answer to this you are told that you are a plebeian (_roturier_) from\nall eternity, unless you can produce a regular and complete set of\nparchments.\n\nYou reply that men are equal; that one race cannot be more ancient than\nanother; that parchments, with bits of wax dangling to them, are a\nrecent invention; that there is no reason that compels you to yield to\nthe family of Mahomet, or to that of Confucius; or to that of the\nemperors of Japan; or to the royal secretaries of the grand college. Nor\ncan I oppose your opinion by arguments, physical, metaphysical, or\nmoral. You think yourself equal to the dairo of Japan, and I entirely\nagree with you. All that I would advise you is, that if ever you meet\nwith him, you take good care to be the stronger.\n\n\n\n\nGENESIS.\n\n\nThe sacred writer having conformed himself to the ideas generally\nreceived, and being indeed obliged not to deviate from them, as without\nsuch condescension to the weakness and ignorance of those whom he\naddressed, he would not have been understood, it only remains for us to\nmake some observations on the natural philosophy prevailing in those\nearly periods; for, with respect to theology, we reverence it, we\nbelieve in it, and never either dispute or discuss it.\n\n\"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.\" Thus has the\noriginal passage been translated, but the translation is not correct.\nThere is no one, however slightly informed upon the subject, who is not\naware that the real meaning of the word is, \"In the beginning the gods\nmade _firent_ or _fit_ the heaven and the earth.\" This reading,\nmoreover, perfectly corresponds with the ancient idea of the\nPh\u0153nicians, who imagined that, in reducing the chaos (_chautereb_)\ninto order, God employed the agency of inferior deities.\n\nThe Ph\u0153nicians had been long a powerful people, having a theogony of\ntheir own, before the Hebrews became possessed of a few cantons of land\nnear their territory. It is extremely natural to suppose that when the\nHebrews had at length formed a small establishment near Ph\u0153nicia,\nthey began to acquire its language. At that time their writers might,\nand probably did, borrow the ancient philosophy of their masters. Such\nis the regular march of the human mind.\n\nAt the time in which Moses is supposed to have lived, were the\nPh\u0153nician philosophers sufficiently enlightened to regard the earth\nas a mere point in the compass with the infinite orbs placed by God in\nthe immensity of space, commonly called heaven? The idea so very\nancient, and at the same time so utterly false, that heaven was made for\nearth, almost always prevailed in the minds of the great mass of the\npeople. It would certainly be just as correct and judicious for any\nperson to suppose, if told that God created all the mountains and a\nsingle grain of sand, that the mountains were created for that grain of\nsand. It is scarcely possible that the Ph\u0153nicians, who were such\nexcellent navigators, should not have had some good astronomers; but\nthe old prejudices generally prevailed, and those old prejudices were\nvery properly spared and indulged by the author of the Book of Genesis,\nwho wrote to instruct men in the ways of God, and not in natural\nphilosophy.\n\n\"The earth was without form (_tohu bohu_) and void; darkness rested upon\nthe face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the surface of\nthe waters.\"\n\n_Tohu bohu_ means precisely chaos, disorder. It is one of those\nimitative words which are to be found in all languages; as, for example,\nin the French we have _sens dessus dessous, tintamarre, trictrac,\ntonnerre, bombe_. The earth was not as yet formed in its present state;\nthe matter existed, but the divine power had not yet arranged it. The\nspirit of God means literally the breath, the wind, which agitated the\nwaters. The same idea occurs in the \"Fragments\" of the Ph\u0153nician\nauthor Sanchoniathon. The Ph\u0153nicians, like every other people,\nbelieved matter to be eternal. There is not a single author of antiquity\nwho ever represented something to have been produced from nothing. Even\nthroughout the whole Bible, no passage is to be found in which matter is\nsaid to have been created out of nothing. Not, however, that we mean to\ncontrovert the truth of such creation. It was, nevertheless, a truth not\nknown by the carnal Jews.\n\nOn the question of the eternity of the world, mankind has always been\ndivided, but never on that of the eternity of matter. From nothing,\nnothing can proceed, nor into nothing can aught existent return. _\"De\nnihilo nihilum, et in nihilum nil posse gigni reverti.\"_ (_Persius; Sat.\niii._) Such was the opinion of all antiquity.\n\n\"God said let there be light, and there was light; and he saw that the\nlight was good, and he divided the light from the darkness; and he\ncalled the light day, and the darkness night; and the evening and the\nmorning were the first day. And God said also, let there be a firmament\nin the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the\nwaters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were\nunder the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And\nGod called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were\nthe second day.... And he saw that it was good.\"\n\nWe begin with examining whether Huet, bishop of Avranches, Leclerc, and\nsome other commentators, are not in the right in opposing the idea of\nthose who consider this passage as exhibiting the most sublime\neloquence.\n\nEloquence is not aimed at in any history written by the Jews. The style\nof the passage in question, like that of all the rest of the work,\npossesses the most perfect simplicity. If an orator, intending to give\nsome idea of the power of God, employed for that purpose the short and\nsimple expression we are considering, \"He said, let there be light, and\nthere was light,\" it would then be sublime. Exactly similar is the\npassage in one of the Psalms, \"_Dixit, et facta sunt_\"--\"He spake, and\nthey were made.\" It is a trait which, being unique in this place, and\nintroduced purposely in order to create a majestic image, elevates and\ntransports the mind. But, in the instance under examination, the\nnarrative is of the most simple character. The Jewish writer is speaking\nof light just in the same unambitious manner as of other objects of\ncreation; he expresses himself equally and regularly after every\narticle, \"and God saw that it was good.\" Everything is sublime in the\ncourse or act of creation, unquestionably, but the creation of light is\nno more so than that of the herbs of the field; the sublime is something\nwhich soars far from the rest, whereas all is equal throughout the\nchapter.\n\nBut further, it was another very ancient opinion that light did not\nproceed from the sun. It was seen diffused throughout the atmosphere,\nbefore the rising and after the setting of that star; the sun was\nsupposed merely to give it greater strength and clearness; accordingly\nthe author of Genesis accommodates himself to this popular error, and\neven states the creation of the sun and moon not to have taken place\nuntil four days after the existence of light. It was impossible that\nthere could be a morning and evening before the existence of a sun. The\ninspired writer deigned, in this instance, to condescend to the gross\nand wild ideas of the nation. The object of God was not to teach the\nJews philosophy. He might have raised their minds to the truth, but he\npreferred descending to their error. This solution can never be too\nfrequently repeated.\n\nThe separation of the light from the darkness is a part of the same\nsystem of philosophy. It would seem that night and day were mixed up\ntogether, as grains of different species which are easily separable from\neach other. It is sufficiently known that darkness is nothing but the\nabsence of light, and that there is in fact no light when our eyes\nreceive no sensation of it; but at that period these truths were far\nfrom being known.\n\nThe idea of a firmament, again, is of the very highest antiquity. The\nheavens are imagined to be a solid mass, because they always exhibited\nthe same phenomena. They rolled over our heads, they were therefore\nconstituted of the most solid materials. Who could suppose that the\nexhalations from the land and sea supplied the water descending from the\nclouds, or compute their corresponding quantities? No Halley then lived\nto make so curious a calculation. The heavens therefore were conceived\nto contain reservoirs. These reservoirs could be supported only on a\nstrong arch, and as this arch of heaven was actually transparent, it\nmust necessarily have been made of crystal. In order that the waters\nabove might descend from it upon the earth, sluices, cataracts, and\nfloodgates were necessary, which might be opened and shut as\ncircumstances required. Such was the astronomy of the day; and, as the\nauthor wrote for Jews, it was incumbent upon him to adopt their gross\nideas, borrowed from other people somewhat less gross than themselves.\n\n\"God also made two great lights, one to rule the day, the other the\nnight; He also made the stars.\"\n\nIt must be admitted that we perceive throughout the same ignorance of\nnature. The Jews did not know that the moon shone only with a reflected\nlight. The author here speaks of stars as of mere luminous points, such\nas they appear, although they are in fact so many suns, having each of\nthem worlds revolving round it. The Holy Spirit, then, accommodated\nHimself to the spirit of the times. If He had said that the sun was a\nmillion times larger than the earth, and the moon fifty times smaller,\nno one would have comprehended Him. They appear to us two stars of\nnearly equal size.\n\n\"God said, also, let us make man in our own image, and let him have\ndominion over the fishes.\"\n\nWhat meaning did the Jews attach to the expression, \"let us make man in\nour own image?\" The same as all antiquity attached to it: \"_Finxit in\neffigiem moderantum cuncta deorum._\" (Ovid, Metam. i. 82.)\n\nNo images are made but of bodies. No nation ever imagined a God without\nbody, and it is impossible to represent Him otherwise. We may indeed say\nthat God is nothing that we are acquainted with, but we can have no\nidea of what He is. The Jews invariably conceived God to be corporeal,\nas well as every other people. All the first fathers of the Church,\nalso, entertained the same belief till they had embraced the ideas of\nPlato, or rather until the light of Christianity became more pure.\n\n\"He created them male and female.\" If God, of the secondary or inferior\ngods, created mankind, male and female, after their own likeness, it\nwould seem in that case, as if the Jews believed that God and the gods\nwho so formed them were male and female. It has been a subject of\ndiscussion, whether the author means to say that man had originally two\nsexes, or merely that God made Adam and Eve on the same day. The most\nnatural meaning is that God formed Adam and Eve at the same time; but\nthis interpretation involves an absolute contradiction to the statement\nof the woman's being made out of the rib of man after the seven days\nwere concluded.\n\n\"And he rested on the seventh day.\" The Ph\u0153nicians, Chald\u00e6ans, and\nIndians, represented God as having made the world in six periods, which\nthe ancient Zoroaster calls the six \"Gahanbars,\" so celebrated among the\nPersians.\n\nIt is beyond all question that these nations possessed a theology before\nthe Jews inhabited the deserts of Horeb and Sinai, and before they could\npossibly have had any writers. Many writers have considered it probable\nthat the allegory of six days was imitated from that of the six\nperiods. God may have permitted the idea to have prevailed in large and\npopulous empires before he inspired the Jewish people with it. He had\nundoubtedly permitted other people to invent the arts before the Jews\nwere in possession of any one of them.\n\n\"From this pleasant place a river went out which watered the garden, and\nthence it was divided into four rivers. One was called Pison, which\ncompassed the whole land of Havilah, whence cometh gold.... the second\nwas called Gihon and surrounds Ethiopia.... the third is the Tigris, and\nthe fourth the Euphrates.\"\n\nAccording to this version, the earthly paradise would have contained\nnearly a third part of Asia and of Africa. The sources of the Euphrates\nand the Tigris are sixty leagues distant from each other, in frightful\nmountains, bearing no possible resemblance to a garden. The river which\nborders Ethiopia, and which can be no other than the Nile, commences its\ncourse at the distance of more than a thousand leagues from the sources\nof the Tigris and Euphrates; and, if the Pison means the Phasis, it is\nnot a little surprising that the source of a Scythian river and that of\nan African one should be situated on the same spot. We must therefore\nlook for some other explanation, and for other rivers. Every commentator\nhas got up a paradise of his own.\n\nIt has been said that the Garden of Eden resembles the gardens of Eden\nat Saana in Arabia Felix, celebrated throughout all antiquity; that the\nHebrews, a very recent people, might be an Arabian horde, and assume to\nthemselves the honor of the most beautiful spot in the finest district\nof Arabia; and that they have always converted to their own purposes the\nancient traditions of the vast and powerful nations in the midst of whom\nthey were in bondage. They were not, however, on this account, the less\nunder the divine protection and guidance.\n\n\"The Lord then took the man and put him into the Garden of Eden that he\nmight cultivate it.\" It is very respectable and pleasant for a man to\n\"cultivate his garden,\" but it must have been somewhat difficult for\nAdam to have dressed and kept in order a garden of a thousand leagues in\nlength, even although he had been supplied with some assistants.\nCommentators on this subject, therefore, we again observe, are\ncompletely at a loss, and must be content to exercise their ingenuity in\nconjecture. Accordingly, these four rivers have been described as\nflowing through numberless different territories.\n\n\"Eat not of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.\" It is\nnot easy to conceive that there ever existed a tree which could teach\ngood and evil, as there are trees that bear pears and apricots. And\nbesides the question is asked, why is God unwilling that man should know\ngood and evil? Would not his free access to this knowledge, on the\ncontrary, appear--if we may venture to use such language--more\nworthy of God, and far more necessary to man? To our weak reason it\nwould seem more natural and proper for God to command him to eat largely\nof such fruit; but we must bring our reason under subjection, and\nacquiesce with humility and simplicity in the conclusion that God is to\nbe obeyed.\n\n[Illustration: THE TEMPTATION OF ADAM]\n\n\"If thou shalt eat thereof, thou shalt die.\" Nevertheless, Adam ate of\nit and did not die; on the contrary, he is stated to have lived on for\nnine hundred and thirty years. Many of the fathers considered the whole\nmatter as an allegory. In fact, it might be said that all other animals\nhave no knowledge that they shall die, but that man, by means of his\nreason, has such knowledge. This reason is the tree of knowledge which\nenables him to foresee his end. This, perhaps, is the most rational\ninterpretation that can be given. We venture not to decide positively.\n\n\"The Lord said, also, it is not good for man to be alone; let us make\nhim a helpmeet for him.\" We naturally expect that the Lord is about to\nbestow on him a wife; but first he conducts before him all the various\ntribes of animals. Perhaps the copyist may have committed here an error\nof transposition.\n\n\"And the name which Adam gave to every animal is its true name.\" What we\nshould naturally understand by the true name of an animal, would be a\nname describing all, or at least, the principal properties of its\nspecies. But this is not the case in any language. In each there are\nsome imitative words, as \"_coq_\" and \"_cocu_\" in the Celtic, which bear\nsome slight similarity to the notes of the cock and the cuckoo;\n_tintamarre, trictrac_, in French; _alali_, in Greek; _lupus_, in Latin,\netc. But these imitative words are exceedingly few. Moreover, if Adam\nhad thus thoroughly known the properties of various animals, he must\neither have previously eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, or\nit would apparently have answered no end for God to have interdicted him\nfrom it. He must have already known more than the Royal Society of\nLondon, and the Academy of the Sciences.\n\nIt may be remarked that this is the first time the name of Adam occurs\nin the Book of Genesis. The first man, according to the ancient\nBrahmins, who were prodigiously anterior to the Jews, was called Adimo,\na son of the earth, and his wife, Procris, life. This is recorded in the\nVedas, in the history of the second formation of the world. Adam and Eve\nexpressed perfectly the same meanings in the Phoenician language--a new\nevidence of the Holy Spirit's conforming Himself to commonly received\nideas.\n\n\"When Adam was asleep God took one of his ribs and put flesh instead\nthereof; and of the rib which he had taken from Adam he formed a woman,\nand he brought the woman to Adam.\"\n\nIn the previous chapter the Lord had already created the male and the\nfemale; why, therefore, remove a rib from the man to form out of it a\nwoman who was already in being? It is answered that the author barely\nannounces in the one case what he explains in another. It is answered\nfurther that this allegory places the wife in subjection to her husband,\nand expresses their intimate union. Many persons have been led to\nimagine from this verse that men have one rib less than women; but this\nis a heresy, and anatomy informs us that a wife has no more ribs than\nher husband.\n\n\"But the serpent was more subtle than all animals on the earth; he said\nto the woman,\" etc. Throughout the whole of this article there is no\nmention made of the devil. Everything in it relates to the usual course\nof nature. The serpent was considered by all oriental nations, not only\nas the most cunning of all animals, but likewise as immortal. The\nChald\u00e6ans had a fable concerning a quarrel between God and the serpent,\nand this fable had been preserved by Pherecydes. Origen cites it in his\nsixth book against Celsus. A serpent was borne in procession at the\nfeasts of Bacchus. The Egyptians, according to the statement of Eusebius\nin the first book of the tenth chapter of his \"Evangelical Preparation,\"\nattached a sort of divinity to the serpent. In Arabia, India, and even\nChina, the serpent was regarded as a symbol of life; and hence it was\nthat the emperors of China, long before the time of Moses, always bore\nupon their breast the image of a serpent.\n\nEve expresses no astonishment at the serpent's speaking to her. In all\nancient histories, animals have spoken; hence Pilpay and Lokman excited\nno surprise by their introduction of animals conversing and disputing.\n\nThe whole of this affair appears so clearly to have been supposed in the\nnatural course of events, and so unconnected with anything allegorical,\nthat the narrative assigns a reason why the serpent, from that time, has\nmoved creeping on its belly, why we always are eager to crush it under\nour feet, and why it always attempts--at least according to the popular\nbelief--to bite and wound us. Precisely as, with respect to presumed\nchanges affecting certain animals recorded in ancient fable, reasons\nwere stated why the crow which originally had been white is at the\npresent day black; why the owl quits his gloomy retreat only by night;\nwhy the wolf is devoted to carnage. The fathers, however, believed the\naffair to be an allegory at once clear and venerable. The safest way is\nto believe like them.\n\n\"I will multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou\nbring forth children. Thou shalt be under the power of the man, and he\nshall rule over thee.\" Why, it is asked, should the multiplication of\nconception be a punishment? It was, on the contrary, says the objector,\nesteemed a superior blessing, particularly among the Jews. The pains of\nchildbirth are inconsiderable, in all except very weak or delicate\nwomen. Those accustomed to labor are delivered, particularly in warm\nclimates, with great ease. Brutes frequently experience greater\nsuffering from this process of nature: some even die under it. And with\nrespect to the superiority or dominion of the man over the woman, it is\nmerely in the natural course of events; it is the effect of strength of\nbody, and even of strength of mind. Men, generally speaking, possess\norgans more capable of continued attention than women, and are better\nfitted by nature for labors both of the head and arm. But when a woman\npossesses both a hand and a mind more powerful than her husband's, she\neverywhere possesses the dominion over him; it is then the husband that\nis under subjection to the wife. There is certainly truth in these\nremarks; but it might, nevertheless, very easily be the fact that,\nbefore the commission of the original sin, neither subjection nor sorrow\nexisted.\n\n\"The Lord made for them coats of skins.\" This passage decidedly proves\nthat the Jews believed God to be corporeal. A rabbi, of the name of\nEliezer, stated in his works that God clothed Adam and Eve with the skin\nof the very serpent who had tempted them; and Origen maintains that this\ncoat of skins was a new flesh, a new body, which God conferred on man.\nIt is far better to adhere respectfully to the literal texts.\n\n\"And the Lord said; Lo! Adam is become like one of us.\" It seems as if\nthe Jews admitted, originally, many gods. It is somewhat more difficult\nto determine what they meant by the word \"God,\" _Elohim_. Some\ncommentators have contended that the expression \"one of us\" signifies\nthe Trinity. But certainly there is nothing relating to the Trinity\nthroughout the Bible. The Trinity is not a compound of many or several\nGods: it is one and the same god threefold; and the Jews never heard the\nslightest mention of one god in three persons. By the words \"like us,\"\nor \"as one of us,\" it is probable that the Jews understood the angels,\n_Elohim_. It is this passage which has induced many learned men very\nrashly to conclude that this book was not written until that people had\nadopted the belief of those inferior gods. But this opinion has been\ncondemned.\n\n\"The Lord sent him forth from the garden of Eden to cultivate the\nground.\" \"But,\" it is remarked by some, \"the Lord had placed him in the\ngarden of Eden to _cultivate_ that garden.\" If Adam, instead of being a\ngardener, merely becomes a laborer, his situation, they observe, is not\nmade very much worse by the change. A good laborer is well worth a good\ngardener. These remarks must be regarded as too light and frivolous. It\nappears more judicious to say that God punished disobedience by\nbanishing the offender from the place of his nativity.\n\nThe whole of this history, generally speaking--according to the opinion\nof liberal, not to say licentious, commentators--proceeds upon the idea\nwhich has prevailed in every past age, and still exists, that the first\ntimes were better and happier than those which followed. Men have\nalways complained of the present and extolled the past. Pressed down by\nthe labors of life, they have imagined happiness to consist in\ninactivity, not considering that the most unhappy of all states is that\nof a man who has nothing to do. They felt themselves frequently\nmiserable, and framed in their imaginations an ideal period in which all\nthe world had been happy; although it might be just as naturally and\ntruly supposed that there had existed times in which no tree decayed and\nperished, in which no beast was weak, diseased, or devoured by another,\nand in which spiders did not prey upon flies. Hence the idea of the\ngolden age; of the egg pierced by Arimanes; of the serpent who stole\nfrom the ass the recipe for obtaining a happy and immortal life, which\nthe man had placed upon his pack-saddle; of the conflict between Typhon\nand Osiris, and between Opheneus and the gods; of the famous box of\nPandora; and of all those ancient tales, of which some are ingenious,\nbut none instructive. But we are bound to believe that the fables of\nother nations are imitations of the Hebrew history, since we possess the\nancient history of the Hebrews, and the early books of other nations are\nnearly all destroyed. Besides the testimonies in favor of the Book of\nGenesis are irrefragable.\n\n\"And He placed before the garden of Eden a cherub with a flaming sword,\nwhich turned all round to guard the way to the tree of life.\" The word\n\"_kerub_\" signifies _ox_. An ox armed with a flaming sword is rather a\nsingular exhibition, it is said, before a portal. But the Jews\nafterwards represented angels under the form of oxen and hawks although\nthey were forbidden to make any images. They evidently derived these\nemblems of oxen and hawks from the Egyptians, whom they imitated in so\nmany other things. The Egyptians first venerated the ox as the emblem of\nagriculture, and the hawk as that of the winds; but they never converted\nthe ox into a sentinel. It is probably an allegory; and the Jews by\n\"_kerub_\" understood nature. It was a symbol formed of the head of an\nox, the head and body of a man, and the wings of a hawk.\n\n\"And the Lord set a mark upon Cain.\" What Lord? says the infidel. He\naccepts the offering of Abel, and rejects that of his elder brother,\nwithout the least reason being assigned for the distinction. By this\nproceeding the Lord was the cause of animosity between the two brothers.\nWe are presented in this piece of history, it is true, with a moral,\nhowever humiliating, lesson; a lesson to be derived from all the fables\nof antiquity, that scarcely had the race of man commenced the career of\nexistence, before one brother assassinates another. But what the sages,\nof this world consider contrary to everything moral, to everything just,\nto all the principles of common sense, is that God, who inflicted\neternal damnation on the race of man, and useless crucifixion on His own\nson, on account merely of the eating of an apple, should absolutely\npardon a fratricide! nay, that He should more than pardon, that He\nshould take the offender under His peculiar protection! He declares that\nwhoever shall avenge the murder of Abel shall experience sevenfold the\npunishment that Cain might have suffered. He puts a mark upon him as a\nsafeguard. Here, continue these vile blasphemers, here is a fable as\nexecrable as it is absurd. It is the raving of some wretched Jew, who\nwrote those infamous and revolting fooleries, in imitation of the tales\nso greedily swallowed by the neighboring population in Syria. This\nsenseless Jew attributes these atrocious reveries to Moses, at a time\nwhen nothing was so rare as books. That fatality, which affects and\ndisposes of everything, has handed down this contemptible production to\nour own times. Knaves have extolled it, and fools have believed it. Such\nis the language of a tribe of theists, who, while they adore a God, dare\nto condemn the God of Israel; and who judge of the conduct of the\neternal Deity by the rules of our own imperfect morality, and erroneous\njustice. They admit a God, to subject Him to our laws. Let us guard\nagainst such rashness; and, once again it must be repeated, let us\nrevere what we cannot comprehend. Let us cry out, _O Altitudo_! O the\nheight and depth! with all our strength.\n\n\"The gods Elohim, seeing the daughters of men that they were fair, took\nfor wives those whom they chose.\" This imagination, again, may be traced\nin the history of every people. No nation has ever existed, unless\nperhaps we may except China, in which some god is not described as\nhaving had offspring from women. These corporeal gods frequently\ndescended to visit their dominions upon earth; they saw the daughters of\nour race, and attached themselves to those who were most interesting and\nbeautiful: the issue of this connection between gods and mortals must of\ncourse have been superior to other men; accordingly, Genesis informs us\nthat from the association it mentions, of the gods with women, sprang a\nrace of giants.\n\n\"I will bring a deluge of waters upon the earth.\" I will merely observe\nhere that St. Augustine, in his \"City of God,\" No. 8, says, \"_Maximum\nillud diluvium Gr\u00e6ca nec Latina novit historia_\"--neither Greek nor\nLatin history knows anything about the great deluge. In fact, none had\never been known in Greece but those of Deucalion and Ogyges. They are\nregarded as universal in the fables collected by Ovid, but are wholly\nunknown in eastern Asia. St. Augustine, therefore, is not mistaken, in\nsaying that history makes no mention of this event.\n\n\"God said to Noah, I will make a covenant with you, and with your seed\nafter you, and with all living creatures.\" God make a covenant with\nbeasts! What sort of a covenant? Such is the outcry of infidels. But if\nHe makes a covenant with man, why not with the beast? It has feeling,\nand there is something as divine in feeling as in the most metaphysical\nmeditation. Besides, beasts feel more correctly than the greater part of\nmen think. It is clearly in virtue of this treaty that Francis d'Assisi,\nthe founder of the Seraphic order, said to the grasshoppers and the\nhares, \"Pray sing, my dear sister grasshopper; pray browse, my dear\nbrother hare.\" But what were the conditions of the treaty? That all\nanimals should devour one another; that they should feed upon our flesh,\nand we upon theirs; that, after having eaten them, we should proceed\nwith wrath and fury to the extermination of our own race--nothing being\nthen wanting to crown the horrid series of butchery and cruelty, but\ndevouring our fellow-men, after having thus remorselessly destroyed\nthem. Had there been actually such a treaty as this it could have been\nentered into only with the devil.\n\nProbably the meaning of the whole passage is neither more nor less than\nthat God is equally the absolute master of everything that breathes.\nThis pact can be nothing more than an order, and the word \"covenant\" is\nused merely as more emphatic and impressive; we should not therefore be\nstartled and offended at the words, but adore the spirit, and direct our\nminds back to the period in which this book was written--a book of\nscandal to the weak, but of edification to the strong.\n\n\"And I will put my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of my\ncovenant.\" Observe that the author does not say, I _have_ put my bow in\nthe clouds; he says, I _will_ put: this clearly implies it to have been\nthe prevailing opinion that there had not always been a rainbow. This\nphenomenon is necessarily produced by rain; yet in this place it is\nrepresented as something supernatural, exhibited in order to announce\nand prove that the earth should no more be inundated. It is singular to\nchoose the certain sign of rain, in order to assure men against their\nbeing drowned. But it may also be replied that in any danger of\ninundation, we have the cheering security of the rainbow.\n\n\"But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of\nAdam had built, and he said, 'Behold a people which have but one\nlanguage. They have begun to do this, and they will not desist until\nthey have completed it. Come, then, let us go and confound their\nlanguage, that no one may understand his neighbor.'\" Observe here, that\nthe sacred writer always continues to conform to the popular opinions.