{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35626/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35626","id":"gutenberg_35626","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35626","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME VI\n\nBy\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\n\n\n\nEDITION DE LA PACIFICATION\n\nTHE WORKS OF VOLTAIRE\n\nA CONTEMPORARY VERSION\n\n\n  With Notes by Tobias Smollett, Revised and Modernized\n     New Translations by William F. Fleming, and an\n           Introduction by Oliver H.G. Leigh\n\n\nA CRITIQUE AND BIOGRAPHY\n\nBY\n\nTHE RT. HON. JOHN MORLEY\n\nFORTY-THREE VOLUMES\n\n\n  One hundred and sixty-eight designs, comprising reproductions\n      of rare old engravings, steel plates, photogravures,\n                    and curious fac-similes\n\n\nVOLUME X\n\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS : LONDON : NEW YORK : CHICAGO\n\n1901\n\n\n\n\n_The WORKS of VOLTAIRE_\n\n     _\"Between two servants of Humanity, who appeared eighteen hundred\n     years apart, there is a mysterious relation. * * * * Let us say it\n     with a sentiment of profound respect: JESUS WEPT: VOLTAIRE SMILED.\n     Of that divine tear and of that human smile is composed the\n     sweetness of the present civilization.\"_\n\n                                                    _VICTOR HUGO._\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES--VOL. VI.\n\n     VOLTAIRE'S HOME IN GENEVA _Frontispiece_\n     THE ACROPOLIS AT ATHENS\n     THE DUKE OF SULLY\n     THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INQUISITION IN PORTUGAL\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL. VI\n\nHAPPY--JOB\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nHAPPY--HAPPILY.\n\n\nWhat is called happiness is an abstract idea, composed of various ideas\nof pleasure; for he who has but a moment of pleasure is not a happy man,\nin like manner that a moment of grief constitutes not a miserable one.\nPleasure is more transient than happiness, and happiness than felicity.\nWhen a person says--I am happy at this moment, he abuses the word, and\nonly means I am pleased. When pleasure is continuous, he may then call\nhimself happy. When this happiness lasts a little longer, it is a state\nof felicity. We are sometimes very far from being happy in prosperity,\njust as a surfeited invalid eats nothing of a great feast prepared for\nhim.\n\nThe ancient adage, \"No person should be called happy before his death,\"\nseems to turn on very false principles, if we mean by this maxim that we\nshould not give the name of happy to a man who had been so constantly\nfrom his birth to his last hour. This continuity of agreeable moments is\nrendered impossible by the constitution of our organs, by that of the\nelements on which we depend, and by that of mankind, on whom we depend\nstill more. Constant happiness is the philosopher's stone of the soul;\nit is a great deal for us not to be a long time unhappy. A person whom\nwe might suppose to have always enjoyed a happy life, who perishes\nmiserably, would certainly merit the appellation of happy until his\ndeath, and we might boldly pronounce that he had been the happiest of\nmen. Socrates might have been the happiest of the Greeks, although\nsuperstitious, absurd, or iniquitous judges, or all together,\njuridically poisoned him at the age of seventy years, on the suspicion\nthat he believed in only one God.\n\nThe philosophical maxim so much agitated, \"_Nemo ante obitum felix_,\"\ntherefore, appears absolutely false in every sense; and if it signifies\nthat a happy man may die an unhappy death, it signifies nothing of\nconsequence.\n\nThe proverb of being \"Happy as a king\" is still more false. Everybody\nknows how the vulgar deceive themselves.\n\nIt is asked, if one condition is happier than another; if man in general\nis happier than woman. It would be necessary to have tried all\nconditions, to have been man and woman like Tiresias and Iphis, to\ndecide this question; still more would it be necessary to have lived in\nall conditions, with a mind equally proper to each; and we must have\npassed through all the possible states of man and woman to judge of it.\n\nIt is further queried, if of two men one is happier than the other. It\nis very clear that he who has the gout and stone, who loses his fortune,\nhis honor, his wife and children, and who is condemned to be hanged\nimmediately after having been mangled, is less happy in this world in\neverything than a young, vigorous sultan, or La Fontaine's cobbler.\n\nBut we wish to know which is the happier of two men equally healthy,\nequally rich, and of an equal condition. It is clear that it is their\ntemper which decides it. The most moderate, the least anxious, and at\nthe same time the most sensible, is the most happy; but unfortunately\nthe most sensible is often the least moderate. It is not our condition,\nit is the temper of our souls which renders us happy. This disposition\nof our souls depends on our organs, and our organs have been arranged\nwithout our having the least part in the arrangement.\n\nIt belongs to the reader to make his reflections on the above. There are\nmany articles on which he can say more than we ought to tell him. In\nmatters of art, it is necessary to instruct him; in affairs of morals,\nhe should be left to think for himself.\n\nThere are dogs whom we caress, comb, and feed with biscuits, and whom we\ngive to pretty females: there are others which are covered with the\nmange, which die of hunger; others which we chase and beat, and which a\nyoung surgeon slowly dissects, after having driven four great nails into\ntheir paws. Has it depended upon these poor dogs to be happy or unhappy?\n\nWe say a happy thought, a happy feature, a happy repartee, a happy\nphysiognomy, happy climate, etc. These thoughts, these happy traits,\nwhich strike like sudden inspirations, and which are called the happy\nsallies of a man of wit, strike like flashes of light across our eyes,\nwithout our seeking it. They are no more in our power than a happy\nphysiognomy; that is to say, a sweet and noble aspect, so independent of\nus, and so often deceitful. The happy climate is that which nature\nfavors: so are happy imaginations, so is happy genius, or great talent.\nAnd who can give himself genius? or who, when he has received some ray\nof this flame, can preserve it always brilliant?\n\nWhen we speak of a happy rascal, by this word we only comprehend his\nsuccess. \"Felix Sulla\"--the fortunate Sulla, and Alexander VI., a duke\nof Borgia, have happily pillaged, betrayed, poisoned, ravaged, and\nassassinated. But being villains, it is very likely that they were very\nunhappy, even when not in fear of persons resembling themselves.\n\nIt may happen to an ill-disposed person, badly educated--a Turk, for\nexample, of whom it ought to be said, that he is permitted to doubt the\nChristian faith--to put a silken cord round the necks of his viziers,\nwhen they are rich; to strangle, massacre, or throw his brothers into\nthe Black Sea, and to ravage a hundred leagues of country for his glory.\nIt may happen, I say, that this man has no more remorse than his mufti,\nand is very happy--on all which the reader may duly ponder.\n\nThere were formerly happy planets, and others unhappy, or unfortunate;\nunhappily, they no longer exist. Some people would have deprived the\npublic of this useful Dictionary--happily, they have not succeeded.\n\nUngenerous minds, and absurd fanatics, every day endeavor to prejudice\nthe powerful and the ignorant against philosophers. If they were\nunhappily listened to, we should fall back into the barbarity from which\nphilosophers alone have withdrawn us.\n\n\n\n\nHEAVEN (CIEL MAT\u00c9RIEL).\n\n\nThe laws of optics, which are founded upon the nature of things, have\nordained that, from this small globe of earth on which we live, we shall\nalways see the material heaven as if we were the centre of it, although\nwe are far from being that centre; that we shall always see it as a\nvaulted roof, hanging over a plane, although there is no other vaulted\nroof than that of our atmosphere, which has no such plane; that our sun\nand moon will always appear one-third larger at the horizon than at\ntheir zenith, although they are nearer the spectator at the zenith than\nat the horizon.\n\nSuch are the laws of optics, such is the structure of your eyes, that,\nin the first place, the material heaven, the clouds, the moon, the sun,\nwhich is at so vast a distance from you; the planets, which in their\napogee are still at a greater distance from it; all the stars placed at\ndistances yet vastly greater, comets and meteors, everything, must\nappear to us in that vaulted roof as consisting of our atmosphere.\n\nThe sun appears to us, when in its zenith, smaller than when at fifteen\ndegrees below; at thirty degrees below the zenith it will appear still\nlarger than at fifteen; and finally, at the horizon, its size will seem\nlarger yet; so that its dimensions in the lower heaven decrease in\nconsequence of its elevations, in the following proportions:\n\n     At the horizon                    100\n     At fifteen degrees above           68\n     At thirty degrees                  50\n     At forty-five degrees              40\n\nIts apparent magnitudes in the vaulted roof are as its apparent\nelevations; and it is the same with the moon, and with a comet.\n\nIt is not habit, it is not the intervention of tracts of land, it is not\nthe refraction of the atmosphere which produces this effect. Malebranche\nand R\u00e9gis have disputed with each other on this subject; but Robert\nSmith has calculated.\n\nObserve the two stars, which, being at a prodigious distance from each\nother, and at very different depths, in the immensity of space, are here\nconsidered as placed in the circle which the sun appears to traverse.\nYou perceive them distant from each other in the great circle, but\napproximating to each other in every circle smaller, or within that\ndescribed by the path of the sun.\n\nIt is in this manner that you see the material heaven. It is by these\ninvariable laws of optics that you perceive the planets sometimes\nretrograde and sometimes stationary; there is in fact nothing of the\nkind. Were you stationed in the sun, we should perceive all the planets\nand comets moving regularly round it in those elliptical orbits which\nGod assigns. But we are upon the planet of the earth, in a corner of the\nuniverse, where it is impossible for us to enjoy the sight of\neverything.\n\nLet us not then blame the errors of our senses, like Malebranche; the\nsteady laws of nature originating in the immutable will of the Almighty,\nand adapted to the structure of our organs, cannot be errors.\n\nWe can see only the appearances of things, and not things themselves. We\nare no more deceived when the sun, the work of the divinity--that star a\nmillion times larger than our earth--appears to us quite flat and two\nfeet in width, than when, in a convex mirror, which is the work of our\nown hands, we see a man only a few inches high.\n\nIf the Chald\u00e6an magi were the first who employed the understanding which\nGod bestowed upon them, to measure and arrange in their respective\nstations the heavenly bodies, other nations more gross and unintelligent\nmade no advance towards imitating them.\n\nThese childish and savage populations imagined the earth to be flat,\nsupported, I know not how, by its own weight in the air; the sun, moon,\nand stars to move continually upon a solid vaulted roof called a\nfirmament; and this roof to sustain waters, and have flood-gates at\nregular distances, through which these waters issued to moisten and\nfertilize the earth.\n\nBut how did the sun, the moon, and all the stars reappear after their\nsetting? Of this they know nothing at all. The heaven touched the flat\nearth: and there were no means by which the sun, moon, and stars could\nturn under the earth, and go to rise in the east after having set in the\nwest. It is true that these children of ignorance were right by chance\nin not entertaining the idea that the sun and fixed stars moved, round\nthe earth. But they were far from conceiving that the sun was immovable,\nand the earth with its satellite revolving round him in space together\nwith the other planets. Their fables were more distant from the true\nsystem of the world than darkness from light.\n\nThey thought that the sun and stars returned by certain unknown roads\nafter having refreshed themselves for their course at some spot, not\nprecisely ascertained, in the Mediterranean Sea. This was the amount of\nastronomy, even in the time of Homer, who is comparatively recent; for\nthe Chald\u00e6ans kept their science to themselves, in order to obtain\nthereby, greater respect from other nations. Homer says, more than once,\nthat the sun plunges into the ocean--and this ocean, be it observed, is\nnothing but the Nile--here, by the freshness of the waters, he repairs\nduring the night the fatigue and exhaustion of the day, after which, he\ngoes to the place of his regular rising by ways unknown to mortals. This\nidea is very like that of Baron F\u0153neste, who says, that the cause of\nour not seeing the sun when he goes back, is that he goes back by night.\n\nAs, at that time, the nations of Syria and the Greeks were somewhat\nacquainted with Asia and a small part of Europe, and had no notion of\nthe countries which lie to the north of the Euxine Sea and to the south\nof the Nile, they laid it down as a certainty that the earth was a full\nthird longer than it was wide; consequently the heaven, which touched\nthe earth and embraced it, was also longer than it was wide. Hence came\ndown to us degrees of longitude and latitude, names which we have always\nretained, although with far more correct ideas than those which\noriginally suggested them.\n\nThe Book of Job, composed by an ancient Arab who possessed some\nknowledge of astronomy, since he speaks of the constellations, contains\nnevertheless the following passage: \"Where wert thou, when I laid the\nfoundation of the earth? Who hath taken the dimensions thereof? On what\nare its foundations fixed? Who hath laid the cornerstone thereof?\"\n\nThe least informed schoolboy, at the present day, would tell him, in\nanswer: \"The earth has neither cornerstone nor foundation; and, as to\nits dimensions, we know them perfectly well, as from Magellan to\nBougainville, various navigators have sailed round it.\"\n\nThe same schoolboy would put to silence the pompous declaimer\nLactantius, and all those who before and since his time have decided\nthat the earth was fixed upon the water, and that there can be no heaven\nunder the earth; and that, consequently, it is both ridiculous and\nimpious to suppose the existence of antipodes.\n\nIt is curious to observe with what disdain, with what contemptuous pity,\nLactantius looks down upon all the philosophers, who, from about four\nhundred years before his time, had begun to be acquainted with the\napparent revolutions of the sun and planets, with the roundness of the\nearth, and the liquid and yielding nature of the heaven through which\nthe planets revolved in their orbits, etc. He inquires, \"by what degrees\nphilosophers attained such excess of folly as to conceive the earth to\nbe a globe, and to surround that globe with heaven.\" These reasonings\nare upon a par with those he has adduced on the subject of the sibyls.\n\nOur young scholar would address some such language as this to all these\nconsequential doctors: \"You are to learn that there are no such things\nas solid heavens placed one over another, as you have been told; that\nthere are no real circles in which the stars move on a pretended\nfirmament; that the sun is the centre of our planetary world; and that\nthe earth and the planets move round it in space, in orbits not circular\nbut elliptical. You must learn that there is, in fact, neither above nor\nbelow, but that the planets and the comets tend all towards the sun,\ntheir common centre, and that the sun tends towards them, according to\nan eternal law of gravitation.\"\n\nLactantius and his gabbling associates would be perfectly astonished,\nwere the true system of the world thus unfolded to them.\n\n\n\n\nHEAVEN OF THE ANCIENTS.\n\n\nWere a silkworm to denominate the small quantity of downy substance\nsurrounding its ball, heaven, it would reason just as correctly as all\nthe ancients, when they applied that term to the atmosphere; which, as\nM. de Fontenelle has well observed in his \"Plurality of Worlds,\" is the\ndown of our ball.\n\nThe vapors which rise from our seas and land, and which form the clouds,\nmeteors, and thunder, were supposed, in the early ages of the world, to\nbe the residence of gods. Homer always makes the gods descend in clouds\nof gold; and hence painters still represent them seated on a cloud. How\ncan any one be seated on water? It was perfectly correct to place the\nmaster of the gods more at ease than the rest; he had an eagle to carry\nhim, because the eagle soars higher than the other birds.\n\nThe ancient Greeks, observing that the lords of cities resided in\ncitadels on the tops of mountains, supposed that the gods might also\nhave their citadel, and placed it in Thessaly, on Mount Olympus, whose\nsummit is sometimes hidden in clouds; so that their palace was on the\nsame floor with their heaven.\n\nAfterwards, the stars and planets, which appear fixed to the blue vault\nof our atmosphere, became the abodes of gods; seven of them had each a\nplanet, and the rest found a lodging where they could. The general\ncouncil of gods was held in a spacious hall which lay beyond the Milky\nWay; for it was but reasonable that the gods should have a hall in the\nair, as men had town-halls and courts of assembly upon earth.\n\nWhen the Titans, a species of animal between gods and men, declared\ntheir just and necessary war against these same gods in order to recover\na part of their patrimony, by the father's side, as they were the sons\nof heaven and earth; they contented themselves with piling two or three\nmountains upon one another, thinking that would be quite enough to make\nthem masters of heaven, and of the castle of Olympus.\n\n     _Neve foret terris securior arduus \u00e6ther,_\n     _Affectasse ferunt regnum celeste gigantes;_\n     _Attaque congestos struxisse ad sidera montes._\n                          --OVID'S _Metamorph_., i. 151-153.\n\n     Nor heaven itself was more secure than earth;\n     Against the gods the Titans levied wars,\n     And piled up mountains till they reached the stars.\n\nIt is, however, more than six hundred leagues from these stars to Mount\nOlympus, and from some stars infinitely farther.\n\nVirgil (Eclogue v, 57) does not hesitate to say: \"_Sub pedibusque videt\nnubes et sidera Daphnis._\"\n\n     Daphnis, the guest of heaven, with wondering eyes,\n     Views in the Milky Way, the Starry skies,\n     And far beneath him, from the shining sphere\n     Beholds the morning clouds, and rolling year.\n                                               --DRYDEN.\n\nBut where then could Daphnis possibly place himself?\n\nAt the opera, and in more serious productions, the gods are introduced\ndescending in the midst of tempests, clouds, and thunder; that is, God\nis brought forward in the midst of the vapors of our petty globe. These\nnotions are so suitable to our weak minds, that they appear to us grand\nand sublime.\n\nThis philosophy of children and old women was of prodigious antiquity;\nit is believed, however, that the Chald\u00e6ans entertained nearly as\ncorrect ideas as ourselves on the subject of what is called heaven. They\nplaced the sun in the midst of our planetary system, nearly at the same\ndistance from our globe as our calculation computes it; and they\nsupposed the earth and some planets to revolve round that star; this we\nlearn from Aristarchus of Samos. It is nearly the system of the world\nsince established by Copernicus: but the philosophers kept the secret to\nthemselves, in order to obtain greater respect both from kings and\npeople, or rather perhaps, to avoid the danger of persecution.\n\nThe language of error is so familiar to mankind that we still apply the\nname of heaven to our vapors, and the space between the earth and moon.\nWe use the expression of ascending to heaven, just as we say the sun\nturns round, although we well know that it does not. We are, probably,\nthe heaven of the inhabitants of the moon; and every planet places its\nheaven in that planet nearest to itself.\n\nHad Homer been asked, to what heaven the soul of Sarpedon had fled, or\nwhere that of Hercules resided, Homer would have been a good deal\nembarrassed, and would have answered by some harmonious verses.\n\nWhat assurance could there be, that the ethereal soul of Hercules would\nbe more at its ease in the planet Venus or in Saturn, than upon our own\nglobe? Could its mansion be in the sun? In that flaming and consuming\nfurnace, it would appear difficult for it to endure its station. In\nshort, what was it that the ancients meant by heaven? They knew nothing\nabout it; they were always exclaiming, \"Heaven and earth,\" thus placing\ncompletely different things in most absurd connection. It would be just\nas judicious to exclaim, and connect in the same manner, infinity and an\natom. Properly speaking, there is no heaven. There are a prodigious\nnumber of globes revolving in the immensity of space, and our globe\nrevolves like the rest.\n\nThe ancients thought that to go to heaven was to ascend; but there is no\nascent from one globe to another. The heavenly bodies are sometimes\nabove our horizon, and sometimes below it. Thus, let us suppose that\nVenus, after visiting Paphos, should return to her own planet, when that\nplanet had set; the goddess would not in that case ascend, in reference\nto our horizon; she would descend, and the proper expression would be\nthen, descended to heaven. But the ancients did not discriminate with\nsuch nicety; on every subject of natural philosophy, their notions were\nvague, uncertain and contradictory. Volumes have been composed in order\nto ascertain and point out what they thought upon many questions of this\ndescription. Six words would have been sufficient--\"they did not think\nat all.\" We must always except a small number of sages; but they\nappeared at too late a period, and but rarely disclosed their thoughts;\nand when they did so, the charlatans in power took care to send them to\nheaven by the shortest way.\n\nA writer, if I am not mistaken, of the name of Pluche, has been recently\nexhibiting Moses as a great natural philosopher; another had previously\nharmonized Moses with Descartes, and published a book, which he called,\n\"_Carlesius Mosaisans_\"; according to him, Moses was the real inventor\nof \"Vortices,\" and the subtile matter; but we full well know, that when\nGod made Moses a great legislator and prophet, it was no part of His\nscheme to make him also a professor of physics. Moses instructed the\nJews in their duty, and did not teach them a single word of philosophy.\nCalmet, who compiled a great deal, but never reasoned at all, talks of\nthe system of the Hebrews; but that stupid people never had any system.\nThey had not even a school of geometry; the very name was utterly\nunknown to them. The whole of their science was comprised in\nmoney-changing and usury.\n\nWe find in their books ideas on the structure of heaven, confused,\nincoherent, and in every respect worthy of a people immersed in\nbarbarism. Their first heaven was the air, the second the firmament in\nwhich the stars were fixed. This firmament was solid and made of glass,\nand supported the superior waters which issued from the vast reservoirs\nby flood-gates, sluices, and cataracts, at the time of the deluge.\n\nAbove the firmament or these superior waters was the third heaven, or\nthe empyream, to which St. Paul was caught up. The firmament was a sort\nof demi-vault which came close down to the earth.\n\nIt is clear that, according to this opinion, there could be no\nantipodes. Accordingly, St. Augustine treats the idea of antipodes as an\nabsurdity; and Lactantius, whom we have already quoted, expressly says\n\"can there possibly be any persons so simple as to believe that there\nare men whose heads are lower than their feet?\" etc.\n\nSt. Chrysostom exclaims, in his fourteenth homily, \"Where are they who\npretend that the heavens are movable, and that their form is circular?\"\n\nLactantius, once more, says, in the third book of his \"Institutions,\" \"I\ncould prove to you by many arguments that it is impossible heaven should\nsurround the earth.\"\n\nThe author of the \"Spectacle of Nature\" may repeat to M. le Chevalier as\noften as he pleases, that Lactantius and St. Chrysostom are great\nphilosophers. He will be told in reply that they were great saints; and\nthat to be a great saint, it is not at all necessary to be a great\nastronomer. It will be believed that they are in heaven, although it\nwill be admitted to be impossible to say precisely in what part of it.\n\n\n\n\nHELL.\n\n\nInfernum, subterranean; the regions below, or the infernal regions.\nNations which buried the dead placed them in the inferior or infernal\nregions. Their soul, then, was with them in those regions. Such were the\nfirst physics and the first metaphysics of the Egyptians and Greeks.\n\nThe Indians, who were far more ancient, who had invented the ingenious\ndoctrine of the metempsychosis, never believed that souls existed in the\ninfernal regions.\n\nThe Japanese, Coreans, Chinese, and the inhabitants of the vast\nterritory of eastern and western Tartary never knew a word of the\nphilosophy of the infernal regions.\n\nThe Greeks, in the course of time, constituted an immense kingdom of\nthese infernal regions, which they liberally conferred on Pluto and his\nwife Proserpine. They assigned them three privy counsellors, three\nhousekeepers called Furies, and three Fates to spin, wind, and cut the\nthread of human life. And, as in ancient times, every hero had his dog\nto guard his gate, so was Pluto attended and guarded by an immense dog\nwith three heads; for everything, it seems, was to be done by threes. Of\nthe three privy counsellors, Minos, \u00c6acus, and Rhadamanthus, one judged\nGreece, another Asia Minor--for the Greeks were then unacquainted with\nthe Greater Asia--and the third was for Europe.\n\nThe poets, having invented these infernal regions, or hell, were the\nfirst to laugh at them. Sometimes Virgil mentions hell in the \"\u00c6neid\" in\na style of seriousness, because that style was then suitable to his\nsubject. Sometimes he speaks of it with contempt in his \"Georgics\" (ii.\n490, etc.).\n\n     _Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas_\n     _Atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum_\n     _Subjecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avari!_\n\n     Happy the man whose vigorous soul can pierce\n     Through the formation of this universe,\n     Who nobly dares despise, with soul sedate,\n     The den of Acheron, and vulgar fears and fate.\n                                             --WHARTON.\n\nThe following lines from the \"Troad\" (chorus of act ii.), in which\nPluto, Cerberus, Phlegethon, Styx, etc., are treated like dreams and\nchildish tales, were repeated in the theatre of Rome, and applauded by\nforty thousand hands:\n\n     _.... T\u0153nara et aspero_\n     _Regnum sub domino, limen et obsidens_\n     _Custos non facili Cerberus ostio_\n     _Rumores vacui, verbaque inania,_\n     _Et par solicito fabula somnio._\n\nLucretius and Horace express themselves equally strongly. Cicero and\nSeneca used similar language in innumerable parts of their writings. The\ngreat emperor Marcus Aurelius reasons still more philosophically than\nthose I have mentioned. \"He who fears death, fears either to be deprived\nof all senses, or to experience other sensations. But, if you no longer\nretain your own senses, you will be no longer subject to any pain or\ngrief. If you have senses of a different nature, you will be a totally\ndifferent being.\"\n\nTo this reasoning, profane philosophy had nothing to reply. Yet,\nagreeably to that contradiction or perverseness which distinguishes the\nhuman species, and seems to constitute the very foundation of our\nnature, at the very time when Cicero publicly declared that \"not even an\nold woman was to be found who believed in such absurdities,\" Lucretius\nadmitted that these ideas were powerfully impressive upon men's minds;\nhis object, he says, is to destroy them:\n\n     _.... Si certum finem esse viderent_\n     _\u00c6rumnarum homines, aliqua ratione valerent_\n     _Religionibus atque minis obsistere vatum._\n     _Nunc ratio nulla est restandi, nulla facultas;_\n     _\u00c6ternas quoniam poenas in morte timendum._\n                                --LUCRETIUS, i. 108.\n\n     .... If it once appear\n     That after death there's neither hope nor fear;\n     Then might men freely triumph, then disdain\n     The poet's tales, and scorn their fancied pain;\n     But now we must submit, since pains we fear\n     Eternal after death, we know not where.\n                                              --CREECH.\n\nIt was therefore true, that among the lowest classes of the people, some\nlaughed at hell, and others trembled at it. Some regarded Cerberus, the\nFuries, and Pluto as ridiculous fables, others perpetually presented\nofferings to the infernal gods. It was with them just as it is now among\nourselves:\n\n     _Et quocumque tamen miseri venere, parentant,_\n     _Et nigros mactant pecudes, et Manibus divis_\n     _Inferias mittunt multoque in rebus acerbis_\n     _Acrius admittunt animos ad religionem._\n                                --LUCRETIUS, iii. 51.\n\n     Nay, more than that, where'er the wretches come\n     They sacrifice black sheep on every tomb,\n     To please the manes; and of all the rout,\n     When cares and dangers press, grow most devout.\n                                              --CREECH.\n\nMany philosophers who had no belief in the fables about hell, were yet\ndesirous that the people should retain that belief. Such was Zimens of\nLocris. Such was the political historian Polybius. \"Hell,\" says he, \"is\nuseless to sages, but necessary to the blind and brutal populace.\"\n\nIt is well known that the law of the Pentateuch never announces a hell.\nAll mankind was involved in this chaos of contradiction and uncertainty,\nwhen Jesus Christ came into the world. He confirmed the ancient doctrine\nof hell, not the doctrine of the heathen poets, not that of the Egyptian\npriests, but that which Christianity adopted, and to which everything\nmust yield. He announced a kingdom that was about to come, and a hell\nthat should have no end.\n\nHe said, in express words, at Capernaum in Galilee, \"Whosoever shall\ncall his brother '_Raca_,' shall be condemned by the sanhedrim; but\nwhosoever shall call him 'fool,' shall be condemned to _Gehenna Hinnom_,\nGehenna of fire.\"\n\nThis proves two things, first, that Jesus Christ was adverse to abuse\nand reviling; for it belonged only to Him, as master, to call the\nPharisees hypocrites, and a \"generation of vipers.\"\n\nSecondly, that those who revile their neighbor deserve hell; for the\nGehenna of fire was in the valley of Hinnom, where victims had formerly\nbeen burned in sacrifice to Moloch, and this Gehenna was typical of the\nfire of hell.\n\nHe says, in another place, \"If any one shall offend one of the weak who\nbelieve in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about\nhis neck and he were cast into the sea.\n\n\"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter\ninto life maimed, than to go into the Gehenna of inextinguishable fire,\nwhere the worm dies not, and where the fire is not quenched.\n\n\"And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter\nlame into eternal life, than to be cast with two feet into the\ninextinguishable Gehenna, where the worm dies not; and where the fire is\nnot quenched.\n\n\"And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better to enter into\nthe kingdom of God with one eye, than to be cast with both eyes into the\nGehenna of fire, where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.\n\n\"For everyone shall be burned with fire, and every victim shall be\nsalted with salt.\n\n\"Salt is good; but if the salt have lost its savor, with what will you\nsalt?\n\n\"You have salt in yourselves, preserve peace one with another.\"\n\nHe said on another occasion, on His journey to Jerusalem, \"When the\nmaster of the house shall have entered and shut the door, you will\nremain without, and knock, saying, 'Lord, open unto us;' and he will\nanswer and say unto you, '_Nescio vos_,' I know you not; whence are you?\nAnd then ye shall begin to say, we have eaten and drunk with thee, and\nthou hast taught in our public places; and he will reply, '_Nescio\nvos_,' whence are you, workers of iniquity? And there shall be weeping\nand gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see there Abraham, Isaac, and\nJacob, and the prophets, and yourselves cast out.\"\n\nNotwithstanding the other positive declarations made by the Saviour of\nmankind, which assert the eternal damnation of all who do not belong to\nour church, Origen and some others were not believers in the eternity of\npunishments.\n\nThe Socinians reject such punishments; but they are without the pale.\nThe Lutherans and Calvinists, although they have strayed beyond the\npale, yet admit the doctrine of a hell without end.\n\nWhen men came to live in society, they must have perceived that a great\nnumber of criminals eluded the severity of the laws; the laws punished\npublic crimes; it was necessary to establish a check upon secret crimes;\nthis check was to be found only in religion. The Persians, Chald\u00e6ans,\nEgyptians, and Greeks, entertained the idea of punishments after the\npresent life, and of all the nations of antiquity that we are acquainted\nwith, the Jews, as we have already remarked, were the only one who\nadmitted solely temporal punishments. It is ridiculous to believe, or\npretend to believe, from some excessively obscure passages, that hell\nwas recognized by the ancient laws of the Jews, by their Leviticus, or\nby their Decalogue, when the author of those laws says not a single word\nwhich can bear the slightest relation to the chastisements of a future\nlife. We might have some right to address the compiler of the Pentateuch\nin such language as the following: \"You are a man of no consistency, as\ndestitute of probity as understanding, and totally unworthy of the name\nwhich you arrogate to yourself of legislator. What! you are perfectly\nacquainted, it seems, with that doctrine so eminently repressive of\nhuman vice, so necessary to the virtue and happiness of mankind--the\ndoctrine of hell; and yet you do not explicitly announce it; and, while\nit is admitted by all the nations which surround you, you are content to\nleave it for some commentators, after four thousand years have passed\naway, to suspect that this doctrine might possibly have been entertained\nby you, and to twist and torture your expressions, in order to find that\nin them which you have never said. Either you are grossly ignorant not\nto know that this belief was universal in Egypt, Chald\u00e6a, and Persia; or\nyou have committed the most disgraceful error in judgment, in not having\nmade it the foundation-stone of your religion.\"\n\nThe authors of the Jewish laws could at most only answer: \"We confess\nthat we are excessively ignorant; that we did not learn the art of\nwriting until a late period; that our people were a wild and barbarous\nhorde, that wandered, as our own records admit, for nearly half a\ncentury in impracticable deserts, and at length obtained possession of a\npetty territory by the most odious rapine and detestable cruelty ever\nmentioned in the records of history. We had no commerce with civilized\nnations, and how could you suppose that, so grossly mean and grovelling\nas we are in all our ideas and usages, we should have invented a system\nso refined and spiritual as that in question?\"\n\nWe employed the word which most nearly corresponds with soul, merely to\nsignify life; we know our God and His ministers, His angels, only as\ncorporeal beings; the distinction of soul and body, the idea of a life\nbeyond death, can be the fruit only of long meditation and refined\nphilosophy. Ask the Hottentots and negroes, who inhabit a country a\nhundred times larger than ours, whether they know anything of a life to\ncome? We thought we had done enough in persuading the people under our\ninfluence that God punished offenders to the fourth generation, either\nby leprosy, by sudden death, or by the loss of the little property of\nwhich the criminal might be possessed.\n\nTo this apology it might be replied: \"You have invented a system, the\nridicule and absurdity of which are as clear as the sun at noon-day; for\nthe offender who enjoyed good health, and whose family were in\nprosperous circumstances, must absolutely have laughed you to scorn.\"\n\nThe apologist for the Jewish law would here rejoin: \"You are much\nmistaken; since for one criminal who reasoned correctly, there were a\nhundred who never reasoned at all. The man who, after he had committed a\ncrime, found no punishment of it attached to himself or his son, would\nyet tremble for his grandson. Besides, if after the time of committing\nhis offence he was not speedily seized with some festering sore, such as\nour nation was extremely subject to, he would experience it in the\ncourse of years. Calamities are always occurring in a family, and we,\nwithout difficulty, instilled the belief that these calamities were\ninflicted by the hand of God taking vengeance for secret offences.\"\n\nIt would be easy to reply to this answer by saying: \"Your apology is\nworth nothing; for it happens every day that very worthy and excellent\npersons lose their health and their property; and, if there were no\nfamily that did not experience calamity, and that calamity at the same\ntime was a chastisement from God, all the families of your community\nmust have been made up of scoundrels.\"\n\nThe Jewish priest might again answer and say that there are some\ncalamities inseparable from human nature, and others expressly inflicted\nby the hand of God. But, in return, we should point out to such a\nreasoner the absurdity of considering fever and hail-stones in some\ncases as divine punishments; in others as mere natural effects.\n\nIn short, the Pharisees and the Essenians among the Jews did admit,\naccording to certain notions of their own, the belief of a hell. This\ndogma had passed from the Greeks to the Romans, and was adopted by the\nChristians.\n\nMany of the fathers of the church rejected the doctrine of eternal\npunishments. It appeared to them absurd to burn to all eternity an\nunfortunate man for stealing a goat. Virgil has finely said:\n\n     _.... Sedit eternumque sedebit_\n     _Infelix Theseus._\n\n     Unhappy Theseus, doomed forever there,\n     Is fixed by fate on his eternal chair.\n                                     --DRYDEN.\n\nBut it is vain for him to maintain or imply that Theseus is forever\nfixed to his chair, and that this position constitutes his punishment.\nOthers have imagined Theseus to be a hero who could never be seen on any\nseat in hell, and who was to be found in the Elysian Fields.\n\nA Calvinistical divine, of the name of Petit Pierre, not long since\npreached and published the doctrine that the damned would at some future\nperiod be pardoned. The rest of the ministers of his association told\nhim that they wished for no such thing. The dispute grew warm. It was\nsaid that the king, whose subjects they were, wrote to him, that since\nthey were desirous of being damned without redemption, he could have no\nreasonable objection, and freely gave his consent. The damned majority\nof the church of Neufch\u00e2tel ejected poor Petit Pierre, who had thus\nconverted hell into a mere purgatory. It is stated that one of them said\nto him: \"My good friend, I no more believe in the eternity of hell than\nyourself; but recollect that it may be no bad thing, perhaps, for your\nservant, your tailor, and your lawyer to believe in it.\"\n\nI will add, as an illustration of this passage, a short address of\nexhortation to those philosophers who in their writings deny a hell; I\nwill say to them: \"Gentlemen, we do not pass our days with Cicero,\nAtticus, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, the Chancellor de l'H\u00f4pital, La\nMothe le Vayer, Desyveteaux, Ren\u00e9 Descartes, Newton, or Locke, nor with\nthe respectable Bayle, who was superior to the power and frown of\nfortune, nor with the too scrupulously virtuous infidel Spinoza, who,\nalthough laboring under poverty and destitution, gave back to the\nchildren of the grand pensionary De Witt an allowance of three hundred\nflorins, which had been granted him by that great statesman, whose\nheart, it may be remembered, the Hollanders actually devoured, although\nthere was nothing to be gained by it. Every man with whom we intermingle\nin life is not a des Barreaux, who paid the pleaders their fees for a\ncause which he had forgotten to bring into court. Every woman is not a\nNinon de L'Enclos, who guarded deposits in trust with religious\nfidelity, while the gravest personages in the state were violating them.\nIn a word, gentlemen, all the world are not philosophers.\n\n\"We are obliged to hold intercourse and transact business, and mix up in\nlife with knaves possessing little or no reflection--with vast numbers\nof persons addicted to brutality, intoxication, and rapine. You may, if\nyou please, preach to them that there is no hell, and that the soul of\nman is mortal. As for myself, I will be sure to thunder in their ears\nthat if they rob me they will inevitably be damned. I will imitate the\ncountry clergyman, who, having had a great number of sheep stolen from\nhim, at length said to his hearers, in the course of one of his sermons:\n'I cannot conceive what Jesus Christ was thinking about when he died for\nsuch a set of scoundrels as you are.'\"\n\nThere is an excellent book for fools called \"The Christian Pedagogue,\"\ncomposed by the reverend father d'Outreman, of the Society of Jesus, and\nenlarged by Coulon, cur\u00e9 of Ville-Juif-les-Paris. This book has passed,\nthank God, through fifty-one editions, although not a single page in it\nexhibits a gleam of common sense.\n\nFriar Outreman asserts--in the hundred and fifty-seventh page of the\nsecond edition in quarto--that one of Queen Elizabeth's ministers,\nBaron Hunsdon, predicted to Cecil, secretary of state, and to six other\nmembers of the cabinet council, that they as well as he would be damned;\nwhich, he says, was actually the case, and is the case with all\nheretics. It is most likely that Cecil and the other members of the\ncouncil gave no credit to the said Baron Hunsdon; but if the fictitious\nbaron had said the same to six common citizens, they would probably have\nbelieved him.\n\nWere the time ever to arrive in which no citizen of London believed in a\nhell, what course of conduct would be adopted? What restraint upon\nwickedness would exist? There would exist the feeling of honor, the\nrestraint of the laws, that of the Deity Himself, whose will it is that\nmankind shall be just, whether there be a hell or not.\n\n\n\n\nHELL (DESCENT INTO).\n\n\nOur colleague who wrote the article on \"Hell\" has made no mention of the\ndescent of Jesus Christ into hell. This is an article of faith of high\nimportance; it is expressly particularized in the creed of which we have\nalready spoken. It is asked whence this article of faith is derived; for\nit is not to be found in either of our four gospels, and the creed\ncalled the Apostles' Creed is not older than the age of those learned\npriests, Jerome, Augustine, and Rufinus.\n\nIt is thought that this descent of our Lord into hell is taken\noriginally from the gospel of Nicodemus, one of the oldest.\n\nIn that gospel the prince of Tartarus and Satan, after a long\nconversation with Adam, Enoch, Elias the Tishbite, and David, hears a\nvoice like the thunder, and a voice like a tempest. David says to the\nprince of Tartarus, \"Now, thou foul and miscreant prince of hell, open\nthy gates and let the King of Glory enter,\" etc. While he was thus\naddressing the prince, the Lord of Majesty appeared suddenly in the form\nof man, and He lighted up the eternal darkness, and broke asunder the\nindissoluble bars, and by an invincible virtue He visited those who lay\nin the depth of the darkness of guilt, in the shadow of the depth of\nsin.\n\nJesus Christ appeared with St. Michael; He overcame death; He took Adam\nby the hand; and the good thief followed Him, bearing the cross. All\nthis took place in hell, in the presence of Carinus and Lenthius, who\nwere resuscitated for the express purpose of giving evidence of the fact\nto the priests Ananias and Caiaphas, and to Doctor Gamaliel, at that\ntime St. Paul's master.\n\nThis gospel of Nicodemus has long been considered as of no authority.\nBut a confirmation of this descent into hell is found in the First\nEpistle of St. Peter, at the close of the third chapter: \"Because Christ\ndied once for our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might offer us\nto God; dead indeed in the flesh, but resuscitated in spirit, by which\nHe went to preach to the spirits that were in prison.\"\n\nMany of the fathers interpreted this passage very differently, but all\nwere agreed as to the fact of the descent of Jesus into hell after His\ndeath. A frivolous difficulty was started upon the subject. He had,\nwhile upon the cross, said to the good thief: \"This day shalt thou be\nwith Me in paradise.\" By going to hell, therefore, He failed to perform\nHis promise. This objection is easily answered by saying that He took\nhim first to hell and afterwards to paradise; but, then, what becomes of\nthe stay of three days?\n\nEusebius of C\u00e6sarea says that Jesus left His body, without waiting for\nDeath to come and seize it; and that, on the contrary, He seized Death,\nwho, in terror and agony, embraced His feet, and afterwards attempted to\nescape by flight, but was prevented by Jesus, who broke down the gates\nof the dungeons which enclosed the souls of the saints, drew them forth\nfrom their confinement, resuscitated them, then resuscitated Himself,\nand conducted them in triumph to that heavenly Jerusalem _which\ndescended from heaven every night_, and was actually seen by the\nastonished eyes of St. Justin.\n\nIt was a question much disputed whether all those who were resuscitated\ndied again before they ascended into heaven. St. Thomas, in his\n\"Summary,\" asserts that they died again. This also is the opinion of the\ndiscriminating and judicious Calmet. \"We maintain,\" says he, in his\ndissertation on this great question, \"that the saints who were\nresuscitated, after the death of the Saviour died again, in order to\nrevive hereafter.\"\n\nGod had permitted, ages before, that the profane Gentiles should imitate\nin anticipation these sacred truths. The ancients imagined that the gods\nresuscitated Pelops; that Orpheus extricated Eurydice from hell, at\nleast for a moment; that Hercules delivered Alcestis from it; that\n\u00c6sculapius resuscitated Hippolytus, etc. Let us ever discriminate\nbetween fable and truth, and keep our minds in the same subjection with\nrespect to whatever surprises and astonishes us, as with respect to\nwhatever appears perfectly conformable to their circumscribed and narrow\nviews.\n\n\n\n\nHERESY.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nA Greek word, signifying \"belief, or elected opinion.\" It is not greatly\nto the honor of human reason that men should be hated, persecuted,\nmassacred, or burned at the stake, on account of their chosen opinions;\nbut what is exceedingly little to our honor is that this mischievous and\ndestructive madness has been as peculiar to us as leprosy was to the\nHebrews, or lues formerly to the Caribs.\n\nWe well know, theologically speaking, that heresy having become a crime,\nas even the word itself is a reproach; we well know, I say, that the\nLatin church, which alone can possess reason, has also possessed the\nright of reproving all who were of a different opinion from her own.\n\nOn the other side, the Greek church had the same right; accordingly, it\nreproved the Romans when they chose a different opinion from the Greeks\non the procession of the Holy Spirit, the viands which might be taken in\nLent, the authority of the pope, etc.\n\nBut upon what ground did any arrive finally at the conclusion that, when\nthey were the strongest, they might burn those who entertained chosen\nopinions of their own? Those who had such opinions were undoubtedly\ncriminal in the sight of God, since they were obstinate. They will,\ntherefore, as no one can possibly doubt, be burned to all eternity in\nanother world; but why burn them by a slow fire in this? The sufferers\nhave represented that such conduct is a usurpation of the jurisdiction\nof God; that this punishment is very hard and severe, considered as an\ninfliction by men; and that it is, moreover, of no utility, since one\nhour of suffering added to eternity is an absolute cipher.\n\nThe pious inflicters, however, replied to these reproaches that nothing\nwas more just than to put upon burning coals whoever had a self-formed\nopinion; that to burn those whom God Himself would burn, was in fact a\nholy conformity to God; and finally, that since, by admission, the\nburning for an hour or two was a mere cipher in comparison with\neternity, the burning of five or six provinces for chosen opinions--for\nheresies--was a matter in reality of very little consequence.\n\nIn the present day it is asked, \"Among what cannibals have these\nquestions been agitated, and their solutions proved by facts?\" We must\nadmit with sorrow and humiliation that it was asked even among\nourselves, and in the very same cities where nothing is minded but\noperas, comedies, balls, fashions, and intrigue.\n\nUnfortunately, it was a tyrant who introduced the practice of destroying\nheretics--not one of those equivocal tyrants who are regarded as saints\nby one party, and monsters by another, but one Maximus, competitor of\nTheodosius I., a decided tyrant, in the strictest meaning of the term,\nover the whole empire.\n\nHe destroyed at Trier, by the hands of the executioner, the Spaniard\nPriscillian and his adherents, whose opinions were pronounced erroneous\nby some bishops of Spain. These prelates solicited the capital\npunishment of the Priscillianists with a charity so ardent that Maximus\ncould refuse them nothing. It was by no means owing to them that St.\nMartin was not beheaded as a heretic. He was fortunate enough to quit\nTrier and escape back to Tours.\n\nA single example is sufficient to establish a usage. The first Scythian\nwho scooped out the brains of his enemy and made a drinking-cup of his\nskull, was allowed all the rank and consequence in Scythia. Thus was\nconsecrated the practice of employing the executioner to cut off\n\"opinions.\"\n\nNo such thing as heresy existed among the religions of antiquity,\nbecause they had reference only to moral conduct and public worship.\nWhen metaphysics became connected with Christianity, controversy\nprevailed; and from controversy arose different parties, as in the\nschools of philosophy. It was impossible that metaphysics should not\nmingle the uncertainties essential to their nature with the faith due to\nJesus Christ. He had Himself written nothing; and His incarnation was a\nproblem which the new Christians, whom He had not Himself inspired,\nsolved in many different ways. \"Each,\" as St. Paul expressly observes,\n\"had his peculiar party; some were for Apollos, others for Cephas.\"\n\nChristians in general, for a long time, assumed the name of Nazarenes,\nand even the Gentiles gave them no other appellations during the two\nfirst centuries. But there soon arose a particular school of Nazarenes,\nwho believed a gospel different from the four canonical ones. It has\neven been pretended that this gospel differed only very slightly from\nthat of St. Matthew, and was in fact anterior to it. St. Epiphanius and\nSt. Jerome place the Nazarenes in the cradle of Christianity.\n\nThose who considered themselves as knowing more than the rest, took the\ndenomination of gnostics, \"knowers\"; and this denomination was for a\nlong time so honorable that St. Clement of Alexandria, in his\n\"_Stromata_\" always calls the good Christians true gnostics. \"Happy are\nthey who have entered into the gnostic holiness! He who deserves the\nname of gnostic resists seducers and gives to every one that asks.\" The\nfifth and sixth books of the \"_Stromata_\" turn entirely upon the\nperfection of gnosticism.\n\nThe Ebionites existed incontestably in the time of the apostles. That\nname, which signifies \"poor,\" was intended to express how dear to them\nwas the poverty in which Jesus was born.\n\nCerinthus was equally ancient. The \"Apocalypse\" of St. John was\nattributed to him. It is even thought that St. Paul and he had violent\ndisputes with each other.\n\nIt seems to our weak understandings very natural to expect from the\nfirst disciples a solemn declaration, a complete and unalterable\nprofession of faith, which might terminate all past, and preclude any\nfuture quarrels; but God permitted it not so to be. The creed called the\n\"Apostles' Creed,\" which is short, and in which are not to be found the\nconsubstantiality, the word trinity, or the seven sacraments, did not\nmake its appearance before the time of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and\nthe celebrated priest Rufinus. It was by this priest, the enemy of St.\nJerome, that we are told it was compiled. Heresies had had time to\nmultiply, and more than fifty were enumerated as existing in the fifth\ncentury.\n\nWithout daring to scrutinize the ways of Providence, which are\nimpenetrable by the human mind, and merely consulting, as far as we are\npermitted, our feeble reason, it would seem that of so many opinions on\nso many articles, there would always exist one which must prevail, which\nwas the orthodox, \"the right of teaching.\" The other societies, besides\nthe really orthodox, soon assumed that title also; but being the weaker\nparties, they had given to them the designation of \"heretics.\"\n\nWhen, in the progress of time, the Christian church in the East, which\nwas the mother of that in the West, had irreparably broken with her\ndaughter, each remained sovereign in her distinct sphere, and each had\nher particular heresies, arising out of the dominant opinion.\n\nThe barbarians of the North, having but recently become Christians,\ncould not entertain the same opinions as Southern countries, because\nthey could not adopt the same usages. They could not, for example, for a\nlong time adore images, as they had neither painters nor sculptors. It\nalso was somewhat dangerous to baptize an infant in winter, in the\nDanube, the Weser, or the Elbe.\n\nIt was no easy matter for the inhabitants of the shores of the Baltic to\nknow precisely the opinions held in the Milanese and the march of\nAncona. The people of the South and of the North of Europe had therefore\nchosen opinions different from each other. This seems to me to be the\nreason why Claude, bishop of Turin, preserved in the ninth century all\nthe usages and dogmas received in the seventh and eighth, from the\ncountry of the Allobroges, as far as the Elbe and the Danube.\n\nThese dogmas and usages became fixed and permanent among the inhabitants\nof valleys and mountainous recesses, and near the banks of the Rh\u00f4ne,\namong a sequestered and almost unknown people, whom the general\ndesolation left untouched in their seclusion and poverty, until they at\nlength became known, under the name of the Vaudois in the twelfth, and\nthat of the Albigenses in the thirteenth century. It is known how their\nchosen opinions were treated; what crusades were preached against them;\nwhat carnage was made among them; and that, from that period to the\npresent day, Europe has not enjoyed a single year of tranquillity and\ntoleration.\n\nIt is a great evil to be a heretic; but is it a great good to maintain\northodoxy by soldiers and executioners? Would it not be better that\nevery man should eat his bread in peace under the shade of his own\nfig-tree? I suggest so bold a proposition with fear and trembling.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Of the Extirpation of Heresies._\n\nIt appears to me that, in relation to heresies, we ought to distinguish\nbetween opinion and faction. From the earliest times of Christianity\nopinions were divided, as we have already seen. The Christians of\nAlexandria did not think, on many points, like those of Antioch. The\nAchaians were opposed to the Asiatics. This difference has existed\nthrough all past periods of our religion, and probably will always\ncontinue. Jesus Christ, who might have united all believers in the same\nsentiment, has not, in fact, done so; we must, therefore, presume that\nHe did not desire it, and that it was His design to exercise in all\nchurches the spirit of indulgence and charity, by permitting the\nexistence of different systems of faith, while all should be united in\nacknowledging Him for their chief and master. All the varying sects, a\nlong while tolerated by the emperors, or concealed from their\nobservation, had no power to persecute and proscribe one another, as\nthey were all equally subject to the Roman magistrates. They possessed\nonly the power of disputing with each other. When the magistrates\nprosecuted them, they all claimed the rights of nature. They said:\n\"Permit us to worship God in peace; do not deprive us of the liberty you\nallow to the Jews.\"\n\nAll the different sects existing at present may hold the same language\nto those who oppress them. They may say to the nations who have granted\nprivileges to the Jews: Treat us as you treat these sons of Jacob; let\nus, like them, worship God according to the dictates of conscience. Our\nopinion is not more injurious to your state or realm than Judaism. You\ntolerate the enemies of Jesus Christ; tolerate us, therefore, who adore\nJesus Christ, and differ from yourselves only upon subtle points of\ntheology; do not deprive yourselves of the services of useful subjects.\nIt is of consequence to you to obtain their labor and skill in your\nmanufactures, your marine, and your agriculture, and it is of no\nconsequence at all to you that they hold a few articles of faith\ndifferent from your own. What you want is their work, and not their\ncatechism.\n\nFaction is a thing perfectly different. It always happens, as a matter\nof necessity, that a persecuted sect degenerates into a faction. The\noppressed unite, and console and encourage one another. They have more\nindustry to strengthen their party than the dominant sect has for their\nextermination. To crush them or be crushed by them is the inevitable\nalternative. Such was the case after the persecution raised in 303 by\nthe C\u00e6sar, Galerius, during the last two years of the reign of\nDiocletian. The Christians, after having been favored by Diocletian for\nthe long period of eighteen years, had become too numerous and wealthy\nto be extirpated. They joined the party of Constantius Chlorus; they\nfought for Constantine his son; and a complete revolution took place in\nthe empire.\n\nWe may compare small things to great, when both are under the direction\nof the same principle or spirit. A similar revolution happened in\nHolland, in Scotland, and in Switzerland. When Ferdinand and Isabella\nexpelled from Spain the Jews,--who were settled there not merely before\nthe reigning dynasty, but before the Moors and Goths, and even the\nCarthaginians--the Jews would have effected a revolution in that country\nif they had been as warlike as they were opulent, and if they could have\ncome to an understanding with the Arabs.\n\nIn a word, no sect has ever changed the government of a country but when\nit was furnished with arms by despair. Mahomet himself would not have\nsucceeded had he not been expelled from Mecca and a price set upon his\nhead.\n\nIf you are desirous, therefore, to prevent the overflow of a state by\nany sect, show it toleration. Imitate the wise conduct exhibited at the\npresent day by Germany, England, Holland, Denmark, and Russia. There is\nno other policy to be adopted with respect to a new sect than to\ndestroy, without remorse, both leaders and followers, men, women, and\nchildren, without a single exception, or to tolerate them when they are\nnumerous. The first method is that of a monster, the second that of a\nsage.\n\nBind to the state all the subjects of that state by their interest; let\nthe Quaker and the Turk find their advantage in living under your laws.\nReligion is between God and man; civil law is between you and your\npeople.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIt is impossible not to regret the loss of a \"History of Heresies,\"\nwhich Strategius wrote by order of Constantine. Ammianus Marcellinus\ninforms us that the emperor, wishing to ascertain the opinions of the\ndifferent sects, and not finding any other person who could give correct\nideas on the subject, imposed the office of drawing up a report or\nnarrative upon it on that officer, who acquitted himself so well, that\nConstantine was desirous of his being honored in consequence with the\nname of Musonianus. M. de Valois, in his notes upon Ammianus, observes\nthat Strategius, who was appointed prefect of the East, possessed as\nmuch knowledge and eloquence, as moderation and mildness; such, at\nleast, is the eulogium passed upon him by Libanius.\n\nThe choice of a layman by the emperor shows that an ecclesiastic at that\ntime had not the qualities indispensable for a task so delicate. In\nfact, St. Augustine remarks that a bishop of Bresse, called Philastrius,\nwhose work is to be found in the collection of the fathers, having\ncollected all the heresies, even including those which existed among the\nJews before the coming of Jesus Christ, reckons twenty-eight of the\nlatter and one hundred and twenty-eight from the coming of Christ; while\nSt. Epiphanius, comprising both together, makes the whole number but\neighty. The reason assigned by St. Augustine for this difference is,\nthat what appears heresy to the one, does not appear so to the other.\nAccordingly this father tells the Manich\u00e6ans: \"We take the greatest care\nnot to treat you with rigor; such conduct we leave to those who know not\nwhat pains are necessary for the discovery of truth, and how difficult\nit is to avoid falling into errors; we leave it to those who know not\nwith what sighs and groans even a very slight knowledge of the divine\nnature is alone to be acquired. For my own part, I consider it my duty\nto bear with you as I was borne with formerly myself, and to show you\nthe same tolerance which I experienced when I was in error.\"\n\nIf, however, any one considers the infamous imputations, which we have\nnoticed under the article on \"Genealogy,\" and the abominations of which\nthis professedly indulgent and candid father accused the Manich\u00e6ans in\nthe celebration of their mysteries--as we shall see under the article on\n\"Zeal\"--we shall be convinced that toleration was never the virtue of\nthe clergy. We have already seen, under the article on \"Council,\" what\nseditions were excited by the ecclesiastics in relation to Arianism.\nEusebius informs us that in some places the statues of Constantine were\nthrown down because he wished the Arians to be tolerated; and Sozomen\nsays that on the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, when Macedonius, an\nArian, contested the see of Constantinople with Paul, a Catholic, the\ndisturbance and confusion became so dreadful in the church, from which\neach endeavored to expel the other, that the soldiers, thinking the\npeople in a state of insurrection, actually charged upon them; a fierce\nand sanguinary conflict ensued, and more than three thousand persons\nwere slain or suffocated. Macedonius ascended the episcopal throne, took\nspeedy possession of all the churches, and persecuted with great cruelty\nthe Novatians and Catholics. It was in revenge against the latter of\nthese that he denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit, just as he\nrecognized the divinity of the Word, which was denied by the Arians out\nof mere defiance to their protector Constantius, who had deposed him.\n\nThe same historian adds that on the death of Athanasius, the Arians,\nsupported by Valens, apprehended, bound in chains, and put to death\nthose who remained attached to Peter, whom Athanasius had pointed out as\nhis successor. Alexandria resembled a city taken by assault. The Arians\nsoon possessed themselves of the churches, and the bishop, installed by\nthem, obtained the power of banishing from Egypt all who remained\nattached to the Nicean creed.\n\nWe read in Socrates that, after the death of Sisinnius, the church of\nConstantinople became again divided on the choice of a successor, and\nTheodosius the Younger placed in the patriarchal see the violent and\nfiery Nestorius. In his first sermon he addresses the following language\nto the emperor: \"Give me the land purged of heretics, and I will give\nyou the kingdom of Heaven; second me in the extermination of heretics,\nand I engage to furnish you with effectual assistance against the\nPersians.\" He afterwards expelled the Arians from the capital, armed the\npeople against them, pulled down their churches, and obtained from the\nemperor rigorous and persecuting edicts to effect their extirpation. He\nemployed his powerful influence subsequently in procuring the arrest,\nimprisonment, and even whipping of the principal persons among the\npeople who had interrupted him in the middle of a discourse, in which he\nwas delivering his distinguishing system of doctrine, which was soon\ncondemned at the Council of Ephesus.\n\nPhotius relates that when the priest reached the altar, it was customary\nin the church of Constantinople for the people to chant: \"Holy God,\npowerful God, immortal God\"; and the name given to this part of the\nservice was \"the trisagion.\" The priest, Peter had added: \"Who hast been\ncrucified for us, have mercy upon us.\" The Catholics considered this\naddition as containing the error of the Eutychian Theopathists, who\nmaintained that the divinity had suffered; they, however, chanted the\ntrisagion with the addition, to avoid irritating the emperor Anastasius,\nwho had just deposed another Macedonius, and placed in his stead\nTimotheus, by whose order this addition was ordered to be chanted. But\non a particular day the monks entered the church, and, instead of the\naddition in question, chanted a verse from one of the Psalms: the people\ninstantly exclaimed: \"The orthodox have arrived very seasonably!\" All\nthe partisans of the Council of Chalcedon chanted, in union with the\nmonks, the verse from the Psalm; the Eutychians were offended; the\nservice was interrupted; a battle commenced in the church; the people\nrushed out, obtained arms as speedily as possible, spread carnage and\nconflagration through the city, and were pacified only by the\ndestruction of ten thousand lives.\n\nThe imperial power at length established through all Egypt the authority\nof this Council of Chalcedon; but the massacre of more than a hundred\nthousand Egyptians, on different occasions, for having refused to\nacknowledge the council, had planted in the hearts of the whole\npopulation an implacable hatred against the emperors. A part of those\nwho were hostile to the council withdrew to Upper Egypt, others quitted\naltogether the dominions of the empire and passed over to Africa and\namong the Arabs, where all religions were tolerated.\n\nWe have already observed that under the reign of the empress Irene the\nworship of images was re-established and confirmed by the second Council\nof Nice. Leo the Armenian, Michael the Stammerer, and Theophilus,\nneglected nothing to effect its abolition; and this opposition caused\nfurther disturbance in the empire of Constantinople, till the reign of\nthe empress Theodora, who gave the force of law to the second Council of\nNice, extinguished the party of Iconoclasts, or image-breakers, and\nexerted the utmost extent of her authority against the Manich\u00e6ans. She\ndespatched orders throughout the empire to seek for them everywhere, and\nput all those to death who would not recant. More than a hundred\nthousand perished by different modes of execution. Four thousand, who\nescaped from this severe scrutiny and extensive punishment, took refuge\namong the Saracens, united their own strength with theirs, ravaged the\nterritories of the empire, and erected fortresses in which the\nManich\u00e6ans, who had remained concealed through terror of capital\npunishment, found an asylum, and constituted a hostile force, formidable\nfrom their numbers, and from their burning hatred both of the emperors\nand Catholics. They frequently inflicted on the territories of the\nempire dread and devastation, and cut to pieces its disciplined armies.\n\nWe abridge the details of these dreadful massacres; those of Ireland,\nthose of the valleys of Piedmont, those which we shall speak of in the\narticle on \"Inquisition,\" and lastly, the massacre of St. Bartholomew,\ndisplayed in the West the same spirit of intolerance, against which\nnothing more pertinent and sensible has been written than what we find\nin the works of Salvian.\n\nThe following is the language employed respecting the followers of one\nof the principal heresies by this excellent priest of Marseilles, who\nwas surnamed the master of bishops, who deplored with bitterness the\nviolence and vices of his age, and who was called the Jeremiah of the\nfifth century. \"The Arians,\" says he, \"are heretics; but they do not\nknow it; they are heretics among us, but they are not so among\nthemselves; for they consider themselves so perfectly and completely\nCatholic, that they treat us as heretics. We are convinced that they\nentertain an opinion injurious to the divine generation, inasmuch as\nthey say that the Son is less than the Father. They, on the other hand,\nthink that we hold an opinion injurious to the Father, because we regard\nthe Father and the Son equal. The truth is with us, but they consider it\nas favoring them. We give to God the honor which is due to Him, but\nthey, according to their peculiar way of thinking, maintain that they do\nthe same. They do not acquit themselves of their duty; but in the very\npoint where they fail in doing so, they make the greatest duty of\nreligion consist. They are impious, but even in being so they consider\nthemselves as following, and as practising, genuine piety. They are then\nmistaken, but from a principle of love to God; and, although they have\nnot the true faith, they regard that which they have actually embraced\nas the perfect love of God.\n\n\"The sovereign judge of the universe alone knows how they will be\npunished for their errors in the day of judgment. In the meantime he\npatiently bears with them, because he sees that if they are in error,\nthey err from pure motives of piety.\"\n\n\n\n\nHERMES.\n\n_Hermes, or Ermes, Mercury Trismegistus, or Thaut, or Taut, or Thot._\n\n\nWe neglect reading the ancient book of Mercury Trismegistus, and we are\nnot wrong in so doing. To philosophers it has appeared a sublime piece\nof jargon, and it is perhaps for this reason that they believed it the\nwork of a great Platonist.\n\nNevertheless, in this theological chaos, how many things there are to\nastonish and subdue the human mind! God, whose triple essence is wisdom,\npower and bounty; God, forming the world by His thought, His word; God\ncreating subaltern gods; God commanding these gods to direct the\ncelestial orbs, and to preside over the world; the sun; the Son of God;\nman His image in thought; light, His principal work a divine\nessence--all these grand and lively images dazzle a subdued imagination.\n\nIt remains to be known whether this work, as much celebrated as little\nread, was the work of a Greek or of an Egyptian. St. Augustine hesitates\nnot in believing that it is the work of an Egyptian, who pretended to be\ndescended from the ancient Mercury, from the ancient Thaut, the first\nlegislator of Egypt. It is true that St. Augustine knew no more of the\nEgyptian than of the Greek; but in his time it was necessary that we\nshould not doubt that Hermes, from whom we received theology, was an\nEgyptian sage, probably anterior to the time of Alexander, and one of\nthe priests whom Plato consulted.\n\nIt has always appeared to me that the theology of Plato in nothing\nresembled that of other Greeks, with the exception of Tim\u00e6us, who had\ntravelled in Egypt, as well as Pythagoras.\n\nThe Hermes Trismegistus that we possess is written in barbarous Greek,\nand in a foreign idiom. This is a proof that it is a translation in\nwhich the words have been followed more than the sense.\n\nJoseph Scaliger, who assisted the lord of Candale, bishop of Aire, to\ntranslate the Hermes, or Mercury Trismegistus, doubts not that the\noriginal was Egyptian. Add to these reasons that it is not very probable\nthat a Greek would have addressed himself so often to Thaut. It is not\nnatural for us to address ourselves to strangers with so much\nwarm-heartedness; at least, we see no example of it in antiquity.\n\nThe Egyptian \u00c6sculapius, who is made to speak in this book, and who is\nperhaps the author of it, wrote to Ammon, king of Egypt: \"Take great\ncare how you suffer the Greeks to translate the books of our Mercury,\nour Thaut, because they would disfigure them.\" Certainly a Greek would\nnot have spoken thus; there is therefore every appearance of this book\nbeing Egyptian.