\nHe always speaks of God as of a man who endeavors to inform himself of\nwhat is passing, who is desirous of seeing with his own eyes what is\ngoing on in his dominions, who calls together his council in order to\ndeliberate with them.\n\n\"And Abraham having divided his men--who were three hundred and eighteen\nin number--fell upon the five kings, and pursued them unto Hoba, on the\nleft hand of Damascus.\" From the south bank of the lake of Sodom to\nDamascus was a distance of eighty leagues, not to mention crossing the\nmountains Libanus and Anti-Libanus. Infidels smile and triumph at such\nexaggeration. But as the Lord favored Abraham, nothing was in fact\nexaggerated.\n\n\"And two angels arrived at Sodom at even.\" The whole history of these\ntwo angels, whom the inhabitants of Sodom wished to violate, is perhaps\nthe most extraordinary in the records of all antiquity. But it must be\nconsidered that almost all Asia believed in the existence of the\ndemoniacal incubus and succubus; and moreover, that these two angels\nwere creatures more perfect than mankind, and must have possessed more\nbeauty to stimulate their execrable tendencies. It is possible that the\npassage may be only meant as a rhetorical figure to express the\natrocious depravity of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is not without the\ngreatest diffidence that we suggest to the learned this solution.\n\nAs to Lot, who proposes to the people of Sodom the substitution of his\ntwo daughters in the room of the angels; and his wife, who was changed\ninto a statue of salt, and all the rest of that history, what shall we\nventure to say? The old Arabian tale of Kinyras and Myrrha has some\nresemblance to the incest of Lot with his daughters; and the adventure\nof Philemon and Baucis is somewhat similar to the case of the two angels\nwho appeared to Lot and his wife. With respect to the statue of salt, we\nknow not where to find any resemblance; perhaps in the history of\nOrpheus and Eurydice.\n\nMany ingenious men are of opinion, with the great Newton and the learned\nLeclerc that the Pentateuch was written by Samuel when the Jews had a\nlittle knowledge of reading and writing, and that all these histories\nare imitations of Syrian fables.\n\nBut it is enough that all this is in the Holy Scripture to induce us to\nreverence it, without attempting to find out in this book anything\nbesides what is written by the Holy Spirit. Let us always recollect that\nthose times were not like our times; and let us not fail to repeat,\nafter so many great men, that the Old Testament is a true history; and\nthat all that has been written differing from it by the rest of the\nworld is fabulous.\n\nSome critics have contended that all the incredible passages in the\ncanonical books, which scandalize weak minds, ought to be suppressed;\nbut it has been observed in answer that those critics had bad hearts,\nand ought to be burned at the stake; and that it is impossible to be a\ngood man without believing that the people of Sodom wanted to violate\ntwo angels. Such is the reasoning of a species of monsters who wish to\nlord it over the understandings of mankind.\n\nIt is true that many eminent fathers of the Church have had the prudence\nto turn all these histories into allegories, after the example of the\nJews, and particularly of Philo. The popes, more discreet, have\nendeavored to prevent the translation of these books into the vulgar\ntongue, lest some men should in consequence be led to think and judge,\nabout what was proposed to them only to adore.\n\nWe are certainly justified in concluding hence, that those who\nthoroughly understand this book should tolerate those who do not\nunderstand it at all; for if the latter understand nothing of it, it is\nnot their own fault: on the other hand, those who comprehend nothing\nthat it contains should tolerate those who comprehend everything in it.\n\nLearned and ingenious men, full of their own talents and acquirements,\nhave maintained that it is impossible that Moses could have written the\nBook of Genesis. One of their principal reasons is that in the history\nof Abraham that patriarch is stated to have paid for a cave which he\npurchased for the interment of his wife, in silver coin, and the king of\nGerar is said to have given Sarah a thousand pieces of silver when he\nrestored her, after having carried her off for her beauty at the age of\nseventy-five. They inform us that they have consulted all the ancient\nauthors, and that it appears very certain that at the period mentioned\nsilver money was not in existence. But these are evidently mere cavils,\nas the Church has always firmly believed Moses to have been the author\nof the Pentateuch. They strengthen all the doubts suggested by\nAben-Ezra, and Baruch Spinoza. The physician Astruc, father-in-law of\nthe comptroller-general Silhouette, in his book--now become very\nscarce--called \"Conjectures on the Book of Genesis,\" adds some\nobjections, inexplicable undoubtedly to human learning, but not so to a\nhumble and submissive piety. The learned, many of them, contradict every\nline, but the devout consider every line sacred. Let us dread falling\ninto the misfortune of believing and trusting to our reason; but let us\nbring ourselves into subjection in understanding as well as in heart.\n\n\"And Abraham said that Sarah was his sister, and the king of Gerar took\nher for himself.\" We admit, as we have said under the article on\n\"Abraham,\" that Sarah was at this time ninety years of age, that she had\nbeen already carried away by a king of Egypt, and that a king of this\nsame horrid wilderness of Gerar, likewise, many years afterwards,\ncarried away the wife of Isaac, Abraham's son. We have also spoken of\nhis servant, Hagar, who bore him a son, and of the manner in which the\npatriarch sent her and her son away. It is well known how infidels\ntriumph on the subject of all these histories, with what a disdainful\nsmile they speak of them, and that they place the story of one Abimelech\nfalling in love with Sarah whom Abraham had passed off as his sister,\nand of another Abimelech falling in love with Rebecca, whom Isaac also\npasses as his sister, even beneath the thousand and one nights of the\nArabian fables. We cannot too often remark that the great error of all\nthese learned critics is their wishing to try everything by the test of\nour feeble reason, and to judge of the ancient Arabs as they judge of\nthe courts of France or of England.\n\n\"And the soul of Shechem, King Hamor's son, was bound up with the soul\nof Dinah, and he soothed her grief by his tender caresses, and he went\nto Hamor his father, and said to him, give me that woman to be my wife.\"\n\nHere our critics exclaim in terms of stronger disgust than ever. \"What!\"\nsay they; \"the son of a king is desirous to marry a vagabond girl;\" the\nmarriage is celebrated; Jacob the father, and Dinah the daughter, are\nloaded with presents; the king of Shechem deigns to receive those\nwandering robbers called patriarchs within his city; he has the\nincredible politeness or kindness to undergo, with his son, his court,\nand his people, the rite of circumcision, thus condescending to the\nsuperstition of a petty horde that could not call half a league of\nterritory their own! And in return for this astonishing hospitality and\ngoodness, how do our holy patriarchs act? They wait for the day when the\nprocess of circumcision generally induces fever, when Simeon and Levi\nrun through the whole city with poniards in their hands and massacre the\nking, the prince his son, and all the inhabitants. We are precluded from\nthe horror appropriate to this infernal counterpart of the tragedy of\nSt. Bartholomew, only by a sense of its absolute impossibility. It is an\nabominable romance; but it is evidently a ridiculous romance. It is\nimpossible that two men could have slaughtered in quiet the whole\npopulation of a city. The people might suffer in a slight degree from\nthe operation which had preceded, but notwithstanding this, they would\nhave risen in self-defence against two diabolical miscreants; they would\nhave instantly assembled, would have surrounded them, and destroyed them\nwith the summary and complete vengeance merited by their atrocity.\n\nBut there is a still more palpable impossibility. It is, that according\nto the accurate computation of time, Dinah, this daughter of Jacob,\ncould be only three years old; and that, even by forcing up chronology\nas far as possible in favor of the narrative, she could at the very most\nbe only five. It is here, then, that we are assailed with bursts of\nindignant exclamation! \"What!\" it is said, \"what! is it this book, the\nbook of a rejected and reprobate people; a book so long unknown to all\nthe world; a book in which sound reason and decent manners are outraged\nin every page, that is held up to us as irrefragable, holy, and dictated\nby God Himself? Is it not even impious to believe it? or could anything\nless than the fury of cannibals urge to the persecution of sensible and\nmodest men for not believing it?\"\n\nTo this we reply: \"The Church declares its belief in it. The copyists\nmay have mixed up some revolting absurdities with respectable and\ngenuine histories. It belongs to the holy church only to decide.\nThe profane ought to be guided by her. Those absurdities, those alleged\nhorrors do not affect the substance of our faith. How lamentable would\nbe the fate of mankind, if religion and virtue depended upon what\nformerly happened to Shechem and to little Dinah!\"\n\n\"These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before the children\nof Israel had a king.\" This is the celebrated passage which has proved\none of the great stumbling stones. This it was which decided the great\nNewton, the pious and acute Samuel Clarke, the profound and philosophic\nBolingbroke, the learned Leclerc, the ingenious Fr\u00e9ret, and a host of\nother enlightened men, to maintain that it was impossible Moses could\nhave been the author of Genesis.\n\nWe admit that in fact these words could not have been written until\nafter the time that the Jews had kings.\n\nIt is principally this verse that determined Astruc to give up the\ninspired authority of the whole Book of Genesis, and suppose the author\nhad derived his materials from existing memoirs and records. His work is\ningenious and accurate, but it is rash, not to say audacious. Even a\ncouncil would scarcely have ventured on such an enterprise. And to what\npurpose has it served Astruc's thankless and dangerous labor--to double\nthe darkness he wished to enlighten? Here is the fruit of the tree of\nknowledge, of which we are all so desirous of eating. Why must it be,\nthat the fruit of the tree of ignorance should be more nourishing and\nmore digestible?\n\nBut of what consequence can it be to us, after all, whether any\nparticular verse or chapter was written by Moses, or Samuel, or the\npriest (_sacrificateur_) who came to Samaria, or Esdras, or any other\nperson? In what respect can our government, our laws, our fortunes, our\nmorals, our well-being, be bound up with the unknown chiefs of a\nwretched and barbarous country called Edom or Idum\u00e6a, always inhabited\nby robbers? Alas! those poor Arabs, who have not shirts to their backs,\nneither know nor care whether or not we are in existence! They go on\nsteadily plundering caravans, and eating barley bread, while we are\nperplexing and tormenting ourselves to know whether any petty kings\nflourished in a particular canton of Arabia Petr\u00e6a, before they existed\nin a particular canton adjoining the west of the lake of Sodom!\n\n  _O miseras hominum curas! Opectora c\u0153ca!_\n                                      --LUCRETIUS, ii. 14.\n\nBlind, wretched man! in what dark paths of strife\nThou walkest the little journey of thy life!--CREECH.\n\n\n\n\nGENII.\n\n\nThe doctrines of judicial astrology and magic have spread all over the\nworld. Look back to the ancient Zoroaster, and you will find that of the\ngenii long established. All antiquity abounds in astrologers and\nmagicians; such ideas were therefore very natural. At present, we smile\nat the number who entertained them; if we were in their situation, if\nlike them we were only beginning to cultivate the sciences, we should\nperhaps believe just the same. Let us suppose ourselves intelligent\npeople, beginning to reason on our own existence, and to observe the\nstars. The earth, we might say, is no doubt immovable in the midst of\nthe world; the sun and planets only revolve in her service, and the\nstars are only made for us; man, therefore, is the great object of all\nnature. What is the intention of all these globes, and of the immensity\nof heaven thus destined for our use? It is very likely that all space\nand these globes are peopled with substances, and since we are the\nfavorites of nature, placed in the centre of the universe, and all is\nmade for man, these substances are evidently destined to watch over man.\n\nThe first man who believed the thing at all possible would soon find\ndisciples persuaded that it existed. We might then commence by saying,\ngenii perhaps exist, and nobody could affirm the contrary; for where is\nthe impossibility of the air and planets being peopled? We might\nafterwards say there _are_ genii, and certainly no one could prove that\nthere are not. Soon after, some sages might see these genii, and we\nshould have no right to say to them: \"You have not seen them\"; as these\npersons might be honorable, and altogether worthy of credit. One might\nsee the genius of the empire or of his own city; another that of Mars\nor Saturn; the genii of the four elements might be manifested to several\nphilosophers; more than one sage might see his own genius; all at first\nmight be little more than dreaming, but dreams are the symbols of truth.\n\nIt was soon known exactly how these genii were formed. To visit our\nglobe, they must necessarily have wings; they therefore had wings. We\nknow only of bodies; they therefore had bodies, but bodies much finer\nthan ours, since they were genii, and much lighter, because they came\nfrom so great a distance. The sages who had the privilege of conversing\nwith the genii inspired others with the hope of enjoying the same\nhappiness. A skeptic would have been ill received, if he had said to\nthem: \"I have seen no genius, therefore there are none.\" They would have\nreplied: \"You reason ill; it does not follow that a thing exists not,\nwhich is unknown to you. There is no contradiction in the doctrine which\ninculcates these ethereal powers; no impossibility that they may visit\nus; they show themselves to our sages, they manifest themselves to us;\nyou are not worthy of seeing genii.\"\n\nEverything on earth is composed of good and evil; there are therefore\nincontestably good and bad genii. The Persians had their peris and\ndives; the Greeks, their demons and cacod\u00e6mons; the Latins, _bonos et\nmalos genios_. The good genii are white, and the bad black, except among\nthe negroes, where it is necessarily the reverse. Plato without\ndifficulty admits of a good and evil genius for every individual. The\nevil genius of Brutus appeared to him, and announced to him his death\nbefore the battle of Philippi. Have not grave historians said so? And\nwould not Plutarch have been very injudicious to have assured us of this\nfact, if it were not true?\n\nFurther, consider what a source of feasts, amusements, good tales, and\nbon mots, originated in the belief of genii!\n\nThere were male and female genii. The genii of the ladies were called by\nthe Romans little Junos. They also had the pleasure of seeing their\ngenii grow up. In infancy, they were a kind of Cupid with wings, and\nwhen they protected old age, they wore long beards, and even sometimes\nthe forms of serpents. At Rome, there is preserved a marble, on which is\nrepresented a serpent under a palm tree, to which are attached two\ncrowns with this inscription: \"To the genius of the Augusti\"; it was the\nemblem of immortality.\n\nWhat demonstrative proof have we at present, that the genii, so\nuniversally admitted by so many enlightened nations, are only phantoms\nof the imagination? All that can be said is reduced to this: \"I have\nnever seen a genius, and no one of my acquaintance has ever seen one;\nBrutus has not written that his genius appeared to him before the battle\nof Philippi; neither Newton, Locke, nor even Descartes, who gave the\nreins to his imagination; neither kings nor ministers of state have\never been suspected of communing with their genii; therefore I do not\nbelieve a thing of which there is not the least truth. I confess their\nexistence is not impossible; but the possibility is not a proof of the\nreality. It is possible that there may be satyrs, with little turned-up\ntails and goats' feet; but I must see several to believe in them; for if\nI saw but one, I should still doubt their existence.\"\n\n\n\n\nGENIUS.\n\n\nOf genius or demon, we have already spoken in the article on \"angel.\" It\nis not easy to know precisely whether the peris of the Persians were\ninvented before the demons of the Greeks, but it is very probable that\nthey were. It may be, that the souls of the dead, called shades, manes,\netc., passed for demons. Hesiod makes Hercules say that a demon dictated\nhis labors.\n\nThe demon of Socrates had so great a reputation, that Apuleius, the\nauthor of the \"Golden Ass,\" who was himself a magician of good repute,\nsays in his \"Treatise on the Genius of Socrates,\" that a man must be\nwithout religion who denies it. You see that Apuleius reasons precisely\nlike brothers Garasse and Bertier: \"You do not believe that which I\nbelieve; you are therefore without religion.\" And the Jansenists have\nsaid as much of brother Bertier, as well as of all the world except\nthemselves. \"These demons,\" says the very religious and filthy\nApuleius, \"are intermediate powers between ether and our lower region.\nThey live in our atmosphere, and bear our prayers and merits to the\ngods. They treat of succors and benefits, as interpreters and\nambassadors. Plato says, that it is by their ministry that revelations,\npresages, and the miracles of magicians, are effected.\"--\"_C\u00e6terum sunt\nqu\u00e6dam divin\u00e6 medi\u00e6 potestates, inter summum \u00e6thera, et infimas terras,\nin isto intersit\u00e6 \u00e6ris spatio, per quas et desideria nostra et merita ad\ndeos commeant. Hos Gr\u00e6co nomine demonias nuncupant. Inter terricolas\nc\u0153li colasque victores, hinc pecum, inde donorum: qui ultro citroque\nportant, hinc petitiones, inde suppetias: ceu quidam utriusque\ninterpretes, et salutigeri. Per hos eosdem, ut Plato in symposio\nautumat, cuncta denuntiata; et majorum varia miracula, omnesque\npr\u00e6sagium species reguntur._\"\n\nSt. Augustine has condescended to refute Apuleius in these words:\n\n\"It is impossible for us to say that demons are neither mortal nor\neternal, for all that has life, either lives eternally, or loses the\nbreath of life by death; and Apuleius has said, that as to time, the\ndemons are eternal. What then remains, but that demons hold a medium\nsituation, and have one quality higher and another lower than mankind;\nand as, of these two things, eternity is the only higher thing which\nthey exclusively possess, to complete the allotted medium, what must be\nthe lower, if not misery?\" This is powerful reasoning!\n\nAs I have never seen any genii, demons, peris, or hobgoblins, whether\nbeneficent or mischievous, I cannot speak of them from knowledge. I only\nrelate what has been said by people who have seen them.\n\nAmong the Romans, the word \"genius\" was not used to express a rare\ntalent, as with us: the term for that quality was _ingenium_. We use the\nword \"genius\" indifferently in speaking of the tutelar demon of a town\nof antiquity, or an artist, or a musician. The term \"genius\" seems to\nhave been intended to designate not great talents generally, but those\ninto which invention enters. Invention, above everything, appeared a\ngift from the gods--this _ingenium, quasi ingenitum_, a kind of divine\ninspiration. Now an artist, however perfect he may be in his profession,\nif he have no invention, if he be not original, is not considered a\ngenius. He is only inspired by the artists his predecessors, even when\nhe surpasses them.\n\nIt is very probable that many people now play at chess better than the\ninventor of the game, and that they might gain the prize of corn\npromised him by the Indian king. But this inventor was a genius, and\nthose who might now gain the prize would be no such thing. Poussin, who\nwas a great painter before he had seen any good pictures, had a genius\nfor painting. Lulli, who never heard any good musician in France, had a\ngenius for music.\n\nWhich is the more desirable to possess, a genius without a master, or\nthe attainment of perfection by imitating and surpassing the masters\nwhich precede us?\n\nIf you put this question to artists, they will perhaps be divided; if\nyou put it to the public, it will not hesitate. Do you like a beautiful\nGobelin tapestry better than one made in Flanders at the commencement of\nthe arts? Do you prefer modern masterpieces of engraving to the first\nwood-cuts? the music of the present day to the first airs, which\nresembled the Gregorian chant? the makers of the artillery of our time\nto the genius which invented the first cannon? everybody will answer,\n\"yes.\" All purchasers will say: \"I own that the inventor of the shuttle\nhad more genius than the manufacturer who made my cloth, but my cloth is\nworth more than that of the inventor.\"\n\nIn short, every one in conscience will confess, that we respect the\ngeniuses who invented the arts, but that the minds which perfect them\nare of more present benefit.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThe article on \"Genius\" has been treated in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia\" by men\nwho possess it. We shall hazard very little after them.\n\nEvery town, every man possessed a genius. It was imagined that those who\nperformed extraordinary things were inspired by their genius. The nine\nmuses were nine genii, whom it was necessary to invoke; therefore Ovid\nsays: \"_Et Deus in nobis, agitante calescimus illo_\"--\"The God within\nus, He the mind inspires.\"\n\nBut, properly speaking, is genius anything but capability? What is\ncapability but a disposition to succeed in an art? Why do we say the\ngenius of a language? It is, that every language, by its terminations,\narticles, participles, and shorter or longer words, will necessarily\nhave exclusive properties of its own.\n\nBy the genius of a nation is meant the character, manners, talents, and\neven vices, which distinguish one people from another. It is sufficient\nto see the French, English, and Spanish people, to feel this difference.\n\nWe have said that the particular genius of a man for an art is a\ndifferent thing from his general talent; but this name is given only to\na very superior ability. How many people have talent for poetry, music,\nand painting; yet it would be ridiculous to call them geniuses.\n\nGenius, conducted by taste, will never commit a gross fault. Racine,\nsince his \"Andromache,\" \"Le Poussin,\" and \"Rameau,\" has never committed\none. Genius, without taste, will often commit enormous errors; and, what\nis worse, it will not be sensible of them.\n\n\n\n\nGEOGRAPHY.\n\n\nGeography is one of those sciences which will always require to be\nperfected. Notwithstanding the pains that have been taken, it has\nhitherto been impossible to have an exact description of the earth. For\nthis great work, it would be necessary that all sovereigns should come\nto an understanding, and lend mutual assistance. But they have ever\ntaken more pains to ravage the world than they have to measure it.\n\nNo one has yet been able to make an exact map of upper Egypt, nor of the\nregions bordering on the Red Sea, nor of the vast country of Arabia. Of\nAfrica we know only the coasts; all the interior is no more known than\nit was in the times of Atlas and Hercules. There is not a single\nwell-detailed map of all the Grand Turk's possessions in Asia; all is\nplaced at random, excepting some few large towns, the crumbling remains\nof which are still existing. In the states of the Great Mogul something\nis known of the relative positions of Agra and Delhi; but thence to the\nkingdom of Golconda everything is laid down at a venture.\n\nIt is known that Japan extends from about the thirtieth to the fortieth\ndegree of north latitude; there cannot be an error of more than two\ndegrees, which is about fifty leagues; so that, relying on one of our\nbest maps, a pilot would be in danger of losing his track or his life.\n\nAs for the longitude, the first maps of the Jesuits determined it\nbetween the one hundred and fifty-seventh and the one hundred and\nseventy-fifth degree; whereas, it is now determined between the one\nhundred and forty-sixth and the one hundred and sixtieth.\n\nChina is the only Asiatic country of which we have an exact measurement;\nbecause the emperor Kam-hi employed some Jesuit astronomers to draw\nexact maps, which is the best thing the Jesuits have done. Had they been\ncontent with measuring the earth, they would never have been proscribed.\n\nIn our western world, Italy, France, Russia, England, and the principal\ntowns of the other states, have been measured by the same method as was\nemployed in China; but it was not until a very few years ago, that in\nFrance it was undertaken to form an entire topography. A company taken\nfrom the Academy of Sciences despatched engineers or surveyors into\nevery corner of the kingdom, to lay down even the meanest hamlet, the\nsmallest rivulet, the hills, the woods, in their true places. Before\nthat time, so confused was the topography, that on the eve of the battle\nof Fontenoy, the maps of the country being all examined, every one of\nthem was found entirely defective.\n\nIf a positive order had been sent from Versailles to an inexperienced\ngeneral to give battle, and post himself as appeared most advisable from\nthe maps, as sometimes happened in the time of the minister Chamillar,\nthe battle would infallibly have been lost.\n\nA general who should carry on a war in the country of the Morlachians,\nor the Montenegrins, with no knowledge of places but from the maps,\nwould be at as great a loss as if he were in the heart of Africa.\n\nHappily, that which has often been traced by geographers, according to\ntheir own fancy, in their closets, is rectified on the spot. In\ngeography, as in morals, it is very difficult to know the world without\ngoing from home.\n\nIt is not with this department of knowledge, as with the arts of poetry,\nmusic, and painting. The last works of these kinds are often the worst.\nBut in the sciences, which require exactness rather than genius, the\nlast are always the best, provided they are done with some degree of\ncare.\n\nOne of the greatest advantages of geography, in my opinion, is this:\nyour fool of a neighbor, and his wife almost as stupid, are incessantly\nreproaching you with not thinking as they think in Rue St. Jacques.\n\"See,\" say they, \"what a multitude of great men have been of our\nopinion, from Peter the Lombard down to the Abb\u00e9 Petit-pied. The whole\nuniverse has received our truths; they reign in the Faubourg St. Honor\u00e9,\nat Chaillot and at \u00c9tampes, at Rome and among the Uscoques.\" Take a map\nof the world; show them all Africa, the empires of Japan, China, India,\nTurkey, Persia, and that of Russia, more extensive than was the Roman\nEmpire; make them pass their finger over all Scandinavia, all the north\nof Germany, the three kingdoms of Great Britain, the greater part of the\nLow Countries, and of Helvetia; in short make them observe, in the four\ngreat divisions of the earth, and in the fifth, which is as little known\nas it is great in extent, the prodigious number of races, who either\nnever heard of those opinions, or have combated them, or have held them\nin abhorrence, and you will thus oppose the whole universe to Rue St.\nJacques.\n\nYou will tell them that Julius C\u00e6sar, who extended his power much\nfarther than that street, did not know a word of all which they think so\nuniversal; and that our ancestors, on whom Julius C\u00e6sar bestowed the\nlash, knew no more of them than he did.\n\nThey will then, perhaps, feel somewhat ashamed at having believed that\nthe organ of St. Severin's church gave the tone to the rest of the\nworld.\n\n\n\n\nGLORY--GLORIOUS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nGlory is reputation joined with esteem, and is complete when admiration\nis superadded. It always supposes that which is brilliant in action, in\nvirtue, or in talent, and the surmounting of great difficulties. C\u00e6sar\nand Alexander had glory. The same can hardly be said of Socrates. He\nclaims esteem, reverence, pity, indignation against his enemies; but the\nterm \"glory\" applied to him would be improper; his memory is venerable\nrather than glorious. Attila had much brilliancy, but he has no glory;\nfor history, which may be mistaken, attributes to him no virtues:\nCharles XII. still has glory; for his valor, his disinterestedness, his\nliberality, were extreme. Success is sufficient for reputation, but not\nfor glory. The glory of Henry IV. is every day increasing; for time has\nbrought to light all his virtues, which were incomparably greater than\nhis defects.\n\nGlory is also the portion of inventors in the fine arts; imitators have\nonly applause. It is granted, too, to great talents, but in sublime arts\nonly. We may well say, the glory of Virgil, or Cicero, but not of\nMartial, nor of Aulus Gellius.\n\nMen have dared to say, the glory of God: God created this world for His\nglory; not that the Supreme Being can have glory; but that men, having\nno expressions suitable to Him, use for Him those by which they are\nthemselves most flattered.\n\nVainglory is that petty ambition which is contented with appearances,\nwhich is exhibited in pompous display, and never elevates itself to\ngreater things. Sovereigns, having real glory, have been known to be\nnevertheless fond of vainglory--seeking too eagerly after praise, and\nbeing too much attached to the trappings of ostentation.\n\nFalse glory often verges towards vanity; but it often leads to excesses,\nwhile vainglory is more confined to splendid littlenesses. A prince who\nshould look for honor in revenge, would seek a false glory rather than a\nvain one.\n\nTo give glory signifies to acknowledge, to bear witness. Give glory to\ntruth, means acknowledging truth--Give glory to the God whom you\nserve--Bear witness to the God whom you serve.\n\nGlory is taken for heaven--He dwells in glory; but this is the case in\nno religion but ours. It is not allowable to say that Bacchus or\nHercules was received into glory, when speaking of their apotheosis. The\nsaints and angels have sometimes been called the glorious, as dwelling\nin the abode of glory.\n\nGloriously is always taken in the good sense; he reigned gloriously; he\nextricated himself gloriously from great danger or embarrassment.\n\nTo glory in, is sometimes taken in the good, sometimes in the bad,\nsense, according to the nature of the object in question. He glories in\na disgrace which is the fruit of his talents and the effect of envy. We\nsay of the martyrs, that they glorified God--that is, that their\nconstancy made the God whom they attested revered by men.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThat Cicero should love glory, after having stifled Catiline's\nconspiracy, may be pardoned him. That the king of Prussia, Frederick the\nGreat, should have the same feelings after Rosbach and Lissa, and after\nbeing the legislator, the historian, the poet, and the philosopher of\nhis country--that he should be passionately fond of glory, and at the\nsame time, have self-command enough to be modestly so--he will, on that\naccount, be the more glorified.