\n\nThere is another reflection to be made, which is, that the systems of\nHermes and Plato were equally formed to extend themselves through all\nthe Jewish schools, from the time of the Ptolemies. This doctrine made\ngreat progress in them; you see it completely displayed by the Jew\nPhilo, a learned man after the manner of those times.\n\nHe copies entire passages from Mercury Trismegistus in his chapter on\nthe formation of the world. \"Firstly,\" says he, \"God made the world\nintelligible, the Heavens incorporeal, and the earth invisible; he\nafterwards created the incorporeal essence of water and spirit; and\nfinally the essence of incorporeal light, the origin of the sun and of\nthe stars.\"\n\nSuch is the pure doctrine of Hermes. He adds that the word, or invisible\nand intellectual thought, is the image of God. Here is the creation of\nthe world by the word, by thought, by the _logos_, very strongly\nexpressed.\n\nAfterwards follows the doctrine of Numbers, which descended from the\nEgyptians to the Jews. He calls reason the relation of God. The number\nof seven is the accomplishment of all things, \"which is the reason,\"\nsays he, \"that the lyre has only seven strings.\"\n\nIn a word Philo possessed all the philosophy of his time.\n\nWe are therefore deceived, when we believe that the Jews, under the\nreign of Herod, were plunged in the same state of ignorance in which\nthey were previously immersed. It is evident that St. Paul was well\ninformed. It is only necessary to read the first chapter of St. John,\nwhich is so different from those of the others, to perceive that the\nauthor wrote precisely like Hermes and Plato. \"In the beginning was the\nword, and the word was with God, and the word was God. The same was in\nthe beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was\nnot anything made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of man.\"\nIt is thus that St. Paul says: \"God made the worlds by His Son.\"\n\nIn the time of the apostles were seen whole societies of Christians who\nwere only too learned, and thence substituted a fantastic philosophy for\nsimplicity of faith. The Simons, Menanders, and Cerinthuses, taught\nprecisely the doctrines of Hermes. Their \u00c6ons were only the subaltern\ngods, created by the great Being. All the first Christians, therefore,\nwere not ignorant men, as it always has been asserted; since there were\nseveral of them who abused their literature; even in the Acts the\ngovernor Festus says to St. Paul: \"Paul, thou art beside thyself; much\nlearning doth make thee mad.\"\n\nCerinthus dogmatized in the time of St. John the Evangelist. His errors\nwere of a profound, refined, and metaphysical cast. The faults which he\nremarked in the construction of the world made him think--at least so\nsays Dr. Dupin--that it was not the sovereign God who created it, but a\nvirtue inferior to this first principle, which had not the knowledge of\nthe sovereign God. This was wishing to correct even the system of Plato,\nand deceiving himself, both as a Christian and a philosopher; but at the\nsame time it displayed a refined and well-exercised mind.\n\nIt is the same with the primitives called Quakers, of whom we have so\nmuch spoken. They have been taken for men who cannot see beyond their\nnoses, and who make no use of their reason. However, there have been\namong them several who employed all the subtleties of logic. Enthusiasm\nis not always the companion of total ignorance, it is often that of\nerroneous information.\n\n\n\n\nHISTORIOGRAPHER.\n\n\nThis is a title very different from that of historian. In France we\ncommonly see men of letters pensioned, and, as it was said formerly,\nappointed to write history. Alain Chartier was the historiographer of\nCharles VII.; he says that he interrogated the domestics of this prince,\nand put them on their oaths, according to the duty of his charge, to\nascertain whether Charles really had Agnes Sorel for his mistress. He\nconcludes that nothing improper ever passed between these lovers; and\nthat all was reduced to a few honest caresses, to which these domestics\nhad been the innocent witnesses. However, it is proved, not by\nhistoriographers, but by historians supported by family titles, that\nCharles VII. had three daughters by Agnes Sorel, the eldest of whom,\nmarried to one Breze, was stabbed by her husband. From this time there\nwere often titled historiographers in France, and it was the custom to\ngive them commissions of councillors of state, with the provisions of\ntheir charge. They were commensal officers of the king's house. Matthieu\nhad these privileges under Henry IV., but did not therefore write a\nbetter history.\n\nAt Venice it is always a noble of the senate who possesses this title\nand function, and the celebrated Nani has filled them with general\napprobation. It is very difficult for the historiographer of a prince\nnot to be a liar; that of a republic flatters less; but he does not tell\nall the truth. In China historiographers are charged with collecting all\nthe events and original titles under a dynasty. They throw the leaves\nnumbered into a vast hall, through an orifice resembling the lion's\nmouth at Venice, into which is cast all secret intelligence. When the\ndynasty is extinct the hall is opened and the materials digested, of\nwhich an authentic history is composed. The general journal of the\nempire also serves to form the body of history; this journal is superior\nto our newspapers, being made under the superintendence of the mandarins\nof each province, revised by a supreme tribunal, and every piece bearing\nan authenticity which is decisive in contentious matters.\n\nEvery sovereign chose his own historiographer. Vittorio Siri was one;\nPelisson was first chosen by Louis XIV. to write the events of his\nreign, and acquitted himself of his task with eloquence in the history\nof Franche-Comt\u00e9. Racine, the most elegant of poets, and Boileau, the\nmost correct, were afterwards substituted for Pelisson. Some curious\npersons have collected \"Memoirs of the Passage of the Rhine,\" written by\nRacine. We cannot judge by these memoirs whether Louis XIV. passed the\nRhine or not with his troops, who swam across the river. This example\nsufficiently demonstrates how rarely it happens that an historiographer\ndare tell the truth. Several also, who have possessed this title, have\ntaken good care of writing history; they have followed the example of\nAmyot, who said that he was too much attached to his masters to write\ntheir lives. Father Daniel had the patent of historiographer, after\nhaving given his \"History of France\"; he had a pension of 600 livres,\nregarded merely as a suitable stipend for a monk.\n\nIt is very difficult to assign true bounds to the arts, sciences, and\nliterary labor. Perhaps it is the proper duty of an historiographer to\ncollect materials, and that of an historian to put them in order. The\nfirst can amass everything, the second arrange and select. The\nhistoriographer is more of the simple annalist, while the historian\nseems to have a more open field for reflection and eloquence.\n\nWe need scarcely say here that both should equally tell the truth, but\nwe can examine this great law of Cicero: \"_Ne quid veri tacere non\naudeat_.\"--\"That we ought not to dare to conceal any truth.\" This rule\nis of the number of those that want illustration. Suppose a prince\nconfides to his historiographer an important secret to which his honor\nis attached, or that the good of the state requires should not be\nrevealed--should the historiographer or historian break his word with\nthe prince, or betray his country to obey Cicero? The curiosity of the\npublic seems to exact it; honor and duty forbid it. Perhaps in this case\nhe should renounce writing history.\n\nIf a truth dishonors a family, ought the historiographer or historian to\ninform the public of it? No; doubtless he is not bound to reveal the\nshame of individuals; history is no satire.\n\nBut if this scandalous truth belongs to public events, if it enters into\nthe interests of the state--if it has produced evils of which it imports\nto know the cause, it is then that the maxims of Cicero should be\nobserved; for this law is like all others which must be executed,\ntempered, or neglected, according to circumstances.\n\nLet us beware of this humane respect when treating of acknowledged\npublic faults, prevarications, and injustices, into which the\nmisfortunes of the times have betrayed respectable bodies. They cannot\nbe too much exposed; they are beacons which warn these always-existing\nbodies against splitting again on similar rocks. If an English\nparliament has condemned a man of fortune to the torture--if an assembly\nof theologians had demanded the blood of an unfortunate who differed in\nopinion from themselves, it should be the duty of an historian to\ninspire all ages with horror for these juridical assassins. We should\nalways make the Athenians blush for the death of Socrates.\n\nHappily, even an entire people always find it good to have the crimes of\ntheir ancestors placed before them; they like to condemn them, and to\nbelieve themselves superior. The historiographer or historian encourages\nthem in these sentiments, and, in retracing the wars of government and\nreligion, prevents their repetition.\n\n\n\n\nHISTORY.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Definition of History._\n\nHistory is the recital of facts represented as true. Fable, on the\ncontrary, is the recital of facts represented as fiction. There is the\nhistory of human opinions, which is scarcely anything more than the\nhistory of human errors.\n\nThe history of the arts may be made the most useful of all, when to a\nknowledge of their invention and progress it adds a description of their\nmechanical means and processes.\n\nNatural history, improperly designated \"history,\" is an essential part\nof natural philosophy. The history of events has been divided into\nsacred and profane. Sacred history is a series of divine and miraculous\noperations, by which it has pleased God formerly to direct and govern\nthe Jewish nation, and, in the present day, to try our faith. \"To learn\nHebrew, the sciences, and history,\" says La Fontaine, \"is to drink up\nthe sea.\"\n\n     _Si j'apprenois l'H\u00e9breu, les sciences, l'histoire,_\n     _Tout cela, c'est la mer \u00e0 boire._\n                      --LA FONTAINE, book viii, fable 25.\n\n\n_The Foundations of History._\n\nThe foundations of all history are the recitals of events, made by\nfathers to their children, and afterwards transmitted from one\ngeneration to another. They are, at most, only probable in their origin\nwhen they do not shock common sense, and they lose a degree of\nprobability at every successive transmission. With time the fabulous\nincreases and the true disappears; hence it arises that the original\ntraditions and records of all nations are absurd. Thus the Egyptians had\nbeen governed for many ages by the gods. They had next been under the\ngovernment of demi-gods; and, finally, they had kings for eleven\nthousand three hundred and forty years, and during that period the sun\nhad changed four times from east and west.\n\nThe Ph\u0153nicians, in the time of Alexander, pretended that they had\nbeen settled in their own country for thirty thousand years; and those\nthirty thousand years were as full of prodigies as the Egyptian\nchronology. I admit it to be perfectly consistent with physical\npossibility that Ph\u0153nicia may have existed, not merely for thirty\nthousand years, but thirty thousand millions of ages, and that it may\nhave endured, as well as the other portions of the globe, thirty\nmillions of revolutions. But of all this we possess no knowledge.\n\nThe ridiculous miracles which abound in the ancient history of Greece\nare universally known.\n\nThe Romans, although a serious and grave people, have, nevertheless,\nequally involved in fables the early periods of their history. That\nnation, so recent in comparison with those of Asia, was five hundred\nyears without historians. It is impossible, therefore, to be surprised\non finding that Romulus was the son of Mars; that a she-wolf was his\nnurse; that he marched with a thousand men from his own village, Rome,\nagainst twenty thousand warriors belonging to the city of the Sabines;\nthat he afterwards became a god; that the elder Tarquin cut through a\nstone with a razor, and that a vestal drew a ship to land with her\ngirdle, etc.\n\nThe first annals of modern nations are no less fabulous; things\nprodigious and improbable ought sometimes, undoubtedly, to be related,\nbut only as proofs of human credulity. They constitute part of the\nhistory of human opinion and absurdities; but the field is too immense.\n\n_Of Monuments or Memorials._\n\nThe only proper method of endeavoring to acquire some knowledge of\nancient history is to ascertain whether there remain any incontestable\npublic monuments. We possess only three such, in the way of writing or\ninscription. The first is the collection of astronomical observations\nmade during nineteen hundred successive years at Babylon, and\ntransferred by Alexander to Greece. This series of observations, which\ngoes back two thousand two hundred and thirty-four years beyond our\nvulgar era, decidedly proves that the Babylonians existed as an\nassociated and incorporated people many ages before; for the arts are\nstruck out and elaborated only in the slow course of time, and the\nindolence natural to mankind permits thousands of years to roll away\nwithout their acquiring any other knowledge or talents than what are\nrequired for food, clothing, shelter, and mutual destruction. Let the\ntruth of these remarks be judged of from the state of the Germans and\nthe English in the time of C\u00e6sar, from that of the Tartars at the\npresent day, from that of two-thirds of Africa, and from that of all the\nvarious nations found in the vast continent of America, excepting, in\nsome respects, the kingdoms of Peru and Mexico, and the republic of\nTlascala. Let it be recollected that in the whole of the new world not a\nsingle individual could write or read.\n\nThe second monument is the central eclipse of the sun, calculated in\nChina two thousand one hundred and fifty-five years before our vulgar\nera, and admitted by all our astronomers to have actually occurred. We\nmust apply the same remark to the Chinese as to, the people of Babylon.\nThey had undoubtedly, long before this period, constituted a vast empire\nand social polity. But what places the Chinese above all the other\nnations of the world is that neither their laws, nor manners, nor the\nlanguage exclusively spoken by their men of learning, have experienced\nany change in the course of about four thousand years. Yet this nation\nand that of India, the most ancient of all that are now subsisting,\nthose which possess the largest and most fertile tracts of territory,\nthose which had invented nearly all the arts almost before we were in\npossession even of any of them, have been always omitted, down to our\ntime, in our pretended universal histories. And whenever a Spaniard or a\nFrenchman enumerated the various nations of the globe, neither of them\nfailed to represent his own country as the first monarchy on earth, and\nhis king as the greatest sovereign, under the flattering hope, no doubt,\nthat that greatest of sovereigns, after having read his book, would\nconfer upon him a pension.\n\nThe third monument, but very inferior to the two others, is the Arundel\nMarbles. The chronicle of Athens was inscribed on these marbles two\nhundred and sixty-three years before our era, but it goes no further\nback than the time of Cecrops, thirteen hundred and nineteen years\nbeyond the time of its inscription. In the history of all antiquity\nthese are the only incontestable epochs that we possess.\n\nLet us attend a little particularly to these marbles, which were brought\nfrom Greece by Lord Arundel. The chronicle contained in them commences\nfifteen hundred and seventy-seven years before our era. This, at the\npresent time, makes an antiquity of 3,348 years, and in the course of\nthat period you do not find a single miraculous or prodigious event on\nrecord. It is the same with the Olympiads. It must not be in reference\nto these that the expression can be applied of \"_Gr\u00e6cia mendax_\" (lying\nGreece). The Greeks well knew how to distinguish history from fable, and\nreal facts from the tales of Herodotus; just as in relation to important\npublic affairs, their orators borrowed nothing from the discourses of\nthe sophists or the imagery of the poets.\n\nThe date of the taking of Troy is specified in these marbles, but there\nis no mention made of Apollo's arrows, or the sacrifice of Iphigenia, or\nthe ridiculous battles of the gods. The date of the inventions of\nTriptolemus and Ceres is given; but Ceres is not called goddess. Notice\nis taken of a poem upon the rape of Proserpine; but it is not said that\nshe is the daughter of Jupiter and a goddess, and the wife of the god of\nhell.\n\nHercules is initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries, but not a single word\nis mentioned of the twelve labors, nor of his passage to Africa in his\ncup, nor of his divinity, nor of the great fish by which he was\nswallowed, and which, according to Lycophron, kept him in its belly\nthree days and three nights.\n\nAmong us, on the contrary, a standard is brought by an angel from heaven\nto the monks of St. Denis; a pigeon brings a bottle of oil to the church\nof Rheims; two armies of serpents engage in pitched battle in Germany;\nan archbishop of Mentz is besieged and devoured by rats; and to complete\nand crown the whole, the year in which these adventures occurred, is\ngiven with the most particular precision. The abb\u00e9 Langlet, also\ncondescending to compile, compiles these contemptible fooleries, while\nthe almanacs, for the hundredth time, repeat them. In this manner are\nour youth instructed and enlightened; and all these trumpery fables are\nput in requisition even for the education of princes!\n\nAll history is comparatively recent. It is by no means astonishing to\nfind that we have, in fact, no profane history that goes back beyond\nabout four thousand years. The cause of this is to be found in the\nrevolutions of the globe, and the long and universal ignorance of the\nart which transmits events by writing. There are still many nations\ntotally unacquainted with the practice of this art. It existed only in a\nsmall number of civilized states, and even in them was confined to\ncomparatively few hands. Nothing was more rare among the French and\nGermans than knowing how to write; down to the fourteenth century of our\nera, scarcely any public acts were attested by witnesses. It was not\ntill the reign of Charles VII. in France, in 1454, that an attempt was\nmade to reduce to writing some of the customs of France. The art was\nstill more uncommon among the Spaniards, and hence it arises that their\nhistory is so dry and doubtful till the time of Ferdinand and Isabella.\nWe perceive, from what has been said, with what facility the very small\nnumber of persons who possessed the art of writing might impose by means\nof it, and how easy it has been to produce a belief in the most enormous\nabsurdities.\n\nThere have been nations who have subjugated a considerable part of the\nworld, and who yet have not been acquainted with the use of characters.\nWe know that Genghis Khan conquered a part of Asia in the beginning of\nthe thirteenth century; but it is not from him, nor from the Tartars,\nthat we have derived that knowledge. Their history, written by the\nChinese, and translated by Father Gaubil, states that these Tartars were\nat that time unacquainted with the art of writing.\n\nThis art was, unquestionably, not likely to be less unknown to the\nScythian Ogus-kan, called by the Persians and Greeks Madies, who\nconquered a part of Europe and Asia long before the reign of Cyrus. It\nis almost a certainty that at that time, out of a hundred nations, there\nwere only two or three that employed characters. It is undoubtedly\npossible, that in an ancient world destroyed, mankind were acquainted\nwith the art of writing and the other arts, but in our world they are\nall of recent date.\n\nThere remain monuments of another kind, which serve to prove merely the\nremote antiquity of certain nations, an antiquity preceding all known\nepochs, and all books; these are the prodigies of architecture, such as\nthe pyramids and palaces of Egypt, which have resisted and wearied the\npower of time. Herodotus, who lived two thousand two hundred years ago,\nand who had seen them, was unable to learn from the Egyptian priests at\nwhat periods these structures were raised.\n\n[Illustration: \"A MONUMENT OF ANTIQUITY\"--THE ACROPOLIS, ATHENS]\n\nIt is difficult to ascribe to the oldest of the pyramids an antiquity of\nless than four thousand years, and, it is necessary to consider, that\nthose ostentatious piles, erected by monarchs, could not have been\ncommenced till long after the establishment of cities. But, in order to\nbuild cities in a country every year inundated, it must always be\nrecollected that it would have been previously necessary in this land of\nslime and mud, to lay the foundation upon piles, that they might thus be\ninaccessible to the inundation; it would have been necessary, even\nbefore taking this indispensable measure of precaution, and before the\ninhabitants could be in a state to engage in such important and even\ndangerous labors, that the people should have contrived retreats, during\nthe swelling of the Nile, between the two chains of rocks which exist on\nthe right and left banks of the river. It would have been necessary that\nthese collected multitudes should have instruments of tillage, and of\narchitecture, a knowledge of architecture and surveying, regular laws,\nand an active police. All these things require a space of time\nabsolutely prodigious. We see, every day, by the long details which\nrelate even to those of our undertakings, which are most necessary and\nmost diminutive, how difficult it is to execute works of magnitude, and\nthat they not only require unwearied perseverance, but many generations\nanimated by the same spirit.\n\nHowever, whether we admit that one or two of those immense masses were\nerected by Men\u00e9s, or Thaut, or Cheops, or Rameses, we shall not, in\nconsequence, have the slightest further insight into the ancient history\nof Egypt. The language of that people is lost; and all we know in\nreference to the subject is that before the most ancient historians\nexisted, there existed materials for writing ancient history.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nAs we already possess, I had almost said, twenty thousand works, the\ngreater number of them extending to many volumes, on the subject,\nexclusively, of the history of France; and as, even a studious man, were\nhe to live a hundred years, would find it impossible to read them, I\nthink it a good thing to know where to stop. We are obliged to connect\nwith the knowledge of our own country the history of our neighbors. We\nare still less permitted to remain ignorant of the Greeks and Romans,\nand their laws which are become ours; but, if to this laborious study we\nshould resolve to add that of more remote antiquity, we should resemble\nthe man who deserted Tacitus and Livy to study seriously the \"Thousand\nand One Nights.\" All the origins of nations are evidently fables. The\nreason is that men must have lived long in society, and have learned to\nmake bread and clothing (which would be matters of some difficulty)\nbefore they acquired the art of transmitting all their thoughts to\nposterity (a matter of greater difficulty still). The art of writing is\ncertainly not more than six thousand years old, even among the Chinese;\nand, whatever may be the boast of the Chald\u00e6ans and Egyptians, it\nappears not at all likely that they were able to read and write earlier.\n\nThe history, therefore, of preceding periods, could be transmitted by\nmemory alone; and we well know how the memory of past events changes\nfrom one generation to another. The first histories were written only\nfrom the imagination. Not only did every people invent its own origin,\nbut it invented also the origin of the whole world.\n\nIf we may believe Sanchoniathon, the origin of things was a thick air,\nwhich was rarified by the wind; hence sprang desire and love, and from\nthe union of desire and love were formed animals. The stars were later\nproductions, and intended merely to adorn the heavens, and to rejoice\nthe sight of the animals upon earth.\n\nThe Knef of the Egyptians, their Oshiret and Ishet, which we call Osiris\nand Isis, are neither less ingenious nor ridiculous. The Greeks\nembellished all these fictions. Ovid collected them and ornamented them\nwith the charms of the most beautiful poetry. What he says of a god who\ndevelops or disembroils chaos, and of the formation of man, is sublime.\n\n     _Sanctius his animal, mentisque capacius alt\u00e6_\n     _Deerat adhuc, et quod dominari in c\u00e6tera posset._\n     _Natus homo est...._\n                                  --OVID, _Metam._, i, v. 76.\n\n     A creature of a more exalted kind\n     Was wanting yet, and then was man designed;\n     Conscious or thought, of more capacious breast,\n     For empire formed, and fit to rule the rest.\n                                              --DRYDEN.\n\n     _Pronaque cum spectent animalia c\u00e6tera terram;_\n     _Os homini sublime dedit c\u0153lumque tueri_\n     _Jussit, et erectos ad sidera tollere vultus._\n                                        METAM., i, v. 84.\n\n     Thus, while the mute creation downward bend\n     Their sight, and to their earthly mother tend,\n     Man looks aloft, and with erected eyes\n     Beholds his own hereditary skies.\n                                           --DRYDEN.\n\nHesiod, and other writers who lived so long before, would have been very\nfar from expressing themselves with this elegant sublimity. But, from\nthe interesting moment of man's formation down to the era of the\nOlympiads, everything is plunged in profound obscurity.\n\nHerodotus is present at the Olympic games, and, like an old woman to\nchildren, recites his narratives, or rather tales, to the assembled\nGreeks. He begins by saying that the Ph\u0153nicians sailed from the Red\nSea into the Mediterranean; which, if true, must necessarily imply that\nthey had doubled the Cape of Good Hope, and made the circuit of Africa.\n\nThen comes the rape of Io; then the fable of Gyges and Candaules; then\nthe wondrous stories of banditti, and that of the daughter of Cheops,\nking of Egypt, having required a hewn stone from each of her many\nlovers, and obtained, in consequence, a number large enough to build one\nof the pyramids.\n\nTo this, add the oracles, prodigies, and frauds of priests, and you have\nthe history of the human race.\n\nThe first periods of the Roman history appear to have been written by\nHerodotus; our conquerors and legislators knew no other way of counting\ntheir years as they passed away, than by driving nails into a wall by\nthe hand of the sacred pontiff.\n\nThe great Romulus, the king of a village, is the son of the god Mars,\nand a recluse, who was proceeding to a well to draw water in a pitcher.\nHe has a god for his father, a woman of loose manners for his mother,\nand a she-wolf for his nurse. A buckler falls from heaven expressly for\nNuma. The invaluable books of the Sibyls are found by accident. An\naugur, by divine permission, divides a large flint-stone with a razor. A\nvestal, with her mere girdle, draws into the water a large vessel that\nhas been stranded. Castor and Pollux come down to fight for the Romans,\nand the marks of their horses' feet are imprinted on the stones. The\ntransalpine Gauls advanced to pillage Rome; some relate that they were\ndriven away by geese, others that they carried away with them much gold\nand silver; but it is probable that, at that time in Italy, geese were\nfar more abundant than silver. We have imitated the first Roman\nhistorians, at least in their taste for fables. We have our oriflamme,\nour great standard, brought from heaven by an angel, and the holy phial\nby a pigeon; and, when to these we add the mantle of St. Martin, we feel\nnot a little formidable.\n\nWhat would constitute useful history? That which should teach us our\nduties and our rights, without appearing to teach them.\n\nIt is often asked whether the fable of the sacrifice of Iphigenia is\ntaken from the history of Jephthah; whether the deluge of Deucalion is\ninvented in imitation of that of Noah; whether the adventure of Philemon\nand Baucis is copied from that of Lot and his wife. The Jews admit that\nthey had no communication with strangers, that their books were unknown\nto the Greeks till the translation made by the order of Ptolemy. The\nJews were, long before that period, money-brokers and usurers among the\nGreeks at Alexandria; but the Greeks never went to sell old clothes at\nJerusalem. It is evident that no people imitated the Jews, and also that\nthe Jews imitated or adopted many things from the Babylonians, the\nEgyptians, and the Greeks.\n\nAll Jewish antiquities are sacred in our estimation, notwithstanding the\nhatred and contempt in which we hold that people. We cannot, indeed,\nbelieve them by reason, but we bring ourselves under subjection to the\nJews by faith. There are about fourscore systems in existence on the\nsubject of their chronology, and a far greater number of ways of\nexplaining the events recorded in their histories; we know not which is\nthe true one, but we reserve our faith for it in store against the time\nwhen that true one shall be discovered.\n\nWe have so many things to believe in this sensible and magnanimous\npeople, that all our faith is exhausted by them, and we have none left\nfor the prodigies with which the other nations abound. Rollin may go on\nrepeating to us the oracles of Apollo, and the miraculous achievements\nof Semiramis; he may continue to transcribe all that has been narrated\nof the justice of those ancient Scythians who so frequently pillaged\nAfrica, and occasionally ate men for their breakfast; yet sensible and\nwell-educated people will still feel and express some degree of\nincredulity.\n\nWhat I most admire in our modern compilers is the judgment and zeal with\nwhich they prove to us, that whatever happened in former ages, in the\nmost extensive and powerful empires of the world, took place solely for\nthe instruction of the inhabitants of Palestine. If the kings of\nBabylon, in the course of their conquests, overrun the territories of\nthe Hebrew people, it is only to correct that people for their sins. If\nthe monarch, who has been commonly named Cyrus, becomes master of\nBabylon, it is that he may grant permission to some captive Jews to\nreturn home. If Alexander conquers Darius, it is for the settlement of\nsome Jew old-clothesmen at Alexandria. When the Romans join Syria to\ntheir vast dominions, and round their empire with the little district of\nJud\u00e6a, this is still with a view to teach a moral lesson to the Jews.\nThe Arabs and the Turks appear upon the stage of the world solely for\nthe correction of this amiable people. We must acknowledge that they\nhave had an excellent education; never had any pupil so many preceptors.\nSuch is the utility of history.\n\nBut what is still more instructive is the exact justice which the clergy\nhave dealt out to all those sovereigns with whom they were dissatisfied.\nObserve with what impartial candor St. Gregory of Nazianzen judges the\nemperor Julian, the philosopher. He declares that that prince, who did\nnot believe in the existence of the devil, held secret communication\nwith that personage, and that, on a particular occasion, when the demons\nappeared to him under the most hideous forms, and in the midst of the\nmost raging flames, he drove them away by making inadvertently the sign\nof the cross.\n\nHe denominates him madman and wretch; he asserts that Julian immolated\nyoung men and women every night in caves. Such is the description he\ngives of the most candid and clement of men, and who never exercised the\nslightest revenge against this same Gregory, notwithstanding the abuse\nand invectives with which he pursued him throughout his reign.\n\nTo apologize for the guilty is a happy way of justifying calumny against\nthe innocent. Compensation is thus effected; and such compensation was\namply afforded by St. Gregory. The emperor Constantius, Julian's uncle\nand predecessor, upon his accession to the throne, had massacred Julius,\nhis mother's brother, and his two sons, all three of whom had been\ndeclared august; this was a system which he had adopted from his father.\nHe afterwards procured the assassination of Gallus, Julian's brother.\nThe cruelty which he thus displayed to his own family, he extended to\nthe empire at large; but he was a man of prayer, and, even at the\ndecisive battle with Maxentius, he was praying to God in a neighboring\nchurch during the whole time in which the armies were engaged. Such was\nthe man who was eulogized by Gregory; and, if such is the way in which\nthe saints make us acquainted with the truth, what may we not expect\nfrom the profane, particularly when they are ignorant, superstitious,\nand irritable?\n\nAt the present day the study of history is occasionally applied to a\npurpose somewhat whimsical and absurd. Certain charters of the time of\nDagobert are discovered and brought forward, the greater part of them of\na somewhat suspicious character in point of genuineness, and\nill-understood; and from these it is inferred, that customs, rights, and\nprerogatives, which subsisted then, should be revived now. I would\nrecommend it to those who adopt this method of study and reasoning, to\nsay to the ocean, \"You formerly extended to Aigues-Mortes, Fr\u00e9jus,\nRavenna, and Ferrara. Return to them immediately.\"\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Of the Certainty of History._\n\nAll certainty which does not consist in mathematical demonstration is\nnothing more than the highest probability; there is no other historical\ncertainty.\n\nWhen Marco Polo described the greatness and population of China, being\nthe first, and for a time the only writer who had described them, he\ncould not obtain credit. The Portuguese, who for ages afterwards had\ncommunication and commerce with that vast empire, began to render the\ndescription probable. It is now a matter of absolute certainty; of that\ncertainty which arises from the unanimous deposition of a thousand\nwitnesses or different nations, unopposed by the testimony of a single\nindividual.\n\nIf merely two or three historians had described the adventure of King\nCharles XII. when he persisted in remaining in the territories of his\nbenefactor, the sultan, in opposition to the orders of that monarch, and\nabsolutely fought, with the few domestics that attended his person,\nagainst an army of janissaries and Tartars, I should have suspended my\njudgment about its truth; but, having spoken to many who actually\nwitnessed the fact, and having never heard it called in question, I\ncannot possibly do otherwise than believe it; because, after all,\nalthough such conduct is neither wise nor common, there is nothing in it\ncontradictory to the laws of nature, or the character of the hero.\n\nThat which is in opposition to the ordinary course of nature ought not\nto be believed, unless it is attested by persons evidently inspired by\nthe divine mind, and whose inspiration, indeed, it is impossible to\ndoubt. Hence we are justified in considering as a paradox the assertion\nmade under the article on \"Certainty,\" in the great \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" that\nwe are as much bound to believe in the resuscitation of a dead man, if\nall Paris were to affirm it, as to believe all Paris when it states that\nwe gained the battle of Fontenoy. It is clear that the evidence of all\nParis to a thing improbable can never be equal to that evidence in favor\nof a probable one. These are the first principles of genuine logic. Such\na dictionary as the one in question should be consecrated only to truth.\n\n_Uncertainty of History._\n\nPeriods of time are distinguished as fabulous and historical. But even\nin the historical times themselves it is necessary to distinguish truths\nfrom fables. I am not here speaking of fables, now universally admitted\nto be such. There is no question, for example, respecting the prodigies\nwith which Livy has embellished, or rather defaced, his history. But\nwith respect to events generally admitted, how many reasons exist for\ndoubt!\n\nLet it be recollected that the Roman republic was five hundred years\nwithout historians; that Livy himself deplores the loss of various\npublic monuments or records, as almost all, he says, were destroyed in\nthe burning of Rome: \"_Pleraque interiere_.\" Let it be considered that,\nin the first three hundred years, the art of writing was very uncommon:\n\"_Rar\u00e6 per eadem tempora liter\u00e6_.