\n\nThat the empress Catherine II. should have been forced by the brutish\ninsolence of a Turkish sultan to display all her genius; that from the\nfar north she should have sent four squadrons which spread terror in the\nDardanelles and in Asia Minor; and that, in 1770, she took four\nprovinces from those Turks who made Europe tremble--with this sort of\nglory she will not be reproached, but will be admired for speaking of\nher successes with that air of indifference and superiority which shows\nthat they were merited.\n\nIn short, glory befits geniuses of this sort, though belonging to the\nvery mean race of mortals.\n\nBut if, at the extremity of the west, a townsman of a place called Paris\nthinks he has glory in being harangued by a teacher of the university,\nwho says to him: \"Monseigneur, the glory you have acquired in the\nexercise of your office, your illustrious labors with which the universe\nresounds,\" etc., then I ask if there are mouths enough in that universe\nto celebrate, with their hisses, the glory of our citizen, and the\neloquence of the pedant who attends to bray out this harangue at\nmonseigneur's hotel? We are such fools that we have made God glorious\nlike ourselves.\n\nThat worthy chief of the dervishes, Ben-al-betif, said to his brethren\none day: \"My brethren, it is good that you should frequently use that\nsacred formula of our Koran, 'In the name of the most merciful God';\nbecause God uses mercy, and you learn to do so too, by oft repeating the\nwords that recommend virtue, without which there would be few men left\nupon the earth. But, my brethren, beware of imitating those rash ones\nwho boast, on every occasion, of laboring for the glory of God.\n\n\"If a young simpleton maintains a thesis on the categories, an ignoramus\nin furs presiding, he is sure to write in large characters, at the head\nof his thesis, '_Ek alha abron doxa_!--'_Ad majorem Dei gloriam_.' --To\nthe greater glory of God. If a good Mussulman has had his house\nwhitewashed, he cuts this foolish inscription in the door. A saka\ncarries water for the greater glory of God. It is an impious usage,\npiously used. What would you say of a little chiaoux, who, while\nemptying our sultan's close-stool, should exclaim: \"To the greater glory\nof our invincible monarch?\" There is certainly a greater distance\nbetween God and the sultan than between the sultan and the little\nchiaoux.\n\n\"Ye miserable earth-worms, called men, what have you resembling the\nglory of the Supreme Being? Can He love glory? Can He receive it from\nyou? Can He enjoy it? How long, ye two-legged animals without feathers,\nwill you make God after your own image? What! because you are vain,\nbecause you love glory, you would have God love it also? If there were\nseveral Gods, perhaps each one would seek to gain the good opinion of\nhis fellows. That might be glory to God. Such a God, if infinite\ngreatness may be compared with extreme lowliness, would be like King\nAlexander or Iscander, who would enter the lists with none but kings.\nBut you, poor creatures! what glory can you give to God? Cease to\nprofane the sacred name. An emperor, named Octavius Augustus, forbade\nhis being praised in the schools of Rome, lest his name should be\nbrought into contempt. You can bring the name of the Supreme Being\nneither into contempt, nor into honor. Humble yourselves in the dust;\nadore, and be silent.\"\n\nThus spake Ben-al-betif; and the dervishes cried out: \"Glory to God!\nBen-al-betif has said well.\"\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Conversation with a Chinese._\n\nIn 1723, there was in Holland a Chinese: this Chinese was a man of\nletters and a merchant; which two professions ought not to be\nincompatible, but which have become so amongst us, thanks to the extreme\nregard which is paid to money, and the little consideration which\nmankind have ever shown, and will ever show, for merit.\n\nThis Chinese, who spoke a little Dutch, was once in a bookseller's shop\nwith some men of learning. He asked for a book, and \"Bossuet's Universal\nHistory,\" badly translated, was proposed to him. \"Ah!\" said he, \"how\nfortunate! I shall now see what is said of our great empire--of our\nnation, which has existed as a national body for more than fifty\nthousand years--of that succession of emperors who have governed us for\nso many ages. I shall now see what is thought of the religion of the\nmen of letters--of that simple worship which we render to the Supreme\nBeing. How pleasing to see what is said in Europe of our arts, many of\nwhich are more ancient amongst us than any European kingdom. I guess the\nauthor will have made many mistakes in the history of the war which we\nhad twenty-two thousand five hundred and fifty-two years ago, with the\nwarlike nations of Tonquin and Japan, and of that solemn embassy which\nthe mighty emperor of the Moguls sent to ask laws from us, in the year\nof the world 500,000,000,000,079,123,450,000.\" \"Alas!\" said one of the\nlearned men to him, \"you are not even mentioned in that book; you are\ntoo inconsiderable; it is almost all about the first nation in the\nworld--the only nation, the great Jewish people!\"\n\n\"The Jewish people!\" exclaimed the Chinese. \"Are they, then, masters of\nat least three-quarters of the earth?\" \"They flatter themselves that\nthey shall one day be so,\" was the answer; \"until which time they have\nthe honor of being our old-clothes-men, and, now and then, clippers of\nour coin.\"--\"You jest,\" said the Chinese; \"had these people ever a vast\nempire?\" \"They had as their own for some years,\" said I, \"a small\ncountry; but it is not by the extent of their states that a people are\nto be judged; as it is not by his riches that we are to estimate a man.\"\n\n\"But is no other people spoken of in this book?\" asked the man of\nletters. \"Undoubtedly,\" returned a learned man who stood next me, and\nwho instantly replied, \"there is a deal said in it of a small country\nsixty leagues broad, called Egypt, where it is asserted that there was a\nlake a hundred and fifty leagues round, cut by the hands of\nmen.\"--\"Zounds!\" said the Chinese; \"a lake a hundred and fifty leagues\nround in a country only sixty broad! That is fine, indeed!\"--\"Everybody\nwas wise in that country,\" added the doctor. \"Oh! what fine times they\nmust have been,\" said the Chinese. \"But is that all?\"--\"No,\" replied the\nEuropean; \"he also treats of that celebrated people, the Greeks.\" \"Who\nare these Greeks?\" asked the man of letters. \"Ah!\" continued the other,\n\"they inhabited a province about a two-hundredth part as large as China,\nbut which has been famous throughout the world.\" \"I have never heard\nspeak of these people, neither in Mogul nor in Japan, nor in Great\nTartary,\" said the Chinese, with an ingenuous look.\n\n\"Oh, ignorant, barbarous man!\" politely exclaimed our scholar. \"Know you\nnot, then, the Theban Epaminondas; nor the harbor of Piraeus; nor the\nname of the two horses of Achilles; nor that of Silenus's ass? Have you\nnot heard of Jupiter, nor of Diogenes, nor of Lais, nor of Cybele,\nnor--\"\n\n\"I am much afraid,\" replied the man of letters, \"that you know nothing\nat all of the ever memorable adventure of the celebrated Xixofou\nConcochigramki, nor of the mysteries of the great Fi Psi Hi Hi. But\npray, what are the other unknown things of which this universal history\ntreats?\" The scholar then spoke for a quarter of an hour on the Roman\ncommonwealth: but when he came to Julius C\u00e6sar, the Chinese interrupted\nhim, saying, \"As for him, I think I know him: was he not a Turk?\"\n\n\"What!\" said the scholar, somewhat warm, \"do you not at least know the\ndifference between Pagans, Christians, and Mussulmans? Do you not know\nConstantine, and the history of the popes?\" \"We have indistinctly\nheard,\" answered the Asiatic, \"of one Mahomet.\"\n\n\"It is impossible,\" returned the other, \"that you should not, at least,\nbe acquainted with Luther, Zuinglius, Bellarmin, \u0152colampadius.\" \"I\nshall never remember those names,\" said the Chinese. He then went away\nto sell a considerable parcel of tea and fine grogram, with which he\nbought two fine girls and a ship-boy, whom he took back to his own\ncountry, adoring Tien, and commending himself to Confucius.\n\nFor myself, who was present at this conversation, I clearly saw what\nglory is; and I said: Since C\u00e6sar and Jupiter are unknown in the finest,\nthe most ancient, the most extensive, the most populous and\nwell-regulated kingdom upon earth; it beseems you, ye governors of some\nlittle country, ye preachers in some little parish, or some little\ntown--ye doctors of Salamanca and of Bourges, ye flimsy authors, and ye\nponderous commentators--it beseems you to make pretensions to renown!\n\n\n\n\nGOAT--SORCERY.\n\n\nThe honors of every kind which antiquity paid to goats would be very\nastonishing, if anything could astonish those who have grown a little\nfamiliar with the world, ancient and modern. The Egyptians and the Jews\noften designated the kings and the chiefs of the people by the word\n\"goat.\" We find in Zachariah:\n\n\"Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds, and I punished the goats;\nfor the Lord of Hosts hath visited his flock, the house of Judah, and\nhath made them as his goodly horse in the battle.\"\n\n\"Remove out of the midst of Babylon,\" says Jeremiah to the chiefs of the\npeople; \"go forth out of the land of the Chald\u00e6ans, and be as the\nhe-goats before the flocks.\"\n\nIsaiah, in chapters x. and xiv., uses the term \"goat,\" which has been\ntranslated \"prince.\" The Egyptians went much farther than calling their\nkings goats; they consecrated a goat in Mendes, and it is even said that\nthey adored him. The truth very likely was, that the people took an\nemblem for a divinity, as is but too often the case.\n\nIt is not likely that the Egyptian _sho\u00ebn_ or _shotim_, _i.e._, priests,\nimmolated goats and worshipped them at the same time. We know that they\nhad their goat Hazazel, which they adorned and crowned with flowers, and\nthrew down headlong, as an expiation for the people; and that the Jews\ntook from them, not only this ceremony, but even the very name of\nHazazel, as they adopted many other rites from Egypt.\n\nBut goats received another, and yet more singular honor. It is beyond a\ndoubt that in Egypt many women set the same example with goats, as\nPasiphae did with her bull.\n\nThe Jews but too faithfully imitated these abominations. Jeroboam\ninstituted priests for the service of his calves and his goats.\n\nThe worship of the goat was established in Egypt, and in the lands of a\npart of Palestine. Enchantments were believed to be operated by means of\ngoats, and other monsters, which were always represented with a goat's\nhead.\n\nMagic, sorcery, soon passed from the East into the West, and extended\nitself throughout the earth. The sort of sorcery that came from the Jews\nwas called Sabbatum by the Romans, who thus confounded their sacred day\nwith their secret abominations. Thence it was, that in the neighboring\nnations, to be a sorcerer and to go to the sabbath, meant the same\nthing.\n\nWretched village women, deceived by knaves, and still more by the\nweakness of their own imaginations, believed that after pronouncing the\nword \"_abraxa_\", and rubbing themselves with an ointment mixed with\ncow-dung and goat's hair, they went to the sabbath on a broom-stick in\ntheir sleep, that there they adored a goat, and that he enjoyed them.\n\nThis opinion was universal. All the doctors asserted that it was the\ndevil, who metamorphosed himself into a goat. This may be seen in Del\nRio's \"Disquisitions,\" and in a hundred other authors. The theologian\nGrillandus, a great promoter of the Inquisition, quoted by Del Rio, says\nthat sorcerers call the goat Martinet. He assures us that a woman who\nwas attached to Martinet, mounted on his back, and was carried in an\ninstant through the air to a place called the Nut of Benevento.\n\nThere were books in which the mysteries of the sorcerers were written. I\nhave seen one of them, at the head of which was a figure of a goat very\nbadly drawn, with a woman on her knees behind him. In France, these\nbooks were called \"_grimoires_\"; and in other countries \"the devil's\nalphabet.\" That which I saw contained only four leaves, in almost\nillegible characters, much like those of the \"Shepherd's Almanac.\"\n\nReasoning and better education would have sufficed in Europe for the\nextirpation of such an extravagance; but executions were employed\ninstead of reasoning. The pretended sorcerers had their \"_grimoire_\" and\nthe judges had their sorcerer's code. In 1599, the Jesuit Del Rio, a\ndoctor of Louvain, published his \"Magical Disquisitions.\" He affirms\nthat all heretics are magicians, and frequently recommends that they be\nput to the torture. He has no doubt that the devil transforms himself\ninto a goat and grants his favors to all women presented to him. He\nquotes various jurisconsults, called demonographers, who assert that\nLuther was the son of a woman and a goat. He assures us that at\nBrussels, in 1595, a woman was brought to bed of a child, of which the\ndevil, disguised as a goat, was father, and that she was punished, but\nhe does not inform us in what manner.\n\nBut the jurisprudence of witchcraft has been the most profoundly treated\nby one Boguet, \"_grand juge en dernier ressort_\" of an abbey of St.\nClaude in Franche-Comt\u00e9. He gives an account of all the executions to\nwhich he condemned wizards and witches, and the number is very\nconsiderable. Nearly all the witches are supposed to have had commerce\nwith the goat.\n\nIt has already been said that more than a hundred thousand sorcerers\nhave been executed in Europe. Philosophy alone has at length cured men\nof this abominable delusion, and has taught judges that they should not\nburn the insane.\n\n\n\n\nGOD--GODS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe reader cannot too carefully bear in mind that this dictionary has\nnot been written for the purpose of repeating what so many others have\nsaid.\n\nThe knowledge of a God is not impressed upon us by the hands of nature,\nfor then men would all have the same idea; and no idea is born with us.\nIt does not come to us like the perception of light, of the ground,\netc., which we receive as soon as our eyes and our understandings are\nopened. Is it a philosophical idea? No; men admitted the existence of\ngods before they were philosophers.\n\nWhence, then, is this idea derived? From feeling, and from that natural\nlogic which unfolds itself with age, even in the rudest of mankind.\nAstonishing effects of nature were beheld--harvests and barrenness, fair\nweather and storms, benefits and scourges; and the hand of a master was\nfelt. Chiefs were necessary to govern societies; and it was needful to\nadmit sovereigns of these new sovereigns whom human weakness had given\nitself--beings before whose power these men who could bear down their\nfellow-men might tremble. The first sovereigns in their time employed\nthese notions to cement their power. Such were the first steps; thus\nevery little society had its god. These notions were rude because\neverything was rude. It is very natural to reason by analogy. One\nsociety under a chief did not deny that the neighboring tribe should\nlikewise have its judge, or its captain; consequently it could not deny\nthat the other should also have its god. But as it was to the interest\nof each tribe that its captain should be the best, it was also\ninterested in believing, and consequently it did believe, that its god\nwas the mightiest. Hence those ancient fables which have so long been\ngenerally diffused, that the gods of one nation fought against the gods\nof another. Hence the numerous passages in the Hebrew books, which we\nfind constantly disclosing the opinion entertained by the Jews, that the\ngods of their enemies existed, but that they were inferior to the God of\nthe Jews.\n\nMeanwhile, in the great states where the progress of society allowed to\nindividuals the enjoyment of speculative leisure, there were priests,\nMagi, and philosophers.\n\nSome of these perfected their reason so far as to acknowledge in secret\none only and universal god. So, although the ancient Egyptians adored\nOsiri, Osiris, or rather Osireth (which signifies this land is mine);\nthough they also adored other superior beings, yet they admitted one\nsupreme, one only principal god, whom they called \"_Knef_\", whose symbol\nwas a sphere placed on the frontispiece of the temple.\n\nAfter this model, the Greeks had their Zeus, their Jupiter, the master\nof the other gods, who were but what the angels are with the Babylonians\nand the Hebrews, and the saints with the Christians of the Roman\ncommunion.\n\nIt is a more thorny question than it has been considered, and one by no\nmeans profoundly examined, whether several gods, equal in power, can\nexist at the same time?\n\nWe have no adequate idea of the Divinity; we creep on from conjecture to\nconjecture, from likelihood to probability. We have very few\ncertainties. There is something; therefore there is something eternal;\nfor nothing is produced from nothing. Here is a certain truth on which\nthe mind reposes. Every work which shows us means and an end, announces\na workman; then this universe, composed of springs, of means, each of\nwhich has its end, discovers a most mighty, a most intelligent workman.\nHere is a probability approaching the greatest certainty. But is this\nsupreme artificer infinite? Is he everywhere? Is he in one place? How\nare we, with our feeble intelligence and limited knowledge, to answer\nthese questions?\n\nMy reason alone proves to me a being who has arranged the matter of this\nworld; but my reason is unable to prove to me that he made this\nmatter--that he brought it out of nothing. All the sages of antiquity,\nwithout exception, believed matter to be eternal, and existing by\nitself. All then that I can do, without the aid of superior light, is to\nbelieve that the God of this world is also eternal, and existing by\nHimself. God and matter exist by the nature of things. May not other\ngods exist, as well as other worlds? Whole nations, and very enlightened\nschools, have clearly admitted two gods in this world--one the source of\ngood, the other the source of evil. They admitted an eternal war between\ntwo equal powers. Assuredly, nature can more easily suffer the existence\nof several independent beings in the immensity of space, than that of\nlimited and powerless gods in this world, of whom one can do no good,\nand the other no harm.\n\nIf God and matter exist from all eternity, as antiquity believed, here\nthen are two necessary beings; now, if there be two necessary beings,\nthere may be thirty. These doubts alone, which are the germ of an\ninfinity of reflections, serve at least to convince us of the feebleness\nof our understanding. We must, with Cicero, confess our ignorance of the\nnature of the Divinity; we shall never know any more of it than he did.\n\nIn vain do the schools tell us that God is infinite negatively and not\nprivatively--\"_formaliter et non materialiter_\" that He is the first\nact, the middle, and the last--that He is everywhere without being in\nany place; a hundred pages of commentaries on definitions like these\ncannot give us the smallest light. We have no steps whereby to arrive at\nsuch knowledge.\n\nWe feel that we are under the hand of an invisible being; this is all;\nwe cannot advance one step farther. It is mad temerity to seek to divine\nwhat this being is--whether he is extended or not, whether he is in one\nplace or not, how he exists, or how he operates.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nI am ever apprehensive of being mistaken; but all monuments give me\nsufficient evidence that the polished nations of antiquity acknowledged\na supreme god. There is not a book, not a medal, not a bas-relief, not\nan inscription, in which Juno, Minerva, Neptune, Mars, or any of the\nother deities, is spoken of as a forming being, the sovereign of all\nnature. On the contrary, the most ancient profane books that we\nhave--those of Hesiod and Homer--represent their Zeus as the only\nthunderer, the only master of gods and men; he even punishes the other\ngods; he ties Juno with a chain, and drives Apollo out of heaven.\n\nThe ancient religion of the Brahmins--the first that admitted celestial\ncreatures--the first which spoke of their rebellion--explains itself in\nsublime manner concerning the unity and power of God; as we have seen in\nthe article on \"Angel.\"\n\nThe Chinese, ancient as they are, come after the Indians. They have\nacknowledged one only god from time immemorial; they have no subordinate\ngods, no t mediating demons or genii between God and man; no oracles, no\nabstract dogmas, no theological disputes among the lettered; their\nemperor was always the first pontiff; their religion was always august\nand simple; thus it is that this vast empire, though twice subjugated,\nhas constantly preserved its integrity, has made its conquerors receive\nits laws, and notwithstanding the crimes and miseries inseparable from\nthe human race, is still the most flourishing state upon earth.\n\nThe Magi of Chald\u00e6a, the Sabeans, acknowledged but one supreme god, whom\nthey adored in the stars, which are his work. The Persians adored him in\nthe sun. The sphere placed on the frontispiece of the temple of Memphis\nwas the emblem of one only and perfect god, called \"_Knef_\" by the\nEgyptians.\n\nThe title of \"_Deus Optimus Maximus_\" was never given by the Romans to\nany but \"_Jupiter, hominum sator atque deorum_.\" This great truth, which\nwe have elsewhere pointed out, cannot be too often repeated.\n\nThis adoration of a Supreme God, from Romulus down to the total\ndestruction of the empire and of its religion, is confirmed. In spite of\nall the follies of the people, who venerated secondary and ridiculous\ngods, and in spite of the Epicureans, who in reality acknowledged none,\nit is verified that, in all times, the magistrates and the wise adored\none sovereign God.\n\nFrom the great number of testimonies left us to this truth, I will\nselect first that of Maximus of Tyre, who flourished under the\nAntonines--those models of true piety, since they were models of\nhumanity. These are his words, in his discourse entitled \"Of God,\"\naccording to Plato. The reader who would instruct himself is requested\nto weigh them well:\n\n\"Men have been so weak as to give to God a human figure, because they\nhad seen nothing superior to man; but it is ridiculous to imagine, with\nHomer, that Jupiter or the Supreme Divinity has black eyebrows and\ngolden hair, which he cannot shake without making the heavens tremble.\n\n\"When men are questioned concerning the nature of the Divinity, their\nanswers are all different. Yet, notwithstanding this prodigious variety\nof opinions, you will find one and the same feeling throughout the\nearth--viz., that there is but one God, who is the father of all....\"\n\nAfter this formal avowal, after the immortal discourses of Cicero, of\nAntonine, of Epictetus, what becomes of the declamations which so many\nignorant pedants are still repeating? What avail those eternal\nreproachings of base polytheism and puerile idolatry, but to convince us\nthat the reproachers have not the slightest acquaintance with sterling\nantiquity? They have taken the reveries of Homer for the doctrines of\nthe wise.\n\nIs it necessary to have stronger or more expressive testimony? You will\nfind it in the letter from Maximus of Madaura to St. Augustine; both\nwere philosophers and orators; at least, they prided themselves on being\nso; they wrote to each other freely; they were even friends as much as a\nman of the old religion and one of the new could be friends. Read\nMaximus of Madaura's letter, and the bishop of Hippo's answer:\n\n_Letter from Maximus of Madaura._\n\n\"Now, that there is a sovereign God, who is without beginning, and, who,\nwithout having begotten anything like unto himself, is nevertheless the\nfather and the former of all things, what man can be gross and stupid\nenough to doubt? He it is of whom, under different names, we adore the\neternal power extending through every part of the world--thus honoring\nseparately, by different sorts of worship, what may be called his\nseveral members, we adore him entirely.... May those subordinate gods\npreserve you, under whose names, and by whom all we mortals upon earth\nadore the common father of gods and men, by different sorts of worship,\nit is true, but all according in their variety, and all tending to the\nsame end.\"\n\nBy whom was this letter written? By a Numidian--one of the country of\nthe Algerines!\n\n_Augustine's Answer._\n\n\"In your public square there are two statues of Mars, the one naked, the\nother armed; and close by, the figure of a man who, with three fingers\nadvanced towards Mars, holds in check that divinity, so dangerous to the\nwhole town. With regard to what you say of such gods, being portions of\nthe only true God, I take the liberty you give me, to warn you not to\nfall into such a sacrilege; for that only God, of whom you speak, is\ndoubtless He who is acknowledged by the whole world, and concerning\nwhom, as some of the ancients have said, the ignorant agree with the\nlearned. Now, will you say that he whose strength, if not his cruelty,\nis represented by an inanimate man, is a portion of that God? I could\neasily push you hard on this subject; for you will clearly see how much\nmight be said upon it; but I refrain, lest you should say that I employ\nagainst you the weapons of rhetoric rather than those of virtue.\"\n\nWe know not what was signified by these two statues, of which no vestige\nis left us; but not all the statues with which Rome was filled--not the\nPantheon and all the temples consecrated to the inferior gods, nor even\nthose of the twelve greater gods prevented \"_Deus Optimus\nMaximus_\"--\"God, most good, most great\"--from being acknowledged\nthroughout the empire.\n\nThe misfortune of the Romans, then, was their ignorance of the Mosaic\nlaw, and afterwards, of the law of the disciples of our Saviour Jesus\nChrist--their want of the faith--their mixing with the worship of a\nsupreme God the worship of Mars, of Venus, of Minerva, of Apollo, who\ndid not exist, and their preserving that religion until the time of the\nTheodosii. Happily, the Goths, the Huns, the Vandals, the Heruli, the\nLombards, the Franks, who destroyed that empire, submitted to the truth,\nand enjoyed a blessing denied to Scipio, to Cato, to Metellus, to\nEmilius, to Cicero, to Varro, to Virgil, and to Horace.\n\nNone of these great men knew Jesus Christ, whom they could not know; yet\nthey did not worship the devil, as so many pedants are every day\nrepeating. How should they worship the devil, of whom they had never\nheard?\n\n_A Calumny on Cicero by Warburton, on the Subject of a Supreme God._\n\nWarburton, like his contemporaries, has calumniated Cicero and ancient\nRome. He boldly supposes that Cicero pronounced these words, in his\n\"Oration for Flaccus\":\n\n\"It is unworthy of the majesty of the empire to adore only one\nGod\"--\"_Majestatem imperii non decuit ut unus tantum Deus colatur.\"\n\nIt will, perhaps, hardly be believed that there is not a word of this in\nthe \"Oration for Flaccus,\" nor in any of Cicero's works. Flaccus, who\nhad exercised the pr\u00e6torship in Asia Minor, is charged with exercising\nsome vexations. He was secretly persecuted by the Jews, who then\ninundated Rome; for, by their money, they had obtained privileges in\nRome at the very time when Pompey, after Crassus, had taken Jerusalem,\nand hanged their petty king, Alexander, son of Aristobolus. Flaccus had\nforbidden the conveying of gold and silver specie to Jerusalem, because\nthe money came back altered, and commerce was thereby injured; and he\nhad seized the gold which was clandestinely carried. This gold, said\nCicero, is still in the treasury. Flaccus has acted as disinterestedly\nas Pompey.\n\nCicero, then, with his wonted irony, pronounces these words: \"Each\ncountry has its religion; we have ours. While Jerusalem was yet free,\nwhile the Jews were yet at peace, even then they held in abhorrence the\nsplendor of this empire, the dignity of the Roman name, the\ninstitutions of our ancestors. Now that nation has shown more than ever,\nby the strength of its arms, what it should think of the Roman Empire.\nIt has shown us, by its valor, how dear it is to the immortal gods; it\nhas proved it to us, by its being vanquished, expatriated, and\ntributary.\"--\"_Stantibus Hierosolymis, pacatisque Judais, tamen istorum\nreligio sacrorum, a splendore hujus imperii, gravitate nominis nostri,\nma jorum institutis, abhorrebat; nunc vero hoc magis quid ilia gens,\nquid de imperio nostro sentiret, ostendit armis; quam cara diis\nimmortalibus esset, docuit, quod est victa, quod elocata, quod\nservata._\"\n\nIt is then quite false that Cicero, or any other Roman, ever said that\nit did not become the majesty of the empire to acknowledge a supreme\nGod. Their Jupiter, the Zeus of the Greeks, the Jehovah of the\nPh\u0153nicians, was always considered as the master of the secondary\ngods. This great truth cannot be too forcibly inculcated.\n\n_Did the Romans Take Their Gods from the Greeks?_\n\nHad not the Romans served gods for whom they were not indebted to the\nGreeks? For instance, they could not be guilty of plagiarism in adoring\nCoelum, while the Greeks adored Ouranon; or in addressing themselves to\nSaturnus and Tellus, while the Greeks addressed themselves to Ge and\nChronos. They called Ceres, her whom the Greeks named Deo and Demiter.\n\nTheir Neptune was Poseidon, their Venus was Aphrodite; their Juno was\ncalled, in Greek, Era; their Proserpine, Core; and their favorites, Mars\nand Bellona, were Ares and Enio. In none of these instances do the names\nresemble.\n\nDid the inventive spirits of Rome and of Greece assemble? or did the one\ntake from the other the _thing_, while they disguised the _name_? It is\nvery natural that the Romans, without consulting the Greeks, should make\nto themselves gods of the heavens, of time; beings presiding over war,\nover generation, over harvests, without going to Greece to ask for gods,\nas they afterwards went there to ask for laws. When you find a name that\nresembles nothing else, it is but fair to believe it a native of that\nparticular country.\n\nBut is not Jupiter, the master of all the gods, a word belonging to\nevery nation, from the Euphrates to the Tiber? Among the first Romans,\nit was _Jov_, _Jovis_; among the Greeks, _Zeus_; among the\nPh\u0153nicians, the Syrians, and the Egyptians, _Jehovah_.\n\nDoes not this resemblance serve to confirm the supposition that every\npeople had the knowledge of the Supreme Being?--a knowledge confused, it\nis true; but what man can have it _distinct_?\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Examination of Spinoza._\n\nSpinoza cannot help admitting an intelligence acting in matter, and\nforming a whole with it.\n\n\"I must conclude,\" he says, \"that the absolute being is neither thought\nnor extent, exclusively of each other; but that extent and thought are\nnecessary attributes of the absolute being.\"\n\nHerein he appears to differ from all the atheists of antiquity; from\nOcellus, Lucanus, Heraclitus, Democritus, Leucippus, Strato, Epicurus,\nPythagoras, Diagoras, Zeno of Elis, Anaximander, and so many others. He\ndiffers from them, above all, in his method, which he took entirely from\nthe reading of Descartes, whose very style he has imitated.\n\nThe multitude of those who cry out against Spinoza, without ever having\nread him, will especially be astonished by his following declaration. He\ndoes not make it to dazzle mankind, nor to appease theologians, nor to\nobtain protectors, nor to disarm a party; he speaks as a philosopher,\nwithout naming himself, without advertising himself; and expresses\nhimself in Latin, so as to be understood by a very small number. Here is\nhis profession of faith.\n\n_Spinoza's Profession of Faith._\n\n\"If I also concluded that the idea of God, comprised in that of the\ninfinity of the universe, excused me from obedience, love, and worship,\nI should make a still more pernicious use of my reason; for it is\nevident to me that the laws which I _have_ received, not by the relation\nor intervention of other men, but immediately from Him, are those which\nthe light of nature points out to me as the true guides of rational\nconduct. If I failed of obedience, in this particular, I should sin, not\nonly against the principle of my being and the society of my kind, but\nalso against myself, in depriving myself of the most solid advantage of\nmy existence. This obedience does, it is true, bind me only to the\nduties of my state, and makes me look on all besides as frivolous\npractices, invented in superstition to serve the purposes of their\ninventors.\n\n\"With regard to the love of God, so far, I conceive, is this idea from\ntending to weaken it, that no other is more calculated to increase it;\nsince, through it, I know that God is intimate with my being; that He\ngives me existence and my every property; but He gives me them\nliberally, without reproach, without interest, without subjecting me to\nanything but my own nature. It banishes fear, uneasiness, distrust, and\nall the effects of a vulgar or interested love. It informs me that this\nis a good which I cannot lose, and which I possess the more fully, as I\nknow and love it.\"\n\nAre these the words of the virtuous and tender F\u00e9nelon, or those of\nSpinoza? How is it that two men so opposed to each other, have, with\nsuch different notions of God, concurred in the idea of loving God for\nHimself?\n\nIt must be acknowledged that they went both to the same end--the one as\na Christian, the other as a man who had the misfortune not to be so;\nthe holy archbishop, as philosopher, convinced that God is distinct\nfrom nature; the other as a widely-erring disciple of Descartes, who\nimagined that God is all nature.\n\nThe former was orthodox, the latter was mistaken, I must assent; but\nboth were honest, both estimable in their sincerity, as in their mild\nand simple manners; though there is no other point of resemblance\nbetween the imitator of the \"Odyssey,\" and a dry Cartesian fenced round\nwith arguments; between one of the most accomplished men of the court of\nLouis XIV. invested with what is called a _high_ divinity, and a poor\nunjuda\u00efzed Jew, living with an income of three hundred florins, in the\nmost profound obscurity.\n\nIf there be any similitude between them, it is that F\u00e9nelon was accused\nbefore the Sanhedrim of the new law, and the other before a synagogue\nwithout power or without reason; but the one submitted, the other\nrebelled.\n\n_Foundation of Spinoza's Philosophy._\n\nThe great dialectician Bayle has refuted Spinoza. His system, therefore,\nis not demonstrated, like one of Euclid's propositions; for, if it were\nso, it could not be combated. It is, therefore, at least obscure.\n\nI have always had some suspicion that Spinoza, with his universal\nsubstance, his modes and accidents, had some other meaning than that in\nwhich he is understood by Bayle; and consequently, that Bayle may be\nright, without having confounded Spinoza. And, in particular, I have\nalways thought that often Spinoza did not understand himself, and that\nthis is the principal reason why he has not been understood.\n\nIt seems to me that the ramparts of Spinozism might be beaten down on a\nside which Bayle has neglected. Spinoza thinks that there can exist but\none substance; and it appears throughout his book that he builds his\ntheory on the mistake of Descartes, that \"nature is a plenum.\"\n\nThe theory of a plenum is as false as that of a void. It is now\ndemonstrated that motion is as impossible in absolute fulness, as it is\nimpossible that, in an equal balance, a weight of two pounds in one\nscale should sink a weight of two in the other.\n\nNow, if every motion absolutely requires empty space, what becomes of\nSpinoza's one and only substance? How can the substance of a star,\nbetween which and us there is a void so immense, be precisely the\nsubstance of this earth, or the substance of myself, or the substance of\na fly eaten by a spider?\n\nPerhaps I mistake, but I never have been able to conceive how Spinoza,\nadmitting an infinite substance of which thought and matter are the two\nmodalities--admitting the substance which he calls God, and of which all\nthat we see is mode or accident--could nevertheless reject final causes.\nIf this infinite, universal being thinks, must he not have design? If he\nhas design, must he not have a will?\n\n[Illustration: Descartes.]\n\nSpinoza says, we are modes of that absolute, necessary, infinite being.\nI say to Spinoza, we will, and have design, we who are but modes;\ntherefore, this infinite, necessary, absolute being cannot be deprived\nof them; therefore, he has will, design, power.\n\nI am aware that various philosophers, and especially Lucretius, have\ndenied final causes; I am also aware that Lucretius, though not very\nchaste, is a very great poet in his descriptions and in his morals; but\nin philosophy I own he appears to me to be very far behind a college\nporter or a parish beadle. To affirm that the eye is not made to see,\nnor the ear to hear, nor the stomach to digest--is not this the most\nenormous absurdity, the most revolting folly, that ever entered the\nhuman mind? Doubter as I am, this insanity seems to me evident, and I\nsay so.\n\nFor my part, I see in nature, as in the arts, only final causes, and I\nbelieve that an apple tree is made to bear apples, as I believe that a\nwatch is made to tell the hour.\n\nI must here acquaint the readers that if Spinoza, in several passages of\nhis works, makes a jest of final causes, he most expressly acknowledges\nthem in the first part of his \"Being, in General and in Particular.\"\n\nHere he says, \"Permit me for a few moments to dwell with admiration on\nthe wonderful dispensation of nature, which, having enriched the\nconstitution of man with all the resources necessary to prolong to a\ncertain term the duration of his frail existence, and to animate his\nknowledge of himself by that of an infinity of distant objects, seems\npurposely to have neglected to give him the means of well knowing what\nhe is obliged to make a more ordinary use of--the individuals of his own\nspecies. Yet, when duly considered, this appears less the effect of a\nrefusal than of an extreme liberality; for, if there were any\nintelligent being that could penetrate another against his will, he\nwould enjoy such an advantage as would of itself exclude him from\nsociety; whereas, in the present state of things, each individual\nenjoying himself in full independence communicates himself so much only\nas he finds convenient.\"\n\nWhat shall I conclude from this? That Spinoza frequently contradicted\nhimself; that he had not always clear ideas; that in the great wreck of\nsystems, he clung sometimes to one plank, sometimes to another; that in\nthis weakness he was like Malebranche, Arnauld, Bossuet, and Claude, who\nnow and then contradicted themselves in their disputes; that he was like\nnumberless metaphysicians and theologians? I shall conclude that I have\nadditional reason for distrusting all my metaphysical notions; that I am\na very feeble animal, treading on quicksands, which are continually\ngiving way beneath me; and that there is perhaps nothing so foolish as\nto believe ourselves always in the right.\n\nBaruch Spinoza, you are very confused; but are you as dangerous as you\nare said to be? I maintain that you are not; and my reason is, that you\n_are_ confused, that you have written in bad Latin, and that there are\nnot ten persons in Europe who read you from beginning to end, although\nyou have been translated into French. Who is the dangerous author? He\nwho is read by the idle at court and by the ladies.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_The \"System of Nature.\"_\n\nThe author of the \"System of Nature\" has had the advantage of being read\nby both learned and ignorant, and by women. His style, then, has merits\nwhich that of Spinoza wanted. He is often luminous, sometimes eloquent;\nalthough he may be charged, like all the rest, with repetition,\ndeclamation, and self-contradiction. But for profundity, he is very\noften to be distrusted both in physics and in morals. The interest of\nmankind is here in question; we will, therefore, examine whether his\ndoctrine is true and useful; and will, if we can, be brief.\n\n\"Order and disorder do not exist.\" What! in physics, is not a child born\nblind, without legs, or a monster, contrary to the nature of the\nspecies? Is it not the ordinary regularity of nature that makes order,\nand irregularity that constitutes disorder? Is it not a great\nderangement, a dreadful disorder, when nature gives a child hunger and\ncloses the \u0153sophagus? The evacuations of every kind are necessary;\nyet the channels are frequently without orifices, which it is necessary\nto remedy. Doubtless this disorder has its cause; for there is no effect\nwithout a cause; but it is a very disordered effect.\n\nIs not the assassination of our friend, or of our brother, a horrible\ndisorder in morals? Are not the calumnies of a Garasse, of a Letellier,\nof a Doucin, against Jansenists, and those of Jansenists against\nJesuits, petty disorders? Were not the massacre of St. Bartholomew, the\nIrish massacre, etc., execrable disorders? This crime has its cause in\npassion, but the effect is execrable; the cause is fatal; this disorder\nmakes us shudder. The origin of the disorder remains to be discovered,\nbut the disorder exists.\n\n\"Experience proves to us that the matter which we regard as inert and\ndead assumes action, intelligence, and life, when it is combined in a\ncertain way.\"\n\nThis is precisely the difficulty. How does a germ come to life? Of this\nthe author and the reader are alike ignorant. Hence, are not the \"System\nof Nature,\" and all the systems in the world, so many dreams?\n\n\"It would be necessary to define the vital principle, which I deem\nimpossible.\" Is not this definition very easy, very common? Is not life\norganization with feeling? But that you have these two properties from\nthe motion of matter alone, it is impossible to give any proof; and if\nit cannot be proved, why affirm it? Why say aloud, \"I know,\" while you\nsay to yourself, \"I know not\"?\n\n\"It will be asked, what is man?\" etc. Assuredly, this article is no\nclearer than the most obscure of Spinoza's; and many readers will feel\nindignant at the decisive tone which is assumed without anything being\nexplained.\n\n\"Matter is eternal and necessary; but its forms and its combinations are\ntransitory and contingent,\" etc. It is hard to comprehend, matter being,\naccording to our author, necessary, and without freedom, how there can\nbe anything contingent. By contingency, we understand that which may be,\nor may not be; but since all must be, of absolute necessity, every\nmanner of being, which he here very erroneously calls contingent, is as\nabsolutely of necessity as the being itself. Here again we are in a\nlabyrinth.\n\nWhen you venture to affirm that there is no God, that matter acts of\nitself by an eternal necessity, it must be demonstrated like a\nproposition in Euclid, otherwise you rest your system only on a perhaps.\nWhat a foundation for that which is most interesting to the human race!\n\n\"If man is by his nature forced to love his well-being, he is forced to\nlove the means of that well-being. It were useless, and perhaps unjust,\nto ask a man to be virtuous, if he cannot be so without making himself\nunhappy. So soon as vice makes him happy, he must love vice.\"\n\nThis maxim is yet more execrable in morals than the others are in\nphysics. Were it true that a man could not be virtuous without\nsuffering, he must be encouraged to suffer. Our author's proposition\nwould evidently be the ruin of society. Besides, how does he know that\nwe cannot be happy without having vices? On the contrary, is it not\nproved by experience that the satisfaction of having subdued them is a\nthousand times greater than the pleasure of yielding to them?--a\npleasure always empoisoned, a pleasure leading to woe. By subduing our\nvices, we acquire tranquillity, the consoling testimony of our\nconscience; by giving ourselves up to them, we lose our health, our\nquiet--we risk everything. Thus our author himself, in twenty passages,\nwishes all to be sacrificed to virtue; and he advances this proposition\nonly to give in his system a fresh proof of the necessity of being\nvirtuous.\n\n\"They who, with so many arguments, reject innate ideas should have\nperceived that this ineffable intelligence by which the world is said to\nbe guided, and of which our senses can determine neither the existence\nnor the qualities, is a being of reason.\"\n\nBut, truly, how does it follow from our having no innate ideas, that\nthere is no God? Is not this consequence absurd? Is there any\ncontradiction in saying that God gives us ideas through our senses? Is\nit not, on the contrary, most clearly evident, that if there is an\nAlmighty Being from whom we have life, we owe to him our ideas and our\nsenses as well as everything else? It should first have been proved\nthat God does not exist, which our author has not done, which he has not\neven attempted to do before this page of his tenth chapter.\n\nFearful of wearying the reader by an examination of all these detached\npassages, I will come at once to the foundation of the book, and the\nastonishing error upon which the author has built his system.\n\n_Story of the Eels on Which the System is Founded._\n\nAbout the year 1750 there was, in France, an English Jesuit called\nNeedham, disguised as a secular, who was then serving as tutor to the\nnephew of M. Dillon, archbishop of Toulouse. This man made experiments\nin natural philosophy, and especially in chemistry.\n\nHaving put some rye meal into well-corked bottles, and some boiled\nmutton gravy into other bottles, he thought that his mutton gravy and\nhis meal had given birth to eels, which again produced others; and that\nthus a race of eels was formed indifferently from the juice of meat, or\nfrom a grain of rye.\n\nA natural philosopher, of some reputation, had no doubt that this\nNeedham was a profound atheist. He concluded that, since eels could be\nmade of rye meal, men might be made of wheat flour; that nature and\nchemistry produce all; and that it was demonstrated that we may very\nwell dispense with an all-forming God.\n\nThis property of meal very easily deceived one who, unfortunately, was\nalready wandering amidst ideas that should make us tremble for the\nweakness of the human mind. He wanted to dig a hole in the centre of the\nearth, to see the central fire; to dissect Patagonians, that he might\nknow the nature of the soul; to cover the sick with pitch, to prevent\nthem from perspiring; to exalt his soul, that he might foretell the\nfuture. If to these things it were added, that he had the still greater\nunhappiness of seeking to oppress two of his brethren, it would do no\nhonor to atheism; it would only serve to make us look into ourselves\nwith confusion.\n\nIt is really strange that men, while denying a creator, should have\nattributed to themselves the power of creating eels.\n\nBut it is yet more deplorable that natural philosophers, of better\ninformation, adopted the Jesuit Needham's ridiculous system, and joined\nit to that of Maillet, who asserted that the ocean had formed the Alps\nand Pyrenees, and that men were originally porpoises, whose forked tails\nchanged in the course of time into thighs and legs. Such fancies are\nworthy to be placed with the eels formed by meal. We were assured, not\nlong ago, that at Brussels a hen had brought forth half a dozen young\nrabbits.\n\nThis transmutation of meal and gravy into eels was demonstrated to be as\nfalse and ridiculous as it really is, by M. Spallanzani, a rather better\nobserver than Needham. But the extravagance of so palpable an illusion\nwas evident without his observations.\n\nNeedham's eels soon followed the Brussels' hen.\n\nNevertheless, in 1768, the correct, elegant, and judicious translator of\nLucretius was so far led away, that he not only, in his notes to book\nviii. p. 361, repeats Needham's pretended experiments, but he also does\nall he can to establish their validity. Here, then, we have the new\nfoundation of the \"System of Nature.\"\n\nThe author, in the second chapter, thus expresses himself: \"After\nmoistening meal with water, and shutting up the mixture, it is found\nafter a little time, with the aid of the microscope, that it has\nproduced organized beings, of whose production the water and meal were\nbelieved to be incapable. Thus inanimate nature can pass into life,\nwhich is itself but an assemblage of motions.\"\n\nWere this unparalleled blunder true, yet, in rigorous reasoning, I do\nnot see how it would prove there is no God; I do not see why a supreme,\nintelligent, and mighty being, having formed the sun and the stars,\nmight not also deign to form animalculae without a germ. Here is no\ncontradiction in terms. A demonstrative proof that God has no existence\nmust be sought elsewhere; and most assuredly no person has ever found,\nor will ever find, one.\n\nOur author treats final causes with contempt, because the argument is\nhackneyed; but this much-contemned argument is that of Cicero and of\nNewton. This alone might somewhat lessen the confidence of atheists in\nthemselves. The number is not small of the sages who, observing the\ncourse of the stars, and the prodigious art that pervades the structure\nof animals and vegetables, have acknowledged a powerful hand working\nthese continual wonders.\n\nThe author asserts that matter, blind and without choice, produces\nintelligent animals. Produce, without intelligence, beings with\nintelligence! Is this conceivable? Is this system founded on the\nsmallest verisimilitude? An opinion so contradictory requires proofs no\nless astonishing than itself. The author gives us none; he never proves\nanything; but he affirms all that he advances. What chaos! what\nconfusion! and what temerity!\n\nSpinoza at least acknowledged an intelligence acting in this great\nwhole, which constituted nature: in this there was philosophy. But in\nthe new system, I am under the necessity of saying that there is none.\n\nMatter has extent, solidity, gravity, divisibility. I have all these as\nwell as this stone: but was a stone ever known to feel and think? If I\nam extended, solid, divisible, I owe it to matter. But I have sensations\nand thoughts--to what do I owe them? Not to water, not to mire--most\nlikely to something more powerful than myself. Solely to the combination\nof the elements, you will say. Then prove it to me. Show me plainly that\nmy intelligence cannot have been given to me by an intelligent cause. To\nthis are you reduced.\n\nOur author successively combats the God of the schoolmen--a God composed\nof discordant qualities; a God to whom, as to those of Homer, is\nattributed the passions of men; a God capricious, fickle, unreasonable,\nabsurd--but he cannot combat the God of the wise. The wise,\ncontemplating nature, admit an intelligent and supreme power. It is\nperhaps impossible for human reason, destitute of divine assistance, to\ngo a step further.\n\nOur author asks where this being resides; and, from the impossibility\nthat anyone, without being infinite, should tell where He resides, he\nconcludes that He does not exist. This is not philosophical; for we are\nnot, because we cannot tell where the cause of an effect is, to conclude\nthat there is no cause. If you had never seen a gunner, and you saw the\neffects of a battery of cannon, you would not say it acts entirely by\nitself. Shall it, then, only be necessary for you to say there is no\nGod, in order to be believed on your words?\n\nFinally, his great objection is, the woes and crimes of mankind--an\nobjection alike ancient and philosophical; an objection common, but\nfatal and terrible, and to which we find no answer but in the hope of a\nbetter life. Yet what is this hope? We can have no certainty in it but\nfrom reason. But I will venture to say, that when it is proved to us\nthat a vast edifice, constructed with the greatest art, is built by an\narchitect, whoever he may be, we ought to believe in that architect,\neven though the edifice should be stained with our blood, polluted by\nour crimes, and should crush us in its fall. I inquire not whether the\narchitect is a good one, whether I should be satisfied with his\nbuilding, whether I should quit it rather than stay in it, nor whether\nthose who are lodged in it for a few days, like myself, are content: I\nonly inquire if it be true that there is an architect, or if this house,\ncontaining so many fine apartments and so many wretched garrets, built\nitself.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\n_The Necessity of Believing in a Supreme Being._\n\nThe great, the interesting object, as it appears to me, is, not to argue\nmetaphysically, but to consider whether, for the common good of us\nmiserable and thinking animals, we should admit a rewarding and avenging\nGod, at once our restraint and consolation, or should reject this idea,\nand so abandon ourselves to calamity without hope, and crime without\nremorse.\n\nHobbes says that if, in a commonwealth, in which no God should be\nacknowledged, any citizen were to propose one, he would have him hanged.\n\nApparently, he meant by this strange exaggeration, a citizen who should\nseek to rule in the name of a god, a charlatan who would make himself a\ntyrant. We understand citizens, who, feeling the weakness of human\nnature, its perverseness, and its misery, seek some prop to support it\nthrough the languors and horrors of this life.\n\nFrom Job down to us, a great many men have cursed their existence; we\nhave, therefore, perpetual need of consolation and hope. Of these your\nphilosophy deprives us. The fable of Pandora was better; it left us\nhope--which you snatch from us! Philosophy, you say, furnishes no proof\nof happiness to come. No--but you have no demonstration of the contrary.\nThere may be in us an indestructible monad which feels and thinks,\nwithout our knowing anything at all of how that monad is made. Reason is\nnot absolutely opposed to this idea, though reason alone does not prove\nit. Has not this opinion a prodigious advantage over yours? Mine is\nuseful to mankind, yours is baneful; say of it what you will, it may\nencourage a Nero, an Alexander VI., or a Cartouche. Mine may restrain\nthem.\n\nMarcus Antoninus and Epictetus believed that their monad, of whatever\nkind it was, would be united to the monad of the Great Being; and they\nwere the most virtuous of men.\n\nIn the state of doubt in which we both are, I do not say to you with\nPascal, \"choose the safest.\" There is no safety in uncertainty. We are\nhere not to talk, but to examine; we must judge, and our judgment is not\ndetermined by our will. I do not propose to you to believe extravagant\nthings, in order to escape embarrassment. I do not say to you, \"Go to\nMecca, and instruct yourself by kissing the black stone, take hold of a\ncow's tail, muffle yourself in a scapulary, or be imbecile and fanatical\nto acquire the favor of the Being of beings.\" I say to you: \"Continue\nto cultivate virtue, to be beneficent, to regard all superstition with\nhorror, or with pity; but adore, with me, the design which is manifested\nin all nature, and consequently the Author of that design--the\nprimordial and final cause of all; hope with me that our monad, which\nreasons on the great eternal being, may be happy through that same great\nBeing.\" There is no contradiction in this. You can no more demonstrate\nits impossibility than I can demonstrate mathematically that it is so.\nIn metaphysics we scarcely reason on anything but probabilities. We are\nall swimming in a sea of which we have never seen the shore. Woe be to\nthose who fight while they swim! Land who can: but he that cries out to\nme, \"You swim in vain, there is no land,\" disheartens me, and deprives\nme of all my strength.\n\nWhat is the object of our dispute? To console our unhappy existence. Who\nconsoles it--you or I?\n\nYou yourself own, in some passages of your work, that the belief in a\nGod has withheld some men on the brink of crime; for me, this\nacknowledgment is enough. If this opinion had prevented but ten\nassassinations, but ten calumnies, but ten iniquitous judgments on the\nearth, I hold that the whole earth ought to embrace it.\n\nReligion, you say, has produced thousands of crimes--say, rather,\nsuperstition, which unhappily reigns over this globe; it is the most\ncruel enemy of the pure adoration due to the Supreme Being.\n\nLet us detest this monster which has constantly been tearing the bosom\nof its mother; they who combat it are benefactors to mankind: it is a\nserpent enclosing religion in its folds, its head must be bruised,\nwithout wounding the parent whom it infects and devours.\n\nYou fear, \"that, by adoring God, men would soon again become\nsuperstitious and fanatical.\" But is it not to be feared that in denying\nHim, they would abandon themselves to the most atrocious passions, and\nthe most frightful crimes? Between these two extremes is there not a\nvery rational mean? Where is the safe track between these two rocks? It\nis God, and wise laws.\n\nYou affirm that it is but one step from adoration to superstition: but\nthere is an infinity to well-constituted minds, and these are now very\nnumerous; they are at the head of nations; they influence public\nmanners, and, year by year, the fanaticism that overspread the earth is\nreceding in its detestable usurpations.\n\nI shall say a few words more in answer to what you say in page 223. \"If\nit be presumed that there are relations between man and this incredible\nbeing, then altars must be raised and presents must be made to him,\netc.; if no conception be formed of this being, then the matter must be\nreferred to priests, who....\" A great evil to be sure, to assemble in\nthe harvest season, and thank God for the bread that He has given us!\nWho says you should make presents to God? The idea is ridiculous! But\nwhere is the harm of employing a citizen, called an \"elder\" or \"priest,\"\nto render thanks to the Divinity in the name of the other\ncitizens?--provided the priest is not a Gregory VII. trampling on the\nheads of kings, nor an Alexander VI. polluting by incest his daughter,\nthe offspring of a rape, and, by the aid of his bastard son, poisoning\nand assassinating almost all the neighboring princes: provided that, in\na parish, this priest is not a knave, picking the pockets of the\npenitents he confesses, and using the money to seduce the girls he\ncatechises; provided that this priest is not a Letellier, putting the\nwhole kingdom in combustion by rogueries worthy of the pillory, nor a\nWarburton, violating the laws of society, making public the private\npapers of a member of parliament in order to ruin him, and calumniating\nwhosoever is not of his opinion. The latter cases are rare. The\nsacerdotal state is a curb which forces to good behavior.\n\nA stupid priest excites contempt; a bad priest inspires horror; a good\npriest, mild, pious, without superstition, charitable, tolerant, is one\nwho ought to be cherished and revered. You dread abuses--so do I. Let us\nunite to prevent them; but let us not condemn the usage when it is\nuseful to society, when it is not perverted by fanaticism, or by\nfraudulent wickedness.\n\nI have one very important thing to tell you. I am persuaded that you are\nin a great error, but I am equally convinced that you are honest in your\nself-delusion. You would have men virtuous even without a God, although\nyou have unfortunately said that \"so soon as vice renders man happy, he\nmust love vice\"--a frightful proposition, which your friends should have\nprevailed on you to erase. Everywhere else you inspire probity. This\nphilosophical dispute will be only between you and a few philosophers\nscattered over Europe; the rest of the earth will not even hear of it.\nThe people do not read us. If some theologian were to seek to persecute\nus, he would be impudent as well as wicked; he would but serve to\nconfirm you, and to make new atheists.\n\nYou are wrong: but the Greeks did not persecute Epicurus; the Romans did\nnot persecute Lucretius. You are wrong: but your genius and your virtue\nmust be respected, while you are refuted with all possible strength.\n\nIn my opinion, the finest homage that can be rendered to God is to stand\nforward in His defence without anger; as the most unworthy portrait that\ncan be drawn of Him is to paint Him vindictive and furious. He is truth\nitself; and truth is without passion. To be a disciple of God is to\nannounce Him as of a mild heart and of an unalterable mind.\n\nI think, with you, that fanaticism is a monster a thousand times more\ndangerous than philosophical atheism. Spinoza did not commit a single\nbad action. Ch\u00e2tel and Ravaillac, both devotees, assassinated Henry IV.\n\nThe atheist of the closet is almost always a quiet philosopher, while\nthe fanatic is always turbulent: but the court atheist, the atheistical\nprince, might be the scourge of mankind. Borgia and his like have done\nalmost as much harm as the fanatics of M\u00fcnster and of the C\u00e9vennes. I\nsay the fanatics on both sides. The misfortune is, that atheists of the\ncloset make atheists of the court. It was Chiron who brought up\nAchilles; he fed him with lion's marrow. Achilles will one day drag\nHector's body round the walls of Troy, and immolate twelve captives to\nhis vengeance.\n\nGod keep us from an abominable priest who should hew a king in pieces\nwith his sacrificing knife, as also from him who, with a helmet on his\nhead and a cuirass on his back, at the age of seventy, should dare to\nsign with his three bloody fingers the ridiculous excommunication of a\nking of France! and from.... and from....\n\nBut also, may God preserve us from a choleric and barbarous despot, who,\nnot believing in a God, should be his own God, who should render himself\nunworthy of his sacred trust by trampling on the duties which that trust\nimposes, who should remorselessly sacrifice to his passions, his\nfriends, his relatives, his servants, and his people. These two tigers,\nthe one shorn, the other crowned are equally to be feared. By what means\nshall we muzzle them?....\n\nIf the idea of a God has made a Titus or a Trajan, an Antonine or an\nAurelius, and those great Chinese emperors, whose memory is so dear to\nthe second of the most ancient and most extensive empires in the world,\nthese examples are sufficient for my cause--and my cause is that of all\nmankind.\n\nI do not believe that there is in all Europe one statesman, one man at\nall versed in the affairs of the world, who has not the most profound\ncontempt for the legends with which we have been inundated, even more\nthan we now are with pamphlets. If religion no longer gives birth to\ncivil wars, it is to philosophy alone that we are indebted, theological\ndisputes beginning to be regarded in much the same manner as the\nquarrels of Punch and Judy at the fair. A usurpation, alike odious and\nridiculous, founded upon fraud on one side and stupidity on the other,\nis every instant undermined by reason, which is establishing its reign.