\" Reason will be then seen for\nentertaining doubt on all those events which do not correspond with the\nusual order of human affairs.\n\nCan it be considered very likely that Romulus, the grandson of the king\nof the Sabines, was compelled to carry off the Sabine women in order to\nobtain for his people wives? Is the history of Lucretia highly probable;\ncan we easily believe, on the credit of Livy, that the king Porsenna\nbetook himself to flight, full of admiration for the Romans, because a\nfanatic had pledged himself to assassinate him? Should we not rather be\ninclined to rely upon Polybius, who was two hundred years earlier than\nLivy? Polybius informs us that Porsenna subjugated the Romans. This is\nfar more probable than the adventure of Sc\u00e6vola's burning off his hand\nfor failing in the attempt to assassinate him. I would have defied\nPoltrot to do as much.\n\nDoes the adventure of Regulus, inclosed within a hogshead or tub stuck\nround with iron spikes, deserve belief? Would not Polybius, a\ncontemporary, have recorded it had it been true? He says not a single\nword upon the subject. Is not this a striking presumption that the story\nwas trumped up long afterwards to gratify the popular hatred against the\nCarthaginians?\n\nOpen \"Mor\u00e9ri's Dictionary,\" at the article on \"Regulus.\" He informs you\nthat the torments inflicted on that Roman are recorded in Livy. The\nparticular decade, however, in which Livy would have recorded it, if at\nall, is lost; and in lieu of it, we have only the supplement of\nFreinsheim; and thus it appears that Dictionary has merely cited a\nGerman writer of the seventeenth century, under the idea of citing a\nRoman of the Augustan age. Volumes might be composed out of all the\ncelebrated events which have been generally admitted, but which may be\nmore fairly doubted. But the limits allowed for this article will not\npermit us to enlarge.\n\n_Whether Temples, Festivals, Annual Ceremonies, and even Medals, are\nHistoric Proofs._\n\nWe might be naturally led to imagine that a monument raised by any\nnation in celebration of a particular event, would attest the certainty\nof that event; if, however, these monuments were not erected by\ncontemporaries, or if they celebrate events that carry with them but\nlittle probability, they may often be regarded as proving nothing more\nthan a wish to consecrate a popular opinion.\n\nThe rostral column, erected in Rome by the contemporaries of Duilius, is\nundoubtedly a proof of the naval victory obtained by Duilius; but does\nthe statue of the augur N\u00e6vius, who is said to have divided a large\nflint with a razor, prove that N\u00e6vius in reality performed that prodigy?\nWere the statues of Ceres and Triptolemus, at Athens, decisive evidences\nthat Ceres came down from I know not what particular planet, to instruct\nthe Athenians in agriculture? Or does the famous Laocoon, which exists\nperfect to the present day, furnish incontestable evidence of the truth\nof the story of the Trojan horse?\n\nCeremonies and annual festivals observed universally throughout any\nnation, are, in like manner, no better proofs of the reality of the\nevents to which they are attributed. The festival of Orion, carried on\nthe back of a dolphin, was celebrated among the Romans as well as the\nGreeks. That of Faunus was in celebration of his adventure with Hercules\nand Omphale, when that god, being enamored of Omphale, mistook the bed\nof Hercules for that of his mistress.\n\nThe famous feast of the Lupercals was instituted in honor of the\nshe-wolf that suckled Romulus and Remus.\n\nWhat was the origin of the feast of Orion, which was observed on the\nfifth of the ides of May? It was neither more nor less than the\nfollowing adventure: Hyreus once entertained at his house the gods\nJupiter, Neptune, and Mercury, and when his high and mighty guests were\nabout to depart, the worthy host, who had no wife, and was very desirous\nof having a son, lamented his unfortunate fate, and expressed his\nanxious desire to the three divinities. We dare not exactly detail what\nthey did to the hide of an ox which Hyreus had killed for their\nentertainment; however, they afterwards covered the well-soaked hide\nwith a little earth; and thence, at the end of nine months, was born\nOrion.\n\nAlmost all the Roman, Syrian, Grecian, and Egyptian festivals, were\nfounded on similar legends, as well as the temples and statues of\nancient heroes. They were monuments consecrated by credulity to error.\n\nOne of our most ancient monuments is the statue of St. Denis carrying\nhis head in his arms.\n\nEven a medal, and a contemporary medal, is sometimes no proof. How many\nmedals has flattery struck in celebration of battles very indecisive in\nthemselves, but thus exalted into victories; and of enterprises, in\nfact, baffled and abortive, and completed only in the inscription on the\nmedal? Finally, during the war in 1740, between the Spaniards and the\nEnglish, was there not a medal struck, attesting the capture of\nCarthagena by Admiral Vernon, although that admiral was obliged to raise\nthe siege?\n\nMedals are then unexceptionable testimonies only when the event they\ncelebrate is attested by contemporary authors; these evidences thus\ncorroborating each other, verify the event described.\n\n_Should an Historian ascribe Fictitious Speeches to his Characters, and\nsketch Portraits of them?_\n\nIf on any particular occasion the commander of an army, or a public\nminister, has spoken in a powerful and impressive manner, characteristic\nof his genius and his age, his discourse should unquestionably be given\nwith the most literal exactness. Speeches of this description are\nperhaps the most valuable part of history. But for what purpose\nrepresent a man as saying what he never did say? It would be just as\ncorrect to attribute to him acts which he never performed. It is a\nfiction imitated from Homer; but that which is fiction in a poem, in\nstrict language, is a lie in the historian. Many of the ancients adopted\nthe method in question, which merely proves that many of the ancients\nwere fond of parading their eloquence at the expense of truth.\n\n_Of Historical Portraiture._\n\nPortraits, also, frequently manifest a stronger desire for display, than\nto communicate information. Contemporaries are justifiable in drawing\nthe portraits of statesmen with whom they have negotiated, or of\ngenerals under whom they have fought. But how much is it to be\napprehended that the pencil will in many cases be guided by the\nfeelings? The portraits given by Lord Clarendon appear to be drawn with\nmore impartiality, gravity, and judgment, than those which we peruse\nwith so much delight in Cardinal de Retz.\n\nBut to attempt to paint the ancients; to elaborate in this way the\ndevelopment of their minds; to regard events as characters in which we\nmay accurately read the most sacred feelings and intents of their\nhearts--this is an undertaking of no ordinary difficulty and\ndiscrimination, although as frequently conducted, both childish and\ntrifling.\n\n_Of Cicero's Maxim Concerning History, that an Historian should never\ndare to relate a Falsehood or to Conceal a Truth._\n\nThe first part of this precept is incontestable; we must stop for a\nmoment to examine the other. If a particular truth may be of any service\nto the state, your silence is censurable. But I will suppose you to\nwrite the history of a prince who had reposed in you a secret--ought you\nto reveal that secret? Ought you to say to all posterity what you would\nbe criminal in disclosing to a single individual? Should the duty of an\nhistorian prevail over the higher and more imperative duty of a man?\n\nI will suppose again, that you have witnessed a failing or weakness\nwhich has not had the slightest influence on public affairs--ought you\nto publish such weakness? In such a case history becomes satire.\n\nIt must be allowed, indeed, that the greater part of anecdote writers\nare more indiscreet than they are useful. But what opinion must we\nentertain of those impudent compilers who appear to glory in scattering\nabout them calumny and slander, and print and sell scandals as Voisin\nsold poisons?\n\n_Of Satirical History._\n\nIf Plutarch censured Herodotus for not having sufficiently extolled the\nfame of some of the Grecian cities, and for omitting many known facts\nworthy of being recorded, how much more censurable are certain of our\nmodern writers, who, without any of the merits of Herodotus, impute both\nto princes and to nations acts of the most odious character, without the\nslightest proof or evidence? The history of the war in 1741 has been\nwritten in England; and it relates, \"that at the battle of Fontenoy the\nFrench fired at the English balls and pieces of glass which had been\nprepared with poison; and that the duke of Cumberland sent to the king\nof France a box full of those alleged poisonous articles, which had been\nfound in the bodies of the wounded English.\" The same author adds, that\nthe French having lost in that battle forty thousand men, the parliament\nissued an order to prevent people from talking on the subject, under\npain of corporal punishment.\n\nThe fraudulent memoirs published not long since under the name of Madame\nde Maintenon, abound with similar absurdities. We are told in them, that\nat the siege of Lille the allies threw placards into the city,\ncontaining these words: \"Frenchmen, be comforted--Maintenon shall never\nbe your queen.\"\n\nAlmost every page is polluted by false statements and abuse of the royal\nfamily and other leading families in the kingdom, without the author's\nmaking out the smallest probability to give a color to his calumnies.\nThis is not writing history; it is writing slanders which deserve the\npillory.\n\nA vast number of works have been printed in Holland, under the name of\nhistory, of which the style is as vulgar and coarse as the abuse, and\nthe facts as false as they are ill-narrated. This, it has been observed,\nis a bad fruit of the noble tree of liberty. But if the contemptible\nauthors of this trash have the liberty thus to deceive their readers, it\nbecomes us here to take the liberty to undeceive them.\n\nA thirst for despicable gain, and the insolence of vulgar and grovelling\nmanners, were the only motives which led that Protestant refugee from\nLanguedoc, of the name of Langlevieux, but commonly called La Beaumelle,\nto attempt the most infamous trick that ever disgraced literature. He\nsold to Eslinger, the bookseller of Frankfort, in 1751, for seventeen\nlouis d'or, the \"History of the Age of Louis XIV.,\" which is not his;\nand, either to make it believed that he was the proprietor, or to earn\nhis money, he loaded it with abusive and abominable notes against Louis\nXIV., his son, and his grandson, the duke of Burgundy, whom he abuses in\nthe most unmeasured terms, and calls a traitor to his grandfather and\nhis country. He pours upon the duke of Orleans, the regent, calumnies at\nonce the most horrible and the most absurd; no person of consequence is\nspared, and yet no person of consequence did he ever know. He retails\nagainst the marshals Villars and Villeroi, against ministers, and even\nagainst ladies, all the petty, dirty, and scandalous tales that could be\ncollected from the lowest taverns and wine-houses; and he speaks of the\ngreatest princes as if they were amenable to himself, and under his own\npersonal jurisdiction. He expresses himself, indeed, as if he were a\nformal and authorized judge of kings: \"Give me,\" says he, \"a Stuart, and\nI will make him king of England.\"\n\nThis most ridiculous and abominable conduct, proceeding from an author\nobscure and unknown, has incurred no prosecution; it would have been\nseverely punished in a man whose words would have carried any weight.\nBut we must here observe, that these works of darkness frequently\ncirculate through all Europe; they are sold at the fairs of Frankfort\nand Leipsic, and the whole of the North is overrun with them.\nForeigners, who are not well informed, derive from books of this\ndescription their knowledge of modern history. German authors are not\nalways sufficiently on their guard against memoirs of this character,\nbut employ them as materials; which has been the case with the memoirs\nof Pontis, Montbrun, Rochefort, and Pordac; with all the pretended\npolitical testaments of ministers of state, which have proceeded from\nthe pen of forgery; with the \"Royal Tenth\" of Boisguillebert, impudently\npublished under the name of Marshal Vauban; and with innumerable\ncompilations of _anas_ and anecdotes.\n\nHistory is sometimes even still more shamefully abused in England. As\nthere are always two parties in furious hostility against each other,\nuntil some common danger for a season unites them, the writers of one\nfaction condemn everything that the others approve. The same individual\nis represented as a Cato and a Catiline. How is truth to be extricated\nfrom this adulation and satire? Perhaps there is only one rule to be\ndepended upon, which is, to believe all the good which the historian of\na party ventures to allow to the leaders of the opposite faction; and\nall the ills which he ventures to impute to the chiefs of his own--a\nrule, of which neither party can severely complain.\n\nWith regard to memoirs actually written by agents in the events\nrecorded, as those of Clarendon, Ludlow, and Burnet, in England, and de\nla Rochefoucauld and de Retz in France, if they agree, they are true; if\nthey contradict each other, doubt them.\n\nWith respect to _anas_ and anecdotes, there may perhaps be one in a\nhundred of them that contain some shadow of truth.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_Of the Method or Manner of Writing History, and of Style._\n\nWe have said so much upon this subject, that we must here say very\nlittle. It is sufficiently known and fully admitted, that the method and\nstyle of Livy--his gravity, and instructive eloquence, are suitable to\nthe majesty of the Roman republic; that Tacitus is more calculated to\nportray tyrants, Polybius to give lessons on war, and Dionysius of\nHalicarnassus to investigate antiquities.\n\nBut, while he forms himself on the general model of these great masters,\na weighty responsibility is attached to the modern historian from which\nthey were exempt. He is required to give more minute details, facts more\ncompletely authenticated, correct dates, precise authorities, more\nattention to customs, laws, manners, commerce, finance, agriculture, and\npopulation. It is with history, as it is with mathematics and natural\nphilosophy; the field of it is immensely enlarged. The more easy it is\nto compile newspapers, the more difficult it is at the present day to\nwrite history.\n\nDaniel thought himself a historian, because he transcribed dates and\nnarratives of battles, of which I can understand nothing. He should have\ninformed me of the rights of the nation, the rights of the chief\ncorporate establishments in it; its laws, usages, manners, with the\nalterations by which they have been affected in the progress of time.\nThis nation might not improperly address him in some such language as\nthe following:--I want from you my own history rather than that of Louis\nle Gros and Louis Hutin; you tell me, copying from some old,\nunauthenticated, and carelessly-written chronicle, that when Louis VIII.\nwas attacked by a mortal disease, and lay languishing and powerless, the\nphysicians ordered the more than half-dead monarch to take to his bed a\nblooming damsel, who might cherish the few sparks of remaining life; and\nthat the pious king rejected the unholy advice with indignation. Alas!\nDaniel, you are unacquainted, it seems, with the Italian\nproverb--\"_Donna ignuda manda l'uomo sotto la terra_.\" You ought to\npossess a little stronger tincture of political and natural history.\n\nThe history of a foreign country should be formed on a different model\nto that of our own.\n\nIf we compose a history of France, we are under no necessity to describe\nthe course of the Seine and the Loire; but if we publish a history of\nthe conquests of the Portuguese in Asia, a topographical description of\nthe recently explored country is required. It is desirable that we\nshould, as it were, conduct the reader by the hand round Africa, and\nalong the coasts of Persia and India; and it is expected that we should\ntreat with information and judgment, of manners, laws, and customs so\nnew to Europe.\n\nWe have a great variety of histories of the establishment of the\nPortuguese in India, written by our countrymen, but not one of them has\nmade us acquainted with the different governments of that country, with\nits religious antiquities, Brahmins, disciples of St. John, Guebers, and\nBanians. Some letters of Xavier and his successors have, it is true,\nbeen preserved to us. We have had histories of the Indies composed at\nParis, from the accounts of those missionaries who were unacquainted\nwith the language of the Brahmins. We have it repeated, in a hundred\nworks, that the Indians worship the devil. The chaplains of a company of\nmerchants quit our country under these impressions, and, as soon as they\nperceive on the coast some symbolical figures, they fail not to write\nhome that they are the portraits and likenesses of the devil, that they\nare in the devil's empire, and that they are going to engage in battle\nwith him. They do not reflect that we are the real worshippers of the\ndevil Mammon, and that we travel six thousand leagues from our native\nland to offer our vows at his shrine, and to obtain the grant of some\nportion of his treasures.\n\nAs to those who hire themselves out at Paris to some bookseller in the\nRue de St. Jacques, and at so much per job, and who are ordered to write\na history of Japan, Canada, or the Canaries, as the case requires and\nopportunity suggests, from the memoirs of a few Capuchin friars--to such\nI have nothing to say.\n\nIt is sufficient, if it be clearly understood, that the method which\nwould be proper in writing a history of our own country is not suitable\nin describing the discoveries of the new world; that we should not write\non a small city as on a great empire; and that the private history of a\nprince should be composed in a very different manner from the history of\nFrance and England.\n\nIf you have nothing to tell us, but that on the banks of the Oxus and\nthe Jaxartes, one barbarian has been succeeded by another barbarian, in\nwhat respect do you benefit the public?\n\nThese rules are well known; but the art of writing history well will\nalways be very uncommon. It obviously requires a style grave, pure,\nvaried, and smooth. But we may say with respect to rules for writing\nhistory, as in reference to those for all the intellectual arts--there\nare many precepts, but few masters.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\n_History of the Jewish Kings, and of the \"Paralipomena.\"_\n\nEvery nation, as soon as it was able to write, has written its own\nhistory, and the Jews have accordingly written theirs. Before they had\nkings, they lived under a theocracy; it was their destiny to be governed\nby God himself.\n\nWhen the Jews were desirous of having a king, like the adjoining\nnations, the prophet Samuel, who was exceedingly interested in\npreventing it, declared to them, on the part of God, that they were\nrejecting God himself. Thus the Jewish theocracy ceased when the\nmonarchy commenced.\n\nWe may therefore remark, without the imputation of blasphemy, that the\nhistory of the Jewish kings was written like that of other nations, and\nthat God did not take the pains Himself to dictate the history of a\npeople whom He no longer governed.\n\nWe advance this opinion with the greatest diffidence. What may perhaps\nbe considered as confirming it, is, that the \"Paralipomena\" very\nfrequently contradict the Book of Kings, both with respect to chronology\nand facts, just as profane historians sometimes contradict one another.\nMoreover, if God always wrote the history of the Jews, it seems only\nconsistent and natural to think that He writes it still; for the Jews\nare always His cherished people. They are on some future day to be\nconverted, and it seems that whenever that event happens, they will have\nas complete a right to consider the history of their dispersion as\nsacred, as they have now to say, that God wrote the history of their\nkings.\n\nWe may be allowed here to make one reflection; which is, that as God was\nfor a very long period their king, and afterwards became their\nhistorian, we are bound to entertain for all Jews the most profound\nrespect. There is not a single Jew broker, or slop-man, who is not\ninfinitely superior to C\u00e6sar and Alexander. How can we avoid bending in\nprostration before an old-clothes man, who proves to us that his history\nhas been written by God Himself, while the histories of Greece and Rome\nhave been transmitted to us merely by the profane hand of man?\n\nIf the style of the history of the kings, and of the \"Paralipomena,\" is\ndivine, it may nevertheless be true that the acts recorded in these\nhistories are not divine. David murders Uriah; Ishbosheth and\nMephibosheth are murdered; Absalom murders Ammon; Joab murders Absalom;\nSolomon murders his brother Adonijah; Baasha murders Nadab; Zimri\nmurders Ela; Omri murders Zimri; Ahab murders Naboth; Jehu murders Ahab\nand Joram; the inhabitants of Jerusalem murder Amaziah, son of Joash;\nShallum, son of Jabesh, murders Zachariah, son of Jeroboam; Menahhem\nmurders Shallum, son of Jabesh; Pekah, son of Remaliah, murders\nPekahiah, son of Manehem; and Hoshea, son of Elah, murders Pekah, son of\nRemaliah. We pass over, in silence, many other minor murders. It must be\nacknowledged, that, if the Holy Spirit did write this history, He did\nnot choose a subject particularly edifying.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\n_Of bad Actions which have been consecrated or excused in History._\n\nIt is but too common for historians to praise very depraved and\nabandoned characters, who have done service either to a dominant sect,\nor to their nation at large. The praises thus bestowed, come perhaps\nfrom a loyal and zealous citizen; but zeal of this description is\ninjurious to the great society of mankind. Romulus murders his brother,\nand he is made a god. Constantine cuts the throat of his son, strangles\nhis wife, and murders almost all his family: he has been eulogized in\ngeneral councils, but history should ever hold up such barbarities to\ndetestation. It is undoubtedly fortunate for us that Clovis was a\nCatholic. It is fortunate for the Anglican church that Henry VIII.\nabolished monks, but we must at the same time admit that Clovis and\nHenry VIII. were monsters of cruelty.\n\nWhen first the Jesuit Berruyer, who although a Jesuit, was a fool,\nundertook to paraphrase the Old and New Testaments in the style of the\nlowest populace, with no other intention than that of having them read;\nhe scattered some flowers of rhetoric over the two-edged knife which the\nJew Ehud thrust up to the hilt in the stomach of the king Eglon; and\nover the sabre with which Judith cut off the head of Holofernes after\nhaving prostituted herself to his pleasures; and also over many other\nacts recorded, of a similar description. The parliament, respecting the\nBible which narrates these histories, nevertheless condemned the Jesuit\nwho extolled them, and ordered the Old and New Testaments to be\nburned:--I mean merely those of the Jesuit.\n\nBut as the judgments of mankind are ever different in similar cases, the\nsame thing happened to Bayle in circumstances totally different. He was\ncondemned for not praising all the actions of David, king of the\nprovince of Jud\u00e6a. A man of the name of Jurieu, a refugee preacher in\nHolland, associated with some other refugee preachers, were desirous of\nobliging him to recant. But how could he recant with reference to facts\ndelivered in the scripture? Had not Bayle some reason to conclude that\nall the facts recorded in the Jewish books are not the actions of\nsaints; that David, like other men, had committed some criminal acts;\nand that if he is called a man after God's own heart, he is called so in\nconsequence of his penitence, and not of his crimes?\n\nLet us disregard names and confine our consideration to things only. Let\nus suppose, that during the reign of Henry IV. a clergyman of the League\nparty secretly poured out a phial of oil on the head of a shepherd of\nBrie; that the shepherd comes to court; that the clergyman presents him\nto Henry IV. as an excellent violin player who can completely drive away\nall care and melancholy; that the king makes him his equerry, and\nbestows on him one of his daughters in marriage; that afterwards, the\nking having quarrelled with the shepherd, the latter takes refuge with\none of the princes of Germany, his father-in-law's enemy; that he\nenlists and arms six hundred banditti overwhelmed by debt and\ndebauchery; that with this regiment of brigands he rushes to the field,\nslays friends as well as enemies, exterminating all, even to women with\nchildren at the breast, in order to prevent a single individual's\nremaining to give intelligence of the horrid butchery. I farther suppose\nthis same shepherd of Brie to become king of France after the death of\nHenry IV.; that he procures the murder of that king's grandson, after\nhaving invited him to sit at meat at his own table, and delivers over to\ndeath seven other younger children of his king and benefactor. Who is\nthe man that will not conceive the shepherd of Brie to act rather\nharshly?\n\nCommentators are agreed that the adultery of David, and his murder of\nUriah, are faults which God pardoned. We may therefore conclude that the\nmassacres above mentioned are faults which God also pardoned.\n\nHowever, Bayle had no quarter given him; but at length some preachers at\nLondon having compared George II. to David, one of that monarch's\nservants prints and publishes a small book, in which he censures the\ncomparison. He examines the whole conduct of David; he goes infinitely\nfarther than Bayle, and treats David with more severity than Tacitus\napplies to Domitian. This book did not raise in England the slightest\nmurmur; every reader felt that bad actions are always bad; that God may\npardon them when repentance is proportioned to guilt, but that certainly\nno man can ever approve of them.\n\nThere was more reason, therefore, prevailing in England than there was\nin Holland in the time of Bayle. We now perceive clearly and without\ndifficulty, that we ought not to hold up as a model of sanctity what, in\nfact, deserves the severest punishment; and we see with equal clearness\nthat, as we ought not to consecrate guilt, so we ought not to believe\nabsurdity.\n\n\n\n\nHONOR.\n\n\nThe author of the \"Spirit of Laws\" has founded his system on the idea\nthat virtue is the principle of a republican government, and honor that\nof mom archism. Is there virtue then without honor, and how is a\nrepublic established in virtue?\n\nLet us place before the reader's eyes that which has been said in an\nable little book upon this subject. Pamphlets soon sink into oblivion.\nTruth ought not to be lost; it should be consigned to works possessing\ndurability.\n\n\"Assuredly republics have never been formed on a theoretical principle\nof virtue. The public interest being opposed to the domination of an\nindividual, the spirit of self-importance, and the ambition of every\nperson, serve to curb ambition and the inclination to rapacity, wherever\nthey may appear. The pride of each citizen watches over that of his\nneighbor, and no person would willingly be the slave of another's\ncaprice. Such are the feelings which establish republics, and which\npreserve them. It is ridiculous to imagine that there must be more\nvirtue in a Grison than in a Spaniard.\"\n\nThat honor can be the sole principle of monarchies is a no less\nchimerical idea, and the author shows it to be so himself, without being\naware of it. \"The nature of honor,\" says he, in chapter vii. of book\niii., \"is to demand preferences and distinctions. It, therefore,\nnaturally suits a monarchical government.\"\n\nWas it not on this same principle, that the Romans demanded the\npr\u00e6torship, consulship, ovation, and triumph in their republic? These\nwere preferences and distinctions well worth the titles and preferences\npurchased in monarchies, and for which there is often a regular fixed\nprice.\n\nThis remark proves, in our opinion, that the \"Spirit of Laws,\" although\nsparkling with wit, and commendable by its respect for the laws and\nhatred of superstition and rapine, is founded entirely upon false views.\n\nLet us add, that it is precisely in courts that there is always least\nhonor:\n\n     _L'ingannare, il mentir, la frode, il furto,_\n     _E la rapina di pict\u00e0 vestita,_\n     _Crescer coi damno e precipizio altrui,_\n     _E fare a se de l'altrui biasmo onore,_\n     _Son le virt\u00f9 di quella gente infid\u00e0._\n                        --PASTOR FIDO, atto v., scena i.\n\n     _Ramper avec bassesse en affectant l'audace,_\n     _S'engraisser de rapine en attestant les lois,_\n     _\u00c9touffer en secret son ami qu'on embrasse._\n     _Voil\u00e0 l'honneur qui r\u00e8gne \u00e0 la suite des rois._\n\n     To basely crawl, yet wear a face of pride;\n     To rob the public, yet o'er law preside;\n     Salute a friend, yet sting in the embrace--\n     Such is the _honor_ which in courts takes place.\n\nIndeed, it is in courts, that men devoid of honor often attain to the\nhighest dignities; and it is in republics that a known dishonorable\ncitizen is seldom trusted by the people with public concerns.\n\nThe celebrated saying of the regent, duke of Orleans, is sufficient to\ndestroy the foundation of the \"Spirit of Laws\": \"This is a perfect\ncourtier--he has neither temper nor honor.\"\n\n\n\n\nHUMILITY.\n\n\nPhilosophers have inquired, whether humility is a virtue; but virtue or\nnot, every one must agree that nothing is more rare. The Greeks called\nit \"_tapeinosis_\" or \"tapeineia.\" It is strongly recommended in the\nfourth book of the \"Laws of Plato\": he rejects the proud and would\nmultiply the humble.\n\nEpictetus, in five places, preaches humility: \"If thou passest for a\nperson of consequence in the opinion of some people, distrust thyself.\nNo lifting up of thy eye-brows. Be nothing in thine own eyes--if thou\nseekest to please, thou art lost. Give place to all men; prefer them to\nthyself; assist them all.\" We see by these maxims that never Capuchin\nwent so far as Epictetus.\n\nSome theologians, who had the misfortune to be proud, have pretended\nthat humility cost nothing to Epictetus, who was a slave; and that he\nwas humble by station, as a doctor or a Jesuit may be proud by station.\n\nBut what will they say of Marcus Antoninus, who on the throne\nrecommended humility? He places Alexander and his muleteer on the same\nline. He said that the vanity of pomp is only a bone thrown in the midst\nof dogs; that to do good, and to patiently hear himself calumniated,\nconstitute the virtue of a king.\n\nThus the master of the known world recommended humility; but propose\nhumility to a musician, and see how he will laugh at Marcus Aurelius.\n\nDescartes, in his treatise on the \"Passions of the Soul,\" places\nhumility among their number, who--if we may personify this quality--did\nnot expect to be regarded as a passion. He also distinguishes between\nvirtuous and vicious humility.\n\nBut we leave to philosophers more enlightened than ourselves the care of\nexplaining this doctrine, and will confine ourselves to saying, that\nhumility is \"the modesty of the soul.\"\n\nIt is the antidote to pride. Humility could not prevent Rousseau from\nbelieving that he knew more of music than those to whom he taught it;\nbut it could induce him to believe that he was not superior to Lulli in\nrecitative.\n\nThe reverend father Viret, cordelier, theologian, and preacher, all\nhumble as he is, will always firmly believe that he knows more than\nthose who learn to read and write; but his Christian humility, his\nmodesty of soul, will oblige him to confess in the bottom of his heart\nthat he has written nothing but nonsense. Oh, brothers Nonnotte, Guyon,\nPantouillet, vulgar scribblers! be more humble, and always bear in\nrecollection \"the modesty of the soul.\"\n\n\n\n\nHYPATIA.\n\n\nI will suppose that Madame Dacier had been the finest woman in Paris;\nand that in the quarrel on the comparative merits of the ancients and\nmoderns, the Carmelites pretended that the poem of the Magdalen, written\nby a Carmelite, was infinitely superior to Homer, and that it was an\natrocious impiety to prefer the \"Iliad\" to the verses of a monk. I will\ntake the additional liberty of supposing that the archbishop of Paris\ntook the part of the Carmelites against the governor of the city, a\npartisan of the beautiful Madame Dacier, and that he excited the\nCarmelites to massacre this fine woman in the church of Notre Dame, and\nto drag her, naked and bloody, to the Place Maubert--would not everybody\nsay that the archbishop of Paris had done a very wicked action, for\nwhich he ought to do penance?\n\nThis is precisely the history of Hypatia. She taught Homer and Plato, in\nAlexandria, in the time of Theodosius II. St. Cyril incensed the\nChristian populace against her, as it is related by Damasius and Suidas,\nand clearly proved by the most learned men of the age, such as Bruker,\nLa Croze, and Basnage, as is very judiciously exposed in the great\n\"_Dictionnaire Encyclop\u00e9dique_,\" in the article on \"\u00c9clectisme.\"\n\nA man whose intentions are no doubt very good, has printed two volumes\nagainst this article of the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia.\" Two volumes against two\npages, my friends, are too much. I have told you a hundred times you\nmultiply being without necessity. Two lines against two volumes would be\nquite sufficient; but write not even these two lines.\n\nI am content with remarking, that St. Cyril was a man of parts; that he\nsuffered his zeal to carry him too far; that when we strip beautiful\nwomen, it is not to massacre them; that St. Cyril, no doubt, asked\npardon of God for this abominable action; and that I pray the father of\nmercies to have pity on his soul. He wrote the two volumes against\n\"\u00c9clectisme,\" also inspires me with infinite commiseration.\n\n\n\n\nIDEA.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWhat is an idea?\n\nIt is an image painted upon my brain.\n\nAre all your thoughts, then, images?\n\nCertainly; for the most abstract thoughts are only the consequences of\nall the objects that I have perceived. I utter the word \"being\" in\ngeneral, only because I have known particular beings; I utter the word\n\"infinity,\" only because I have seen certain limits, and because I push\nback those limits in my mind to a greater and still greater distance, as\nfar as I am able. I have ideas in my head only because I have images.\n\nAnd who is the painter of this picture?\n\nIt is not myself; I cannot draw with sufficient skill; the being that\nmade me, makes my ideas.\n\nAnd how do you know that the ideas are not made by yourself?\n\nBecause they frequently come to me involuntarily when I am awake, and\nalways without my consent when I dream.\n\nYou are persuaded, then, that your ideas belong to you only in the same\nmanner as your hairs, which grow and become white, and fall off, without\nyour having anything at all to do with the matter?\n\nNothing can possibly be clearer; all that I can do is to frizzle, cut,\nand powder them; but I have nothing to do with producing them.\n\nYou must, then, I imagine, be of Malebranche's opinion, that we see all\nin God?\n\nI am at least certain of this, that if we do not see things in the Great\nBeing, we see them in consequence of His powerful and immediate action.\n\nAnd what was the nature or process of this action?\n\nI have already told you repeatedly, in the course of our conversation,\nthat I do not know a single syllable about the subject, and that God has\nnot communicated His secret to any one. I am completely ignorant of that\nwhich makes my heart beat, and my blood flow through my veins; I am\nignorant of the principle of all my movements, and yet you seem to\nexpect how I should explain how I feel and how I think. Such an\nexpectation is unreasonable.\n\nBut you at least know whether your faculty of having ideas is joined to\nextension?\n\nNot in the least; It is true that Tatian, in his discourse to the\nGreeks, says the soul is evidently composed of a body. Iren\u00e6us, in the\ntwenty-sixth chapter of his second book, says, \"The Lord has taught that\nour souls preserve the figure of our body in order to retain the memory\nof it.\" Tertullian asserts, in his second book on the soul, that it is a\nbody. Arnobius, Lactantius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, and Ambrose, are\nprecisely of the same opinion. It is pretended that other fathers of the\nChurch assert that the soul is without extension, and that in this\nrespect they adopt the opinion of Plato; this, however, may well be\ndoubted. With respect to myself, I dare not venture to form an opinion;\nI see nothing but obscurity and incomprehensibility in either system;\nand, after a whole life's meditation on the subject, I am not advanced a\nsingle step beyond where I was on the first day.\n\nThe subject, then, was not worth thinking about?\n\nThat is true; the man who enjoys knows more of it, or at least knows it\nbetter, than he who reflects; he is more happy. But what is it that you\nwould have? It depended not, I repeat, upon myself whether I should\nadmit or reject all those ideas which have crowded into my brain in\nconflict with each other, and actually converted my medullary magazine\ninto their field of battle. After a hard-fought contest between them, I\nhave obtained nothing but uncertainty from the spoils.\n\nIt is a melancholy thing to possess so many ideas, and yet to have no\nprecise knowledge of the nature of ideas?\n\nIt is, I admit; but it is much more melancholy, and inexpressibly more\nfoolish, for a man to believe he knows what in fact he does not.\n\nBut, if you do not positively know what an idea is, if you are ignorant\nwhence ideas come, you at least know by what they come?\n\nYes; just in the same way as the ancient Egyptians, who, without knowing\nthe source of the Nile, knew perfectly well that its waters reached them\nby its bed. We know perfectly that ideas come to us by the senses; but\nwe never know whence they come. The source of this Nile will never be\ndiscovered.\n\nIf it is certain that all ideas are given by means of the senses, why\ndoes the Sorbonne, which has so long adopted this doctrine from\nAristotle, condemn it with so much virulence in Helvetius?\n\nBecause the Sorbonne is composed of theologians.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_All in God._\n\nIn God we live and move and have our being.\n                            --ST. PAUL, Acts xvii, 28.\n\n\nAratus, who is thus quoted and approved by St. Paul, made this\nconfession of faith, we perceive among the Greeks.\n\nThe virtuous Cato says the same thing: \"_Jupiter est quodcumque vides\nquocumque moveris_.\"--Lucan's \"_Pharsalia_\" ix, 580. \"Whate'er we see,\nwhate'er we feel, is Jove.\"\n\nMalebranche is the commentator on Aratus, St. Paul, and Cato. He\nsucceeded, in the first instance, in showing the errors of the senses\nand imagination; but when he attempted to develop the grand system, that\nall is in God, all his readers declared the commentary to be more\nobscure than the text. In short, having plunged into this abyss, his\nhead became bewildered; he held conversations with the Word; he was made\nacquainted with what the Word had done in other planets; he became, in\ntruth, absolutely mad; a circumstance well calculated to excite\napprehension in our own minds, apt as we some of us are to attempt\nsoaring, upon our weak and puny opinions, very far beyond our reach.\n\nIn order to comprehend the notion of Malebranche, such as he held it\nwhile he retained his faculties, we must admit nothing that we do not\nclearly conceive, and reject what we do not understand. Attempting to\nexplain an obscurity by obscurities, is to act like an idiot.\n\nI feel decidedly that my first ideas and my sensations have come to me\nwithout any co-operation or volition on my part. I clearly see that I\ncannot give myself a single idea. I cannot give myself anything. I have\nreceived everything. The objects which surround me cannot, of\nthemselves, give me either idea or sensation; for how is it possible for\na little particle of matter to possess the faculty of producing a\nthought?\n\nI am therefore irresistibly led to conclude that the Eternal Being, who\nbestows everything, gives me my ideas, in whatever manner this may be\ndone. But what is an idea, what is a sensation, a volition, etc.? It is\nmyself perceiving, myself feeling, myself willing.\n\nWe see, in short, that what is called an idea is no more a real being\nthan there is a real being called motion, although there are bodies\nmoved. In the same manner there is not any particular being called\nmemory, imagination, judgment; but we ourselves remember, imagine, and\njudge.\n\nThe truth of all this, it must be allowed, is sufficiently plain and\ntrite; but it is necessary to repeat and inculcate such truth, as the\nopposite errors are more trite still.\n\n_Laws of Nature._\n\nHow, let us now ask, would the Eternal Being, who formed all, produce\nall those various modes or qualities which we perceive in organized\nbodies?\n\nDid He introduce two beings in a grain of wheat, one of which should\nproduce germination in the other? Did He introduce two beings in the\ncomposition of a stag, one of which should produce swiftness in the\nother? Certainly not. All that we know on the subject is that the grain\nis endowed with the faculty of vegetating, and the stag with that of\nspeed.\n\nThere is evidently a grand mathematical principle directing all nature,\nand affecting everything produced. The flying of birds, the swimming of\nfishes, the walking or running of quadrupeds, are visible effects of\nknown laws of motion. \"_Mens agitat molem_.\" Can the sensations and\nideas of those animals, then, be anything more than the admirable\neffects or mathematical laws more refined and less obvious?\n\n_Organisation of the Senses and Ideas._\n\nIt is by these general and comprehensive laws that every animal is\nimpelled to seek its appropriate food. We are naturally, therefore, led\nto conjecture that there is a law by which it has the idea of this food,\nand without which it would not go in search of it.\n\nThe eternal intelligence has made all the actions of an animal depend\nupon a certain principle; the eternal intelligence, therefore, has made\nthe sensations which cause those actions depend on the same principle.\n\nWould the author of nature have disposed and adjusted those admirable\ninstruments, the senses, with so divine a skill; would he have exhibited\nsuch astonishing adaptation between the eyes and light; between the\natmosphere and the ears, had it, after all, been necessary to call in\nthe assistance of other agency to complete his work? Nature always acts\nby the shortest ways. Protracted processes indicate want of skill;\nmultiplicity of springs, and complexity of co-operation are the result\nof weakness. We cannot but believe, therefore, that one main spring\nregulates the whole system.\n\n_The Great Being Does Everything._\n\nNot merely are we unable to give ourselves sensations, we cannot even\nimagine any beyond those which we have actually experienced. Let all the\nacademies of Europe propose a premium for him who shall imagine a new\nsense; no one will ever gain that premium. We can do nothing, then, of\nour mere selves, whether there be an invisible and intangible being\nenclosed in our brain or diffused throughout our body, or whether there\nbe not; and it must be admitted, upon every system, that the author of\nnature has given us all that we possess--organs, sensations, and the\nideas which proceed from them.\n\nAs we are thus secured under His forming hand, Malebranche,\nnotwithstanding all his errors, had reason to say philosophically, that\nwe are in God and that we see all in God; as St. Paul used the same\nlanguage in a theological sense, and Aratus and Cato in a moral one.\n\nWhat then are we to understand by the words seeing all in God? They are\neither words destitute of meaning, or they mean that God gives us all\nour ideas.\n\nWhat is the meaning of receiving an idea? We do not create it when we\nreceive it; it is not, therefore, so unphilosophical as has been\nthought, to say it is God who produces the ideas in my head, as it is He\nwho produces motion in my whole body. Everything is an operation of God\nupon His creatures.\n\n_How is Everything an Action of God?_\n\nThere is in nature only one universal, eternal, and active principle.\nThere cannot be two such principles; for they would either be alike or\ndifferent. If they are different, they destroy one another; if they are\nalike, it is the same as if they were only one. The unity of design,\nvisible through the grand whole in all its infinite variety, announces\none single principle, and that principle must act upon all being, or it\nceases to be a universal opinion.\n\nIf it acts upon all being, it acts upon all the modes of all being.\nThere is not, therefore, a single remnant, a single mode, a single idea,\nwhich is not the immediate effect of a universal cause perpetually\npresent.\n\nThe matter of the universe, therefore, belongs to God, as much as the\nideas and the ideas as much as the matter. To say that anything is out\nof Him would be saying that there is something out of the vast whole.\nGod being the universal principle of all things, all, therefore, exists\nin Him, and by Him.\n\nThe system includes that of \"physical premotion,\" but in the same manner\nas an immense wheel includes a small one that endeavors to fly off from\nit. The principle which we have just been unfolding is too vast to admit\nof any particular and detailed view.\n\nPhysical premotion occupies the great supreme with all the changing\nvagaries which take place in the head of an individual Jansenist or\nMolinist; we, on the contrary, occupy the Being of Beings only with the\ngrand and general laws of the universe. Physical premotion makes five\npropositions a matter of attention and occupation to God, which interest\nonly some lay-sister, the sweeper of a convent; while we attribute to\nHim employment of the most simple and important description--the\narrangement of the whole system of the universe.\n\nPhysical premotion is founded upon that subtle and truly Grecian\nprinciple, that if a thinking being can give himself an idea, he would\naugment his existence; but we do not, for our parts, know what is meant\nby augmenting our being. We comprehend nothing about the matter. We say\nthat a thinking being might give himself new modes without adding to his\nexistence; just in the same manner as when we dance, our sliding steps\nand crossings and attitudes give us no new existence; and to suppose\nthey do so would appear completely absurd. We agree only so far in the\nsystem of physical premotion, that we are convinced we give ourselves\nnothing.\n\nBoth the system of premotion and our own are abused, as depriving men of\ntheir liberty. God forbid we should advocate such deprivation. To do\naway with this imputation, it is only necessary to understand the\nmeaning of the word liberty. We shall speak of it in its proper place;\nand in the meantime the world will go on as it has gone on hitherto,\nwithout the Thomists or their opponents, or all the disputants in the\nworld, having any power to change it. In the same manner we shall always\nhave ideas, without precisely knowing what an idea is.\n\n\n\n\nIDENTITY.\n\n\nThis scientific term signifies no more than \"the same thing.\" It might\nbe correctly translated by \"sameness.\" This subject is of considerably\nmore interest than may be imagined. All agree that the guilty person\nonly ought to be punished--the individual perpetrator, and no other. But\na man fifty years of age is not in reality the same individual as the\nman of twenty; he retains no longer any of the parts which then formed\nhis body; and if he has lost the memory of past events, it is certain\nthat there is nothing left to unite his actual existence to an existence\nwhich to him is lost.\n\nI am the same person only by the consciousness of what I have been\ncombined with that of what I am; I have no consciousness of my past\nbeing but through memory; memory alone, therefore, establishes the\nidentity, the sameness of my person.\n\nWe may, in truth, be naturally and aptly resembled to a river, all whose\nwaters pass away in perpetual change and flow. It is the same river as\nto its bed, its banks, its source, its mouth, everything, in short, that\nis not itself; but changing every moment its waters, which constitute\nits very being, it has no identity; there is no sameness belonging to\nthe river.\n\nWere there another Xerxes like him who lashed the Hellespont for\ndisobedience, and ordered for it a pair of handcuffs; and were the son\nof this Xerxes to be drowned in the Euphrates, and the father desirous\nof punishing that river for the death of his son, the Euphrates might\nvery reasonably say in its vindication: \"Blame the waves that were\nrolling on at the time your son was bathing; those waves belong not to\nme, and form no part of me; they have passed on to the Persian Gulf; a\npart is mixed with the salt water of that sea, and another part, exhaled\nin vapor, has been impelled by a south-east wind to Gaul, and been\nincorporated with endives and lettuces, which the Gauls have since used\nin their salads; seize the culprit where you can find him.\"\n\nIt is the same with a tree, a branch of which broken by the wind might\nhave fractured the skull of your great grandfather. It is no longer the\nsame tree; all its parts have given way to others. The branch which\nkilled your great grandfather is no part of this tree; it exists no\nlonger.\n\nIt has been asked, then, how a man, who has totally lost his memory\nbefore his death, and whose members have been changed into other\nsubstances, can be punished for his faults or rewarded for his virtues\nwhen he is no longer himself? I have read in a well known book the\nfollowing question and answer:\n\n\"Question. How can I be either rewarded or punished when I shall no\nlonger exist; when there will be nothing remaining of that which\nconstituted my person? It is only by means of memory that I am always\nmyself; after my death, a miracle will be necessary to restore it to\nme--to enable me to reenter upon my lost existence.\n\n\"Answer. That is just as much as to say that if a prince had put to\ndeath his whole family, in order to reign himself, and if he had\ntyrannized over his subjects with the most wanton cruelty, he would be\nexempted from punishment on pleading before God, 'I am not the offender;\nI have lost my memory; you are under a mistake; I am no longer the same\nperson.' Do you think this sophism would pass with God?\"\n\nThis answer is a highly commendable one; but it does not completely\nsolve the difficulty.\n\nIt would be necessary for this purpose, in the first place, to know\nwhether understanding and sensation are a faculty given by God to man,\nor a created substance; a question which philosophy is too weak and\nuncertain to decide.\n\nIt is necessary in the next place to know whether, if the soul be a\nsubstance and has lost all knowledge of the evil it has committed, and\nbe, moreover, as perfect a stranger to what it has done with its own\nbody, as to all the other bodies of our universe--whether, in these\ncircumstances, it can or should, according to our manner of reasoning,\nanswer in another universe for actions of which it has not the slightest\nknowledge; whether, in fact, a miracle would not be necessary to impart\nto this soul the recollection it no longer possesses, to render it\nconsciously present to the crimes which have become obliterated and\nannihilated in its mind, and make it the same person that it was on\nearth; or whether God will judge it nearly in the same way in which the\npresidents of human tribunals proceed, condemning a criminal, although\nhe may have completely forgotten the crimes he has actually committed.\nHe remembers them no longer; but they are remembered for him; he is\npunished for the sake of the example. But God cannot punish a man after\nhis death with a view to his being an example to the living. No living\nman knows whether the deceased is condemned or absolved. God, therefore,\ncan punish him only because he cherished and accomplished evil desires;\nbut if, when after death he presents himself before the tribunal of God,\nhe no longer entertains any such desire; if for a period of twenty years\nhe has totally forgotten that he did entertain such; if he is no longer\nin any respect the same person; what is it that God will punish in him?\n\nThese are questions which appear beyond the compass of the human\nunderstanding, and there seems to exist a necessity, in these\nintricacies and labyrinths, of recurring to faith alone, which is always\nour last asylum.\n\nLucretius had partly felt these difficulties, when in his third book\n(verses 890-91) he describes a man trembling at the idea of what will\nhappen to him when he will no longer be the same man:\n\n     _Nec radicitus e vita se tollit et evit;_\n     _Sed facit esse sui quiddam super inscius ipse._\n\nBut Lucretius is not the oracle to be addressed, in order to obtain any\ndiscoveries of the future.\n\nThe celebrated Toland, who wrote his own epitaph, concluded it with\nthese words: \"_Idem futurus Tolandus nunquam_\"--\"He will never again be\nthe same Toland.\"\n\nHowever, it may be presumed that God would have well known how to find\nand restore him, had such been his good pleasure; and it is to be\npresumed, also, that the being who necessarily exists, is necessarily\ngood.\n\n\n\n\nIDOL--IDOLATER--IDOLATRY.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nIdol is derived from the Greek word \"_eidos_,\" figure; \"_eidolos_,\" the\nrepresentation of a figure, and \"_latreuein_,\" to serve, revere, or\nadore.\n\nIt does not appear that there was ever any people on earth who took the\nname of idolaters. This word is an offence, an insulting term, like that\nof \"_gavache_,\" which the Spaniards formerly gave to the French; and\nthat of \"_maranes_,\" which the French gave to the Spaniards in return.\nIf we had demanded of the senate of the Areopagus of Athens, or at the\ncourt of the kings of Persia: \"Are you idolaters?\" they would scarcely\nhave understood the question. None would have answered: \"We adore images\nand idols.\" This word, idolater, idolatry, is found neither in Homer,\nHesiod, Herodotus, nor any other author of the religion of the Gentiles.\nThere was never any edict, any law, which commanded that idols should be\nadored; that they should be treated as gods and regarded as gods.\n\nWhen the Roman and Carthaginian captains made a treaty, they called all\ntheir gods to witness. \"It is in their presence,\" said they, \"that we\nswear peace.\" Yet the statues of these gods, whose number was very\ngreat, were not in the tents of the generals. They regarded, or\npretended to regard, the gods as present at the actions of men as\nwitnesses and judges. And assuredly it was not the image which\nconstituted the divinity.\n\nIn what view, therefore, did they see the statues of their false gods in\nthe temples? With the same view, if we may so express ourselves, that\nthe Catholics see the images, the object of _their_ veneration. The\nerror was not in adoring a piece of wood or marble, but in adoring a\nfalse divinity, represented by this wood and marble. The difference\nbetween them and the Catholics is, not that they had images, and the\nCatholics had none; the difference is, that their images represented the\nfantastic beings of a false religion, and that the Christian images\nrepresent real beings in a true religion. The Greeks had the statue of\nHercules, and we have that of St. Christopher; they had \u00c6sculapius and\nhis goat, we have St. Roch and his dog; they had Mars and his lance, and\nwe have St. Anthony of Padua and St. James of Compostella.\n\nWhen the consul Pliny addresses prayers to the immortal gods in the\nexordium of the panegyric of Trajan, it is not to images that he\naddresses them. These images were not immortal.\n\nNeither the latest nor the most remote times of paganism offer a single\nfact which can lead to the conclusion that they adored idols. Homer\nspeaks only of the gods who inhabited the high Olympus. The palladium,\nalthough fallen from heaven, was only a sacred token of the protection\nof Pallas; it was herself that was venerated in the palladium. It was\nour ampoule, or holy oil.\n\nBut the Romans and Greeks knelt before their statues, gave them crowns,\nincense, and flowers, and carried them in triumph in the public places.\nThe Catholics have sanctified these customs, and yet are not called\nidolaters.\n\nThe women in times of drouth carried the statues of the Gods after\nhaving fasted. They walked barefooted with dishevelled hair, and it\nquickly rained bucketfuls, says Pretonius: \"_Et statim urceatim\npluebat_.\" Has not this custom been consecrated; illegitimate indeed\namong the Gentiles, but legitimate among the Catholics? In how many\ntowns are not images carried to obtain the blessings of heaven through\ntheir intercession? If a Turk, or a learned Chinese, were a witness of\nthese ceremonies, he would, through ignorance, accuse the Italians of\nputting their trust in the figures which they thus promenade in\npossession.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Examination of the Ancient Idolatry._\n\nFrom the time of Charles I., the Catholic religion was declared\nidolatrous in England. All the Presbyterians are persuaded that the\nCatholics adore bread, which they eat, and figures, which are the work\nof their sculptors and painters. With that which one part of Europe\nreproaches the Catholics, they themselves reproach the Gentiles.\n\nWe are surprised at the prodigious number of declamations uttered in all\ntimes against the idolatry of the Romans and Greeks; and we are\nafterwards still more surprised when we see that they were not\nidolaters.\n\nThey had some temples more privileged than others. The great Diana of\nEphesus had more reputation than a village Diana. There were more\nmiracles performed in the temple of \u00c6sculapius at Epidaurus, than in any\nother of his temples. The statue of the Olympian Jupiter attracted more\nofferings than that of the Paphlagonian Jupiter. But to oppose the\ncustoms of a true religion to those of a false one, have we not for\nseveral ages had more devotion to certain altars than to others?\n\nHas not Our Lady of Loretto been preferred to Our Lady of Neiges, to\nthat of Ardens, of Hall, etc.? That is not saying there is more virtue\nin a statue at Loretto than in a statue of the village of Hall, but we\nhave felt more devotion to the one than to the other; we have believed\nthat she whom we invoked, at the feet of her statues, would condescend,\nfrom the height of heaven, to diffuse more favors and to work more\nmiracles in Loretto than in Hall. This multiplicity of images of the\nsame person also proves that it is the images that we revere, and that\nthe worship relates to the person who is represented; for it is not\npossible that every image can be the same thing. There are a thousand\nimages of St. Francis, which have no resemblance to him, and which do\nnot resemble one another; and all indicate a single Saint Francis,\ninvoked, on the day of his feast, by those who are devoted to this\nsaint.\n\nIt was precisely the same with the pagans, who supposed the existence\nonly of a single divinity, a single Apollo, and not as many Apollos and\nDianas as they had temples and statues. It is therefore proved, as much\nas history can prove anything, that the ancients believed not the statue\nto be a divinity; that worship was not paid to this statue or image, and\nconsequently that they were not idolaters. It is for us to ascertain how\nfar the imputation has been a mere pretext to accuse them of idolatry.\n\nA gross and superstitious populace who reason not, and who know neither\nhow to doubt, deny, or believe; who visit the temples out of idleness,\nand because the lowly are there equal to the great; who make their\ncontributions because it is the custom; who speak continually of\nmiracles without examining any of them; and who are very little in point\nof intellect beyond the brutes whom they sacrifice--such a people, I\nrepeat, in the sight of the great Diana, or of Jupiter the Thunderer,\nmay well be seized with a religious horror, and adore, without\nconsciousness, the statue itself. This is what happens now and then, in\nour own churches, to our ignorant peasantry, who, however, are informed\nthat it is the blessed mortals received into heaven whose intercession\nthey solicit, and not that of images of wood and stone.\n\nThe Greeks and Romans augment the number of their gods by their\napotheoses. The Greeks deified conquerors like Bacchus, Hercules, and\nPerseus. Rome devoted altars to her emperors. Our apotheoses are of a\ndifferent kind; we have infinitely more saints than they have secondary\ngods, but we pay respect neither to rank nor to conquest. We consecrate\ntemples to the simply virtuous, who would have been unknown on earth if\nthey had not been placed in heaven. The apotheoses of the ancients were\nthe effect of flattery, ours are produced by a respect for virtue.\n\nCicero, in his philosophical works, only allows of a suspicion that the\npeople may mistake the statues of the gods and confound them with the\ngods themselves. His interlocutors attack the established religion, but\nnone of them think of accusing the Romans of taking marble and brass for\ndivinities. Lucretius accuses no person of this stupidity, although he\nreproaches the superstitious of every class. This opinion, therefore,\nhas never existed; there never have been idolaters.\n\nHorace causes an image of Priapus to speak, and makes him say: \"I was\nonce the trunk of a fig tree, and a carpenter being doubtful whether he\nshould make of me a god or a bench, at length determined to make me a\ndivinity.\" What are we to gather from this pleasantry? Priapus was one\nof the subaltern divinities, and a subject of raillery for the wits, and\nthis pleasantry is a tolerable proof that a figure placed in the garden\nto frighten away the birds could not be very profoundly worshipped.\n\nDacier, giving way to the spirit of a commentator, observes that Baruch\npredicted this adventure. \"They became what the workmen chose to make\nthem:\" but might not this be observed of all statues? Had Baruch a\nvisionary anticipation of the \"Satires of Horace\"?\n\nA block of marble may as well be hewn into a cistern, as into a figure\nof Alexander, Jupiter, or any being still more respectable. The matter\nwhich composed the cherubim of the Holy of Holies might have been\nequally appropriated to the vilest functions. Is a throne or altar the\nless revered because it might have been formed into a kitchen table?\n\nDacier, instead of concluding that the Romans adored the statue of\nPriapus, and that Baruch predicted it, should have perceived that the\nRomans laughed at it. Consult all the authors who speak of the statues\nof the gods, you will not find one of them allude to idolatry; their\ntestimony amounts to the express contrary. \"It is not the workman,\" says\nMartial, \"who makes the gods, but he who prays to them.\"\n\n     _Qui finxit sacros auro vel marmore vultus_\n     _Non facit ille deos, qui rogat ille facit._\n\n\"It is Jove whom we adore in the image of Jove,\" writes Ovid: \"_Colitur\npro Jove, forma Jovis_.\"\n\n\"The gods inhabit our minds and bosoms,\" observes Statius, \"and not\nimages in the form of them:\"\n\n     _Nulla autem effigies, nulli commissa metallo._\n     _Forma Dei, mentes habitare et pectora gaudet._\n\nLucan, too, calls the universe the abode and empire of God: \"_Estne Dei,\nsedes, nisi terra, et pontus, et aer?_\" A volume might be filled with\npassages asserting idols to be images alone.\n\nThere remains but the case in which statues became oracles; notions that\nmight have led to an opinion that there was something divine about them.\nThe predominant sentiment, however, was that the gods had chosen to\nvisit certain altars and images, in order to give audience to mortals,\nand to reply to them. We read in Homer and in the chorus of the Greek\ntragedies, of prayers to Apollo, who delivered his responses on the\nmountains in such a temple, or such a town. There is not, in all\nantiquity, the least trace of a prayer addressed to a statue; and if it\nwas believed that the divine spirit preferred certain temples and\nimages, as he preferred certain men, it was simply an error in\napplication. How many miraculous images have we? The ancients only\nboasted of possessing what we possess, and if we are not idolaters for\nusing images, by what correct principle can we term them so?\n\nThose who profess magic, and who either believe, or affect to believe\nit, a science, pretend to possess the secret of making the gods descend\ninto their statues, not indeed, the superior gods, but the secondary\ngods or genii. This is what Hermes Trismegistus calls \"making\" gods--a\ndoctrine which is controverted by St. Augustine in his \"City of God.\"\nBut even this clearly shows that the images were not thought to possess\nanything divine, since it required a magician to animate them, and it\nhappened very rarely that a magician was successful in these sublime\nendeavors.\n\nIn a word, the images of the gods were not gods. Jupiter, and not his\nstatue, launched his thunderbolts; it was not the statue of Neptune\nwhich stirred up tempests, nor that of Apollo which bestowed light. The\nGreeks and the Romans were Gentiles and Polytheists, but not idolaters.\n\nWe lavished this reproach upon them when we had neither statues nor\ntemples, and have continued the injustice even after having employed\npainting and sculpture to honor and represent our truths, precisely in\nthe same manner in which those we reproach employed them to honor and\npersonify their fiction.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Whether the Persians, the Sab\u00e6ans, the Egyptians, the Tartars, or the\nTurks, have been Idolaters, and the Extent of the Antiquity of the\nImages Called Idols--History of Their Worship._\n\nIt is a great error to denominate those idolaters who worship the sun\nand the stars. These nations for a long time had neither images nor\ntemples. If they were wrong, it was in rendering to the stars that which\nbelonged only to the creator of the stars. Moreover, the dogma of\nZoroaster, or Zerdusht, teaches a Supreme Being, an avenger and\nrewarder, which opinion is very distant from idolatry. The government of\nChina possesses no idol, but has always preserved the simple worship of\nthe master of heaven, Kien-tien.\n\nGenghis Khan, among the Tartars, was not an idolater, and used no\nimages. The Mahometans, who inhabit Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Persia,\nIndia, and Africa, call the Christians idolaters and giaours, because\nthey imagine that Christians worship images. They break the statues\nwhich they find in Sancta Sophia, the church of the Holy Apostles; and\nothers they convert into mosques. Appearances have deceived them, as\nthey are eternally deceiving man, and have led them to believe that\nchurches dedicated to saints who were formerly men, images of saints\nworshipped kneeling, and miracles worked in these churches, are\ninvincible proofs of absolute idolatry; although all amount to nothing.\nChristians, in fact, adore one God only, and even in the blessed, only\nrevere the virtues of God manifested in them. The image-breakers\n(iconoclasts), and the Protestants, who reproach the Catholic Church\nwith idolatry, claim the same answer.\n\nAs men rarely form precise ideas, and still less express them with\nprecision, we call the Gentiles, and still more the Polytheists,\nidolaters. An immense number of volumes have been written in order to\ndevelop the various opinions upon the origin of the worship rendered to\nthe deity. This multitude of books and opinions proves nothing, except\nignorance.\n\nIt is not known who invented coats, shoes, and stockings, and yet we\nwould know who invented idols. What signifies a passage of\nSanchoniathon, who lived before the battle of Troy? What does he teach\nus when he says that _Chaos_--the spirit, that is to say, the breath--in\nlove with his principles, draws the veil from it, which renders the air\nluminous; that the wind _Colp_, and his wife _Bau_, engendered _Eon_;\nthat _Eon_ engendered _Genos_, that _Chronos_, their descendant, had two\neyes behind as well as before; that he became a god, and that he gave\nEgypt to his son _Thaut_? Such is one of the most respectable monuments\nof antiquity.\n\nOrpheus will teach us no more in his \"Theogony,\" than Damasius has\npreserved to us. He represents the principles of the world under the\nfigure of a dragon with two heads, the one of a bull, the other of a\nlion; a face in the middle, which he calls the face of God, and golden\nwings to his shoulders.\n\nBut, from these fantastic ideas may be drawn two great truths--the one\nthat sensible images and hieroglyphics are of the remotest antiquity;\nthe other that all the ancient philosophers have recognized a First\nPrinciple.\n\nAs to polytheism, good sense will tell you that as long as men have\nexisted--that is to say, weak animals capable of reason and folly,\nsubject to all accidents, sickness and death--these men have felt their\nweakness and dependence. Obliged to acknowledge that there is something\nmore powerful than themselves; having discovered a principle in the\nearth which furnishes their aliment; one in the air which often destroys\nthem; one in fire which consumes; and in water which drowns them--what\nis more natural than for ignorant men to imagine beings which preside\nover these elements? What is more natural than to revere the invisible\npower which makes the sun and stars shine to our eyes? and, since they\nwould form an idea of powers superior to man, what more natural than to\nfigure them in a sensible manner? Could they think otherwise? The Jewish\nreligion, which preceded ours, and which was given by God himself, was\nfilled with these images, under which God is represented. He deigns to\nspeak the human language in a bush; He appeared once on a mountain; the\ncelestial spirits which he sends all come with a human form: finally,\nthe sanctuary is covered with cherubs, which are the bodies of men with\nthe wings and heads of animals. It is this which has given rise to the\nerror of Plutarch, Tacitus, Appian, and so many others, of reproaching\nthe Jews with adoring an ass's head. God, in spite of his prohibition to\npaint or form likenesses, has, therefore, deigned to adapt himself to\nhuman weakness, which required the senses to be addressed by sensible\nbeings.\n\nIsaiah, in chapter vi., sees the Lord seated on a throne, and His train\nfilled the temple. The Lord extends His hand, and touches the mouth of\nJeremiah, in chap. i. of that prophet. Ezekiel, in chap. i., sees a\nthrone of sapphire, and God appeared to him like a man seated on this\nthrone. These images alter not the purity of the Jewish religion, which\nnever employed pictures, statues, or idols, to represent God to the eyes\nof the people.\n\nThe learned Chinese, the Parsees, and the ancient Egyptians, had no\nidols; but Isis and Osiris were soon represented. Bel, at Babylon, was a\ngreat colossus. Brahma was a fantastic monster in the peninsula of\nIndia. Above all, the Greeks multiplied the names of the gods, statues,\nand temples, but always attributed the supreme power to their _Zeus_,\ncalled Jupiter by the Latins, the sovereign of gods and men. The Romans\nimitated the Greeks. These people always placed all the gods in heaven,\nwithout knowing what they understood by heaven.\n\nThe Romans had their twelve great gods, six male and six female, whom\nthey called \"_Dii majorum gentium_\"; Jupiter, Neptune, Apollo, Vulcan,\nMars, Mercury, Juno, Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Venus, and Diana; Pluto was\ntherefore forgotten: Vesta took his place.\n\nAfterwards, came the gods \"_minorum gentium_,\" the gods of mortal\norigin; the heroes, as Bacchus, Hercules, and \u00c6sculapius: the infernal\ngods, Pluto and Proserpine: those of the sea, as Tethys, Amphitrite, the\nNereids, and Glaucus. The Dryads, Naiads, gods of gardens; those of\nshepherds, etc. They had them, indeed, for every profession, for every\naction of life, for children, marriageable girls, married, and lying-in\nwomen: they had even the god Peditum; and finally, they idolized their\nemperors. Neither these emperors nor the god Peditum, the goddess\nPertunda, nor Priapus, nor Rumilia, the goddess of nipples; nor\nStercutius, the god of the privy, were, in truth, regarded as the\nmasters of heaven and earth. The emperors had sometimes temples, the\npetty gods--the penates--had none; but all had their representations,\ntheir images.\n\nThere were little images with which they ornamented their closets, the\namusements of old women and children, which were not authorized by any\npublic worship. The superstition of every individual was left to act\naccording to his own taste. These small idols are still found in the\nruins of ancient towns.\n\nIf no person knows when men began to make these images, they must know\nthat they are of the greatest antiquity. Terah, the father of Abraham,\nmade them at Ur in Chald\u00e6a. Rachel stole and carried off the images of\nLaban, her father. We cannot go back further.