\nThe bull \"_In c\u00e6na Domini_\"--that masterpiece of insolence and folly, no\nlonger dares appear, even in Rome. If a regiment of monks makes the\nleast evolution against the laws of the state, it is immediately broken.\nBut, because the Jesuits have been expelled, must we also expel God? On\nthe contrary, we must love Him the more.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\nIn the reign of Arcadius, Logomachos, a theologue of Constantinople,\nwent into Scythia and stopped at the foot of Mount Caucasus in the\nfruitful plains of Zephirim, on the borders of Colchis. The good old man\nDondindac was in his great hall between his large sheepfold and his\nextensive barn; he was on his knees with his wife, his five sons and\nfive daughters, his kinsmen and servants; and all were singing the\npraises of God, after a light repast. \"What are you doing, idolater?\"\nsaid Logomachos to him. \"I am not an idolater,\" said Dondindac. \"You\nmust be an idolater,\" said Logomachos, \"for you are not a Greek. Come,\ntell me what you were singing in your barbarous Scythian jargon?\" \"All\ntongues are alike to the ears of God,\" answered the Scythian; \"we were\nsinging His praises.\" \"Very extraordinary!\" returned the theologue; \"a\nScythian family praying to God without having been instructed by us!\" He\nsoon entered into conversation with the Scythian Dondindac; for the\ntheologue knew a little Scythian, and the other a little Greek. This\nconversation has been found in a manuscript preserved in the library of\nConstantinople.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nLet us see if you know your catechism. Why do you pray to God?\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nBecause it is just to adore the Supreme Being, from whom we have\neverything.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nVery fair for a barbarian. And what do you ask of him?\n\nDONDINDAC\n\nI thank Him for the blessings I enjoy, and even for the trials which He\nsends me; but I am careful to ask nothing of Him; for He knows our wants\nbetter than we do; besides, I should be afraid of asking for fair\nweather while my neighbor was asking for rain.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nAh! I thought he would say some nonsense or other. Let us begin farther\nback. Barbarian, who told you that there is a God?\n\nDONDINDAC\n\nAll nature tells me.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nThat is not enough. What idea have you of God?\n\nDONDINDAC\n\nThe idea of my Creator; my master, who will reward me if I do good, and\npunish me if I do evil.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nTrifles! trash! Let us come to some essentials. Is God _infinite\nsecundum quid_, or according to essence?\n\nDONDINDAC\n\nI don't understand you.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nBrute beast! Is God in one place, or in every place?\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nI know not ... just as you please.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nIgnoramus!... Can He cause that which has not been to have been, or that\na stick shall not have two ends? Does He see the future as future, or as\npresent? How does He draw being from nothing, and how reduce being to\nnothing?\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nI have never examined these things.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nWhat a stupid fellow! Well, I must come nearer to your level.... Tell\nme, friend, do you think that matter can be eternal?\n\nDONDINDAC\n\nWhat matters it to me whether it exists from all eternity or not? I do\nnot exist from all eternity. God must still be my Master. He has given\nme the nature of justice; it is my duty to follow it: I seek not to be a\nphilosopher; I wish to be a man.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nOne has a great deal of trouble with these block-heads. Let us proceed\nstep by step. What is God?\n\nDONDINDAC\n\nMy sovereign, my judge, my father.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nThat is not what I ask. What is His nature?\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nTo be mighty and good.\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nBut is He corporeal or spiritual?\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nHow should I know that?\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nWhat; do you not know what a spirit is?\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nNot in the least. Of what service would that knowledge be to me? Should\nI be more just? Should I be a better husband, a better father, a better\nmaster, or a better citizen?\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nYou must absolutely be taught what a spirit is. It is--it is--it is--I\nwill say what another time.\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nI much fear that you will tell me rather what it is not than what it is.\nPermit me, in turn, to ask you one question. Some time ago, I saw one of\nyour temples: why do you paint God with a long beard?\n\nLOGOMACHOS.\n\nThat is a very difficult question, and requires preliminary\ninstruction.\n\nDONDINDAC.\n\nBefore I receive your instruction, I must relate to you a thing which\none day happened to me. I had just built a closet at the end of my\ngarden, when I heard a mole arguing thus with an ant: \"Here is a fine\nfabric,\" said the mole; \"it must have been a very powerful mole that\nperformed this work.\" \"You jest,\" returned the ant; \"the architect of\nthis edifice is an ant of mighty genius.\" From that time I resolved\nnever to dispute.\n\n\n\n\nGOOD--THE SOVEREIGN GOOD, A CHIMERA.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nHappiness is an abstract idea composed of certain pleasurable\nsensations. Plato, who wrote better than he reasoned, conceived the\nnotion of his world in archetype; that is, his original world--of his\ngeneral ideas of the beautiful, the good, the orderly, and the just, as\nif there had existed eternal beings, called order, good, beauty, and\njustice; whence might be derived the feeble copies exhibited here below\nof the just, the beautiful, and the good.\n\nIt is, then, in consequence of his suggestions that philosophers have\noccupied themselves in seeking for the sovereign good, as chemists seek\nfor the philosopher's stone; but the sovereign good has no more\nexistence than the sovereign square, or the sovereign crimson: there is\nthe crimson color, and there are squares; but there is no general\nexistence so denominated. This chimerical manner of reasoning was for a\nlong time the bane of philosophy.\n\nAnimals feel pleasure in performing all the functions for which they are\ndestined. The happiness which poetical fancy has imagined would be an\nuninterrupted series of pleasures; but such a series would be\nincompatible with our organs and our destination. There is great\npleasure in eating, drinking, and connubial endearments; but it is clear\nthat if a man were always eating, or always in the full ecstasy of\nenjoyment, his organs would be incapable of sustaining it: it is further\nevident that he would be unable to fulfil the destinies he was born to,\nand that, in the case supposed, the human race would absolutely perish\nthrough pleasure.\n\nTo pass constantly and without interruption from one pleasure to another\nis also a chimera. The woman who has conceived must go through\nchildbirth, which is a pain; the man is obliged to cleave wood and hew\nstone, which is not a pleasure.\n\nIf the name of happiness is meant to be applied to some pleasures which\nare diffused over human life, there is in fact, we must admit,\nhappiness. If the name attaches only to one pleasure always permanent,\nor a continued although varied range of delicious enjoyment, then\nhappiness belongs not to this terraqueous globe. Go and seek for it\nelsewhere.\n\nIf we make happiness consist in any particular situation that a man may\nbe in, as for instance, a situation of wealth, power, or fame, we are no\nless mistaken. There are some scavengers who are happier than some\nsovereigns. Ask Cromwell whether he was more happy when he was lord\nprotector of England, than when, in his youthful days, he enjoyed\nhimself at a tavern; he will probably tell you in answer, that the\nperiod of his usurpation was not the period most productive of\npleasures. How many plain or even ugly country women are more happy than\nwere Helen and Cleopatra.\n\nWe must here however make one short remark; that when we say such a\nparticular man is probably happier than some other; that a young\nmuleteer has advantages very superior to those of Charles V.; that a\ndressmaker has more enjoyment than a princess, we should adhere to the\nprobability of the case. There is certainly every appearance that a\nmuleteer, in full health, must have more pleasure than Charles the\nFifth, laid up with the gout; but nevertheless it may also be, that\nCharles, on his crutches, revolves in his mind with such ecstasy the\nfacts of his holding a king of France and a pope prisoners, that his lot\nis absolutely preferable to that of the young and vigorous muleteer.\n\nIt certainly belongs to God alone, to a being capable of seeing through\nall hearts, to decide which is the happiest man. There is only one case\nin which a person can affirm that his actual state is worse or better\nthan that of his neighbor; this case is that of existing rivalship, and\nthe moment that of victory.\n\nI will suppose that Archimedes has an assignation at night with his\nmistress. Nomentanus has the same assignation at the same hour.\nArchimedes presents himself at the door, and it is shut in his face; but\nit is opened to his rival, who enjoys an excellent supper, which he\nenlivens by his repeated sallies of wit upon Archimedes, and after the\nconclusion of which he withdraws to still higher enjoyments, while the\nother remains exposed in the street to all the pelting of a pitiless\nstorm. There can be no doubt that Nomentanus has a right to say: \"I am\nmore happy to-night than Archimedes: I have more pleasure than he\"; but\nit is necessary, in order to admit the truth and justness of the\ninference of the successful competitors in his own favor, to suppose\nthat Archimedes is thinking only about the loss of his good supper,\nabout being despised and deceived by a beautiful woman, about being\nsupplanted by his rival, and annoyed by the tempest; for, if the\nphilosopher in the street should be calmly reflecting that his soul\nought to be above being discomposed by a strumpet or a storm, if he\nshould be absorbed in a profound and interesting problem, and if he\nshould discover the proportions between the cylinder and the sphere, he\nmay experience a pleasure a hundred times superior to that of\nNomentanus.\n\nIt is only therefore in the single case of actual pleasure and actual\npain, and without a reference to anything else whatever, that a\ncomparison between any two individuals can be properly made. It is\nunquestionable that he who enjoys the society of his mistress is\nhappier at the moment than his scorned rival deploring over his\nmisfortune. A man in health, supping on a fat partridge, is undoubtedly\nhappier at the time than another under the torment of the colic; but we\ncannot safely carry our inferences farther; we cannot estimate the\nexistence of one man against that of another; we possess no accurate\nbalance for weighing desires and sensations.\n\nWe began this article with Plato and his sovereign good; we will\nconclude it with Solon and the saying of his which has been so highly\ncelebrated, that \"we ought to pronounce no man happy before his death.\"\nThis maxim, when examined into, will be found nothing more than a\npuerile remark, just like many other apothegms consecrated by their\nantiquity. The moment of death has nothing in common with the lot\nexperienced by any man in life; a man may perish by a violent and\nignominious death, and yet, up to that moment, may have enjoyed all the\npleasures of which human nature is susceptible. It is very possible and\nvery common for a happy man to cease to be so; no one can doubt it; but\nhe has not the less had his happy moments.\n\nWhat, then, can Solon's expression strictly and fairly mean? that a man\nhappy to-day is not certain of being so to-morrow! In this case it is a\ntruth so incontestable and trivial that, not merely is it not worthy of\nbeing elevated into a maxim, but it is not worthy delivering at all.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nWell-being is a rare possession. May not the sovereign good in this\nworld be considered as a sovereign chimera? The Greek philosophers\ndiscussed at great length, according to their usual practice, this\ncelebrated question. The reader will, probably, compare them to just so\nmany mendicants reasoning about the philosopher's stone.\n\nThe sovereign good! What an expression! It might as well have been\nasked: What is the sovereign blue, or the sovereign ragout, or the\nsovereign walk, or the sovereign reading?\n\nEvery one places his good where he can, and has as much of it as he can,\nin his own way, and in very scanty measure. Castor loved horses; his\ntwin brother, to try a fall--\n\n_Quid dem? quid non dem? renuis tu quod jubet alter.... Castor gaudet\nequis, ovo prognatus eodem Pugnis, etc._\n\nThe greatest good is that which delights us so powerfully as to render\nus incapable of feeling anything else; as the greatest evil is that\nwhich goes so far as to deprive us of all feeling. These are the two\nextremes of human nature, and these moments are short. Neither extreme\ndelight nor extreme torture can last a whole life. The sovereign good\nand the sovereign evil are nothing more than chimeras.\n\nWe all know the beautiful fable of Crantor. He introduces upon the stage\nat the Olympic games, Wealth, Pleasure, Health, and Virtue. Each claims\nthe apple. Wealth says, I am the sovereign good, for with me all goods\nare purchased. Pleasure says, the apple belongs to me, for it is only on\nmy account that wealth is desired. Health asserts, that without her\nthere can be no pleasure, and wealth is useless. Finally, Virtue states\nthat she is superior to the other three, because, although possessed of\ngold, pleasures, and health, a man may make himself very contemptible by\nmisconduct. The apple was conferred on Virtue.\n\nThe fable is very ingenious; it would be still more so if Crantor had\nsaid that the sovereign good consists in the combination of the four\nrivals, Virtue, Health, Wealth, and Pleasure; but this fable neither\ndoes, nor can, resolve the absurd question about the sovereign good.\nVirtue is not a good; it is a duty. It is of a different nature; of a\nsuperior order. It has nothing to do with painful or with agreeable\nsensations. A virtuous man, laboring under stone and gout, without aid,\nwithout friends, destitute of necessaries, persecuted, and chained down\nto the floor by a voluptuous tyrant who enjoys good health, is very\nwretched; and his insolent persecutor, caressing a new mistress on his\nbed of purple, is very happy. Say, if you please, that the persecuted\nsage is preferable to the persecuting profligate; say that you admire\nthe one and detest the other; but confess that the sage in chains is\nscarcely less than mad with rage and pain; if he does not himself admit\nthat he is so, he completely deceives you; he is a charlatan.\n\n\n\n\nGOOD.\n\n_Of Good and Evil, Physical and Moral._\n\n\nWe here treat of a question of the greatest difficulty and importance.\nIt relates to the whole of human life. It would be of much greater\nconsequence to find a remedy for our evils; but no remedy is to be\ndiscovered, and we are reduced to the sad necessity of tracing out their\norigin. With respect to this origin, men have disputed ever since the\ndays of Zoroaster, and in all probability they disputed on the same\nsubject long before him. It was to explain the mixture of good and evil\nthat they conceived the idea of two principles--Oromazes, the author of\nlight, and Arimanes, the author of darkness; the box of Pandora; the two\nvessels of Jupiter; the apple eaten by Eve; and a variety of other\nsystems. The first of dialecticians, although not the first of\nphilosophers, the illustrious Bayle, has clearly shown how difficult it\nis for Christians who admit one only God, perfectly good and just, to\nreply to the objections of the Manich\u00e6ans who acknowledge two Gods--one\ngood, and the other evil.\n\nThe foundation of the system of the Manich\u00e6ans, with all its antiquity,\nwas not on that account more reasonable. Lemmas, susceptible of the most\nclear and rigid geometrical demonstrations, should alone have induced\nany men to the adoption of such a theorem as the following: \"There are\ntwo necessary beings, both supreme, both infinite, both equally\npowerful, both in conflict with each other, yet, finally, agreeing to\npour out upon this little planet--one, all the treasures of his\nbeneficence, and the other all the stores of his malice.\" It is in vain\nthat the advocates of this hypothesis attempt to explain by it the cause\nof good and evil: even the fable of Prometheus explains it better. Every\nhypothesis which only serves to assign a reason for certain things,\nwithout being, in addition to that recommendation, established upon\nindisputable principles, ought invariably to be rejected.\n\nThe Christian doctors--independently of revelation, which makes\neverything credible--explain the origin of good-and evil no better than\nthe partner-gods of Zoroaster.\n\nWhen they say God is a tender father, God is a just king; when they add\nthe idea of infinity to that of love, that kindness, that justice which\nthey observe in the best of their own species, they soon fall into the\nmost palpable and dreadful contradictions. How could this sovereign, who\npossessed in infinite fulness the principle or quality of human justice,\nhow could this father, entertaining an infinite affection for his\nchildren; how could this being, infinitely powerful, have formed\ncreatures in His own likeness, to have them immediately afterwards\ntempted by a malignant demon, to make them yield to that temptation to\ninflict death on those whom He had created immortal, and to overwhelm\ntheir posterity with calamities and crimes! We do not here speak of a\ncontradiction still more revolting to our feeble reason. How could God,\nwho ransomed the human race by the death of His only Son; or rather, how\ncould God, who took upon Himself the nature of man, and died on the\ncross to save men from perdition, consign over to eternal tortures\nnearly the whole of that human race for whom He died? Certainly, when we\nconsider this system merely as philosophers--without the aid of\nfaith--we must consider it as absolutely monstrous and abominable. It\nmakes of God either pure and unmixed malice, and that malice infinite,\nwhich created thinking beings, on purpose to devote them to eternal\nmisery, or absolute impotence and imbecility, in not being able to\nforesee or to prevent the torments of his offspring.\n\nBut the eternity of misery is not the subject of this article, which\nrelates properly only to the good and evil of the present life. None of\nthe doctors of the numerous churches of Christianity, all of which\nadvocate the doctrine we are here contesting, have been able to convince\na single sage.\n\nWe cannot conceive how Bayle, who managed the weapons of dialectics with\nsuch admirable strength and dexterity, could content himself with\nintroducing in a dispute a Manich\u00e6an, a Calvinist, a Molinist, and a\nSocinian. Why did he not introduce, as speaking, a reasonable and\nsensible man? Why did not Bayle speak in his own person? He would have\nsaid far better what we shall now venture to say ourselves. A father\nwho kills his children is a monster; a king who conducts his subjects\ninto a snare, in order to obtain a pretext for delivering them up to\npunishment and torture, is an execrable tyrant. If you conceive God to\npossess the same kindness which you require in a father, the same\njustice that you require in a king, no possible resource exists by\nwhich, if we may use the expression, God can be exculpated; and by\nallowing Him to possess infinite wisdom and infinite goodness you, in\nfact, render Him infinitely odious; you excite a wish that He had no\nexistence; you furnish arms to the atheist, who will ever be justified\nin triumphantly remarking to you: Better by far is it to deny a God\naltogether, than impute to Him such conduct as you would punish, to the\nextremity of the law, in men.\n\nWe begin then with observing, that it is unbecoming in us to ascribe to\nGod human attributes. It is not for us to make God after our own\nlikeness. Human justice, human kindness, and human wisdom can never be\napplied or made suitable to Him. We may extend these attributes in our\nimagination as far as we are able, to infinity; they will never be other\nthan human qualities with boundaries perpetually or indefinitely\nremoved; it would be equally rational to attribute to Him infinite\nsolidity, infinite motion, infinite roundness, or infinite divisibility.\nThese attributes can never be His.\n\nPhilosophy informs us that this universe must have been arranged by a\nBeing incomprehensible, eternal, and existing by His own nature; but,\nonce again, we must observe that philosophy gives us no information on\nthe subject of the attributes of that nature. We know what He is not,\nand not what He is.\n\nWith respect to God, there is neither good nor evil, physically or\nmorally. What is physical or natural evil? Of all evils, the greatest,\nundoubtedly, is death. Let us for a moment consider whether man could\nhave been immortal.\n\nIn order that a body like ours should have been indissoluble,\nimperishable, it would have been necessary that it should not be\ncomposed of parts; that it--should not be born; that it should have\nneither nourishment nor growth; that it should experience no change. Let\nany one examine each of these points; and let every reader extend their\nnumber according to his own suggestions, and it will be seen that the\nproposition of an immortal man is a contradiction.\n\nIf our organized body were immortal, that of mere animals would be so\nlikewise; but it is evident that, in the course of a very short time,\nthe whole globe would, in this case, be incompetent to supply\nnourishment to those animals; those immortal beings which exist only in\nconsequence of renovation by food, would then perish for want of the\nmeans of such renovation. All this involves contradiction. We might make\nvarious other observations on the subject, but every reader who deserves\nthe name of a philosopher will perceive that death was necessary to\neverything that is born; that death can neither be an error on the part\nof God, nor an evil, an injustice, nor a chastisement to man.\n\nMan, born to die, can no more be exempt from pain than from death. To\nprevent an organized substance endowed with feeling from ever\nexperiencing pain, it would be necessary that all the laws of nature\nshould be changed; that matter should no longer be divisible; that it\nshould neither have weight, action, nor force; that a rock might fall on\nan animal without crushing it; and that water should have no power to\nsuffocate, or fire to burn it. Man, impassive, then, is as much a\ncontradiction as man immortal.\n\nThis feeling of pain was indispensable to stimulate us to\nself-preservation, and to impart to us such pleasures as are consistent\nwith those general laws by which the whole system of nature is bound and\nregulated.\n\nIf we never experienced pain, we should be every moment injuring\nourselves without perceiving it. Without the excitement of uneasiness,\nwithout some sensation of pain, we should perform no function of life;\nshould never communicate it, and should be destitute of all the\npleasures of it. Hunger is the commencement of pain which compels us to\ntake our required nourishment. Ennui is a pain which stimulates to\nexercise and occupation. Love itself is a necessity which becomes\npainful until it is met with corresponding attachment. In a word, every\ndesire is a want, a necessity, a beginning of pain. Pain, therefore, is\nthe mainspring of all the actions of animated beings. Every animal\npossessed of feeling must be liable to pain, if matter is divisible; and\npain was as necessary as death. It is not, therefore, an error of\nProvidence, nor a result of malignity, nor a creature of imagination.\nHad we seen only brutes suffer, we should, for that, never have accused\nnature of harshness or cruelty; had we, while ourselves were impassive,\nwitnessed the lingering and torturing death of a dove, when a kite\nseized upon it with his murderous talons, and leisurely devouring its\nbleeding limbs, doing in that no more than we do ourselves, we should\nnot express the slightest murmur of dissatisfaction. But what claim have\nwe for an exemption of our own bodies from such dismemberment and\ntorture beyond what might be urged in behalf of brutes? Is it that we\npossess an intellect superior to theirs? But what has intellect to do\nwith the divisibility of matter? Can a few ideas more or less in a brain\nprevent fire from burning, or a rock from crushing us?\n\nMoral evil, upon which so many volumes have been written is, in fact,\nnothing but natural evil. This moral evil is a sensation of pain\noccasioned by one organized being to another. Rapine, outrage, etc., are\nevil only because they produce evil. But as we certainly are unable to\ndo any evil, or occasion any pain to God, it is evident by the light of\nreason--for faith is altogether a different principle--that in relation\nto the Supreme Being and as affecting Him, moral evil can have no\nexistence.\n\nAs the greatest of natural evils is death, the greatest of moral evils\nis, unquestionably, war. All crimes follow in its train; false and\ncalumnious declarations, perfidious violation of the treaties, pillage,\ndevastation, pain, and death under every hideous and appalling form.\n\nAll this is physical evil in relation to man, but can no more be\nconsidered moral evil in relation to God than the rage of dogs worrying\nand destroying one another. It is a mere common-place idea, and as false\nas it is feeble, that men are the only species that slaughter and\ndestroy one another. Wolves, dogs, cats, cocks, quails, all war with\ntheir respective species: house spiders devour one another; the male\nuniversally fights for the female. This warfare is the result of the\nlaws of nature, of principles in their very blood and essence; all is\nconnected; all is necessary.\n\nNature has granted man about two and twenty years of life, one with\nanother; that is, of a thousand children born in the same month, some of\nwhom have died in their infancy, and the rest lived respectively to the\nage of thirty, forty, fifty, and even eighty years, or perhaps beyond,\nthe average calculation will allow to each the above-mentioned number of\ntwenty-two years.\n\nHow can it affect the Deity, whether a man die in battle or of a fever?\nWar destroys fewer human beings than smallpox. The scourge of war is\ntransient, that of smallpox reigns with paramount and permanent fatality\nthroughout the earth, followed by a numerous train of others; and taking\ninto consideration the combined, and nearly regular operation of the\nvarious causes which sweep mankind from the stage of life, the allowance\nof two and twenty years for every individual will be found in general to\nbe tolerably correct.\n\nMan, you say, offends God by killing his neighbor; if this be the case,\nthe directors of nations must indeed be tremendous criminals; for, while\neven invoking God to their assistance, they urge on to slaughter immense\nmultitudes of their fellow-beings, for contemptible interests which it\nwould show infinitely more policy, as well as humanity, to abandon. But\nhow--to reason merely as philosophers--how do they offend God? Just as\nmuch as tigers and crocodiles offend him. It is, surely, not God whom\nthey harass and torment, but their neighbor. It is only against man that\nman can be guilty. A highway robber can commit no robbery on God. What\ncan it signify to the eternal Deity, whether a few pieces of yellow\nmetal are in the hands of Jerome, or of Bonaventure? We have necessary\ndesires, necessary passions, and necessary laws for the restraint of\nboth; and while on this our ant-hill, during the little day of our\nexistence, we are engaged in eager and destructive contest about a\nstraw, the universe moves, on in its majestic course, directed by\neternal and unalterable laws, which comprehend in their operation the\natom that we call the earth.\n\n\n\n\nGOSPEL.\n\n\nIt is a matter of high importance to ascertain which are the first\ngospels. It is a decided truth, whatever Abbadie may assert to the\ncontrary, that none of the first fathers of the Church, down to Iren\u00e6us\ninclusively, have quoted any passage from the four gospels with which we\nare acquainted. And to this it may be added, that the Alogi, the\nTheodosians, constantly rejected the gospel of St. John, and always\nspoke of it with contempt; as we are informed by St. Epiphanius in his\nthirty-fourth homily. Our enemies further observe that the most ancient\nfathers do not merely forbear to quote anything from our gospels, but\nrelate many passages or events which are to be found only in the\napocryphal gospels rejected by the canon.\n\nSt. Clement, for example, relates that our Lord, having been questioned\nconcerning the time when His kingdom would come, answered, \"That will be\nwhen what is without shall Resemble that within, and when there shall be\nneither male nor female.\" But we must admit that this passage does not\noccur in either of our gospels. There are innumerable other instances to\nprove this truth; which may be seen in the \"Critical Examination\" of M.\nFr\u00e9ret, perpetual secretary of the Academy of Belles Lettres at Paris.\n\nThe learned Fabricius took the pains to collect the ancient gospels\nwhich time has spared; that of James appears to be the first; and it is\ncertain that it still possesses considerable authority with some of the\nOriental churches. It is called \"the first gospel.\" There remain the\npassion and the resurrection, pretended to have been written by\nNicodemus. This gospel of Nicodemus is quoted by St. Justin and\nTertullian. It is there we find the names of our Lord's accusers--Annas,\nCaiaphas, Soumas, Dathan, Gamaliel, Judas, Levi, and Napthali; the\nattention and particularity with which these names are given confer upon\nthe work an appearance of truth and sincerity. Our adversaries have\ninferred that as so many false gospels were forged, which at first were\nrecognized as true, those which constitute at the present day the\nfoundation of our own faith may have been forged also. They dwell much\non the circumstance of the first heretics suffering even death itself in\ndefence of these apocryphal gospels. There have evidently been, they\nsay, forgers, seducers, and men who have been seduced by them into\nerror, and died in defence of that error; it is, at least, therefore, no\nproof of the truth of Christianity that it has had its martyrs who have\ndied for it.\n\nThey add further, that the martyrs were never asked the question,\nwhether they believed the gospel of John or the gospel of James. The\nPagans could not put a series of interrogatories about books with which\nthey were not at all acquainted; the magistrates punished some\nChristians very unjustly, as disturbers of the public peace, but they\nnever put particular questions to them in relation to our four gospels.\nThese books were not known to the Romans before the time of Diocletian,\nand even towards the close of Diocletian's reign, they had scarcely\nobtained any publicity. It was deemed in a Christian a crime both\nabominable and unpardonable to show a gospel to any Gentile. This is so\ntrue, that you cannot find the word \"gospel\" in any profane author\nwhatever.\n\nThe rigid Socinians, influenced by the above-mentioned or other\ndifficulties, do not consider our four divine gospels in any other light\nthan as works of clandestine introduction, fabricated about a century\nafter the time of Jesus Christ, and carefully concealed from the\nGentiles for another century beyond that; works, as they express it, of\na coarse and vulgar character, written by coarse and vulgar men, who,\nfor a long time confined their discourses and appeals to the mere\npopulace of their party. We will not here repeat the blasphemies uttered\nby them. This sect, although considerably diffused and numerous, is at\npresent as much concealed as were the first gospels. The difficulty of\nconverting them is so much the greater, in consequence of their\nobstinately refusing to listen to anything but mere reason. The other\nChristians contend against them only with the weapons of the Holy\nScripture: it is consequently impossible that, being thus always in\nhostility with respect to principles, they should ever unite in their\nconclusions.\n\nWith respect to ourselves, let us ever remain inviolably attached to our\nfour gospels, in union with the infallible church. Let us reject the\nfive gospels which it has rejected; let us not inquire why our Lord\nJesus Christ permitted five false gospels, five false histories of his\nlife to be written; and let us submit to our spiritual pastors and\ndirectors, who alone on earth are enlightened by the Holy Spirit.\n\nInto what a gross error did Abbadie fall when he considered as authentic\nthe letters so ridiculously forged, from Pilate to Tiberius, and the\npretended proposal of Tiberius to place Jesus Christ in the number of\nthe gods. If Abbadie is a bad critic and a contemptible reasoner, is the\nChurch on that account less enlightened? are we the less bound to\nbelieve it? Shall we at all the less submit to it?\n\n\n\n\nGOVERNMENT.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe pleasure of governing must certainly be exquisite, if we may judge\nfrom the vast numbers who are eager to be concerned in it. We have many\nmore books on government than there are monarchs in the world. Heaven\npreserve me from making any attempt here to give instruction to kings\nand their noble ministers--their valets, confessors, or financiers. I\nunderstand nothing about the matter; I have the profoundest respect and\nreverence for them all. It belongs only to Mr. Wilkes, with his English\nbalance, to weigh the merits of those who are at the head of the human\nrace. It would, besides, be exceedingly strange if, with three or four\nthousand volumes on the subject of government, with Machiavelli, and\nBossuet's \"Policy of the Holy Scripture,\" with the \"General Financier,\"\nthe \"Guide to Finances,\" the \"Means of Enriching a State,\" etc., there\ncould possibly be a single person living who was not perfectly\nacquainted with the duties of kings and the science of government.\n\nProfessor Puffendorf, or, as perhaps we should rather say, Baron\nPuffendorf, says that King David, having sworn never to attempt the life\nof Shimei, his privy counsellor, did not violate his oath when,\naccording to the Jewish history, he instructed his son Solomon to get\nhim assassinated, \"because David had only engaged that he himself would\nnot kill Shimei.\" The baron, who rebukes so sharply the mental\nreservations of the Jesuits, allows David, in the present instance, to\nentertain one which would not be particularly palatable to privy\ncounsellors.\n\nLet us consider the words of Bossuet in his \"Policy of the Holy\nScripture,\" addressed to Monseigneur the Dauphin. \"Thus we see royalty\nestablished according to the order of succession in the house of David\nand Solomon, and the throne of David is secured forever--although, by\nthe way, that same little joint-stool called a 'throne,' instead of\nbeing secured forever, lasted, in fact, only a very short time.\" By\nvirtue of this law, the eldest son was to succeed, to the exclusion of\nhis brothers, and on this account Adonijah, who was the eldest, said to\nBathsheba, the mother of Solomon, \"Thou knowest that the kingdom was\nmine, and all Israel had recognized my right; but the Lord hath\ntransferred the kingdom to my brother Solomon.\" The right of Adonijah\nwas incontestable. Bossuet expressly admits this at the close of this\narticle. \"The Lord has transferred\" is only a usual phrase, which means,\nI have lost my property or right, I have been deprived of my right.\nAdonijah was the issue of a lawful wife; the birth of his younger\nbrother was the fruit of a double crime.\n\n\"Unless, then,\" says Bossuet, \"something extraordinary occurred, the\neldest was to succeed.\" But the something extraordinary, in the present\ninstance, which prevented it was, that Solomon, the issue of a marriage\narising out of a double adultery and a murder, procured the\nassassination, at the foot of the altar, of his elder brother and his\nlawful king, whose rights were supported by the high priest Abiathar and\nthe chief commander Joab. After this we must acknowledge that it is more\ndifficult than some seem to imagine to take lessons on the rights of\npersons, and on the true system of government from the Holy Scriptures,\nwhich were first given to the Jews, and afterwards to ourselves, for\npurposes of a far higher nature.\n\n\"The preservation of the people is the supreme law.\" Such is the\nfundamental maxim of nations; but in all civil wars the safety of the\npeople is made to consist in slaughtering a number of the citizens. In\nall foreign wars, the safety of a people consists in killing their\nneighbors, and taking possession of their property! It is difficult to\nperceive in this a particularly salutary \"right of nations,\" and a\ngovernment eminently favorable to liberty of thought and social\nhappiness.\n\nThere are geometrical figures exceedingly regular and complete in their\nkind; arithmetic is perfect; many trades or manufactures are carried on\nin a manner constantly uniform and excellent; but with respect to the\ngovernment of men, is it possible for any one to be good, when all are\nfounded on passions in conflict with each other?\n\nNo convent of monks ever existed without discord; it is impossible,\ntherefore, to exclude it from kingdoms. Every government resembles not\nmerely a monastic institution, but a private household. There are none\nexisting without quarrels; and quarrels between one people and another,\nbetween one prince and another, have ever been, sanguinary; those\nbetween subjects and their sovereigns have been sometimes no less\ndestructive. How is an individual to act? Must he risk joining in the\nconflict, or withdraw from the scene of action?\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nMore than one people are desirous of new constitutions. The English\nwould have no objection to a change of ministers once in every eight\nhours, but they have no wish to change the form of their government.\n\nThe modern Romans are proud of their church of St. Peter and their\nancient Greek statues; but the people would be glad to be better fed,\nalthough they were not quite so rich in benedictions; the fathers of\nfamilies would be content that the Church should have less gold, if the\ngranaries had more corn; they regret the time when the apostles\njourneyed on foot, and when the citizens of Rome travelled from one\npalace to another in litters.\n\nWe are incessantly reminded of the admirable republics of Greece. There\nis no question that the Greeks would prefer the government of a Pericles\nand a Demosthenes to that of a pasha; but in their most prosperous and\npalmy times they were always complaining; discord and hatred prevailed\nbetween all the cities without, and in every separate city within. They\ngave laws to the old Romans, who before that time had none; but their\nown were so bad for themselves that they were continually changing them.\n\nWhat could be said in favor of a government under which the just\nAristides was banished, Phocion put to death, Socrates condemned to\ndrink hemlock after having been exposed to banter and derision on the\nstage by Aristophanes; and under which the Amphyctions, with\ncontemptible imbecility, actually delivered up Greece into the power of\nPhilip, because the Phocians had ploughed up a field which was part of\nthe territory of Apollo? But the government of the neighboring\nmonarchies was worse.\n\nPuffendorf promises us a discussion on the best form of government. He\ntells us, \"that many pronounce in favor of monarchy, and others, on the\ncontrary, inveigh furiously against kings; and that it does not fall\nwithin the limits of his subject to examine in detail the reasons of the\nlatter.\" If any mischievous and malicious reader expects to be told here\nmore than he is told by Puffendorf, he will be much deceived.\n\nA Swiss, a Hollander, a Venetian nobleman, an English peer, a cardinal,\nand a count of the empire, were once disputing, on a journey, about the\nnature of their respective governments, and which of them deserved the\npreference: no one knew much about the matter; each remained in his own\nopinion without having any very distinct idea what that opinion was; and\nthey returned without having come to any general conclusion; every one\npraising his own country from vanity, and complaining of it from\nfeeling.\n\nWhat, then, is the destiny of mankind? Scarcely any great nation is\ngoverned by itself. Begin from the east, and take the circuit of the\nworld. Japan closed its ports against foreigners from the well-founded\napprehension of a dreadful revolution.\n\nChina actually experienced such a revolution; she obeys Tartars of a\nmixed race, half Mantchou and half Hun. India obeys Mogul Tartars. The\nNile, the Orontes, Greece, and Epirus are still under the yoke of the\nTurks. It is not an English race that reigns in England; it is a German\nfamily which succeeded to a Dutch prince, as the latter succeeded a\nScotch family which had succeeded an Angevin family, that had replaced a\nNorman family, which had expelled a family of usurping Saxons. Spain\nobeys a French family; which succeeded to an Austrasian race, that\nAustrasian race had succeeded families that boasted of Visigoth\nextraction; these Visigoths had been long driven out by the Arabs, after\nhaving succeeded to the Romans, who had expelled the Carthaginians. Gaul\nobeys Franks, after having obeyed Roman prefects.\n\nThe same banks of the Danube have belonged to Germans, Romans, Arabs,\nSlavonians, Bulgarians, and Huns, to twenty different families, and\nalmost all foreigners.\n\nAnd what greater wonder has Rome had to exhibit than so many emperors\nwho were born in the barbarous provinces, and so many popes born in\nprovinces no less barbarous? Let him govern who can. And when any one\nhas succeeded in his attempts to become master, he governs as he can.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIn 1769, a traveller delivered the following narrative: \"I saw, in the\ncourse of my journey, a large and populous country, in which all offices\nand places were purchasable; I do not mean clandestinely, and in\nevasion of the law, but publicly, and in conformity to it. The right to\njudge, in the last resort, of the honor, property, and life of the\ncitizen, was put to auction in the same manner as the right and property\nin a few acres of land. Some very high commissions in the army are\nconferred only on the highest bidder. The principal mystery of their\nreligion is celebrated for the petty sum of three sesterces, and if the\ncelebrator does not obtain this fee he remains idle like a porter\nwithout employment.\n\n\"Fortunes in this country are not made by agriculture, but are derived\nfrom a certain game of chance, in great practice there, in which the\nparties sign their names, and transfer them from hand to hand. If they\nlose, they withdraw into the mud and mire of their original extraction;\nif they win, they share in the administration of public affairs; they\nmarry their daughters to mandarins, and their sons become a species of\nmandarins also.\n\n\"A considerable number of the citizens have their whole means of\nsubsistence assigned upon a house, which possesses in fact nothing, and\na hundred persons have bought for a hundred thousand crowns each the\nright of receiving and paying the money due to these citizens upon their\nassignments on this imaginary hotel; rights which they never exercise,\nas they in reality know nothing at all of what is thus supposed to pass\nthrough their hands.\n\n\"Sometimes a proposal is made and cried about the streets, that all who\nhave a little money in their chest should exchange it for a slip of\nexquisitely manufactured paper, which will free you from all pecuniary\ncare, and enable you to pass through life with ease and comfort. On the\nmorrow an order is published, compelling you to change this paper for\nanother, much better. On the following day you are deafened with the cry\nof a new paper, cancelling the two former ones. You are ruined! But long\nheads console you with the assurance, that within a fortnight the\nnewsmen will cry up some proposal more engaging.\n\n\"You travel into one province of this empire, and purchase articles of\nfood, drink, clothing, and lodging. If you go into another province, you\nare obliged to pay duties upon all those commodities, as if you had just\narrived from Africa. You inquire the reason of this, but obtain no\nanswer; or if, from extraordinary politeness, any one condescends to\nnotice your questions, he replies that you come from a province reputed\nforeign, and that, consequently, you are obliged to pay for the\nconvenience of commerce. In vain you puzzle yourself to comprehend how\nthe province of a kingdom can be deemed foreign to that kingdom.\n\n\"On one particular occasion, while changing horses, finding myself\nsomewhat fatigued, I requested the postmaster to favor me with a glass\nof wine. 'I cannot let you have it,' says he; 'the superintendents of\nthirst, who are very considerable in number, and all of them remarkably\nsober, would accuse me of drinking to excess, which would absolutely be\nmy ruin.' 'But drinking a single glass of wine,' I replied, 'to repair a\nman's strength, is not drinking to excess; and what difference can it\nmake whether that single glass of wine is taken by you or me?'\n\n\"'Sir,' replied the man, 'our laws relating to thirst are much more\nexcellent than you appear to think them. After our vintage is finished,\nphysicians are appointed by the regular authorities to visit our\ncellars. They set aside a certain quantity of wine, such as they judge\nwe may drink consistently with health. At the end of the year they\nreturn; and if they conceive that we have exceeded their restriction by\na single bottle; they punish us with very severe fines; and if we make\nthe slightest resistance, we are sent to Toulon to drink salt-water.\nWere I to give you the wine you ask, I should most certainly be charged\nwith excessive drinking. You must see to what danger I should be exposed\nfrom the supervisors of our health.'\n\n\"I could not refrain from astonishment at the existence of such a\nsystem; but my astonishment was no less on meeting with a disconsolate\nand mortified pleader, who informed me that he had just then lost, a\nlittle beyond the nearest rivulet, a cause precisely similar to one he\nhad gained on this side of it. I understood from him that, in his\ncountry, there are as many different codes of laws as there are cities.\nHis conversation raised my curiosity. 'Our nation,' said he, 'is so\ncompletely wise and enlightened, that nothing is regulated in it. Laws,\ncustoms, the rights of corporate bodies, rank, precedence, everything is\narbitrary; all is left to the prudence of the nation.'\n\n\"I happened to be still in this same country when it became involved in\na war with some of its neighbors. This war was nicknamed 'The Ridicule,'\nbecause there was much to be lost and nothing to be gained by it. I went\nupon my travels elsewhere, and did not return till the conclusion of\npeace, when the nation seemed to be in the most dreadful state of\nmisery; it had lost its money, its soldiers, its fleets, and its\ncommerce. I said to myself, its last hour is come; everything, alas!\nmust pass away. Here is a nation absolutely annihilated. What a dreadful\npity! for a great part of the people were amiable, industrious, and gay,\nafter having been formerly coarse, superstitious, and barbarous.\n\n\"I was perfectly astonished, at the end of only two years, to find its\ncapital and principal cities more opulent than ever. Luxury had\nincreased, and an air of enjoyment prevailed everywhere. I could not\ncomprehend this prodigy; and it was only after I had examined into the\ngovernment of the neighboring nations that I could discover the cause of\nwhat appeared so unaccountable. I found that the government of all the\nrest was just as bad as that of this nation, and that this nation was\nsuperior to all the rest in industry.\n\n\"A provincial of the country I am speaking of was once bitterly\ncomplaining to me of all the grievances under which he labored. He was\nwell acquainted with history. I asked him if he thought he should have\nbeen happier had he lived a hundred years before, when his country was\nin a comparative state of barbarism, and a citizen was liable to be\nhanged for having eaten flesh in Lent? He shook his head in the\nnegative. Would you prefer the times of the civil wars, which began at\nthe death of Francis II.; or the times of the defeats of St. Quentin and\nPavia; or the long disorders attending the wars against the English; or\nthe feudal anarchy; or the horrors of the second race of kings, or the\nbarbarity of the first? At every successive question, he appeared to\nshudder more violently. The government of the Romans seemed to him the\nmost intolerable of all. 'Nothing can be worse,' he said, 'than to be\nunder foreign masters.' At last we came to the Druids. 'Ah!' he\nexclaimed, 'I was quite mistaken: it is still worse to be governed by\nsanguinary priests.' He admitted, at last, although with sore\nreluctance, that the time he lived in was, all things considered, the\nleast intolerable and hateful.\"\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nAn eagle governed the birds of the whole country of Ornithia. He had no\nother right, it must be allowed, than what he derived from his beak and\nclaws; however, after providing liberally for his own repasts and\npleasures, he governed as well as any other bird of prey.\n\nIn his old age he was invaded by a flock of hungry vultures, who rushed\nfrom the depths of the North to scatter fear and desolation through his\nprovinces. There appeared, just about this time, a certain owl, who was\nborn in one of the most scrubby thickets of the empire, and who had long\nbeen known under the name of \"_luci-fugax_,\" or light-hater. He\npossessed much cunning, and associated only with bats; and, while the\nvultures were engaged in conflict with the eagle, our politic owl and\nhis party entered with great adroitness, in the character of\npacificators, on that department of the air which was disputed by the\ncombatants.\n\nThe eagle and vultures, after a war of long duration, at last actually\nreferred the cause of contention to the owl, who, with his solemn and\nimposing physiognomy, was well formed to deceive them both.\n\nHe persuaded the eagles and vultures to suffer their claws to be a\nlittle pared, and just the points of their beaks to be cut off, in order\nto bring about perfect peace and reconciliation. Before this time, the\nowl had always said to the birds, \"Obey the eagle\"; afterwards, in\nconsequence of the invasion, he had said to them, \"Obey the vultures.\"\nHe now, however, soon called out to them, \"Obey me only.\" The poor birds\ndid not know to whom to listen: they were plucked by the eagle, the\nvultures, and the owl and bats. \"_Qui habet aures, audiat_.\"--\"He that\nhath ears to hear, let him hear.\"\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\n\"I have in my possession a great number of catapult\u00e6 and balist\u00e6 of the\nancient Romans, which are certainly rather worm-eaten, but would still\ndo very well as specimens. I have many water-clocks, but half of them\nprobably out of repair and broken, some sepulchral lamps, and an old\ncopper model of a quinquereme. I have also togas, pretextas, and\nlaticlaves in lead; and my predecessors established a society of\ntailors; who, after inspecting ancient monuments, can make up robes\npretty awkwardly. For these reasons thereunto moving us, after hearing\nthe report of our chief antiquary, we do hereby appoint and ordain, that\nall the said venerable usages should be observed and kept up forever;\nand every person, through the whole extent of our dominions, shall dress\nand think precisely as men dressed and thought in the time of Cnidus\nRufillus, proprietor of the province devolved to us by right,\" etc.\n\nIt is represented to an officer belonging to the department whence this\nedict issued, that all the engines enumerated in it are become useless;\nthat the understandings and the inventions of mankind are every day\nmaking new advances towards perfection; and that it would be more\njudicious to guide and govern men by the reins in present use, than by\nthose by which they were formerly subjected; that no person could be\nfound to go on board the quinquereme of his most serene highness; that\nhis tailors might make as many laticlaves as they pleased, and that not\na soul would purchase one of them; and that it would be worthy of his\nwisdom to condescend, in some small measure, to the manner of thinking\nthat now prevailed among the better sort of people in his own dominions.\n\nThe officer above mentioned promised to communicate this representation\nto a clerk, who promised to speak about it to the referendary, who\npromised to mention it to his most serene highness whenever an\nopportunity should offer.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\n_Picture of the English Government._\n\nThe establishment of a government is a matter of curious and interesting\ninvestigation. I shall not speak, in this place, of the great Tamerlane,\nor Timerling, because I am not precisely acquainted with the mystery of\nthe Great Mogul's government. But we can see our way somewhat more\nclearly into the administration of affairs in England; and I had rather\nexamine that than the administration of India; as England, we are\ninformed, is inhabited by free men and not by slaves; and in India,\naccording to the accounts we have of it, there are many slaves and but\nfew free men.\n\nLet us, in the first place, view a Norman bastard seating himself upon\nthe throne of England. He had about as much right to it as St. Louis\nhad, at a later period, to Grand Cairo. But St. Louis had the misfortune\nnot to begin with obtaining a judicial decision in favor of his right to\nEgypt from the court of Rome; and William the Bastard failed not to\nrender his cause legitimate and sacred, by obtaining in confirmation of\nthe rightfulness of his claim, a decree of Pope Alexander II. issued\nwithout the opposite party having obtained a hearing, and simply in\nvirtue of the words, \"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be\nbound in heaven.\" His competitor, Harold, a perfectly legitimate\nmonarch, being thus bound by a decree of heaven, William united to this\nvirtue of the holy see another of far more powerful efficacy still,\nwhich was the victory of Hastings. He reigned, therefore, by the right\nof the strongest, just as Pepin and Clovis had reigned in France; the\nGoths and Lombards in Italy; the Visigoths, and afterwards the Arabs in\nSpain; the Vandals in Africa, and all the kings of the world in\nsuccession.\n\nIt must be nevertheless admitted, that our Bastard possessed as just a\ntitle as the Saxons and the Danes, whose title, again, was quite as good\nas that of the Romans. And the title of all these heroes in succession\nwas precisely that of \"robbers on the highway,\" or, if you like it\nbetter, that of foxes and pole-cats when they commit their depredations\non the farm-yard.\n\nAll these great men were so completely highway robbers, that from the\ntime of Romulus down to the buccaneers, the only question and concern\nwere about the \"_spolia opima_,\" the pillage and plunder, the cows and\noxen carried off by the hand of violence. Mercury, in the fable, steals\nthe cows of Apollo; and in the Old Testament, Isaiah assigns the name of\nrobber to the son whom his wife was to bring into the world, and who was\nto be an important and sacred type. That name was Mahershalalhashbaz,\n\"divide speedily the soil.\" We have already observed, that the names of\nsoldier and robber were often synonymous.\n\nThus then did William soon become king by divine right. William Rufus,\nwho usurped the crown over his elder brother, was also king by divine\nright, without any difficulty; and the same right attached after him to\nHenry, the third usurper.\n\nThe Norman barons who had joined at their own expense in the invasion of\nEngland, were desirous of compensation. It was necessary to grant it,\nand for this purpose to make them great vassals, and great officers of\nthe crown. They became possessed of the finest estates. It is evident\nthat William would rather, had he dared, have kept all to himself, and\nmade all these lords his guards and lackeys. But this would have been\ntoo dangerous an attempt. He was obliged, therefore, to divide and\ndistribute.\n\nWith respect to the Anglo-Saxon lords, there was no very easy way of\nkilling, or even making slaves of the whole of them. They were\npermitted in their own districts, to enjoy the rank and denomination of\nlords of the manor--_seignieurs ch\u00e2telans_. They held of the great\nNorman vassals, who held of William.\n\nBy this system everything was kept in equilibrium until the breaking out\nof the first quarrel. And what became of the rest of the nation? The\nsame that had become of nearly all the population of Europe. They became\nserfs or villeins.\n\nAt length, after the frenzy of the Crusades, the ruined princes sell\nliberty to the serfs of the glebe, who had obtained money by labor and\ncommerce. Cities are made free, the commons are granted certain\nprivileges; and the rights of men revive even out of anarchy itself.\n\nThe barons were everywhere in contention with their king, and with one\nanother. The contention became everywhere a petty intestine war, made up\nout of numberless civil wars. From this abominable and gloomy chaos\nappeared a feeble gleam, which enlightened the commons, and considerably\nimproved their situation.\n\nThe kings of England, being themselves great vassals of France for\nNormandy, and afterwards for Guienne and other provinces, easily adopted\nthe usages of the kings from whom they held. The states of the realm\nwere long made up, as in France, of barons and bishops.\n\nThe English court of chancery was an imitation of the council of state,\nof which the chancellor of France was president. The court of king's\nbench was formed on the model of the parliament instituted by Philip le\nBel. The common pleas were like the jurisdiction of the ch\u00e2telat. The\ncourt of exchequer resembled that of the superintendents of the\nfinances--_g\u00e9n\u00e9raux des finances_--which became, in France, the court of\naids.\n\nThe maxim that the king's domain is inalienable is evidently taken from\nthe system of French government.\n\nThe right of the king of England to call on his subjects to pay his\nransom, should he become a prisoner of war; that of requiring a subsidy\nwhen he married his eldest daughter, and when he conferred the honor of\nknighthood on his son; all these circumstances call to recollection the\nancient usages of a kingdom of which William was the chief vassal.\n\nScarcely had Philip le Bel summoned the commons to the states-general,\nbefore Edward, king of England, adopted the like measure, in order to\nbalance the great power of the barons. For it was under this monarch's\nreign that the commons were first clearly and distinctly summoned to\nparliament.\n\nWe perceive, then, that up to this epoch in the fourteenth century, the\nEnglish government followed regularly in the steps of France. The two\nchurches are entirely alike; the same subjection to the court of Rome;\nthe same exactions which are always complained of, but, in the end,\nalways paid to that rapacious court; the same dissensions, somewhat\nmore or less violent; the same excommunications; the same donations to\nmonks; the same chaos; the same mixture of holy rapine, superstition,\nand barbarism.\n\nAs France and England, then, were for so long a period governed by the\nsame principles, or rather without any principle at all, and merely by\nusages of a perfectly similar character, how is it that, at length, the\ntwo governments have become as different as those of Morocco and Venice?\n\nIt is, perhaps, in the first place to be ascribed to the circumstance of\nEngland, or rather Great Britain, being an island, in consequence of\nwhich the king has been under no necessity of constantly keeping up a\nconsiderable standing army which might more frequently be employed\nagainst the nation itself than against foreigners.\n\nIt may be further observed, that the English appear to have in the\nstructure of their minds something more firm, more reflective, more\npersevering, and, perhaps, more obstinate, than some other nations.\n\nTo this latter circumstance it may be probably attributed, that, after\nincessantly complaining of the court of Rome, they at length completely\nshook off its disgraceful yoke; while a people of more light and\nvolatile character has continued to wear it, affecting at the same time\nto laugh and dance in its chains.\n\nThe insular situation of the English, by inducing the necessity of\nurging to the particular pursuit and practice of navigation, has\nprobably contributed to the result we are here considering, by giving to\nthe natives a certain sternness and ruggedness of manners.\n\nThese stern and rugged manners, which have made their island the theatre\nof many a bloody tragedy, have also contributed, in all probability, to\ninspire a generous frankness.\n\nIt is in consequence of this combination of opposite qualities that so\nmuch royal blood has been shed in the field, and on the scaffold, and\nyet poison, in all their long and violent domestic contentions, has\nnever been resorted to; whereas, in other countries, under priestly\ndomination poison has been the prevailing weapon of destruction.\n\nThe love of liberty appears to have advanced, and to have characterized\nthe English, in proportion as they have advanced in knowledge and in\nwealth. All the citizens of a state cannot be equally powerful, but they\nmay be equally free. And this high point of distinction and enjoyment\nthe English, by their firmness and intrepidity, have at length attained.\n\nTo be free is to be dependent only on the laws. The English, therefore,\nhave ever loved the laws, as fathers love their children, because they\nare, or at least think themselves, the framers of them.\n\nA government like this could be established only at a late period;\nbecause it was necessary long to struggle with powers which commanded\nrespect, or at least, impressed awe--the power of the pope, the most\nterrible of all, as it was built on prejudice and ignorance; the royal\npower ever tending to burst its proper boundary, and which it was\nrequisite, however difficult, to restrain within it; the power of the\nbarons, which was, in fact, an anarchy; the power of the bishops, who,\nalways mixing the sacred with the profane, left no means unattempted to\nprevail over both barons and kings.