\n\nBut what precise notion had the ancient nations of all these\nrepresentations? What virtue, what power, was attributed to them?\nBelieved they that the gods descended from heaven to conceal themselves\nin these statues; or that they communicated to them a part of the divine\nspirit; or that they communicated to them nothing at all? There has been\nmuch very uselessly written on this subject; it is clear that every man\njudged of it according to the degree of his reason, credulity, or\nfanaticism. It is evident that the priests attached as much divinity to\ntheir statues as they possibly could, to attract more offerings. We know\nthat the philosophers reproved these superstitions, that warriors\nlaughed at them, that the magistrates tolerated them, and that the\npeople, always absurd, knew not what they did. In a word, this is the\nhistory of all nations to which God has not made himself known.\n\nThe same idea may be formed of the worship which all Egypt rendered to\nthe cow, and that several towns paid to a dog, an ape, a cat, and to\nonions. It appears that these were first emblems. Afterwards, a certain\nox Apis, and a certain dog Anubis, were adored; they always ate beef and\nonions; but it is difficult to know what the old women of Egypt thought\nof the holy cows and onions.\n\nIdols also often spoke. On the day of the feast of Cybele at Rome, those\nfine words were commemorated which the statue pronounced when it was\ntranslated from the palace of King Attilus: \"I wish to depart; take me\naway quickly; Rome is worthy the residence of every god.\"\n\n     _Ipsa peti volui; ne sit mora, mitte volentum;_\n     _Dignus Roma locus quo Deus omnis eat._\n                           --OVID'S _Fasti_, iv, 269-270.\n\nThe statue of Fortune spoke; the Scipios, the Ciceros, and the C\u00e6sars,\nindeed, believed nothing of it; but the old woman, to whom Encolpus gave\na crown to buy geese and gods, might credit it.\n\nIdols also gave oracles, and priests hidden in the hollow of the statues\nspoke in the name of the divinity.\n\nHow happens it, in the midst of so many gods and different th\u00e9ogonies\nand particular worships, that there was never any religious war among\nthe people called idolaters? This peace was a good produced from an\nevil, even from error; for each nation, acknowledging several inferior\ngods, found it good for his neighbors also to have theirs. If you except\nCambyses, who is reproached with having killed the ox Apis, you will not\nsee any conqueror in profane history who ill-treated the gods of a\nvanquished people. The heathens had no exclusive religion, and the\npriests thought only of multiplying the offerings and sacrifices.\n\nThe first offerings were fruits. Soon after, animals were required for\nthe table of the priests; they killed them themselves, and became cruel\nbutchers; finally, they introduced the horrible custom of sacrificing\nhuman victims, and above all, children and young girls. The Chinese,\nParsees, and Indians, were never guilty of these abominations; but at\nHieropolis, in Egypt, according to Porphyrius, they immolated men.\n\nStrangers were sacrificed at Taurida: happily, the priests of Taurida\nhad not much practice. The first Greeks, the Cypriots, Ph\u0153nicians,\nTyrians, and Carthaginians, possessed this abominable superstition. The\nRomans themselves fell into this religious crime; and Plutarch relates,\nthat they immolated two Greeks and two Gauls to expiate the gallantries\nof three vestals. Procopius, contemporary with the king of the Franks,\nTheodobert, says that the Franks sacrificed men when they entered Italy\nwith that prince. The Gauls and Germans commonly made these frightful\nsacrifices. We can scarcely read history without conceiving horror at\nmankind.\n\nIt is true that among the Jews, Jeptha sacrificed his daughter, and Saul\nwas ready to immolate his son; it is also true that those who were\ndevoted to the Lord by anathema could not be redeemed, as other beasts\nwere, but were doomed to perish.\n\nWe will now speak of the human victims sacrificed in all religions.\n\nTo console mankind for the horrible picture of these pious sacrifices,\nit is important to know, that amongst almost all nations called\nidolatrous, there have been holy theologies and popular error, secret\nworship and public ceremonies; the religion of sages, and that of the\nvulgar. To know that one God alone was taught to those initiated into\nthe mysteries, it is only necessary to look at the hymn attributed to\nthe ancient Orpheus, which was sung in the mysteries of the Eleusinian\nCeres, so celebrated in Europe and Asia: \"Contemplate divine nature;\nilluminate thy mind; govern thy heart; walk in the path of justice, that\nthe God of heaven and earth may be always present to thy eyes: He only\nself-exists, all beings derive their existence from Him; He sustains\nthem all; He has never been seen by mortals, and He sees all things.\"\n\nWe may also read the passage of the philosopher Maximus, whom we have\nalready quoted: \"What man is so gross and stupid as to doubt that there\nis a supreme, eternal, and infinite God, who has engendered nothing like\nHimself, and who is the common father of all things?\"\n\nThere are a thousand proofs that the ancient sages not only abhorred\nidolatry, but polytheism.\n\nEpictetus, that model of resignation and patience, that man so great in\na humble condition, never speaks of but one God. Read over these maxims:\n\"God has created me; God is within me; I carry Him everywhere. Can I\ndefile Him by obscene thoughts, unjust actions, or infamous desires? My\nduty is to thank God for all, to praise Him for all; and only to cease\nblessing Him in ceasing to live.\" All the ideas of Epictetus turn on\nthis principle. Is this an idolater?\n\nMarcus Aurelius, perhaps as great on the throne of the Roman Empire as\nEpictetus was in slavery, often speaks, indeed, of the gods, either to\nconform himself to the received language, or to express intermediate\nbeings between the Supreme Being and men; but in how many places does he\nshow that he recognizes one eternal, infinite God alone? \"Our soul,\"\nsays he, \"is an emanation from the divinity. My children, my body, my\nmind, are derived from God.\"\n\nThe Stoics and Platonics admitted a divine and universal nature; the\nEpicureans denied it. The pontiffs spoke only of a single God in their\nmysteries. Where then were the idolaters? All our declaimers exclaim\nagainst idolatry like little dogs, that yelp when they hear a great one\nbark.\n\nAs to the rest, it is one of the greatest errors of the \"Dictionary\" of\nMor\u00e9ri to say, that in the time of Theodosius the younger, there\nremained no idolaters except in the retired countries of Asia and\nAfrica. Even in the seventh century there were many people still heathen\nin Italy. The north of Germany, from the Weser, was not Christian in the\ntime of Charlemagne. Poland and all the south remained a long time after\nhim in what was called idolatry; the half of Africa, all the kingdoms\nbeyond the Ganges, Japan, the populace of China, and a hundred hordes of\nTartars, have preserved their ancient religion. In Europe there are only\na few Laplanders, Samoyedes, and Tartars, who have persevered in the\nreligion of their ancestors.\n\nLet us conclude with remarking, that in the time which we call the\nmiddle ages, we dominated the country of the Mahometans pagan; we\ntreated as idolaters and adorers of images, a people who hold all images\nin abhorrence. Let us once more avow, that the Turks are more excusable\nin believing us idolaters, when they see our altars loaded with images\nand statues.\n\nA gentleman belonging to Prince Ragotski assured me upon his honor, that\nbeing in a coffee-house at Constantinople, the mistress ordered that he\nshould not be served because he was an idolater. He was a Protestant,\nand swore to her that he adored neither host nor images. \"Ah! if that is\nthe case,\" said the woman, \"come to me every day, and you shall be\nserved for nothing.\"\n\n\n\n\nIGNATIUS LOYOLA.\n\n\nIf you are desirous of obtaining a great name, of becoming the founder\nof a sect or establishment, be completely mad; but be sure that your\nmadness corresponds with the turn and temper of your age. Have in your\nmadness reason enough to guide your extravagances; and forget not to be\nexcessively opinionated and obstinate. It is certainly possible that you\nmay get hanged; but if you escape hanging, you will have altars erected\nto you.\n\nIn real truth, was there ever a fitter subject for the Petites-Maisons,\nor Bedlam, than Ignatius, or St. Inigo the Biscayan, for that was his\ntrue name? His head became deranged in consequence of his reading the\n\"Golden Legend\"; as Don Quixote's was, afterwards, by reading the\nromances of chivalry. Our Biscayan hero, in the first place, dubs\nhimself a knight of the Holy Virgin, and performs the Watch of Arms in\nhonor of his lady. The virgin appears to him and accepts his services;\nshe often repeats her visit, and introduces to him her son. The devil,\nwho watches his opportunity, and clearly foresees the injury he must in\nthe course of time suffer from the Jesuits, comes and makes a tremendous\nnoise in the house, and breaks all the windows; the Biscayan drives him\naway with the sign of the cross; and the devil flies through the wall,\nleaving in it a large opening, which was shown to the curious fifty\nyears after the happy event.\n\nHis family, seeing the very disordered state of his mind, is desirous of\nhis being confined and put under a course of regimen and medicine. He\nextricates himself from his family as easily as he did from the devil,\nand escapes without knowing where to go. He meets with a Moor, and\ndisputes with him about the immaculate conception. The Moor, who takes\nhim exactly for what he is, quits him as speedily as possible. The\nBiscayan hesitates whether he shall kill the Moor or pray to God for his\nconversion; he leaves the decision to his horse, and the animal, rather\nwiser than its master, takes the road leading to the stable.\n\nOur hero, after this adventure, undertakes a pilgrimage to Bethlehem,\nbegging his bread on the way: his madness increases as he proceeds; the\nDominicans take pity on him at Manrosa, and keep him in their\nestablishment for some days, and then dismiss him uncured.\n\nHe embarks at Barcelona, and goes to Venice; he returns to Barcelona,\nstill travelling as a mendicant, always experiencing trances and\necstacies, and frequently visited by the Holy Virgin and Jesus Christ.\n\nAt length, he was given to understand that, in order to go to the Holy\nLand with any fair view of converting the Turks, the Christians of the\nGreek church, the Armenians, and the Jews, it was necessary to begin\nwith a little study of theology. Our hero desires nothing better; but,\nto become a theologian, it was requisite to know something of grammar\nand a little Latin; this gives him no embarrassment whatever: he goes to\ncollege at the age of thirty-three; he is there laughed at, and learns\nnothing.\n\nHe was almost broken-hearted at the idea of not being able to go and\nconvert the infidels. The devil, for this once, took pity on him. He\nappeared to him, and swore to him, on the faith of a Christian, that, if\nhe would deliver himself over to him, he would make him the most learned\nand able man in the church of God. Ignatius, however, was not to be\ncajoled to place himself under the discipline of such a master; he went\nback to his class; he occasionally experienced the rod, but his learning\nmade no progress.\n\nExpelled from the college of Barcelona, persecuted by the devil, who\npunished him for refusing to submit to his instructions, and abandoned\nby the Virgin Mary, who took no pains about assisting her devoted\nknight, he, nevertheless, does not give way to despair. He joins the\npilgrims of St. James in their wanderings over the country. He preaches\nin the streets and public places, from city to city, and is shut up in\nthe dungeons of the Inquisition. Delivered from the Inquisition, he is\nput in prison at Alcala. He escapes thence to Salamanca, and is there\nagain imprisoned. At length, perceiving that he is no prophet in his own\ncountry, he forms a resolution to go to Paris. He travels thither on\nfoot, driving before him an ass which carried his baggage, money, and\nmanuscripts. Don Quixote had a horse and an esquire, but Ignatius was\nnot provided with either.\n\nHe experiences at Paris the same insults and injuries as he had endured\nin Spain. He is absolutely flogged, in all the regular form and ceremony\nof scholastic discipline, at the college of St. Barbe. His vocation, at\nlength, calls him to Rome.\n\nHow could it possibly come to pass, that a man of such extravagant\ncharacter and manners, should at length obtain consideration at the\ncourt of Rome, gain over a number of disciples, and become the founder\nof a powerful order, among whom are to be found men of unquestionable\nworth and learning? The reason is, that he was opinionated, obstinate,\nand enthusiastic; and found enthusiasts like himself, with whom he\nassociated. These, having rather a greater share of reason than himself,\nwere instrumental in somewhat restoring and re-establishing his own; he\nbecame more prudent and regular towards the close of his life, and\noccasionally even displayed in his conduct proofs of ability.\n\nPerhaps Mahomet, in his first conversations with the angel Gabriel,\nbegan his career with being as much deranged as Ignatius; and perhaps\nIgnatius, in Mahomet's circumstances, would have performed as great\nachievements as the prophet; for he was equally ignorant, and quite as\nvisionary and intrepid.\n\nIt is a common observation, that such cases occur only once: however, it\nis not long since an English rustic, more ignorant than the Spaniard\nIgnatius, formed the society of people called \"Quakers\"; a society far\nsuperior to that of Ignatius. Count Zinzendorf has, in our own time,\nformed the sect of Moravians; and the Convulsionaries of Paris were very\nnearly upon the point of effecting a revolution. They were quite mad\nenough, but they were not sufficiently persevering and obstinate.\n\n\n\n\nIGNORANCE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThere are many kinds of ignorance; but the worst of all is that of\ncritics, who, it is well known, are doubly bound to possess information\nand judgment as persons who undertake to affirm and to censure. When\nthey pronounce erroneously, therefore, they are doubly culpable.\n\nA man, for example, composes two large volumes upon a few pages of a\nvaluable book which he has not understood, and in the first place\nexamines the following words:\n\n\"The sea has covered immense tracts.... The deep beds of shells which\nare found in Touraine and elsewhere, could have been deposited there\nonly by the sea.\"\n\nTrue, if those beds of shells exist in fact; but the critic ought to be\naware that the author himself discovered, or thought he had discovered,\nthat those regular beds of shells have no existence.\n\nHe ought to have said:\n\n\"The universal Deluge is related by Moses with the agreement of all\nnations.\"\n\n1. Because the Pentateuch was long unknown, not only to the other\nnations of the world, but to the Jews themselves.\n\n2. Because only a single copy of the law was found at the bottom of an\nold chest in the time of King Josiah.\n\n3. Because that book was lost during the captivity.\n\n4. Because it was restored by Esdras.\n\n5. Because it was always unknown to every other nation till the time of\nits being translated by the Seventy.\n\n6. Because, even after the translation ascribed to the Seventy, we have\nnot a single author among the Gentiles who quotes a single passage from\nthis book, down to the time of Longinus, who lived under the Emperor\nAurelian.\n\n7. Because no other nation ever admitted a universal deluge before\nOvid's \"Metamorphoses\"; and even Ovid himself does not make his deluge\nextend beyond the Mediterranean.\n\n8. Because St. Augustine expressly acknowledges that the universal\ndeluge was unknown to all antiquity.\n\n9. Because the first deluge of which any notice is taken by the\nGentiles, is that mentioned by Berosus, and which he fixes at about four\nthousand four hundred years before our vulgar era; which deluge did not\nextend beyond the Euxine Sea.\n\n10. Finally, because no monument of a universal deluge remains in any\nnation in the world.\n\nIn addition to all these reasons, it must be observed, that the critic\ndid not even understand the simple state of the question. The only\ninquiry is, whether we have any natural proof that the sea has\nsuccessively abandoned many tracts of territory? and upon this plain and\nmere matter-of-fact subject, M. Abb\u00e9 Fran\u00e7ois has taken occasion to\nabuse men whom he certainly neither knows nor understands. It is far\nbetter to be silent, than merely to increase the quantity of bad books.\n\nThe same critic, in order to prop up old ideas, now almost universally\ndespised and derided, and which have not the slightest relation to\nMoses, thinks proper to say: \"Berosus perfectly agrees with Moses in the\nnumber of generations before the Deluge.\"\n\nBe it known to you, my dear reader, that this same Berosus is the writer\nwho informs us that the fish Oannes came out to the river Euphrates\nevery day, to go and preach to the Chald\u00e6ans; and that the same fish\nwrote with one of its bones a capital book about the origin of things.\nSuch is the writer whom the ingenious abb\u00e9 brings forward as a voucher\nfor Moses.\n\n\"Is it not evident,\" he says, \"that a great number of European families,\ntransplanted to the coasts of Africa, have become, without any mixture\nof African blood, as black as any of the natives of the country?\"\n\nIt is just the contrary of this, M. l'Abb\u00e9, that is evident. You are\nignorant that the \"_reticulum mucosum_\" of the negroes is black,\nalthough I have mentioned the fact times innumerable. Were you to have\never so large a number of children born to you in Guinea, of a European\nwife, they would not one of them have that black unctuous skin, those\ndark and thick lips, those round eyes, or that woolly hair, which form\nthe specific differences of the negro race. In the same manner, were\nyour family established in America, they would have beards, while a\nnative American will have none. Now extricate yourself from the\ndifficulty, with Adam and Eve only, if you can.\n\n\"Who was this 'Melchom,' you ask, who had taken possession of the\ncountry of God? A pleasant sort of god, certainly, whom the God of\nJeremiah would carry off to be dragged into captivity.\"\n\nAh, M. l'Abb\u00e9! you are quite smart and lively. You ask, who is this\nMelchom? I will immediately inform you. Melek or Melkom signified the\nLord, as did Adoni or Adonai, Baal or Bel, Adad or Shadai, Eloi or Eloa.\nAlmost all the nations of Syria gave such names to their gods; each had\nits lord, its protector, its god. Even the name of Jehovah was a\nPhoenician and proper name; this we learn from Sanchoniathon, who was\ncertainly anterior to Moses; and also from Diodorus.\n\nWe well know that God is equally the God, the absolute master, of\nEgyptians and Jews, of all men and all worlds; but it is not in this\nlight that he is represented when Moses appears before Pharaoh. He never\nspeaks to that monarch but in the name of the God of the Hebrews, as an\nambassador delivers the orders of the king his master. He speaks so\nlittle in the name of the Master of all Nature, that Pharaoh replies to\nhim, \"I do not know him.\" Moses performs prodigies in the name of this\nGod; but the magicians of Pharaoh perform precisely the same prodigies\nin the name of their own. Hitherto both sides are equal; the contest is,\nwho shall be deemed most powerful, not who shall be deemed alone\npowerful. At length, the God of the Hebrews decidedly carries the day;\nhe manifests a power by far the greater; but not the only power. Thus,\nspeaking after the manner of men, Pharaoh's incredulity is very\nexcusable. It is the same incredulity as Montezuma exhibited before\nCortes, and Atahualpa before the Pizarros.\n\nWhen Joshua called together the Jews, he said to them: \"Choose ye this\nday whom ye will serve, whether the gods which your father served, that\nwere on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites in\nwhose land ye dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the\nLord.\" The people, therefore, had already given themselves up to other\ngods, and might serve whom they pleased.\n\nWhen the family of Micah, in Ephraim, hire a Levitical priest to conduct\nthe service of a strange god, when the whole tribe of Dan serve the same\ngod as the family of Micah; when a grandson of Moses himself becomes a\nhired priest of the same god--no one murmurs; every one has his own god,\nundisturbed; and the grandson of Moses becomes an idolater without any\none's reviling or accusing him. At that time, therefore, every one chose\nhis own local god, his own protector.\n\nThe same Jews, after the death of Gideon, adore Baal-berith, which means\nprecisely the same as Adonai--the lord, the protector; they change their\nprotector.\n\nAdonai, in the time of Joshua, becomes master of the mountains; but he\nis unable to overcome the inhabitants of the valleys, because they had\nchariots armed with scythes. Can anything more correctly represent the\nidea of a local deity, a god who is strong in one place, but not so in\nanother?\n\nJephthah, the son of Gilead, and a concubine, says to the Moabites:\n\"Wilt thou not possess what Chemosh, thy god, giveth thee to possess?\nSo, whomsoever the Lord our God shall drive out from before us, them\nwill we possess.\"\n\nIt is then perfectly proved, that the undistinguishing Jews, although\nchosen by the God of the universe, regarded him notwithstanding as a\nmere local god, the god of a particular territory of people, like the\ngod of the Amorites, or that of the Moabites, of the mountains or of the\nvalleys.\n\nIt is unfortunately very evident that it was perfectly indifferent to\nthe grandson of Moses whether he served Micah's god or his\ngrandfather's. It is clear, and cannot but be admitted, that the Jewish\nreligion was not formed, that it was not uniform, till the time of\nEsdras; and we must, even then, except the Samaritans.\n\nYou may now, probably, have some idea of the meaning of this lord or god\nMelchom. I am not in favor of his cause--the Lord deliver me from such\nfolly!--but when you remark, \"the god which Jeremiah threatened to carry\ninto slavery must be a curious and pleasant sort of deity,\" I will\nanswer you, M. l'Abb\u00e9, with this short piece of advice:--\"From your own\nhouse of glass do not throw stones at those of your neighbors.\"\n\nThey were the Jews who were at that very time carried off in slavery to\nBabylon. It was the good Jeremiah himself who was accused of being\nbribed by the court of Babylon, and of having consequently prophesied in\nhis favor. It was he who was the object of public scorn and hatred, and\nwho it is thought ended his career by being stoned to death by the Jews\nthemselves. This Jeremiah, be assured from me, was never before\nunderstood to be a joker.\n\nThe God of the Jews, I again repeat, is the God of all nature. I\nexpressly make this repetition that you may have no ground for\npretending ignorance of it, and that you may not accuse me before the\necclesiastical court. I still, however, assert and maintain, that the\nstupid Jews frequently knew no other God than a local one.\n\n\"It is not natural to attribute the tides to the phases of the moon.\nThey are not the high tides which occur at the full moon, that are\nascribed to the phases of that planet.\" Here we see ignorance of a\ndifferent description.\n\nIt occasionally happens that persons of a certain description are so\nmuch ashamed of the part they play in the world, that they are desirous\nof disguising themselves sometimes as wits, and sometimes as\nphilosophers.\n\nIn the first place, it is proper to inform M. l'Abb\u00e9, that nothing is\nmore natural than to attribute an effect to that which is always\nfollowed by this effect. If a particular wind is constantly followed by\nrain, it is natural to attribute the rain to the wind. Now, over all the\nshores of the ocean, the tides are always higher in the moon's\n\"syzygies\"--if you happen to know the meaning of the term--than at its\nquarterings. The moon rises every day later; the tide is also every day\nlater. The nearer the moon approaches our zenith, the greater is the\ntide; the nearer the moon approaches its perigee, the higher the tide\nstill rises. These experiences and various others, these invariable\ncorrespondences with the phases of the moon, were the foundation of the\nancient and just opinion, that that body is a principal cause of the\nflux and reflux of the ocean.\n\nAfter numerous centuries appeared the great Newton--Are you at all\nacquainted with Newton? Did you ever hear, that after calculating the\nsquare of the progress of the moon in its orbit during the space of a\nminute, and dividing that square by the diameter of that orbit, he found\nthe quotient to be fifteen feet? that he thence demonstrated that the\nmoon gravitates towards the earth three thousand six hundred times less\nthan if she were near the earth? that he afterwards demonstrated that\nits attractive force is the cause of three-fourths of the elevation of\nthe sea by the tide, and that the force of the sun is the cause of the\nremaining fourth? You appear perfectly astonished. You never read\nanything like this in the \"Christian Pedagogue.\" Endeavor henceforward,\nboth you and the porters of your parish, never to speak about things of\nwhich you have not even the slightest idea.\n\nYou can form no conception of the injury you do to religion by your\nignorance, and still more by your reasonings. In order to preserve in\nthe world the little faith that remains in it, it would be the most\njudicious measure possible to restrain you, and such as you, from\nwriting and publishing in behalf of it.\n\nI should absolutely make your astonished eyes stare almost to starting,\nwere I to inform you, that this same Newton was persuaded that Samuel is\nthe author of the Pentateuch. I do not mean to say that he demonstrated\nit in the same way as he calculated and deduced the power of\ngravitation. Learn, then, to doubt and to be modest. I believe in the\nPentateuch, remember; but I believe, also, that you have printed and\npublished the most enormous absurdities. I could here transcribe a large\nvolume of instances of your own individual ignorance and imbecility, and\nmany of those of your brethren and colleagues. I shall not, however,\ntake the trouble of doing it. Let us go on with our questions.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nI am ignorant how I was formed, and how I was born. I was perfectly\nignorant, for a quarter of my life, of the reasons of all that I saw,\nheard, and felt, and was a mere parrot, talking by rote in imitation of\nother parrots.\n\nWhen I looked about me and within me, I conceived that something existed\nfrom all eternity. Since there are beings actually existing, I concluded\nthat there is some being necessary and necessarily eternal. Thus the\nfirst step I took to extricate myself from my ignorance, overpassed the\nlimits of all ages--the boundaries of time.\n\nBut when I was desirous of proceeding in this infinite career, I could\nneither perceive a single path, nor clearly distinguish a single object;\nand from the flight which I took to contemplate eternity, I have fallen\nback into the abyss of my original ignorance.\n\nI have seen what is denominated \"matter,\" from the star Sirius, and the\nstars of the \"milky way,\" as distant from Sirius as that is from us, to\nthe smallest atom that can be perceived by the microscope; and yet I\nknow not what matter is.\n\nLight, which has enabled me to see all these different and distant\nbeings, is perfectly unknown to me; I am able by the help of a prism to\nanatomize this light, and divide it into seven pencillings of rays; but\nI cannot divide these pencillings themselves; I know not of what they\nare composed. Light resembles matter in having motion and impinging upon\nobjects, but it does not tend towards a common centre like all other\nbodies; on the contrary it flies off by some invincible power from the\ncentre, while all matter gravitates towards a centre. Light appears to\nbe penetrable, and matter is impenetrable. Is light matter, or is it not\nmatter? What is it? With what numberless properties can it be invested?\nI am completely ignorant.\n\nThis substance so brilliant, so rapid, and so unknown, and those other\nsubstances which float in the immensity of space--seeming to be\ninfinite--are they eternal? I know nothing on the subject. Has a\nnecessary being, sovereignly intelligent, created them from nothing, or\nhas he only arranged them? Did he produce this order in time, or before\n_time_? Alas! what is this time, of which I am speaking? I am incapable\nof defining it. O God, it is Thou alone by whom I can be instructed, for\nI am neither enlightened by the darkness of other men nor by my own.\n\nMice and moles have their resemblances of structure, in certain\nrespects, to the human frame. What difference can it make to the Supreme\nBeing whether animals like ourselves, or such as mice, exist upon this\nglobe revolving in space with innumerable globes around it?\n\nWhy have we being? Why are there any beings? What is sensation? How have\nI received it? What connection is there between the air which vibrates\non my ear and the sensation of sound? between this body and the\nsensation of colors? I am perfectly ignorant, and shall ever remain\nignorant.\n\nWhat is thought? Where does it reside? How is it formed? Who gives me\nthoughts during my sleep? Is it in virtue of my will that I think? No,\nfor always during sleep, and often when I am awake, I have ideas\nagainst, or at least without, my will. These ideas, long forgotten, long\nput away, and banished in the lumber room of my brain, issue from it\nwithout any effort or volition of mine, and suddenly present themselves\nto my memory, which had, perhaps, previously made various vain attempts\nto recall them.\n\nExternal objects have not the power of forming ideas in me, for nothing\ncan communicate what it does not possess; I am well assured that they\nare not given me by myself, for they are produced without my orders. Who\nthen produces them in me? Whence do they come? Whither do they go?\nFugitive phantoms! What invisible hand produces and disperses you?\n\nWhy, of all the various tribes of animals, has man alone the mad\nambition of domineering over his fellow? Why and how could it happen,\nthat out of a thousand millions of men, more than nine hundred and\nninety-nine have been sacrificed to this mad ambition?\n\nHow is it that reason is a gift so precious that we would none of us\nlose it for all the pomp or wealth of the world, and yet at the same\ntime that it has merely served to render us, in almost all cases, the\nmost miserable of beings? Whence comes it, that with a passionate\nattachment to truth, we are always yielding to the most palpable\nimpostures?\n\nWhy do the vast tribes of India, deceived and enslaved by the bonzes,\ntrampled upon by the descendant of a Tartar, bowed down by labor,\ngroaning in misery, assailed by diseases, and a mark for all the\nscourges and plagues of life, still fondly cling to that life? Whence\ncomes evil, and why does it exist?\n\nO atoms of a day! O companions in littleness, born like me to suffer\neverything, and be ignorant of everything!--are there in reality any\namong you so completely mad as to imagine you know all this, or that you\ncan solve all these difficulties? Certainly there can be none. No; in\nthe bottom of your heart you feel your own nothingness, as completely as\nI do justice to mine. But you are nevertheless arrogant and conceited\nenough to be eager for our embracing your vain systems; and not having\nthe power to tyrannize over our bodies, you aim at becoming the tyrants\nof our souls.\n\n\n\n\nIMAGINATION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nImagination is the power which every being, endowed with perception and\nreason, is conscious he possesses of representing to himself sensible\nobjects. This faculty is dependent upon memory. We see men, animals,\ngardens, which perceptions are introduced by the senses; the memory\nretains them, and the imagination compounds them. On this account the\nancient Greeks called the muses, \"the daughters of memory.\"\n\nIt is of great importance to observe, that these faculties of receiving\nideas, retaining them, and compounding them, are among the many things\nof which we can give no explanation. These invisible springs of our\nbeing are of nature's workmanship, and not of our own.\n\nPerhaps this gift of God, imagination, is the sole instrument with which\nwe compound ideas, even those which are abstract and metaphysical.\n\nYou pronounce the word \"triangle;\" but you merely utter a sound, if you\ndo not represent to yourself the image of some particular triangle. You\ncertainly have no idea of a triangle but in consequence of having seen\ntriangles, if you have the gift of sight, or of having felt them, if you\nare blind. You cannot think of a triangle in general, unless your\nimagination figures to itself, at least in a confused way, some\nparticular triangle. You calculate; but it is necessary that you should\nrepresent to yourself units added to each other, or your mind will be\ntotally insensible to the operation of your hand.\n\nYou utter the abstract terms--greatness, truth, justice, finite,\ninfinite; but is the term \"greatness\" thus uttered, anything more or\nless, than a mere sound, from the action of your tongue, producing\nvibrations in the air, unless you have the image of some greatness in\nyour mind? What meaning is there in the words \"truth\" and \"falsehood,\"\nif you have not perceived, by means of your senses, that some particular\nthing which you were told existed, did exist in fact; and that another\nof which you were told the same, did not exist? And, is it not from this\nexperience, that you frame the general idea of truth and falsehood? And,\nwhen asked what you mean by these words, can you help figuring to\nyourself some sensible image, occasioning you to recollect that you have\nsometimes been told, as a fact, what really and truly happened, and very\noften what was not so?\n\nHave you any other notion of just and unjust, than what is derived from\nparticular actions, which appeared to you respectively of these\ndescriptions? You began in your childhood by learning to read under some\nmaster: you endeavored to spell well, but you really spelled ill: your\nmaster chastised you: this appeared to you very unjust. You have\nobserved a laborer refused his wages, and innumerable instances of the\nlike nature. Is the abstract idea of just and unjust anything more than\nfacts of this character confusedly mixed up in your imagination?\n\nIs \"finite\" anything else in your conception than the image of some\nlimited quantity or extent? Is \"infinite\" anything but the image of the\nsame extent or quantity enlarged indefinitely? Do not all these\noperations take place in your mind just in the same manner as you read a\nbook? You read circumstances and events recorded in it, and never think\nat the time of the alphabetical characters, without which, however, you\nwould have no notion of these events and circumstances. Attend to this\npoint for a single moment, and then you will distinctly perceive the\nessential importance of those characters over which your eye previously\nglided without thinking of them. In the same manner all your reasonings,\nall your accumulations of knowledge are founded on images traced in your\nbrain. You have, in general, no distinct perception or recollection of\nthem; but give the case only a moment's attention, and you will then\nclearly discern, that these images are the foundation of all the notions\nyou possess. It may be worth the reader's while to dwell a little upon\nthis idea, to extend it, and to rectify it.\n\nThe celebrated Addison, in the eleven essays on the imagination with\nwhich he has enriched the volumes of the \"Spectator,\" begins with\nobserving, that \"the sense of sight is the only one which furnishes the\nimagination with ideas.\" Yet certainly it must be allowed, that the\nother senses contribute some share. A man born blind still hears, in his\nimagination, the harmony which no longer vibrates upon his ear; he still\ncontinues listening as in a trance or dream; the objects which have\nresisted or yielded to his hands produce a similar effect in his head or\nmind. It is true that the sense of sight alone supplies images; and as\nit is a kind of touching or feeling which extends even to the distance\nof the stars, its immense diffusion enriches the imagination more than\nall the other senses put together.