\n\nThe house of commons gradually became the impregnable mole, which\nsuccessfully repelled those serious and formidable torrents.\n\nThe house of commons is, in reality, the nation; for the king, who is\nthe head, acts only for himself, and what is called his prerogative. The\npeers are a parliament only for themselves; and the bishops only for\nthemselves, in the same manner.\n\nBut the house of commons is for the people, as every member of it is\ndeputed by the people. The people are to the king in the proportion of\nabout eight millions to unity. To the peers and bishops they are as\neight millions to, at most, two hundred. And these eight million free\ncitizens are represented by the lower house.\n\nWith respect to this establishment or constitution--in comparison with\nwhich the republic of Plato is merely a ridiculous reverie, and which\nmight be thought to have been invented by Locke, or Newton, or Halley,\nor Archimedes--it sprang, in fact, out of abuses, of a most dreadful\ndescription, and such as are calculated to make human nature shudder.\nThe inevitable friction of this vast machine nearly proved its\ndestruction in the days of Fairfax and Cromwell. Senseless fanaticism\nbroke into this noble edifice, like a devouring fire that consumes a\nbeautiful building formed only of wood.\n\nIn the time of William the Third it was rebuilt of stone. Philosophy\ndestroyed fanaticism, which convulses to their centres states even the\nmost firm and powerful. We cannot easily help believing that a\nconstitution which has regulated the rights of king, lords, and people,\nand in which every individual finds security, will endure as long as\nhuman institutions and concerns shall have a being.\n\nWe cannot but believe, also, that all states not established upon\nsimilar principles, will experience revolutions.\n\nThe English constitution has, in fact, arrived at that point of\nexcellence, in consequence of which all men are restored to those\nnatural rights, which, in nearly all monarchies, they are deprived of.\nThese rights are, entire liberty of person and property; freedom of the\npress; the right of being tried in all criminal cases by a jury of\nindependent men--the right of being tried only according to the strict\nletter of the law; and the right of every man to profess, unmolested,\nwhat religion he chooses, while he renounces offices, which the members\nof the Anglican or established church alone can hold. These are\ndenominated privileges. And, in truth, invaluable privileges they are\nin comparison with the usages of most other nations of the world! To be\nsecure on lying down that you shall rise in possession of the same\nproperty with which you retired to rest; that you shall not be torn from\nthe arms of your wife, and from your children, in the dead of night, to\nbe thrown into a dungeon, or buried in exile in a desert; that, when\nrising from the bed of sleep, you will have the power of publishing all\nyour thoughts; and that, if you are accused of having either acted,\nspoken, or written wrongly, you can be tried only according to law.\nThese privileges attach to every one who sets his foot on English\nground. A foreigner enjoys perfect liberty to dispose of his property\nand person; and, if accused of any offence, he can demand that half the\njury shall be composed of foreigners.\n\nI will venture to assert, that, were the human race solemnly assembled\nfor the purpose of making laws, such are the laws they would make for\ntheir security. Why then are they not adopted in other countries? But\nwould it not be equally judicious to ask, why cocoanuts, which are\nbrought to maturity in India, do not ripen at Rome? You answer, these\ncocoanuts did not always, or for some time, come to maturity in England;\nthat the trees have not been long cultivated; that Sweden, following her\nexample, planted and nursed some of them for several years, but that\nthey did not thrive; and that it is possible to produce such fruit in\nother provinces, even in Bosnia and Servia. Try and plant the tree then.\n\nAnd you who bear authority over these benighted people, whether under\nthe name of pasha, effendi, or mollah, let me advise you, although an\nunpromising subject for advice, not to act the stupid as well as\nbarbarous part of riveting your nations in chains. Reflect, that the\nheavier you make the people's yoke, the more completely your own\nchildren, who cannot all of them be pashas, will be slaves. Surely you\nwould not be so contemptible a wretch as to expose your whole posterity\nto groan in chains, for the sake of enjoying a subaltern tyranny for a\nfew days! Oh, how great at present is the distance between an Englishman\nand a Bosnian!\n\n\nSECTION VII.\n\nThe mixture now existing in the government of England--this concert\nbetween the commons, the lords, and the king--did not exist always.\nEngland was long a slave. She was so to the Romans, the Saxons, Danes,\nand French. William the Conqueror, in particular, ruled her with a\nsceptre of iron. He disposed of the properties and lives of his new\nsubjects like an Oriental despot; he prohibited them from having either\nfire or candle in their houses after eight o'clock at night, under pain\nof death: his object being either to prevent nocturnal assemblies among\nthem, or merely, by so capricious and extravagant a prohibition, to\nshow how far the power of some men can extend over others. It is true,\nthat both before as well as after William the Conqueror, the English had\nparliaments; they made a boast of them; as if the assemblies then called\nparliaments, made up of tyrannical churchmen and baronial robbers, had\nbeen the guardians of public freedom and happiness.\n\nThe barbarians, who, from the shores of the Baltic poured over the rest\nof Europe, brought with them the usage of states or parliaments, about\nwhich a vast deal is said and very little known. The kings were not\ndespotic, it is true; and it was precisely on this account that the\npeople groaned in miserable slavery. The chiefs of these savages, who\nhad ravaged France, Italy, Spain, and England, made themselves monarchs.\nTheir captains divided among themselves the estates of the vanquished;\nhence, the margraves, lairds, barons, and the whole series of the\nsubaltern tyrants, who often contested the spoils of the people with the\nmonarchs, recently advanced to the throne and not firmly fixed on it.\nThese were all birds of prey, battling with the eagle, in order to suck\nthe blood of the doves. Every nation, instead of one good master, had a\nhundred tyrants. The priests soon took part in the contest. From time\nimmemorial it had been the fate of the Gauls, the Germans, and the\nislanders of England, to be governed by their druids and the chiefs of\ntheir villages, an ancient species of barons, but less tyrannical than\ntheir successors. These druids called themselves mediators between God\nand men; they legislated, they excommunicated, they had the power of\nlife and death. The bishops gradually succeeded to the authority of the\ndruids, under the Goth and Vandal government. The popes put themselves\nat their head; and, with briefs, bulls, and monks, struck terror into\nthe hearts of kings, whom they sometimes dethroned and occasionally\ncaused to be assassinated, and drew to themselves, as nearly as they\nwere able, all the money of Europe. The imbecile Ina, one of the tyrants\nof the English heptarchy, was the first who, on a pilgrimage to Rome,\nsubmitted to pay St. Peter's penny--which was about a crown of our\nmoney--for every house within his territory. The whole island soon\nfollowed this example; England gradually became a province of the pope;\nand the holy father sent over his legates, from time to time, to levy\nupon it his exorbitant imposts. John, called Lackland, at length made a\nfull and formal cession of his kingdom to his holiness, by whom he had\nbeen excommunicated; the barons, who did not at all find their account\nin this proceeding, expelled that contemptible king, and substituted in\nhis room Louis VIII., father of St. Louis, king of France. But they soon\nbecame disgusted with the new-comer, and obliged him to recross the sea.\n\nWhile the barons, bishops, and popes were thus harassing and tearing\nasunder England, where each of the parties strove eagerly to be the\ndominant one, the people, who form the most numerous, useful, and\nvirtuous portion of a community, consisting of those who study the laws\nand sciences, merchants, artisans, and even peasants, who exercise at\nonce the most important and the most despised of occupations; the\npeople, I say, were looked down upon equally by all these combatants, as\na species of beings inferior to mankind. Far, indeed, at that time, were\nthe commons from having the slightest participation in the government:\nthey were villeins, or serfs of the soil; both their labor and their\nblood belonged to their masters, who were called \"nobles.\" The greater\nnumber of men in Europe were what they still continue to be in many\nparts of the world--the serfs of a lord, a species of cattle bought and\nsold together with the land. It required centuries to get justice done\nto humanity; to produce an adequate impression of the odious and\nexecrable nature of the system, according to which the many sow, and\nonly the few reap; and surely it may even be considered fortunate for\nFrance that the powers of these petty robbers were extinguished there by\nthe legitimate authority of kings, as it was in England by that of the\nking and nation united.\n\nHappily, in consequence of the convulsions of empires by the contests\nbetween sovereigns and nobles, the chains of nations are more or less\nrelaxed. The barons compelled John (Lackland) and Henry III to grant the\nfamous charter, the great object of which, in reality, was to place the\nking in dependence on the lords, but in which the rest of the nation\nwas a little favored, to induce it, when occasion might require, to\nrange itself in the ranks of its pretended protectors. This great\ncharter, which is regarded as the sacred origin of English liberties,\nitself clearly shows how very little liberty was understood. The very\ntitle proves that the king considered himself absolute by right, and\nthat the barons and clergy compelled him to abate his claim to this\nabsolute power only by the application of superior force. These are the\nwords with which Magna Charta begins: \"We grant, of our free will, the\nfollowing privileges to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and\nbarons, of our kingdom,\" etc. Throughout the articles of it, not a word\nis said of the house of commons; a proof that it did not then exist, or\nthat it existed without power. The freemen of England are specified in\nit, a melancholy demonstration that there were men who were not free. We\nperceive, from the thirty-seventh article, that the pretended freemen\nowed service to their lord. Liberty of such a description had but too\nstrong a similarity to bondage. By the twenty-first article, the king\nordains that henceforward his officers shall not take away the horses\nand ploughs of freemen, without paying for them. This regulation was\nconsidered by the people as true liberty, because it freed them from a\ngreater tyranny. Henry VII., a successful warrior and politician, who\npretended great attachment to the barons, but who cordially hated and\nfeared them, granted them permission to alienate their lands. In\nconsequence of this, the villeins, who by their industry and skill\naccumulated property, in the course of time became purchasers of the\ncastles of the illustrious nobles who had ruined themselves by their\nextravagance, and, gradually, nearly all the landed property of the\nkingdom changed masters.\n\nThe house of commons now advanced in power every day. The families of\nthe old nobility became extinct in the progress of time; and, as in\nEngland, correctly speaking, peers only are nobles, there would scarcely\nhave been any nobles in the country, if the kings had not, from time to\ntime, created new barons, and kept up the body of peers, whom they had\nformerly so much dreaded, to counteract that of the commons, now become\ntoo formidable. All the new peers, who compose the upper house, receive\nfrom the king their title and nothing more, since none of them have the\nproperty of the lands of which they bear the names. One is duke of\nDorset, without possessing a single foot of land in Dorsetshire; another\nis an earl under the name of a certain village, yet scarcely knowing\nwhere that village is situated. They have power in the parliament, and\nnowhere else.\n\nYou hear no mention, in this country, of the high, middle, and low\ncourts of justice, nor of the right of chase over the lands of private\ncitizens, who have no right to fire a gun on their own estates.\n\nA man is not exempted from paying particular taxes because he is a\nnoble or a clergyman. All imposts are regulated by the house of commons,\nwhich, although subordinate in rank, is superior in credit to that of\nthe lords. The peers and bishops may reject a bill sent up to them by\nthe commons, when the object is to raise money, but they can make no\nalteration in it: they must admit it or reject it, without restriction.\nWhen the bill is confirmed by the lords, and assented to by the king,\nthen all the classes of the nation contribute. Every man pays, not\naccording to his rank--which would be absurd--but according to his\nrevenue. There is no arbitrary _faille_ or capitation, but a real tax on\nlands. These were all valued in the reign of the celebrated King\nWilliam. The tax exists still unaltered, although the rents of lands\nhave considerably increased; thus no one is oppressed, and no one\ncomplains. The feet of the cultivator are not bruised and mutilated by\nwooden shoes; he eats white bread; he is well clothed. He is not afraid\nto increase his farming-stock, nor to roof his cottage with tiles, lest\nthe following year should, in consequence, bring with it an increase of\ntaxation. There are numerous farmers who have an income of about five or\nsix hundred pounds sterling, and still disdain not to cultivate the land\nwhich has enriched them, and on which they enjoy the blessing of\nfreedom.\n\n\nSECTION VIII.\n\nThe reader well knows that in Spain, near the coast of Malaga, there was\ndiscovered, in the reign of Philip II., a small community, until then\nunknown, concealed in the recesses of the Alpuxarras mountains. This\nchain of inaccessible rocks is intersected by luxuriant valleys, and\nthese valleys are still cultivated by the descendants of the Moors, who\nwere forced, for their own happiness, to become Christians, or at least\nto appear such.\n\nAmong these Moors, as I was stating, there was, in the time of Philip, a\nsmall society, inhabiting a valley to which there existed no access but\nthrough caverns. This valley is situated between Pitos and Portugos. The\ninhabitants of this secluded abode were almost unknown to the Moors\nthemselves. They spoke a language that was neither Spanish nor Arabic,\nand which was thought to be derived from that of the ancient\nCarthaginians.\n\nThis society had but little increased in numbers: the reason alleged for\nwhich was that the Arabs, their neighbors, and before their time the\nAfricans, were in the practice of coming and taking from them the young\nwomen.\n\nThese poor and humble, but nevertheless happy, people, had never heard\nany mention of the Christian or Jewish religions; and knew very little\nabout that of Mahomet, not holding it in any estimation. They offered\nup, from time immemorial, milk and fruits to a statue of Hercules. This\nwas the amount of their religion. As to other matters, they spent their\ndays in indolence and innocence. They were at length discovered by a\nfamiliar of the Inquisition. The grand inquisitor had the whole of them\nburned. This is the sole event of their history.\n\nThe hallowed motives of their condemnation were, that they had never\npaid taxes, although, in fact, none had ever been demanded of them, and\nthey were totally unacquainted with money; that they were not possessed\nof any Bible, although they did not understand Latin; and that no person\nhad been at the pains of baptizing them. They were all invested with the\nsan benito, and broiled to death with becoming ceremony.\n\nIt is evident that this is a specimen of the true system of government;\nnothing can so completely contribute to the content, harmony, and\nhappiness of society.\n\n\n\n\nGOURD OR CALABASH.\n\n\nThis fruit grows in America on the branches of a tree as high as the\ntallest oaks.\n\nThus, Matthew Garo, who is thought so wrong in Europe for finding fault\nwith gourds creeping on the ground, would have been right in Mexico. He\nwould have been still more in the right in India, where cocoas are very\nelevated. This proves that we should never hasten to conclusions. What\nGod has made, He has made well, no doubt; and has placed his gourds on\nthe ground in our climates, lest, in falling from on high, they should\nbreak Matthew Garo's nose.\n\nThe calabash will only be introduced here to show that we should\nmistrust the idea that all was made for man. There are people who\npretend that the turf is only green to refresh the sight. It would\nappear, however, that it is rather made for the animals who nibble it\nthan for man, to whom dog-grass and trefoil are useless. If nature has\nproduced the trees in favor of some species, it is difficult to say to\nwhich she has given the preference. Leaves, and even bark, nourish a\nprodigious multitude of insects: birds eat their fruits, and inhabit\ntheir branches, in which they build their industriously formed nests,\nwhile the flocks repose under their shades.\n\nThe author of the \"_Spectacle de la Nature_\" pretends that the sea has a\nflux and reflux, only to facilitate the going out and coming in of our\nvessels. It appears that even Matthew Garo reasoned better; the\nMediterranean, on which so many vessels sail, and which only has a tide\nin three or four places, destroys the opinion of this philosopher.\n\nLet us enjoy what we have, without believing ourselves the centre and\nobject of all things.\n\n\n\n\nGRACE.\n\n\nIn persons and works, grace signifies, not only that which is pleasing,\nbut that which is attractive; so that the ancients imagined that the\ngoddess of beauty ought never to appear without the graces. Beauty never\ndispleases, but it may be deprived of this secret charm, which invites\nus to regard it, and sentimentally attracts and fills the soul. Grace\nin figure, carriage, action, discourse, depends on its attractive\nmerit. A beautiful woman will have no grace, if her mouth be shut\nwithout a smile, and if her eyes display no sweetness. The serious is\nnot always graceful, because unattractive, and approaching too near to\nthe severe, which repels.\n\nA well-made man whose carriage is timid or constrained, gait precipitate\nor heavy, and gestures awkward, has no gracefulness, because he has\nnothing gentle or attractive in his exterior. The voice of an orator\nwhich wants flexibility or softness is without grace.\n\nIt is the same in all the arts. Proportion and beauty may not be\ngraceful. It cannot be said that the pyramids of Egypt are graceful; it\ncannot be said that the Colossus of Rhodes is as much so as the Venus of\nCnidus. All that is merely strong and vigorous exhibits not the charm of\ngrace.\n\nIt would show but small acquaintance with Michelangelo and Caravaggio to\nattribute to them the grace of Albano. The sixth book of the \"\u00c6neid\" is\nsublime; the fourth has more grace. Some of the gallant odes of Horace\nbreathe gracefulness, as some of his epistles cultivate reason.\n\nIt seems, in general, that the little and pretty of all kinds are more\nsusceptible of grace than the large. A funeral oration, a tragedy, or a\nsermon, are badly praised, if they are only honored with the epithet of\ngraceful.\n\nIt is not good for any kind of work to be opposed to grace, for its\nopposite is rudeness, barbarity, and dryness. The Hercules of Farnese\nshould not have the gracefulness of the Apollo of Belvidere and of\nAntinous, but it is neither rude nor clumsy. The burning of Troy is not\ndescribed by Virgil with the graces of an elegy of Tibullus: it pleases\nby stronger beauties. A work, then, may be deprived of grace, without\nbeing in the least disagreeable. The terrible, or horrible, in\ndescription, is not to be graceful, neither should it solely affect its\nopposite; for if an artist, whatever branch he may cultivate, expresses\nonly frightful things, and softens them not by agreeable contrasts, he\nwill repel.\n\nGrace, in painting and sculpture, consists in softness of outline and\nharmonious expression; and painting, next to sculpture, has grace in the\nunison of parts, and of figures which animate one another, and which\nbecome agreeable by their attributes and their expression.\n\nGraces of diction, whether in eloquence or poetry, depend on choice of\nwords and harmony of phrases, and still more upon delicacy of ideas and\nsmiling descriptions. The abuse of grace is affectation, as the abuse of\nthe sublime is absurdity; all perfection is nearly a fault.\n\nTo have grace applies equally to persons and things. This dress, this\nwork, or that woman, is graceful. What is called a good grace applies to\nmanner alone. She presents herself with good grace. He has done that\nwhich was expected of him with a good grace. To possess the graces:\nThis woman has grace in her carriage, in all that she says and does.\n\nTo obtain grace is, by a metaphor, to obtain pardon, as to grant grace\nis to grant pardon. We make grace of one thing by taking away all the\nrest. The commissioners took all his effects and made him a gift--a\ngrace--of his money. To grant graces, to diffuse graces, is the finest\nprivilege of the sovereignty; it is to do good by something more than\njustice. To have one's good graces is usually said in relation to a\nsuperior: to have a lady's good graces, is to be her favorite lover. To\nbe in grace, is said of a courtier who has been in disgrace: we should\nnot allow our happiness to depend on the one, nor our misery on the\nother. Graces, in Greek, are \"charities\"; a term which signifies\namiable.\n\nThe graces, divinities of antiquity, are one of the most beautiful\nallegories of the Greek mythology. As this mythology always varied\naccording either to the imagination of the poets, who were its\ntheologians, or to the customs of the people, the number, names, and\nattributes of the graces often change; but it was at last agreed to fix\nthem as three, Aglaia, Thalia, and Euphrosyne, that is to say,\nsparkling, blooming, mirthful. They were always near Venus. No veil\nshould cover their charms. They preside over favors, concord,\nrejoicings, love, and even eloquence; they were the sensible emblem of\nall that can render life agreeable. They were painted dancing and\nholding hands; and every one who entered their temples was crowned with\nflowers. Those who have condemned the fabulous mythology should at least\nacknowledge the merit of these lively fictions, which announce truths\nintimately connected with the felicity of mankind.\n\n\n\n\nGRACE (OF).\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThis term, which signifies favor or privilege, is employed in this sense\nby theologians. They call grace a particular operation of God on\nmankind, intended to render them just and happy. Some have admitted\nuniversal grace, that which God gives to all men, though mankind,\naccording to them, with the exception of a very small number, will be\ndelivered to eternal flames: others admit grace towards Christians of\ntheir communion only; and lastly, others only for the elect of that\ncommunion.\n\nIt is evident that a general grace, which leaves the universe in vice,\nerror, and eternal misery, is not a grace, a favor, or privilege, but a\ncontradiction in terms.\n\nParticular grace, according to theologians, is either in the first place\n\"sufficing,\" which if resisted, suffices not--resembling a pardon given\nby a king to a criminal, who is nevertheless delivered over to the\npunishment; or \"efficacious\" when it is not resisted, although it _may\nbe_ resisted; in this case, they just resemble famished guests to whom\nare presented delicious viands, of which they will surely eat, though,\nin general, they may be supposed at liberty not to eat; or \"necessary,\"\nthat is, unavoidable, being nothing more than the chain of eternal\ndecrees and events. We shall take care not to enter into the long and\nappalling details, subtleties, and sophisms, with which these questions\nare embarrassed. The object of this dictionary is not to be the vain\necho of vain disputes.\n\nSt. Thomas calls grace a substantial form, and the Jesuit Bouhours names\nit a _je ne sais quoi_; this is perhaps the best definition which has\never been given of it.\n\nIf the theologians had wanted a subject on which to ridicule Providence,\nthey need not have taken any other than that which they have chosen. On\none side the Thomists assure us that man, in receiving efficacious\ngrace, is not free in the compound sense, but that he is free in the\ndivided sense; on the other, the Molinists invent the medium doctrine of\nGod and congruity, and imagine exciting, preventing, concomitant, and\nco-operating grace.\n\nLet us quit these bad but seriously constructed jokes of the\ntheologians; let us leave their books, and each consult his common\nsense; when he will see that all these reasoners have sagaciously\ndeceived themselves, because they have reasoned upon a principle\nevidently false. They have supposed that God acts upon particular views;\nnow, an eternal God, without general, immutable, and eternal laws, is\nan imaginary being, a phantom, a god of fable.\n\nWhy, in all religions on which men pique themselves on reasoning, have\ntheologians been forced to admit this grace which they do not\ncomprehend? It is that they would have salvation confined to their own\nsect, and further, they would have this salvation divided among those\nwho are the most submissive to themselves. These particular theologians,\nor chiefs of parties, divide among themselves. The Mussulman doctors\nentertain similar opinions and similar disputes, because they have the\nsame interest to actuate them; but the universal theologian, that is to\nsay, the true philosopher, sees that it is contradictory for nature to\nact on particular or single views; that it is ridiculous to imagine God\noccupying Himself in forcing one man in Europe to obey Him, while He\nleaves all the Asiatics intractable; to suppose Him wrestling with\nanother man who sometimes submits, and sometimes disarms Him, and\npresenting to another a help, which is nevertheless useless. Such grace,\nconsidered in a true point of view, is an absurdity. The prodigious mass\nof books composed on this subject is often an exercise of intellect, but\nalways the shame of reason.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nAll nature, all that exists, is the grace of God; He bestows on all\nanimals the grace of form and nourishment. The grace of growing seventy\nfeet high is granted to the fir, and refused to the reed. He gives to\nman the grace of thinking, speaking, and knowing him; He grants me the\ngrace of not understanding a word of all that Tournelli, Molina, and\nSoto, have written on the subject of grace.\n\nThe first who has spoken of efficacious and gratuitous grace is, without\ncontradiction, Homer. This may be astonishing to a bachelor of theology,\nwho knows no author but St. Augustine; but, if he read the third book of\nthe \"Iliad,\" he will see that Paris says to his brother Hector: \"If the\ngods have given you valor, and me beauty, do not reproach me with the\npresents of the beautiful Venus; no gift of the gods is despicable--it\ndoes not depend upon man to obtain them.\"\n\nNothing is more positive than this passage. If we further remark that\nJupiter, according to his pleasure, gave the victory sometimes to the\nGreeks, and at others to the Trojans, we shall see a new proof that all\nwas done by grace from on high. Sarpedon, and afterwards Patroclus, are\nbarbarians to whom by turns grace has been wanting.\n\nThere have been philosophers who were not of the opinion of Homer. They\nhave pretended that general Providence does not immediately interfere\nwith the affairs of particular individuals; that it governs all by\nuniversal laws; that Thersites and Achilles were equal before it, and\nthat neither Chalcas nor Talthybius ever had versatile or congruous\ngraces.\n\nAccording to these philosophers, the dog-grass and the oak, the mite and\nthe elephant, man, the elements and stars, obey invariable laws, which\nGod, as immutable, has established from all eternity.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIf one were to come from the bottom of hell, to say to us on the part of\nthe devil--Gentlemen, I must inform you that our sovereign lord has\ntaken all mankind for his share, except a small number of people who\nlive near the Vatican and its dependencies--we should all pray of this\ndeputy to inscribe us on the list of the privileged; we should ask him\nwhat we must do to obtain this grace.\n\nIf he were to answer, You cannot merit it, my master has made the list\nfrom the beginning of time; he has only listened to his own pleasure, he\nis continually occupied in making an infinity of _pots-de-chambre_ and\nsome dozen gold vases; if you are _pots-de-chambre_ so much the worse\nfor you.\n\nAt these fine words we should use our pitchforks to send the ambassador\nback to his master. This is, however, what we have dared to impute to\nGod---to the eternal and sovereignly good being!\n\nMan has been always reproached with having made God in his own image,\nHomer has been condemned for having transported all the vices and\nfollies of earth into heaven. Plato, who has thus justly reproached him,\nhas not hesitated to call him a blasphemer; while we, a hundred times\nmore thoughtless, hardy, and blaspheming than this Greek, who did not\nunderstand conventional language, devoutly accuse God of a thing of\nwhich we have never accused the worst of men.\n\nIt is said that the king of Morocco, Muley Ismael, had five hundred\nchildren. What would you say if a marabout of Mount Atlas related to you\nthat the wise and good Muley Ismael, dining with his family, at the\nclose of the repast, spoke thus:\n\n\"I am Muley Ismael, who has forgotten you for my glory, for I am very\nglorious. I love you very tenderly, I shelter you as a hen covers her\nchickens; I have decreed that one of my youngest children shall have the\nkingdom of Tafilet, and that another shall possess Morocco; and for my\nother dear children, to the number of four hundred and ninety-eight, I\norder that one-half shall be tortured, and the other half burned, for I\nam the Lord Muley Ismael.\"\n\nYou would assuredly take the marabout for the greatest fool that Africa\never produced; but if three or four thousand marabouts, well entertained\nat your expense, were to repeat to you the same story, what would you\ndo? Would you not be tempted to make them fast upon bread and water\nuntil they recovered their senses?\n\nYou will allege that my indignation is reasonable enough against the\nsupralapsarians, who believe that the king of Morocco begot these five\nhundred children only for his glory; and that he had always the\nintention to torture and burn them, except two, who were destined to\nreign.\n\nBut I am wrong, you say, against the infralapsarians, who avow that it\nwas not the first intention of Muley Ismael to cause his children to\nperish; but that, having foreseen that they would be of no use, he\nthought he should be acting as a good father in getting rid of them by\ntorture and fire.