\n\nThere are two descriptions of imagination; one consists in retaining a\nsimple impression of objects; the other arranges the images received,\nand combines them in endless diversity. The first has been called\npassive imagination, and the second active. The passive scarcely\nadvances beyond memory, and is common to man and to animals. From this\npower or faculty it arises, that the sportsman and his dog both follow\nthe hunted game in their dreams, that they both hear the sound of the\nhorn, and the one shouts and the other barks in their sleep. Both men\nand brutes do something more than recollect on these occasions, for\ndreams are never faithful and accurate images. This species of\nimagination compounds objects, but it is not the understanding which\nacts in it; it is the memory laboring under error.\n\nThis passive imagination certainly requires no assistance from volition,\nwhether we are asleep or awake; it paints, independently of ourselves,\nwhat our eyes have seen; it hears what our ears have heard, and touches\nwhat we have touched; it adds to it or takes from it. It is an internal\nsense, acting necessarily, and accordingly there is nothing more common,\nin speaking of any particular individual, than to say, \"he has no\ncommand over his imagination.\"\n\nIn this respect we cannot but see, and be astonished at the slight share\nof power we really possess. Whence comes it, that occasionally in dreams\nwe compose most coherent and eloquent discourses, and verses far\nsuperior to what we should write on the same subject if perfectly\nawake?--that we even solve complicated problems in mathematics? Here\ncertainly there are very combined and complex ideas in no degree\ndependent on ourselves. But if it is incontestable that coherent ideas\nare formed within us independently of our will in sleep, who can safely\nassert that they are not produced in the same manner when we are awake?\nIs there a man living who foresees the idea which he will form in his\nmind the ensuing minute? Does it not seem as if ideas were given to us\nas much as the motions of our fibres; and had Father Malebranche merely\nmaintained the principle that all ideas are given by God, could any one\nhave successfully opposed him?\n\nThis passive faculty, independent of reflection, is the source of our\npassions and our errors; far from being dependent on the will, the will\nis determined by it. It urges us towards the objects which it paints\nbefore us, or diverts us from them, just according to the nature of the\nexhibition thus made of them by it. The image of a danger inspires fear;\nthat of a benefit excites desire. It is this faculty alone which\nproduces the enthusiasm of glory, of party, of fanaticism; it is this\nwhich produces so many mental alienations and disorders, making weak\nbrains, when powerfully impressed, conceive that their bodies are\nmetamorphosed into various animals, that they are possessed by demons,\nthat they are under the infernal dominion of witchcraft, and that they\nare in reality going to unite with sorcerers in the worship of the\ndevil, because they have been told that they were going to do so. This\nspecies of slavish imagination, which generally is the lot of ignorant\npeople, has been the instrument which the imagination of some men has\nemployed to acquire and retain power. It is, moreover, this passive\nimagination of brains easily excited and agitated, which sometimes\nproduces on the bodies of children evident marks of the impression\nreceived by the mother; examples of this kind are indeed innumerable,\nand the writer of this article has seen some so striking that, were he\nto deny them, he must contradict his own ocular demonstration. This\neffect of imagination is incapable of being explained; but every other\noperation of nature is equally so; we have no clearer idea how we have\nperceptions, how we retain them, or how we combine them. There is an\ninfinity between us and the springs or first principles of our nature.\n\nActive imagination is that which joins combination and reflection to\nmemory. It brings near to us many objects at a distance; it separates\nthose mixed together, compounds them, and changes them; it seems to\ncreate, while in fact it merely arranges; for it has not been given to\nman to make ideas--he is only able to modify them.\n\nThis active imagination then is in reality a faculty as independent of\nourselves as passive imagination; and one proof of its not depending\nupon ourselves is that, if we propose to a hundred persons, equally\nignorant, to imagine a certain new machine, ninety-nine of them will\nform no imagination at all about it, notwithstanding all their\nendeavors. If the hundredth imagines something, is it not clear that it\nis a particular gift or talent which he has received? It is this gift\nwhich is called \"genius\"; it is in this that we recognize something\ninspired and divine.\n\nThis gift of nature is an imagination inventive in the arts--in the\ndisposition of a picture, in the structure of a poem. It cannot exist\nwithout memory, but it uses memory as an instrument with which it\nproduces all its performances.\n\nIn consequence of having seen that a large stone which the hand of man\ncould not move, might be moved by means of a staff, active imagination\ninvented levers, and afterwards compound moving forces, which are no\nother than disguised levers. It is necessary to figure in the mind the\nmachines with their various effects and processes, in order to the\nactual production of them.\n\nIt is not this description of imagination that is called by the vulgar\nthe enemy of judgment. On the contrary, it can only act in union with\nprofound judgment; it incessantly combines its pictures, corrects its\nerrors, and raises all its edifices according to calculation and upon a\nplan. There is an astonishing imagination in practical mathematics; and\nArchimedes had at least as much imagination as Homer. It is by this\npower that a poet creates his personages, appropriates to them\ncharacters and manners, invents his fable, presents the exposition of\nit, constructs its complexity, and prepares its development; a labor,\nall this, requiring judgment the most profound and the most delicately\ndiscriminative.\n\nA very high degree of art is necessary in all these imaginative\ninventions, and even in romances. Those which are deficient in this\nquality are neglected and despised by all minds of natural good taste.\nAn invariably sound judgment pervades all the fables of \u00c6sop. They will\nnever cease to be the delight of mankind. There is more imagination in\nthe \"Fairy Tales\"; but these fantastic imaginations, destitute of order\nand good sense, can never be in high esteem; they are read childishly,\nand must be condemned by reason.\n\nThe second part of active imagination is that of detail, and it is this\nto which the world distinguishingly applies the term. It is this which\nconstitutes the charm of conversation, for it is constantly presenting\nto the mind what mankind are most fond of--new objects. It paints in\nvivid colors what men of cold and reserved temperament hardly sketch; it\nemploys the most striking circumstances; it cites the most appropriate\nexamples; and when this talent displays itself in union with the modesty\nand simplicity which become and adorn all talents, it conciliates to\nitself an empire over society. Man is so completely a machine that wine\nsometimes produces this imagination, as intoxication destroys it. This\nis a topic to excite at once humiliation and wonder. How can it happen\nthat a small quantity of a certain liquor, which would prevent a man\nfrom effecting an important calculation, shall at the same time bestow\non him the most brilliant ideas?\n\nIt is in poetry particularly that this imagination of detail and\nexpression ought to prevail. It is always agreeable, but there it is\nnecessary. In Homer, Virgil, and Horace, almost all is imagery, without\neven the reader's perceiving it. Tragedy requires fewer images, fewer\npicturesque expressions and sublime metaphors and allegories than the\nepic poem and the ode; but the greater part of these beauties, under\ndiscreet and able management, produce an admirable effect in tragedy;\nthey should never, however, be forced, stilted, or gigantic.\n\nActive imagination, which constitutes men poets, confers on them\nenthusiasm, according to the true meaning of the Greek word, that\ninternal emotion which in reality agitates the mind and transforms the\nauthor into the personage whom he introduces as the speaker; for such is\nthe true enthusiasm, which consists in emotion and imagery. An author\nunder this influence says precisely what would be said by the character\nhe is exhibiting.\n\nLess imagination is admissible in eloquence than in poetry. The reason\nis obvious--ordinary discourse should be less remote from common ideas.\nThe orator speaks the language of all; the foundation of the poet's\nperformance is fiction. Accordingly, imagination is the essence of his\nart; to the orator it is only an accessory.\n\nParticular traits or touches of imagination have, it is observed, added\ngreat beauties to painting. That artifice especially is often cited, by\nwhich the artist covers with a veil the head of Agamemnon at the\nsacrifice of Iphigenia; an expedient, nevertheless, far less beautiful\nthan if the painter had possessed the secret of exhibiting in the\ncountenance of Agamemnon the conflict between the grief of a father, the\nmajesty of a monarch, and the resignation of a good man to the will of\nheaven; as Rubens had the skill to paint in the looks and attitude of\nMary de Medici the pain of childbirth, the joy of being delivered of a\nson, and the maternal affection with which she looks upon her child.\n\nIn general, the imaginations of painters when they are merely ingenious,\ncontribute more to exhibit the learning in the artist than to increase\nthe beauty of the art. All the allegorical compositions in the world are\nnot worth the masterly execution and fine finish which constitute the\ntrue value of paintings.\n\nIn all the arts, the most beautiful imagination is always the most\nnatural. The false is that which brings together objects incompatible;\nthe extravagant paints objects which have no analogy, allegory, or\nresemblance. A strong imagination explores everything to the bottom; a\nweak one skims over the surface; the placid one reposes in agreeable\npictures; the ardent one piles images upon images. The judicious or sage\nimagination is that which employs with discrimination all these\ndifferent characters, but which rarely admits the extravagant and always\nrejects the false.\n\nIf memory nourished and exercised be the source of all imagination, that\nsame faculty of memory, when overcharged, becomes the extinction of it.\nAccordingly, the man whose head is full of names and dates does not\npossess that storehouse of materials from which he can derive compound\nimages. Men occupied in calculation, or with intricate matters of\nbusiness, have generally a very barren imagination.\n\nWhen imagination is remarkably stirring and ardent, it may easily\ndegenerate into madness; but it has been observed that this morbid\naffection of the organs of the brain more frequently attaches to those\npassive imaginations which are limited to receiving strong impressions\nof objects than to those fervid and active ones which collect and\ncombine ideas; for this active imagination always requires the\nassociation of judgment, the other is independent of it.\n\nIt is not perhaps useless to add to this essay, that by the words\nperception, memory, imagination, and judgment, we do not mean distinct\nand separate organs, one of which has the gift of perceiving, another of\nrecollecting, the third of imagining, and the last of judging. Men are\nmore inclined, than some are aware, to consider these as completely\ndistinct and separate faculties. It is, however, one and the same being\nthat performs all these operations, which we know only by their effects,\nwithout being able to know anything of that being itself.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nBrutes possess imagination as well as ourselves; your dog, for example,\nhunts in his dreams. \"Objects are painted in the fancy,\" says Descartes,\nas others have also said. Certainly they are; but what is the fancy, and\nhow are objects painted in it? Is it with \"the subtle matter\"? \"How can\nI tell\" is the appropriate answer to all questions thus affecting the\nfirst principles of human organization.\n\nNothing enters the understanding without an image. It was necessary, in\norder to our obtaining the confused idea we possess of infinite space,\nthat we should have an idea of a space of a few feet. It is necessary,\nin order to our having the idea of God, that the image of something more\npowerful than ourselves should have long dwelt upon our minds.\n\nWe do not create a single idea or image. I defy you to create one.\nAriosto did not make Astolpho travel to the moon till long after he had\nheard of the moon, of St. John, and of the Paladins.\n\nWe make no images; we only collect and combine them. The extravagances\nof the \"Thousand and One Nights\" and the \"Fairy Tales\" are merely\ncombinations. He who comprises most images in the storehouse of his\nmemory is the person who possesses most imagination.\n\nThe difficulty is in not bringing together these images in profusion,\nwithout any selection. You might employ a whole day in representing,\nwithout any toilsome effort, and almost without any attention, a fine\nold man with a long beard, clothed in ample drapery, and borne in the\nmidst of a cloud resting on chubby children with beautiful wings\nattached to their shoulders, or upon an eagle of immense size and\ngrandeur; all the gods and animals surrounding him; golden tripods\nrunning to arrive at his council; wheels revolving by their own\nself-motion, advancing as they revolve; having four faces covered with\neyes, ears, tongues, and noses; and between these tripods and wheels an\nimmense multitude of dead resuscitated by the crash of thunder; the\ncelestial spheres dancing and joining in harmonious concert, etc. The\nlunatic asylum abounds in such imaginations.\n\nWe may, in dealing with the subject of imagination distinguish:\n\n1. The imagination which disposes of the events of a poem, romance,\ntragedy, or comedy, and which attaches the characters and passions to\nthe different personages. This requires the profoundest judgment and the\nmost exquisite knowledge of the human heart; talents absolutely\nindispensable; but with which, however, nothing has yet been done but\nmerely laying the foundation of the edifice.\n\n2. The imagination which gives to all these personages the eloquence or\ndiction appropriate to their rank, suitable to their station. Here is\nthe great art and difficulty; but even after doing this they have not\ndone enough.\n\n3. The imagination in the expression, by which every word paints an\nimage in the mind without astonishing or overwhelming it; as in Virgil:\n\n     _.... Remigium alarum_.--\u00c6NEID, vi, 19.\n\n     _M\u00e6rentem abjungens fraterna morte juvencum._\n                                      --GEORGICS, iii, 517.\n\n     _.... Velorum pandimus alas_.--\u00c6NEID, iii, 520.\n\n     _Pendent circum oscula nati_.--GEORGICS, ii, 523.\n\n     _Immortale jecur tundens fecundaque p\u0153nis_\n     _Viscera_.--\u00c6NEID, vi, 598-599.\n\n     _Et caligantem nigra formidine lucum._\n                                       --GEORGICS, iv, 468.\n\n     _Fata vocant, conditque natantia lumina somnus._\n                                       --GEORGICS, iv, 496.\n\nVirgil is full of these picturesque expressions, with which he enriches\nthe Latin language, and which are so difficult to be translated into our\nEuropean jargons--the crooked and lame offspring of a well-formed and\nmajestic sire, but which, however, have some merit of their own, and\nhave done some tolerably good things in their way.\n\nThere is an astonishing imagination, even in the science of mathematics.\nAn inventor must begin with painting correctly in his mind the figure,\nthe machine invented by him, and its properties or effects. We repeat\nthere was far more imagination in the head of Archimedes than in that of\nHomer.\n\nAs the imagination of a great mathematician must possess extreme\nprecision, so must that of a great poet be exceedingly correct and\nchaste. He must never present images that are incompatible with each\nother, incoherent, highly exaggerated, or unsuitable to the nature of\nthe subject.\n\nThe great fault of some writers who have appeared since the age of Louis\nXIV. is attempting a constant display of imagination, and fatiguing the\nreader by the profuse abundance of far-fetched images and double rhymes,\none-half of which may be pronounced absolutely useless. It is this which\nat length brought into neglect and obscurity a number of small poems,\nsuch as \"Ver Vert,\" \"The Chartreuse,\" and \"The Shades,\" which at one\nperiod possessed considerable celebrity. Mere sounding superfluity soon\nfinds oblivion.\n\n     _Omne supervacuum pleno depectore manat._\n                           --HORACE, _Art of Poetry_, 837.\n\n\nThe active and the passive imagination have been distinguished in the\n\"Encyclop\u00e6dia.\" The active is that of which we have treated. It is the\ntalent of forming new pictures out of all those contained in our memory.\n\nThe passive is scarcely anything beyond memory itself, even in a brain\nunder strong emotion. A man of an active and fervid imagination, a\npreacher of the League in France, or a Puritan in England, harangues the\npopulace with a voice of thunder, with an eye of fire, and the gesture\nof a demoniac, and represents Jesus Christ as demanding justice of the\nEternal Father for the new wounds he has received from the royalists,\nfor the nails which have been driven for the second time through his\nfeet and hands by these impious miscreants. Avenge, O God the Father,\navenge the blood of God the Son; march under the banner of the Holy\nSpirit; it was formerly a dove, but is now an eagle bearing thunder! The\npassive imaginations, roused and stimulated by these images, by the\nvoice, by the action of those sanguinary empirics, urge the maddened\nhearers to rush with fury from the chapel or meeting house, to kill\ntheir opponents and get themselves hanged.\n\nPersons of passive imaginations, for the sake of high and violent\nexcitement, go sometimes to the sermon and sometimes to the play;\nsometimes to the place of execution; and sometimes even to what they\nsuppose to be the midnight and appalling meetings of presumed sorcerers.\n\n\n\n\nIMPIOUS.\n\n\nWho is the impious man? It is he who exhibits the Being of Beings, the\ngreat former of the world, the eternal intelligence by whom all nature\nis governed, with a long white beard, and having hands and feet.\nHowever, he is pardonable for his impiety--a weak and ignorant creature,\nthe sight or conduct of whom we ought not to allow to provoke or to vex\nus.\n\nIf he should even paint that great and incomprehensible Being as carried\non a cloud, which can carry nothing; if he is so stupid as to place God\nin a mist, in rain, or on a mountain, and to surround him with little\nround, chubby, painted faces, accompanied by two wings, I can smile and\npardon him with all my heart.\n\nThe impious man, who ascribes to the Being of Beings absurd predictions\nand absolute iniquities, would certainly provoke me, if that Great Being\nhad not bestowed upon me the gift of reason to control my anger. This\nsenseless fanatic repeats to me once more what thousands of others have\nsaid before him, that it is not our province to decide what is\nreasonable and just in the Great Being; that His reason is not like our\nreason, nor His justice like our justice. What then, my rather too\nabsurd and zealous friend, would you really wish me to judge of justice\nand reason by any other notions than I have of them myself? Would you\nhave me walk otherwise than with my feet, or speak otherwise than with\nmy mouth?\n\nThe impious man, who supposes the Great Being to be jealous, proud,\nmalignant, and vindictive, is more dangerous. I would not sleep under\nthe same roof with such a man.\n\nBut how will you treat the impious man, the daring blasphemer, who says\nto you: \"See only with my eyes; do not think for yourself; I proclaim to\nyou a tyrant God, who ordained me to be your tyrant; I am His\nwell-beloved; He will torment to all eternity millions of His creatures,\nwhom He detests, for the sake of gratifying me; I will be your master in\nthis world and will laugh at your torments in the next!\"\n\nDo you not feel a very strong inclination to beat this cruel blasphemer?\nAnd, even if you happen to be born with a meek and forgiving spirit,\nwould you not fly with the utmost speed to the West, when this barbarian\nutters his atrocious reveries in the East?\n\nWith respect to another and very different class of the impious--those\nwho, while washing their elbows, neglect to turn their faces towards\nAleppo and Erivan, or who do not kneel down in the dirt on seeing a\nprocession of capuchin friars at Perpignan, they are certainly culpable;\nbut I hardly think they ought to be impaled.\n\n\n\n\nIMPOST.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nSo many philosophical works have been written on the nature of impost,\nthat we need say very little about it here. It is true that nothing is\nless philosophical than this subject; but it may enter into moral\nphilosophy by representing to a superintendent of finances or to a\nTurkish teftardar that it accords not with universal morals to take his\nneighbor's money; and that all receivers and custom-house officers and\ncollectors of taxes are cursed in the gospel.\n\nCursed as they are, it must, however, be agreed that it is impossible\nfor society to subsist unless each member pays something towards the\nexpenses of it; and as, since every one ought to pay, it is necessary to\nhave a receiver, we do not see why this receiver is to be cursed and\nregarded as an idolater. There is certainly no idolatry in receiving\nmoney of guests to-day for their supper.\n\nIn republics, and states which with the name of kingdoms are really\nrepublics, every individual is taxed according to his means and to the\nwants of society.\n\nIn despotic kingdoms--or to speak more politely--in monarchical states,\nit is not quite the same--the nation is taxed without consulting it. An\nagriculturist who has twelve hundred livres of revenue is quite\nastonished when four hundred are demanded of him. There are several who\nare even obliged to pay more than half of what they receive.\n\nThe cultivator demands why the half of his fortune is taken from him to\npay soldiers, when the hundredth part would suffice. He is answered\nthat, besides the soldiers, he must pay for luxury and the arts; that\nnothing is lost; and that in Persia towns and villages are assigned to\nthe queen to pay for her girdles, slippers, and pins.\n\nHe replies that he knows nothing of the history of Persia, and that he\nshould be very indignant if half his fortune were taken for girdles,\npins, and shoes; that he would furnish them from a better market, and\nthat he endures a grievous imposition.\n\nHe is made to hear reason by being put into a dungeon, and having his\ngoods put up to sale. If he resists the tax-collectors whom the New\nTestament has damned, he is hanged, which renders all his neighbors\ninfinitely accommodating.\n\nWere this money employed by the sovereign in importing spices from\nIndia, coffee from Mocha, English and Arabian horses, silks from the\nLevant, and gew-gaws from China, it is clear that in a few years there\nwould not remain a single sous in the kingdom. The taxes, therefore,\nserve to maintain the manufacturers; and so far what is poured into the\ncoffers of the prince returns to the cultivators. They suffer, they\ncomplain, and other parts of the state suffer and complain also; but at\nthe end of the year they find that every one has labored and lived some\nway or other.\n\nIf by chance a clown goes to the capital, he sees with astonishment a\nfine lady dressed in a gown of silk embroidered with gold, drawn in a\nmagnificent carriage by two valuable horses, and followed by four\nlackeys dressed in a cloth of twenty francs an ell. He addresses himself\nto one of these lackeys, and says to him: \"Sir, where does this lady get\nmoney to make such an expensive appearance?\" \"My friend,\" says the\nlackey, \"the king allows her a pension of forty thousand livres.\"\n\"Alas,\" says the rustic, \"it is my village which pays this pension.\"\n\"Yes,\" answers the servant; \"but the silk that you have gathered and\nsold has made the stuff in which she is dressed; my cloth is a part of\nthy sheep's wool; my baker has made my bread of thy corn; thou hast sold\nat market the very fowls that we eat; thus thou seest that the pension\nof madame returns to thee and thy comrades.\"\n\nThe peasant does not absolutely agree with the axioms of this\nphilosophical lackey; but one proof that there is something true in his\nanswer is that the village exists, and produces children who also\ncomplain, and who bring forth children again to complain.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIf we were obliged to read all the edicts of taxation, and all the books\nwritten against them, that would be the greatest tax of all.\n\nWe well know that taxes are necessary, and that the malediction\npronounced in the gospel only regards those who abuse their employment\nto harass the people. Perhaps the copyist forgot a word, as for instance\nthe epithet _pravus_. It might have meant _pravus publicanus_; this word\nwas much more necessary, as the general malediction is a formal\ncontradiction to the words put into the mouth of Jesus Christ: \"Render\nunto C\u00e6sar the things which are C\u00e6sar's.\" Certainly those who collected\nthe dues of C\u00e6sar ought not to have been held in horror. It would have\nbeen, at once, insulting the order of Roman Knights and the emperor\nhimself; nothing could have been more ill-advised.\n\nIn all civilized countries the imposts are great, because the charges of\nthe state are heavy. In Spain the articles of commerce sent to Cadiz,\nand thence to America, pay more than thirty per cent. before their\ntransit is accomplished.\n\nIn England all duty upon importation is very considerable; however, it\nis paid without murmuring; there is even a pride in paying it. A\nmerchant boasts of putting four or five thousand guineas a year into the\npublic treasury. The richer a country is, the heavier are the taxes.\nSpeculators would have taxes fall on landed productions only. What!\nhaving sown a field of flax, which will bring me two hundred crowns, by\nwhich flax a great manufacturer will gain two hundred thousand crowns by\nconverting it into lace--must this manufacturer pay nothing, and shall\nI pay all, because it is produced by my land? The wife of this\nmanufacturer will furnish the queen and princesses with fine point of\nAlen\u00e7on, she will be patronized; her son will become intendant of\njustice, police, and finance, and will augment my taxes in my miserable\nold age. Ah! gentlemen speculators, you calculate badly; you are unjust.\n\nThe great point is that an entire people be not despoiled by an army of\nalguazils, in order that a score of town or court leeches may feast upon\nits blood.\n\nThe Duke de Sully relates, in his \"Political Economy,\" that in 1585\nthere were just twenty lords interested in the leases of farms, to whom\nthe highest bidders gave three million two hundred and forty-eight\nthousand crowns.\n\nIt was still worse under Charles IX., and Francis I., and Louis XIII.\nThere was not less depredation in the minority of Louis XIV. France,\nnotwithstanding so many wounds, is still in being. Yes; but if it had\nnot received them it would have been in better health. It was thus with\nseveral other states.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIt is just that those who enjoy the advantages of a government should\nsupport the charges. The ecclesiastics and monks, who possess great\nproperty, for this reason should contribute to the taxes in all\ncountries, like other citizens. In the times which we call\nbarbarous, great benefices and abbeys Were taxed in France to the third\nof their revenue.\n\n[Illustration: THE DUKE OF SULLY.]\n\nBy a statute of the year 1188, Philip Augustus imposed a tenth of the\nrevenues of all benefices. Philip le Bel caused the fifth, afterwards\nthe fifteenth, and finally the twentieth part, to be paid, of all the\npossessions of the clergy.\n\nKing John, by a statute of March 12, 1355, taxed bishops, abbots,\nchapters, and all ecclesiastics generally, to the tenth of the revenue\nof their benefices and patrimonies. The same prince confirmed this tax\nby two other statutes, one of March 3, the other of Dec. 28, 1358.\n\nIn the letters-patent of Charles V., of June 22, 1372, it is decreed,\nthat the churchmen shall pay taxes and other real and personal imposts.\nThese letters-patent were renewed by Charles VI. in the year 1390.\n\nHow is it that these laws have been abolished, while so many monstrous\ncustoms and sanguinary decrees have been preserved? The clergy, indeed,\npay a tax under the name of a free gift, and, as it is known, it is\nprincipally the poorest and most useful part of the church--the curates\n(rectors)--who pay this tax. But, why this difference and inequality of\ncontributions between the citizens of the same state? Why do those who\nenjoy the greatest prerogatives, and who are sometimes useless to the\npublic, pay less than the laborer, who is so necessary? The Republic of\nVenice supplies rules on this subject, which should serve as examples\nto all Europe.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nChurchmen have not only pretended to be exempt from taxes, they have\nfound the means in several provinces to tax the people, and make them\npay as a legitimate right.\n\nIn several countries, monks having seized the tithes to the prejudice of\nthe rectors, the peasants are obliged to tax themselves, to furnish\ntheir pastors with subsistence; and thus in several villages, and above\nall, in Franche-Comt\u00e9, besides the tithes which the parishioners pay to\nthe monks or to chapters, they further pay three or four measures of\ncorn to their curates or rectors. This tax was called the right of\nharvest in some provinces, and boisselage in others.\n\nIt is no doubt right that curates should be well paid, but it would be\nmuch better to give them a part of the tithes which the monks have taken\nfrom them, than to overcharge the poor cultivator.\n\nSince the king of France fixed the competent allowances for the curates,\nby his edict of the month of May, 1768, and charged the tithe-collectors\nwith paying them, the peasants should no longer be held to pay a second\ntithe, a tax to which they only voluntarily submitted at a time when the\ninfluence and violence of the monks had taken from their pastors all\nmeans of subsistence.\n\nThe king has abolished this second tithe in Poitou, by letters-patent,\nregistered by the Parliament of Paris July 11, 1769. It would be well\nworthy of the justice and beneficence of his majesty to make a similar\nlaw for other provinces, which are in the same situation as those of\nPoitou, Franche-Comt\u00e9, etc.\n\n                       By M. CHR., Advocate of Besan\u00e7on.\n\n\n\n\nIMPOTENCE.\n\n\nI commence by this question, in favor of the impotent--\"_frigidi et\nmaleficiati_,\" as they are denominated in the decretals: Is there a\nphysician, or experienced person of any description, who can be certain\nthat a well-formed young man, who has had no children by his wife, may\nnot have them some day or other? Nature may know, but men can tell\nnothing about it. Since, then, it is impossible to decide that the\nmarriage may not be consummated some time or other, why dissolve it?\n\nAmong the Romans, on the suspicion of impotence, a delay of two years\nwas allowed, and in the Novels of Justinian three are required; but if\nin three years nature may bestow capability, she may equally do so in\nseven, ten, or twenty.\n\nThose called \"_maleficiati_\" by the ancients were often considered\nbewitched. These charms were very ancient, and as there were some to\ntake away virility, so there were others to restore it; both of which\nare alluded to in Petronius.\n\nThis illusion lasted a long time among us, who exorcised instead of\ndisenchanting; and when exorcism succeeded not, the marriage was\ndissolved.\n\nThe canon law made a great question of impotence. Might a man who was\nprevented by sorcery from consummating his marriage, after being\ndivorced and having children by a second wife--might such man, on the\ndeath of the latter wife, reject the first, should she lay claim to him?\nAll the great canonists decided in the negative--Alexander de Nevo,\nAndrew Alberic, Turrecremata, Soto, and fifty more.\n\nIt is impossible to help admiring the sagacity displayed by the\ncanonists, and above all by the religious of irreproachable manners in\ntheir development of the mysteries of sexual intercourse. There is no\nsingularity, however strange, on which they have not treated. They have\ndiscussed at length all the cases in which capability may exist at one\ntime or situation, and impotence in another. They have inquired into all\nthe imaginary inventions to assist nature; and with the avowed object of\ndistinguishing that which is allowable from that which is not, have\nexposed all which ought to remain veiled. It might be said of them:\n\"_Nox nocti indicat scientiam_.\"\n\nAbove all, Sanchez has distinguished himself in collecting cases of\nconscience which the boldest wife would hesitate to submit to the most\nprudent of matrons. One query leads to another in almost endless\nsuccession, until at length a question of the most direct and\nextraordinary nature is put, as to the manner of the communication of\nthe Holy Ghost with the Virgin Mary.\n\nThese extraordinary researches were never made by anybody in the world\nexcept theologians; and suits in relation to impotency were unknown\nuntil the days of Theodosius.\n\nIn the Gospel, divorce is spoken of as allowable for adultery alone. The\nJewish law permitted a husband to repudiate a wife who displeased him,\nwithout specifying the cause. \"If she found no favor in his eyes, that\nwas sufficient.\" It is the law of the strongest, and exhibits human\nnature in its most barbarous garb. The Jewish laws treat not of\nimpotence; it would appear, says a casuist, that God would not permit\nimpotency to exist among a people who were to multiply like the sands on\nthe seashore, and to whom he had sworn to bestow the immense country\nwhich lies between the Nile and Euphrates, and, by his prophets, to make\nlords of the whole earth. To fulfil these divine promises, it was\nnecessary that every honest Jew should be occupied without ceasing in\nthe great work of propagation. There was certainly a curse upon\nimpotency; the time not having then arrived for the devout to make\nthemselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.\n\nMarriage in the course of time having arrived at the dignity of a\nsacrament and a mystery, the ecclesiastics insensibly became judges of\nall which took place between husband and wife, and not only so, but of\nall which did _not_ take place.\n\nWives possessed the liberty of presenting a request to be\n_embesogn\u00e9es_--such being our Gallic term, although the causes were\ncarried on in Latin. Clerks pleaded and priests pronounced judgment, and\nthe process was uniformly to decide two points--whether the man was\nbewitched, or the woman wanted another husband.\n\nWhat appears most extraordinary is that all the canonists agree that a\nhusband whom a spell or charm has rendered impotent, cannot in\nconscience apply to other charms or magicians to destroy it. This\nresembles the reasoning of the regularly admitted surgeons, who having\nthe exclusive privilege of spreading a plaster, assure us that we shall\ncertainly die if we allow ourselves to be cured by the hand which has\nhurt us. It might have been as well in the first place to inquire\nwhether a sorcerer can really operate upon the virility of another man.\nIt may be added that many weak-minded persons feared the sorcerer more\nthan they confided in the exorcist. The sorcerer having deranged nature,\nholy water alone would not restore it.\n\nIn the cases of impotency in which the devil took no part, the presiding\necclesiastics were not less embarrassed. We have, in the Decretals, the\nfamous head \"_De frigidis et maleficiatis_,\" which is very curious, but\naltogether uninforming. The political use made of it is exemplified in\nthe case of Henry IV. of Castile, who was declared impotent, while\nsurrounded by mistresses, and possessed of a wife by whom he had an\nheiress to the throne; but it was an archbishop of Toledo who pronounced\nthis sentence, not the pope.