\n\nAh, supralapsarians, infralapsarians, free-gracians, sufficers,\nefficacians, jansenists, and molinists become men, and no longer trouble\nthe earth with such absurd and abominable fooleries.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nHoly advisers of modern Rome, illustrious and infallible theologians, no\none has more respect for your divine decisions than I; but if Paulus\nmilius, Scipio, Cato, Cicero, C\u00e6sar, Titus, Trajan, or Marcus Aurelius,\nrevisited that Rome to which they formerly did such credit, you must\nconfess that they would be a little astonished at your decisions on\ngrace. What would they say if they heard you speak of healthful grace\naccording to St. Thomas, and medicinal grace according to Cajetan; of\nexterior and interior grace, of free, sanctifying, co-operating, actual,\nhabitual, and efficacious grace, which is sometimes inefficacious; of\nthe sufficing which sometimes does not suffice, of the versatile and\ncongruous--would they really comprehend it more than you and I?\n\nWhat need would these poor people have of your instructions? I fancy I\nhear them say: \"Reverend fathers, you are terrible genii; we foolishly\nthought that the Eternal Being never conducted Himself by particular\nlaws like vile human beings, but by general laws, eternal like Himself.\nNo one among us ever imagined that God was like a senseless master, who\ngives an estate to one slave and refuses food to another; who orders one\nwith a broken arm to knead a loaf, and a cripple to be his courier.\"\n\nAll is grace on the part of God; He has given to the globe we inhabit\nthe grace of form; to the trees the grace of making them grow; to\nanimals that of feeding them; but will you say, because one wolf finds\nin his road a lamb for his supper, while another is dying with hunger,\nthat God has given the first wolf a particular grace? Is it a preventive\ngrace to cause one oak to grow in preference to another in which sap is\nwanting? If throughout nature all being is submitted to general laws,\nhow can a single species of animals avoid conforming to them?\n\nWhy should the absolute master of all be more occupied in directing the\ninterior of a single man than in conducting the remainder of entire\nnature? By what caprice would He change something in the heart of a\nCourlander or a Biscayan, while He changes nothing in the general laws\nwhich He has imposed upon all the stars.\n\nWhat a pity to suppose that He is continually making, defacing, and\nrenewing our sentiments! And what audacity in us to believe ourselves\nexcepted from all beings! And further, is it not only for those who\nconfess that these changes are imagined? A Savoyard, a Bergamask, on\nMonday, will have the grace to have a mass said for twelve sous; on\nTuesday he will go to the tavern and have no grace; on Wednesday he will\nhave a co-operating grace, which will conduct him to confession, but he\nwill not have the efficacious grace of perfect contrition; on Thursday\nthere will be a sufficing grace which will not suffice, as has been\nalready said. God will labor in the head of this Bergamask--sometimes\nstrongly, sometimes weakly, while the rest of the earth will no way\nconcern Him! He will not deign to meddle with the interior of the\nIndians and Chinese! If you possess a grain of reason, reverend fathers,\ndo you not find this system prodigiously ridiculous?\n\nPoor, miserable man! behold this oak which rears its head to the clouds,\nand this reed which bends at its feet; you do not say that efficacious\ngrace has been given to the oak and withheld from the reed. Raise your\neyes to heaven; see the eternal Demiourgos creating millions of worlds,\nwhich gravitate towards one another by general and eternal laws. See the\nsame light reflected from the sun to Saturn, and from Saturn to us; and\nin this grant of so many stars, urged onward in their rapid course; in\nthis general obedience of all nature, dare to believe, if you can, that\nGod is occupied in giving a versatile grace to Sister Theresa, or a\nconcomitant one to Sister Agnes.\n\nAtom--to which another foolish atom has said that the Eternal has\nparticular laws for some atoms of thy neighborhood; that He gives His\ngrace to that one and refuses it to this; that such as had not grace\nyesterday shall have it to-morrow--repeat not this folly. God has made\nthe universe, and creates not new winds to remove a few straws in one\ncorner of the universe. Theologians are like the combatants in Homer,\nwho believed that the gods were sometimes armed for and sometimes\nagainst them. Had Homer not been considered a poet, he would be deemed a\nblasphemer.\n\nIt is Marcus Aurelius who speaks, and not I; for God, who inspires you,\nhas given me grace to believe all that you say, all that you have said,\nand all that you will say.\n\n\n\n\nGRAVE--GRAVITY.\n\n\nGrave, in its moral meaning, always corresponds with its physical one;\nit expresses something of weight; thus, we say--a person, an author, or\na maxim of weight, for a grave person, author, or maxim. The grave is to\nthe serious what the lively is to the agreeable. It is one degree more\nof the same thing, and that degree a considerable one. A man may be\nserious by temperament, and even from want of ideas. He is grave, either\nfrom a sense of decorum, or from having ideas of depth and importance,\nwhich induce gravity. There is a difference between being grave and\nbeing a grave man. It is a fault to be unseasonably grave. He who is\ngrave in society is seldom much sought for; but a grave man is one who\nacquires influence and authority more by his real wisdom than his\nexternal carriage.\n\n     _Tum pietate gravem ac meritis si forte virum quem_\n     _Conspexere, silent, adrectisque auribus adstant._\n                            --VIRGIL'S _\u00c6neid_, i. 151.\n\n     If then some grave and pious man appear,\n     They hush their noise, and lend a listening ear.\n                                                   --DRYDEN.\n\nA decorous air should be always preserved, but a grave air is becoming\nonly in the function of some high and important office, as, for example,\nin council. When gravity consists, as is frequently the case, only in\nthe exterior carriage, frivolous remarks are delivered with a pompous\nsolemnity, exciting at once ridicule and aversion. We do not easily\npardon those who wish to impose upon us by this air of consequence and\nself-sufficiency.\n\nThe duke de La Rochefoucauld said \"Gravity is a mysteriousness of body\nassumed in order to conceal defects of mind.\" Without investigating\nwhether the phrase \"mysteriousness of body\" is natural and judicious, it\nis sufficient to observe that the remark is applicable to all who affect\ngravity, but not to those who merely exhibit a gravity suitable to the\noffice they hold, the place where they are, or the business in which\nthey are engaged.\n\nA grave author is one whose opinions relate to matters obviously\ndisputable. We never apply the term to one who has written on subjects\nwhich admit no doubt or controversy. It would be ridiculous to call\nEuclid and Archimedes grave authors.\n\nGravity is applicable to style. Livy and de Thou have written with\ngravity. The same observations cannot with propriety be applied to\nTacitus, whose object was brevity, and who has displayed malignity;\nstill less can it be applied to Cardinal de Retz, who sometimes infuses\ninto his writings a misplaced gayety, and sometimes even forgets\ndecency.\n\nThe grave style declines all sallies of wit or pleasantry; if it\nsometimes reaches the sublime, if on any particular occasion it is\npathetic, it speedily returns to the didactic wisdom and noble\nsimplicity which habitually characterizes it; it possesses strength\nwithout daring. Its greatest difficulty is to avoid monotony.\n\nA grave affair (_affaire_), a grave case (_cas_), is used concerning a\ncriminal rather than a civil process. A grave disease implies danger.\n\n\n\n\nGREAT--GREATNESS.\n\n_Of the Meaning of These Words._\n\nGreat is one of those words which are most frequently used in a moral\nsense, and with the least consideration and judgment. Great man, great\ngenius, great captain, great philosopher, great poet; we mean by this\nlanguage \"one who has far exceeded ordinary limits.\" But, as it is\ndifficult to define those limits, the epithet \"great\" is often applied\nto those who possess only mediocrity.\n\nThis term is less vague and doubtful when applied to material than to\nmoral subjects. We know what is meant by a great storm, a great\nmisfortune, a great disease, great property, great misery.\n\nThe term \"large\" (_gros_) is sometimes used with respect to subjects of\nthe latter description, that is, material ones, as equivalent to great,\nbut never with respect to moral subjects. We say large property for\ngreat wealth, but not a large captain for a great captain, or a large\nminister for a great minister. Great financier means a man eminently\nskilful in matters of national finance; but _gros_ financier expresses\nmerely a man who has become wealthy in the department of finance.\n\nThe great man is more difficult to be defined than the great artist. In\nan art or profession, the man who has far distanced his rivals, or who\nhas the reputation of having done so, is called great in his art, and\nappears, therefore, to have required merit of only one description in\norder to obtain this eminence; but the great man must combine different\nspecies of merit. Gonsalvo, surnamed the Great Captain, who observed\nthat \"the web of honor was coarsely woven,\" was never called a great\nman. It is more easy to name those to whom this high distinction should\nbe refused than those to whom it should be granted. The denomination\nappears to imply some great virtues. All agree that Cromwell was the\nmost intrepid general, the most profound statesman, the man best\nqualified to conduct a party, a parliament, or an army, of his day; yet\nno writer ever gives him the title of great man; because, although he\npossessed great qualities, he possessed not a single great virtue.\n\nThis title seems to fall to the lot only of the small number of men who\nhave been distinguished at once by virtues, exertions, and success.\nSuccess is essential, because the man who is always unfortunate is\nsupposed to be so by his own fault.\n\nGreat (grand), by itself, expresses some dignity. In Spain it is a high\nand most distinguishing appellative (_grandee_) conferred by the king on\nthose whom he wishes to honor. The grandees are covered in the presence\nof the king, either before speaking to him or after having spoken to\nhim, or while taking their seats with the rest.\n\nCharles the Fifth conferred the privileges of grandeeship on sixteen\nprincipal noblemen. That emperor himself afterwards granted the same\nhonors to many others. His successors, each in his turn, have added to\nthe number. The Spanish grandees have long claimed to be considered of\nequal rank and dignity with the electors and the princes of Italy. At\nthe court of France they have the same honors as peers.\n\nThe title of \"great\" has been always given, in France, to many of the\nchief officers of the crown--as great seneschal, great master, great\nchamberlain, great equerry, great pantler, great huntsman, great\nfalconer. These titles were given them to distinguish their pre-eminence\nabove the persons serving in the same departments under them. The\ndistinction is not given to the constable, nor to the chancellor, nor to\nthe marshals, although the constable is the chief of all the household\nofficers, the chancellor the second person in the state, and the marshal\nthe second officer in the army. The reason obviously is, that they had\nno deputies, no vice-constables, vice-marshals, vice-chancellors, but\nofficers under another denomination who executed their orders, while the\ngreat steward, great chamberlain, and great equerry, etc., had stewards,\nchamberlains, and equerries under them.\n\nGreat (grand) in connection with _seigneur_, \"great lord,\" has a\nsignification more extensive and uncertain. We give this title of\n\"_grand seigneur_\" (seignor) to the Turkish sultan, who assumes that of\npasha, to which the expression grand seignor does not correspond. The\nexpression \"_un grand_,\" \"great man,\" is used in speaking of a man of\ndistinguished birth, invested with dignities, but it is used only by the\ncommon people. A person of birth or consequence never applies the term\nto any one. As the words \"great lord\" (_grand seigneur_) are commonly\napplied to those who unite birth, dignity, and riches, poverty seems to\ndeprive a man of the right to it, or at least to render it inappropriate\nor ridiculous. Accordingly, we say a poor gentleman, but not a poor\ngrand seigneur.\n\nGreat (grand) is different from mighty (_puissant_). A man may at the\nsame time be both one and the other, but _puissant_ implies the\npossession of some office of power and consequence. \"Grand\" indicates\nmore show and less reality; the \"puissant\" commands, the \"grand\"\npossesses honors.\n\nThere is greatness (grandeur) in mind, in sentiments, in manners, and in\nconduct. The expression is not used in speaking of persons in the\nmiddling classes of society, but only of those who, by their rank, are\nbound to show nobility and elevation. It is perfectly true that a man of\nthe most obscure birth and connections may have more greatness of mind\nthan a monarch. But it would be inconsistent with the usual phraseology\nto say, \"that merchant\" or \"that farmer acted greatly\" (_avec\ngrandeur_); unless, indeed, in very particular circumstances, and\nplacing certain characters in striking opposition, we should, for\nexample, make such a remark as the following: \"The celebrated merchant\nwho entertained Charles the Fifth in his own house, and lighted a fire\nof cinnamon wood with that prince's bond to him for fifty thousand\nducats, displayed more greatness of soul than the emperor.\"\n\nThe title of \"greatness\" (grandeur) was formerly given to various\npersons possessing stations of dignity. French clergymen, when writing\nto bishops, still call them \"your greatness.\" Those titles, which are\nlavished by sycophancy and caught at by vanity, are now little used.\n\nHaughtiness is often mistaken for greatness (grandeur). He who is\nostentatious of greatness displays vanity. But one becomes weary and\nexhausted with writing about greatness. According to the lively remark\nof Montaigne, \"we cannot obtain it, let us therefore take our revenge by\nabusing it.\"\n\n\n\n\nGREEK.\n\n_Observations Upon the Extinction of the Greek Language at Marseilles._\n\n\nIt is exceedingly strange that, as Marseilles was founded by a Greek\ncolony, scarcely any vestige of the Greek language is to be found in\nProvence Languedoc, or any district of France; for we cannot consider as\nGreek the terms which were taken, at a comparatively modern date, from\nthe Latins, and which had been adopted by the Romans themselves from the\nGreeks so many centuries before. We received those only at second hand.\nWe have no right to say that we abandoned the word _Got_ for that of\n_Theos_, rather than that of _Deus_, from which, by a barbarous\ntermination, we have made _Dieu_.\n\nIt is clear that the Gauls, having received the Latin language with the\nRoman laws, and having afterwards received from those same Romans the\nChristian religion, adopted from them all the terms which were connected\nwith that religion. These same Gauls did not acquire, until a late\nperiod, the Greek terms which relate to medicine, anatomy, and surgery.\n\nAfter deducting all the words originally Greek which we have derived\nthrough the Latin, and all the anatomical and medical terms which were,\nin comparison, so recently acquired, there is scarcely anything left;\nfor surely, to derive \"_abr\u00e9ger_\" from \"_brakus_,\" rather than from\n\"_abreviare_\"; \"_acier_\" from \"_axi_\" rather than from \"_acies_\";\n\"_acre_\" from \"_agros_,\" rather than from \"_ager_\"; and \"_aile_\" from\n\"_ily_\" rather than from \"_ala_\"--this, I say, would surely be perfectly\nridiculous.\n\nSome have even gone so far as to say that \"omelette\" comes from\n\"_omeilaton_\" because \"_meli_\" in Greek signifies honey, and \"_oon_\" an\negg. In the \"Garden of Greek Roots\" there is a more curious derivation\nstill; it is pretended that \"_diner_\" (dinner) comes from \"_deipnein_,\"\nwhich signifies supper.\n\nAs some may be desirous of possessing a list of the Greek words which\nthe Marseilles colony may have introduced into the language of the\nGauls, independently of those which came through the Romans, we present\nthe following one:\n\n     Aboyer, perhaps from _bauzein_.\n     Affre, affreux, from _afronos_.\n     Agacer, perhaps from _anaxein_.\n     Alali, a Greek war-cry.\n     Babiller, perhaps from _babazo_.\n     Balle, from _ballo_.\n     Bas, from _batys_.\n     Blesser, from the aorist of _blapto_.\n     Bouteille, from _bouttis_.\n     Bride, from _bryter_.\n     Brique, from _bryka_.\n     Coin, from _gonia_.\n     Col\u00e8re, from _chole_.\n     Colle, from _colla_.\n     Couper, from _cop to_.\n     Cuisse, perhaps from _ischis_.\n     Entraille, from _entera_.\n     Ermite, from _eremos_.\n     Fier, from _fiaros_.\n     Gargarizer, from _gargarizein_.\n     Idiot, from _idiotes_.\n     Maraud, from _miaros_.\n     Moquer, from _mokeuo_.\n     Moustache, from _mustax_.\n     Orgueil, from _orge_.\n     Page, from _pais_.\n     Siffler, perhaps from _siffloo_.\n     Tuer, _thuein_.\n\nI am astonished to find so few words remaining of a language spoken at\nMarseilles, in the time of Augustus, in all its purity; and I am\nparticularly astonished to find the greater number of the Greek words\npreserved in Provence, signifying things of little or no utility, while\nthose used to express things of the first necessity and importance are\nutterly lost. We have not a single one remaining that signifies land,\nsea, sky, the sun, the moon, rivers, or the principal parts of the human\nbody; the words used for which might have been expected to be\ntransmitted down from the beginning through every succeeding age.\nPerhaps we must attribute the cause of this to the Visigoths, the\nBurgundians, and the Franks; to the horrible barbarism of all those\nnations which laid waste the Roman Empire, a barbarism of which so many\ntraces yet remain.\n\n\n\n\nGUARANTEE.\n\n\nA guarantee is a pledge by which a person renders himself responsible to\nanother for something, and binds himself to secure him in the enjoyment\nof it. The word (_garant_) is derived from the Celtic and Teutonic\n\"warrant.\" In all the words which we have retained from those ancient\nlanguages we have changed the _w_ into _g_. Among the greater number of\nthe nations of the North \"warrant\" still signifies assurance, guaranty;\nand in this sense it means, in English, an order of the king, as\nsignifying the pledge of the king. When in the middle ages kings\nconcluded treaties, they were guaranteed on both sides by a considerable\nnumber of knights, who bound themselves by oath to see that the treaty\nwas observed, and even, when a superior education qualified them to do\nso, which sometimes happened, signed their names to it. When the emperor\nFrederick Barbarossa ceded so many rights to Pope Alexander III. at the\ncelebrated congress of Venice, in 1117, the emperor put his seal to the\ninstrument which the pope and cardinals signed. Twelve princes of the\nempire guaranteed the treaty by an oath upon the gospel; but none of\nthem signed it. It is not said that the doge of Venice guaranteed that\npeace which was concluded in his palace. When Philip Augustus made peace\nin 1200 with King John of England, the principal barons of France and\nNormandy swore to the due observance of it, as cautionary or\nguaranteeing parties. The French swore that they would take arms against\ntheir king if he violated his word, and the Normans, in like manner, to\noppose their sovereign if he did not adhere to his. One of the\nconstables of the Montmorency family, after a negotiation with one of\nthe earls of March, in 1227, swore to the observance of the treaty upon\nthe soul of the king.\n\nThe practice of guaranteeing the states of a third party was of great\nantiquity, although under a different name. The Romans in this manner\nguaranteed the possessions of many of the princes of Asia and Africa, by\ntaking them under their protection until they secured to themselves the\npossession of the territories thus protected. We must regard as a mutual\nguaranty the ancient alliance between France and Castile, of king to\nking, kingdom to kingdom, and man to man.\n\nWe do not find any treaty in which the guaranty of the states of a third\nparty is expressly stipulated for before that which was concluded\nbetween Spain and the states-general in 1609, by the mediation of Henry\nIV. He procured from Philip III., king of Spain, the recognition of the\nUnited Provinces as free and sovereign states. He signed the guaranty of\nthis sovereignty of the seven provinces, and obtained the signature of\nthe same instrument from the king of Spain; and the republic\nacknowledged that it owed its freedom to the interference of the French\nmonarch. It is principally within our own times that treaties of\nguaranty have become comparatively frequent. Unfortunately these\nengagements have occasionally produced ruptures and war; and it is\nclearly ascertained that the best of all possible guaranties is power.\n\n\n\n\nGREGORY VII.\n\n\nBayle himself, while admitting that Gregory was the firebrand of Europe,\nconcedes to him the denomination of a great man. \"That old Rome,\" says\nhe, \"which plumed itself upon conquests and military virtue, should have\nbrought so many other nations under its dominion, redounds, according to\nthe general maxims of mankind, to her credit and glory; but, upon the\nslightest reflection, can excite little surprise. On the other hand, it\nis a subject of great surprise to see new Rome, which pretended to value\nitself only on an apostolic ministry, possessed of an authority under\nwhich the greatest monarchs have been constrained to bend. Caron may\nobserve, with truth, that there is scarcely a single emperor who has\nopposed the popes without feeling bitter cause to regret his resistance.\nEven at the present day the conflicts of powerful princes with the court\nof Rome almost always terminate in their confusion.\"\n\nI am of a totally different opinion from Bayle. There will probably be\nmany of a different one from mine. I deliver it however with freedom,\nand let him who is willing and able refute it.\n\n1. The differences of the princes of Orange and the seven provinces with\nRome did not terminate in their confusion; and Bayle, who, while at\nAmsterdam, could set Rome at defiance, was a happy illustration of the\ncontrary.\n\nThe triumphs of Queen Elizabeth, of Gustavus Vasa in Sweden, of the\nkings of Denmark, of all the princes of the north of Germany, of the\nfinest part of Helvetia, of the single and small city of Geneva--the\ntriumphs, I say, of all these over the policy of the Roman court are\nperfectly satisfactory testimonies that it may be easily and\nsuccessfully resisted, both in affairs of religion and government.\n\n2. The sacking of Rome by the troops of Charles the Fifth; the pope\n(Clement VII.) a prisoner in the castle of St. Angelo; Louis XIV.\ncompelling Pope Alexander VII. to ask his pardon, and erecting even in\nRome itself a monument of the pope's submission; and, within our own\ntimes, the easy subversion of that steady, and apparently most\nformidable support of the papal power, the society of Jesuits in Spain,\nin France, in Naples, in Goa, and in Paraguay--all this furnishes\ndecisive evidence, that, when potent princes are in hostility with Rome,\nthe quarrel is not terminated in their confusion; they may occasionally\nbend before the storm, but they will not eventually be overthrown.\n\nWhen the popes walked on the heads of kings, when they conferred crowns\nby a parchment bull, it appears to me, that at this extreme height of\ntheir power and grandeur they did no more than the caliphs, who were the\nsuccessors of Mahomet, did in the very period of their decline. Both of\nthem, in the character of priests, conferred the investiture of empires,\nin solemn ceremony, on the most powerful of contending parties.\n\n3. Maimbourg says: \"What no pope ever did before, Gregory VIII. did,\ndepriving Henry IV. of his dignity of emperor, and of his kingdoms of\nGermany and Italy.\"\n\nMaimbourg is mistaken. Pope Zachary had, long before that, placed a\ncrown on the head of the Austrasian Pepin, who usurped the kingdom of\nthe Franks; and Pope Leo III. had declared the son of that Pepin emperor\nof the West, and thereby deprived the empress Irene of the whole of that\nempire; and from that time, it must be admitted, there has not been a\nsingle priest of the Romish church who has not imagined that his bishop\nenjoyed the disposal of all crowns.\n\nThis maxim was always turned to account when it was possible to be so.\nIt was considered as a consecrated weapon, deposited in the sacristy of\nSt. John of Lateran, which might be drawn forth in solemn and impressive\nceremony on every occasion that required it. This prerogative is so\ncommanding; it raises to such a height the dignity of an exorcist born\nat Velletri or Civit\u00e0 Vecchia, that if Luther, \u0152colampadius, John\nCalvin, and all the prophets of the C\u00e9vennes, had been natives of any\nmiserable village near Rome, and undergone the tonsure there, they would\nhave supported that church with the same rage which they actually\nmanifested for its destruction.\n\n4. Everything, then, depends on the time and place of a man's birth, and\nthe circumstances by which he is surrounded. Gregory VII. was born in an\nage of barbarism, ignorance, and superstition; and he had to deal with a\nyoung, debauched, inexperienced emperor, deficient in money, and whose\npower was contested by all the powerful lords of Germany.\n\nWe cannot believe, that, from the time of the Austrasian Charlemagne,\nthe Roman people ever paid very willing obedience to Franks or\nTeutonians: they hated them as much as the genuine old Romans would have\nhated the Cimbri, if the Cimbri had obtained dominion in Italy. The\nOthos had left behind them in Rome a memory that was execrated, because\nthey had enjoyed great power there; and, after the time of the Othos,\nEurope it is well known became involved in frightful anarchy.\n\nThis anarchy was not more effectually restrained under the emperors of\nthe house of Franconia. One-half of Germany was in insurrection against\nHenry IV. The countess Mathilda, grand duchess, his cousin-german, more\npowerful than himself in Italy, was his mortal enemy. She possessed,\neither as fiefs of the empire, or as allodial property, the whole duchy\nof Tuscany, the territory of Cremona, Ferrara, Mantua, and Parma; a part\nof the Marches of Ancona, Reggio, Modena, Spoleto, and Verona; and she\nhad rights, that is to say pretensions, to the two Burgundies; for the\nimperial chancery claimed those territories, according to its regular\npractice of claiming everything.\n\nWe admit, that Gregory VII. would have been little less than an idiot\nhad he not exerted his strongest efforts to secure a complete influence\nover this powerful princess; and to obtain, by her means, a point of\nsupport and protection against the Germans. He became her director, and,\nafter being her director, her heir.\n\nI shall not, in this place, examine whether he was really her lover, or\nwhether he only pretended to be so; or whether his enemies merely\npretended it; or whether, in his idle moments, the assuming and ardent\nlittle director did not occasionally abuse the influence he possessed\nwith his penitent, and prevail over a feeble and capricious woman. In\nthe course of human events nothing can be more natural or common; but as\nusually no registers are kept of such cases; as those interesting\nintimacies between the directors and directed do not take place before\nwitnesses, and as Gregory has been reproached with this imputation only\nby his enemies, we ought not to confound accusation with proof. It is\nquite enough that Gregory claimed the whole of his penitent's property.\n\n5. The donation which he procured to be made to himself by the countess\nMathilda, in the year 1077, is more than suspected. And one proof that\nit is not to be relied upon is that not merely was this deed never\nshown, but that, in a second deed, the first is stated to have been\nlost. It was pretended that the donation had been made in the fortress\nof Canossa, and in the second act it is said to have been made at Rome.\nThese circumstances may be considered as confirming the opinion of some\nantiquaries, a little too scrupulous, who maintain that out of a\nthousand grants made in those times--and those times were of long\nduration--there are more than nine hundred evidently counterfeit.\n\nThere have been two sorts of usurpers in our quarter of the world,\nEurope--robbers and forgers.\n\n6. Bayle, although allowing the title of Great to Gregory, acknowledges\nat the same time that this turbulent man disgraced his heroism by his\nprophecies. He had the audacity to create an emperor, and in that he\ndid well, as the emperor Henry IV. had made a pope. Henry deposed him,\nand he deposed Henry. So far there is nothing to which to object--both\nsides are equal. But Gregory took it into his head to turn prophet; he\npredicted the death of Henry IV. for the year 1080; but Henry IV.\nconquered, and the pretended emperor Rudolph was defeated and slain in\nThuringia by the famous Godfrey of Bouillon, a man more truly great than\nall the other three. This proves, in my opinion, that Gregory had more\nenthusiasm than talent.\n\nI subscribe with all my heart to the remark of Bayle, that \"when a man\nundertakes to predict the future, he is provided against everything by a\nface of brass, and an inexhaustible magazine of equivocations.\" But your\nenemies deride your equivocations; they also have a face of brass like\nyourself; and they expose you as a knave, a braggart, and a fool.\n\n7. Our great man ended his public career with witnessing the taking of\nRome by assault, in the year 1083. He was besieged in the castle, since\ncalled St. Angelo, by the same emperor Henry IV., whom he had dared to\ndispossess, and died in misery and contempt at Salerno, under the\nprotection of Robert Guiscard the Norman.\n\nI ask pardon of modern Rome, but when I read the history of the Scipios,\nthe Catos, the Pompeys, and the C\u00e6sars, I find a difficulty in ranking\nwith them a factious monk who was made a pope under the name of Gregory\nVII.\n\nBut our Gregory has obtained even a yet finer title; he has been made a\nsaint, at least at Rome. It was the famous cardinal Coscia who effected\nthis canonization under Pope Benedict XIII. Even an office or service of\nSt. Gregory VII. was printed, in which it was said, that that saint\n\"absolved the faithful from the allegiance which they had sworn to their\nemperor.\"\n\nMany parliaments of the kingdom were desirous of having this legend\nburned by the executioner: but Bentivoglio, the nuncio--who kept one of\nthe actresses at the opera, of the name of Constitution, as his\nmistress, and had by her a daughter called la Legende; a man otherwise\nextremely amiable, and a most interesting companion--procured from the\nministry a mitigation of the threatened storm; and, after passing\nsentence of condemnation on the legend of St. Gregory, the hostile party\nwere contented to suppress it and to laugh at it.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 05","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":80268}