\n\nAlfonso, king of Portugal, was treated in the same manner, in the middle\nof the seventeenth century. This prince was known chiefly by his\nferocity, debauchery, and prodigious strength of body. His brutal\nexcesses disgusted the nation; and the queen, his wife, a princess of\nNemours, being desirous of dethroning him, and marrying the infant Don\nPedro his brother, was aware of the difficulty of wedding two brothers\nin succession, after the known circumstance of consummation with the\nelder. The example of Henry VIII. of England intimidated her, and she\nembraced the resolution of causing her husband to be declared impotent\nby the chapter of the cathedral of Lisbon; after which she hastened to\nmarry his brother, without even waiting for the dispensation of the\npope.\n\nThe most important proof of capability required from persons accused of\nimpotency, is that called \"the congress.\" The President Bouhier says,\nthat this combat in an enclosed field was adopted in France in the\nfourteenth century. And he asserts that it is known in France only.\n\nThis proof, about which so much noise has been made, was not conducted\nprecisely as people have imagined. It has been supposed that a conjugal\nconsummation took place under the inspection of physicians, surgeons,\nand midwives, but such was not the fact. The parties went to bed in the\nusual manner, and at a proper time the inspectors, who were assembled in\nthe next room, were called on to pronounce upon the case.\n\nIn the famous process of the Marquis de Langeais, decided in 1659, he\ndemanded \"the congress\"; and owing to the management of his lady (Marie\nde St. Simon) did not succeed. He demanded a second trial, but the\njudges, fatigued with the clamors of the superstitious, the plaints of\nthe prudes, and the raillery of the wits, refused it. They declared the\nmarquis impotent, his marriage void, forbade him to marry again, and\nallowed his wife to take another husband. The marquis, however,\ndisregarded this sentence, and married Diana de Navailles, by whom he\nhad seven children!\n\nHis first wife being dead, the marquis appealed to the grand chamberlain\nagainst the sentence which had declared him impotent, and charged him\nwith the costs. The grand chamberlain, sensible of the ridicule\napplicable to the whole affair, confirmed his marriage with Diana de\nNavailles, declared him most potent, refused him the costs, but\nabolished the ceremony of the congress altogether.\n\nThe President Bouhier published a defence of the proof by congress, when\nit' was no longer in use. He maintained, that the judges would not have\ncommitted the error of abolishing it, had they not been guilty of the\nprevious error of refusing the marquis a second trial.\n\nBut if the congress may prove indecisive, how much more uncertain are\nthe various other examinations had recourse to in cases of alleged\nimpotency? Ought not the whole of them to be adjourned, as in Athens,\nfor a hundred years? These causes are shameful to wives, ridiculous for\nhusbands, and unworthy of the tribunals, and it would be better not to\nallow them at all. Yes, it may be said, but, in that case, marriage\nwould not insure issue. A great misfortune, truly, while Europe contains\nthree hundred thousand monks and eighty thousand nuns, who voluntarily\nabstain from propagating their kind.\n\n\n\n\nINALIENATION--INALIENABLE.\n\n\nThe domains of the Roman emperors were anciently inalienable--it was the\nsacred domain. The barbarians came and rendered it altogether\ninalienable. The same thing happened to the imperial Greek domain.\n\nAfter the re-establishment of the Roman Empire in Germany, the sacred\ndomain was declared inalienable by the priests, although there remains\nnot at present a crown's worth of territory to alienate.\n\nAll the kings of Europe, who affect to imitate the emperors, have had\ntheir inalienable domain. Francis I., having effected his liberty by the\ncession of Burgundy, could find no other expedient to preserve it, than\na state declaration, that Burgundy was inalienable; and was so\nfortunate as to violate both his honor and the treaty with impunity.\nAccording to this jurisprudence, every king may acquire the dominions of\nanother, while incapable of losing any of his own. So that, in the end,\neach would be possessed of the property of somebody else. The kings of\nFrance and England possess very little special domain: their genuine and\nmore effective domain is the purses of their subjects.\n\n\n\n\nINCEST.\n\n\n\"The Tartars,\" says the \"Spirit of Laws,\" \"who may legally wed their\ndaughters, never espouse their mothers.\"\n\nIt is not known of what Tartars our author speaks, who cites too much at\nrandom: we know not at present of any people, from the Crimea to the\nfrontiers of China, who are in the habit of espousing their daughters.\nMoreover, if it be allowed for the father to marry his daughter, why may\nnot a son wed his mother?\n\nMontesquieu cites an author named Priscus Panetes, a sophist who lived\nin the time of Attila. This author says that Attila married with his\ndaughter Esca, according to the manner of the Scythians. This Priscus\nhas never been printed, but remains in manuscript in the library of the\nVatican; and Jornandes alone makes mention of it. It is not allowable to\nquote the legislation of a people on such authority. No one knows this\nEsca, or ever heard of her marriage with her father Attila.\n\nI confess I have never believed that the Persians espoused their\ndaughters, although in the time of the C\u00e6sars the Romans accused them of\nit, to render them odious. It might be that some Persian prince\ncommitted incest, and the turpitude of an individual was imputed to the\nwhole nation.\n\n     _Quidquid delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._\n                                   --HORACE, i, epistle ii, 14.\n\n     ....When doting monarchs urge\n     Unsound resolves, their subjects feel the scourge.\n                                               --FRANCIS.\n\nI believe that the ancient Persians were permitted to marry with their\nsisters, just as much as I believe it of the Athenians, the Egyptians,\nand even of the Jews. From the above it might be concluded, that it was\ncommon for children to marry with their fathers or mothers; whereas even\nthe marriage of cousins is forbidden among the Guebers at this day, who\nare held to maintain the doctrines of their forefathers as scrupulously\nas the Jews.\n\nYou will tell me that everything is contradictory in this world; that it\nwas forbidden by the Jewish law to marry two sisters, which was deemed a\nvery indecent act, and yet Jacob married Rachel during the life of her\nelder sister Leah; and that this Rachel is evidently a type of the Roman\nCatholic and apostolic church. You are doubtless right, but that\nprevents not an individual who sleeps with two sisters in Europe from\nbeing grievously censured. As to powerful and dignified princes, they\nmay take the sisters of their wives for the good of their states, and\neven their own sisters by the same father and mother, if they think\nproper.\n\nIt is a far worse affair to have a commerce with a gossip or godmother,\nwhich was deemed an unpardonable offence by the capitularies of\nCharlemagne, being called a spiritual incest.\n\nOne Andovere, who is called queen of France, because she was the wife of\na certain Chilperic, who reigned over Soissons, was stigmatized by\necclesiastical justice, censured, degraded, and divorced, for having\nborne her own child to the baptismal font. It was a mortal sin, a\nsacrilege, a spiritual incest; and she thereby forfeited her\nmarriage-bed and crown. This apparently contradicts what I have just\nobserved, that everything in the way of love is permitted to the great,\nbut then I spoke of present times, and not of those of Andovere.\n\nAs to carnal incest, read the advocate Voglan, who would absolutely have\nany two cousins burned who fall into a weakness of this kind. The\nadvocate Voglan is rigorous--the unmerciful Celt.\n\n\n\n\nINCUBUS.\n\n\nHave there ever been incubi and succubi? Our learned juriconsults and\ndemonologists admit both the one and the other.\n\nIt is pretended that Satan, always on the alert, inspires young ladies\nand gentlemen with heated dreams, and by a sort of double process\nproduces extraordinary consequences, which in point of fact led to the\nbirth of so many heroes and demigods in ancient times.\n\nThe devil took a great deal of superfluous trouble: he had only to leave\nthe young people alone, and the world will be sufficiently supplied with\nheroes without any assistance from him.\n\nAn idea may be formed of incubi by the explanation of the great Delrio,\nof Boguets, and other writers learned in sorcery; but they fail in their\naccount of succubi. A female might pretend to believe that she had\ncommunicated with and was pregnant by a god, the explication of Delrio\nbeing very favorable to the assumption. The devil in this case acts the\npart of an incubus, but his performances as a succubus are more\ninconceivable. The gods and goddesses of antiquity acted much more nobly\nand decorously; Jupiter in person, was the incubus of Alcmena and\nSemele; Thetis in person, the succubus of Peleus, and Venus of Anchises,\nwithout having recourse to the various contrivances of our extraordinary\ndemonism.\n\nLet us simply observe, that the gods frequently disguised themselves, in\ntheir pursuit of our girls, sometimes as an eagle, sometimes as a\npigeon, a swan, a horse, a shower of gold; but the goddesses assumed no\ndisguise: they had only to show themselves, to please. It must however\nbe presumed, that whatever shapes the gods assumed to steal a march,\nthey consummated their loves in the form of men.\n\nAs to the new manner of rendering girls pregnant by the ministry of the\ndevil, it is not to be doubted, for the Sorbonne decided the point in\nthe year 1318.\n\n\"_Per tales artes et ritus impios et invocationes et demonum, nullus\nunquam sequatur effectus ministerio demonum, error._\"--\"It is an error\nto believe, that these magic arts and invocations of the devils are\nwithout effect.\"\n\nThis decision has never been revoked. Thus we are bound to believe in\nsuccubi and incubi, because our teachers have always believed in them.\n\nThere have been many other sages in this science, as well as the\nSorbonne. Bodin, in his book concerning sorcerers, dedicated to\nChristopher de Thou, first president of the Parliament of Paris, relates\nthat John Hervilier, a native of Verberie, was condemned by that\nparliament to be burned alive for having prostituted his daughter to the\ndevil, a great black man, whose caresses were attended with a sensation\nof cold which appears to be very uncongenial to his nature; but our\njurisprudence has always admitted the fact, and the prodigious number of\nsorcerers which it has burned in consequence will always remain a proof\nof its accuracy.\n\nThe celebrated Picus of Mirandola--a prince never lies--says he knew an\nold man of the age of eighty years who had slept half his life with a\nfemale devil, and another of seventy who enjoyed a similar felicity.\nBoth were buried at Rome, but nothing is said of the fate of their\nchildren. Thus is the existence of incubi and succubi demonstrated.\n\nIt is impossible, at least, to prove to the contrary; for if we are\ncalled on to believe that devils can enter our bodies, who can prevent\nthem from taking kindred liberties with our wives and our daughters? And\nif there be demons, there are probably demonesses; for to be consistent,\nif the demons beget children on our females, it must follow that we\neffect the same thing on the demonesses. Never has there been a more\nuniversal empire than that of the devil. What has dethroned him? Reason.\n\n\n\n\nINFINITY.\n\n\nWho will give me a clear idea of infinity? I have never had an idea of\nit which was not excessively confused--possibly because I am a finite\nbeing.\n\nWhat is that which is eternally going on without advancing--always\nreckoning without a sum total--dividing eternally without arriving at an\nindivisible particle?\n\nIt might seem as if the notion of infinity formed the bottom of the\nbucket of the Dana\u00efdes. Nevertheless, it is impossible that infinity\nshould not exist. An infinite duration is demonstrable.\n\nThe commencement of existence is absurd; for nothing cannot originate\nsomething. When an atom exists we must necessarily conclude that it has\nexisted from all eternity; and hence an infinite duration rigorously\ndemonstrated. But what is an infinite past?--an infinitude which I\narrest in imagination whenever I please. Behold! I exclaim, an infinity\npassed away; let us proceed to another. I distinguish between two\neternities, the one before, the other behind me.\n\nWhen, however, I reflect upon my words, I perceive that I have absurdly\npronounced the words: \"one eternity has passed away, and I am entering\ninto another.\" For at the moment that I thus talk, eternity endures, and\nthe tide of time flows. Duration is not separable; and as something has\never been, something must ever be.\n\nThe infinite in duration, then, is linked to an uninterrupted chain.\nThis infinite perpetuates itself, even at the instant that I say it has\npassed. Time begins and ends with me, but duration is infinite. The\ninfinite is here quickly formed without, however, our possession of the\nability to form a clear notion of it.\n\nWe are told of infinite space--what is space? Is it a being, or nothing\nat all? If it is a being, what is its nature? You cannot tell me. If it\nis nothing, nothing can have no quality; yet you tell me that it is\npenetrable and immense. I am so embarrassed, I cannot correctly call it\neither something or nothing.\n\nIn the meantime, I know not of anything which possesses more properties\nthan a void. For if passing the confines of this globe, we are able to\nwalk amidst this void, and thatch and build there when we possess\nmaterials for the purpose, this void or nothing is not opposed to\nwhatever we might choose to do; for having no property it cannot hinder\nany; moreover, since it cannot hinder, neither can it serve us.\n\nIt is pretended that God created the world amidst nothing, and from\nnothing. That is abstruse; it is preferable to think that there is an\ninfinite space; but we are curious--and if there be infinite space, our\nfaculties cannot fathom the nature of it. We call it immense, because we\ncannot measure it; but what then? We have only pronounced words.\n\n_Of the Infinite in Number._\n\nWe have adroitly defined the infinite in arithmetic by a love-knot, in\nthis manner \u221e; but we possess not therefore a clearer\nnotion of it. This infinity is not like the others, a powerlessness of\nreaching a termination. We call the infinite in quantity any number\nsoever, which surpasses the utmost number we are able to imagine.\n\nWhen we seek the infinitely small, we divide, and call that infinitely\nsmall which is less than the least assignable quantity. It is only\nanother name for incapacity.\n\n_Is Matter Infinitely Divisible?_\n\nThis question brings us back again precisely to our inability of finding\nthe remotest number. In thought we are able to divide a grain of sand,\nbut in imagination only; and the incapacity of eternally dividing this\ngrain is called infinity.\n\nIt is true, that matter is not always practically divisible, and if the\nlast atom could be divided into two, it would no longer be the least; or\nif the least, it would not be divisible; or if divisible, what is the\ngerm or origin of things? These are all abstruse queries.\n\n_Of the Universe._\n\nIs the universe bounded--is its extent immense--are the suns and planets\nwithout number? What advantage has the space which contains suns and\nplanets, over the space which is void of them? Whether space be an\nexistence or not, what is the space which we occupy, preferable to other\nspace?\n\nIf our material heaven be not infinite, it is but a point in general\nextent. If it is infinite, it is an infinity to which something can\nalways be added by the imagination.\n\n_Of the Infinite in Geometry._\n\nWe admit, in geometry, not only infinite magnitudes, that is to say,\nmagnitudes greater than any assignable magnitude, but infinite\nmagnitudes infinitely greater, the one than the other. This astonishes\nour dimension of brains, which is only about six inches long, five\nbroad, and six in depth, in the largest heads. It means, however,\nnothing more than that a square larger than any assignable square,\nsurpasses a line larger than any assignable line, and bears no\nproportion to it.\n\nIt is a mode of operating, a mode of working geometrically, and the\nword infinite is a mere symbol.\n\n_Of Infinite Power, Wisdom, Goodness._\n\nIn the same manner, as we cannot form any positive idea of the infinite\nin duration, number, and extension, are we unable to form one in respect\nto physical and moral power.\n\nWe can easily conceive, that a powerful being has modified matter,\ncaused worlds to circulate in space, and formed animals, vegetables, and\nmetals. We are led to this idea by the perception of the want of power\non the part of these beings to form themselves. We are also forced to\nallow, that the Great Being exists eternally by His own power, since He\ncannot have sprung from nothing; but we discover not so easily His\ninfinity in magnitude, power, and moral attributes.\n\nHow are we to conceive infinite extent in a being called simple? and if\nhe be uncompounded, what notions can we form of a simple being? We know\nGod by His works, but we cannot understand Him by His Nature. If it is\nevident that we cannot understand His nature, is it not equally so, that\nwe must remain ignorant of His attributes?\n\nWhen we say that His power is infinite, do we mean anything more than\nthat it is very great? Aware of the existence of pyramids of the height\nof six hundred feet, we can conceive them of the altitude of 600,000\nfeet.\n\nNothing can limit the power of the Eternal Being existing necessarily\nof Himself. Agreed: no antagonists circumscribe Him; but how convince me\nthat He is not circumscribed by His own nature? Has all that has been\nsaid on this great subject been demonstrated?\n\nWe speak of His moral attributes, but we only judge of them by our own;\nand it is impossible to do otherwise. We attribute to Him justice,\ngoodness, etc., only from the ideas we collect from the small degree of\njustice and goodness existing among ourselves. But, in fact, what\nconnection is there between our qualities so uncertain and variable, and\nthose of the Supreme Being?\n\nOur idea of justice is only that of not allowing our own interest to\nusurp over the interest of another. The bread which a wife has kneaded\nout of the flour produced from the wheat which her husband has sown,\nbelongs to her. A hungry savage snatches away her bread, and the woman\nexclaims against such enormous injustice. The savage quietly answers\nthat nothing is more just, and that it was not for him and his family to\nexpire of famine for the sake of an old woman.\n\nAt all events, the infinite justice we attribute to God can but little\nresemble the contradictory notions of justice of this woman and this\nsavage; and yet, when we say that God is just, we only pronounce these\nwords agreeably to our own ideas of justice.\n\nWe know of nothing belonging to virtue more agreeable than frankness\nand cordiality, but to attribute infinite frankness and cordiality to\nGod would amount to an absurdity.\n\nWe have such confused notions of the attributes of the Supreme Being,\nthat some schools endow Him with prescience, an infinite foresight which\nexcludes all contingent event, while other schools contend for\nprescience without contingency.\n\nLastly, since the Sorbonne has declared that God can make a stick\ndivested of two ends, and that the same thing can at once be and not be,\nwe know not what to say, being in eternal fear of advancing a heresy.\nOne thing _may_, however, be asserted without danger--that God is\ninfinite, and man exceedingly bounded.\n\nThe mind of man is so extremely narrow, that Pascal has said: \"Do you\nbelieve it impossible for God to be infinite and without parts? I wish\nto convince you of an existence infinite and indivisible--it is a\nmathematical point--moving everywhere with infinite swiftness, for it is\nin all places, and entire in every place.\"\n\nNothing more absurd was ever asserted, and yet it has been said by the\nauthor of the \"Provincial Letters.\" It is sufficient to give men of\nsense the ague.\n\n\n\n\nINFLUENCE.\n\n\nEverything around exercises some influence upon us, either physically or\nmorally. With this truth we are well acquainted. Influence may be\nexerted upon a being without touching, without moving that being.\n\nIn short, matter has been demonstrated to possess the astonishing power\nof gravitating without contact, of acting at immense distances. One idea\ninfluences another; a fact not less incomprehensible.\n\nI have not with me at Mount Krapak the book entitled, \"On the Influence\nof the Sun and Moon,\" composed by the celebrated physician Mead; but I\nwell know that those two bodies are the cause of the tides; and it is\nnot in consequence of touching the waters of the ocean that they produce\nthat flux and reflux: it is demonstrated that they produce them by the\nlaws of gravitation.\n\nBut when we are in a fever, have the sun and moon any influence upon the\naccesses of it, in its days of crisis? Is your wife constitutionally\ndisordered only during the first quarter of the moon? Will the trees,\ncut at the time of full moon, rot sooner than if cut down in its wane?\nNot that I know. But timber cut down while the sap is circulating in it,\nundergoes putrefaction sooner than other timber; and if by chance it is\ncut down at the full moon, men will certainly say it was the full moon\nthat caused all the evil. Your wife may have been disordered during the\nmoon's growing; but your neighbor's was so in its decline.\n\nThe fitful periods of the fever which you brought upon yourself by\nindulging too much in the pleasures of the table occur about the first\nquarter of the moon; your neighbor experiences his in its decline.\nEverything that can possibly influence animals and vegetables must of\ncourse necessarily exercise that influence while the moon is making her\ncircuit.\n\nWere a woman of Lyons to remark that the periodical affections of her\nconstitution had occurred in three or four successive instances on the\nday of the arrival of the diligence from Paris, would her medical\nattendant, however devoted he might be to system, think himself\nauthorized in concluding that the Paris diligence had some peculiar and\nmarvellous influence on the lady's constitution?\n\nThere was a time when the inhabitants of every seaport were persuaded,\nthat no one would die while the tide was rising, and that death always\nwaited for its ebb.\n\nMany physicians possessed a store of strong reasons to explain this\nconstant phenomenon. The sea when rising communicates to human bodies\nthe force or strength by which itself is raised. It brings with it\nvivifying particles which reanimate all patients. It is salt, and salt\npreserves from the putrefaction attendant on death. But when the sea\nsinks and retires, everything sinks or retires with it; nature\nlanguishes; the patient is no longer vivified; he departs with the tide.\nThe whole, it must be admitted, is most beautifully explained, but the\npresumed fact, unfortunately, is after all untrue.\n\nThe various elements, food, watching, sleep, and the passions, are\nconstantly exerting on our frame their respective influences. While\nthese influences are thus severally operating on us, the planets\ntraverse their appropriate orbits, and the stars shine with their usual\nbrillancy. But shall we really be so weak as to say that the progress\nand light of those heavenly bodies are the cause of our rheums and\nindigestion, and sleeplessness; of the ridiculous wrath we are in with\nsome silly reasoner; or of the passion with which we are enamored of\nsome interesting woman?\n\nBut the gravitation of the sun and moon has made the earth in some\ndegree flat at the pole, and raises the sea twice between the tropics in\nfour-and-twenty hours. It may, therefore, regulate our fits of fever,\nand govern our whole machine. Before, however, we assert this to be the\ncase, we should wait until we can prove it.\n\nThe sun acts strongly upon us by its rays, which touch us, and enter\nthrough our pores. Here is unquestionably a very decided and a very\nbenignant influence. We ought not, I conceive, in physics, to admit of\nany action taking place without contact, until we have discovered some\nwell-recognized and ascertained power which acts at a distance, like\nthat of gravitation, for example, or like that of your thoughts over\nmine, when you furnish me with ideas. Beyond these cases, I at present\nperceive no influences but from matter in contact with matter.\n\nThe fish of my pond and myself exist each of us in our natural element.\nThe water which touches them from head to tail is continually acting\nupon them. The atmosphere which surrounds and closes upon me acts upon\nme. I ought not to attribute to the moon, which is ninety thousand miles\ndistant, what I might naturally ascribe to something incessantly in\ncontact with my skin. This would be more unphilosophical than my\nconsidering the court of China responsible for a lawsuit that I was\ncarrying on in France. We should never seek at a distance for what is\nabsolutely within our immediate reach.\n\nI perceive that the learned and ingenious M. Menuret is of a different\nopinion in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia\" under the article on \"Influence.\" This\ncertainly excites in my mind considerable diffidence with respect to\nwhat I have just advanced. The Abb\u00e9 de St. Pierre used to say, we should\nnever maintain that we are absolutely in the right, but should rather\nsay, \"such is my opinion for the present.\"\n\n_Influence of the Passions of Mothers upon their F\u0153tus._\n\nI think, for the present, that violent affections of pregnant women\nproduce often a prodigious effect upon the embryo within them; and I\nthink that I shall always think so: my reason is that I have actually\nseen this effect. If I had no voucher of my opinion but the testimony of\nhistorians who relate the instance of Mary Stuart and her son James I.,\nI should suspend my judgment; because between that event and myself, a\nseries of two hundred years has intervened, a circumstance naturally\ntending to weaken belief; and because I can ascribe the impression made\nupon the brain of James to other causes than the imagination of Mary.\nThe royal assassins, headed by her husband, rush with drawn swords into\nthe cabinet where she is supping in company with her favorite, and kill\nhim before her eyes; the sudden convulsion experienced by her in the\ninterior of her frame extends to her offspring; and James I., although\nnot deficient in courage, felt during his whole life an involuntary\nshuddering at the sight of a sword drawn from a scabbard. It is,\nhowever, possible that this striking and peculiar agitation might be\nowing to a different cause.\n\nThere was once introduced, in my presence, into the court of a woman\nwith child, a showman who exhibited a little dancing dog with a kind of\nred bonnet on its head: the woman called out to have the figure removed;\nshe declared that her child would be marked like it; she wept; and\nnothing could restore her confidence and peace. \"This is the second\ntime,\" she said, \"that such a misfortune has befallen me. My first child\nbears the impression of a similar terror that I was exposed to; I feel\nextremely weak. I know that some misfortune will reach me.\" She was but\ntoo correct in her prediction. She was delivered of a child similar to\nthe figure which had so terrified her. The bonnet was particularly\ndistinguishable. The little creature lived two days.\n\nIn the time of Malebranche no one entertained the slightest doubt of\nthe adventure which he relates, of the woman who, after seeing a\ncriminal racked, was delivered of a son, all whose limbs were broken in\nthe same places in which the malefactor had received the blows of the\nexecutioner. All the physicians at the time were agreed, that the\nimagination had produced this fatal effect upon her offspring.\n\nSince that period, mankind is believed to have refined and improved; and\nthe influence under consideration has been denied. It has been asked, in\nwhat way do you suppose that the affections of a mother should operate\nto derange the members of the f\u0153tus? Of that I know nothing; but I\nhave witnessed the fact. You new-fangled philosophers inquire and study\nin vain how an infant is _formed_, and yet require me to know how it\nbecomes _deformed_.\n\n\n\n\n\nINITIATION.\n\n_Ancient Mysteries._\n\n\nThe origin of the ancient mysteries may, with the greatest probability,\nbe ascribed to the same weakness which forms associations of brotherhood\namong ourselves, and which established congregations under the direction\nof the Jesuits. It was probably this want of society which raised so\nmany secret assemblies of artisans, of which scarcely any now remain\nbesides that of the Freemasons. Even down to the very beggars\nthemselves, all had their societies, their confraternities, their\nmysteries, and their particular jargon, of which I have met with a small\ndictionary, printed in the sixteenth century.\n\nThis natural inclination in men to associate, to secure themselves, to\nbecome distinguished above others, and to acquire confidence in\nthemselves, may be considered as the generating cause of all those\nparticular bonds or unions, of all those mysterious initiations which\nafterwards excited so much attention and produced such striking effects,\nand which at length sank into that oblivion in which everything is\ninvolved by time.\n\nBegging pardon, while I say it, of the gods Cabri, of the hierophants of\nSamothrace, of Isis, Orpheus, and the Eleusinian Ceres, I must\nnevertheless acknowledge my suspicions that their sacred secrets were\nnot in reality more deserving of curiosity than the interior of the\nconvents of Carmelites or Capuchins.\n\nThese mysteries being sacred, the participators in them soon became so.\nAnd while the number of these was small, the mystery was respected; but\nat length, having grown too numerous, they retained no more consequence\nand consideration than we perceive to attach to German barons, since the\nworld became full of barons.\n\nInitiation was paid for, as every candidate pays his admission fees or\nwelcome, but no member was allowed to talk for his money. In all ages it\nwas considered a great crime to reveal the secrets of these religious\nfarces. This secret was undoubtedly not worth knowing, as the assembly\nwas not a society of philosophers, but of ignorant persons, directed by\na hierophant. An oath of secrecy was administered, and an oath was\nalways regarded as a sacred bond. Even at the present day, our\ncomparatively pitiful society of Freemasons swear never to speak of\ntheir mysteries. These mysteries are stale and flat enough; but men\nscarcely ever perjure themselves.\n\nDiagoras was proscribed by the Athenians for having made the secret hymn\nof Orpheus a subject for conversation. Aristotle informs us, that\n\u00c6schylus was in danger of being torn to pieces by the people, or at\nleast of being severely beaten by them, for having, in one of his\ndramas, given some idea of those Orphean mysteries in which nearly\neverybody was then initiated.\n\nIt appears that Alexander did not pay the highest respect possible to\nthese reverend fooleries; they are indeed very apt to be despised by\nheroes. He revealed the secret to his mother Olympias, but he advised\nher to say nothing about it--so much are even heroes themselves bound in\nthe chains of superstition.\n\n\"It is customary,\" says Herodotus, \"in the city of Rusiris, to strike\nboth men and women after the sacrifice, but I am not permitted to say\nwhere they are struck.\" He leaves it, however, to be very easily\ninferred.\n\nI think I see a description of the mysteries of the Eleusinian Ceres,\nin Claudian's poem on the \"Rape of Proserpine,\" much clearer than I can\nsee any in the sixth book of the \"\u00c6neid.\" Virgil lived under a prince\nwho joined to all his other bad qualities that of wishing to pass for a\nreligious character; who was probably initiated in these mysteries\nhimself, the better to impose thereby upon the people; and who would not\nhave tolerated such a profanation. You see his favorite Horace regards\nsuch a revelation as sacrilege:--\n\n     _.... Vetabo qui Cereris sacrum_\n       _Fulgarit arcan\u00e6 sub iisdem_\n     _Sit trabibus, vel fragilem que mecum_\n       _Solvat phaselum_.--HORACE, book iii, ode 2.\n\n     To silence due rewards we give;\n       And they who mysteries reveal\n     Beneath my roof shall never live,\n       Shall never hoist with me the doubtful sail.\n                                        --FRANCIS.\n\nBesides, the Cum\u00e6an sibyl and the descent into hell, imitated from Homer\nmuch less than it is embellished by Virgil, with the beautiful\nprediction of the destinies of the C\u00e6sars and the Roman Empire, have no\nrelation to the fables of Ceres, Proserpine, and Triptolemus.\nAccordingly, it is highly probable that the sixth book of the \"\u00c6neid\" is\nnot a description of those mysteries. If I ever said the contrary, I\nhere unsay it; but I conceive that Claudian revealed them fully. He\nflourished at a time when it was permitted to divulge the mysteries of\nEleusis, and indeed all the mysteries of the world. He lived under\nHonorius, in the total decline of the ancient Greek and Roman religion,\nto which Theodosius I. had already given the mortal blow.\n\nHorace, at that period, would not have been at all afraid of living\nunder the same roof with a revealer of mysteries. Claudian, as a poet,\nwas of the ancient religion, which was more adapted to poetry than the\nnew. He describes the droll absurdities of the mysteries of Ceres, as\nthey were still performed with all becoming reverence in Greece, down to\nthe time of Theodosius II. They formed a species of operatic pantomime,\nof the same description as we have seen many very amusing ones, in which\nwere represented all the devilish tricks and conjurations of Doctor\nFaustus, the birth of the world and of Harlequin who both came from a\nlarge egg by the heat of the sun's rays. Just in the same manner, the\nwhole history of Ceres and Proserpine was represented by the\nmystagogues. The spectacle was fine; the cost must have been great; and\nit is no matter of astonishment that the initiated should pay the\nperformers. All live by their respective occupations.\n\nEvery mystery had its peculiar ceremonies; but all admitted of wakes or\nvigils of which the youthful votaries fully availed themselves; but it\nwas this abuse in part which finally brought discredit upon those\nnocturnal ceremonies instituted for sanctification. The ceremonies thus\nperverted to assignation and licentiousness were abolished in Greece in\nthe time of the Peloponnesian war; they were abolished at Rome in the\ntime of Cicero's youth, eighteen years before his consulship. From the\n\"_Aulularia_\" of Plautus, we are led to consider them as exhibiting\nscenes of gross debauchery, and as highly injurious to public morals.\n\nOur religion, which, while it adopted, greatly purified various pagan\ninstitutions, sanctified the name of the initiated, nocturnal feasts,\nand vigils, which were a long time in use, but which at length it became\nnecessary to prohibit when an administration of police was introduced\ninto the government of the Church, so long entrusted to the piety and\nzeal that precluded the necessity of police.\n\nThe principal formula of all the mysteries, in every place of their\ncelebration, was, \"Come out, ye who are profane;\" that is, uninitiated.\nAccordingly, in the first centuries, the Christians adopted a similar\nformula. The deacon said, \"Come out, all ye catechumens, all ye who are\npossessed, and who are uninitiated.\"\n\nIt is in speaking of the baptism of the dead that St. Chrysostom says,\n\"I should be glad to explain myself clearly, but I can do so only to the\ninitiated. We are in great embarrassment. We must either speak\nunintelligibly, or disclose secrets which we are bound to conceal.\"\n\nIt is impossible to describe more clearly the obligation of secrecy and\nthe privilege of initiation. All is now so completely changed, that were\nyou at present to talk about initiation to the greater part of your\npriests and parish officers, there would not be one of them that would\nunderstand you, unless by great chance he had read the chapter of\nChrysostom above noticed.\n\nYou will see in Minutius Felix the abominable imputations with which the\npagans attacked the Christian mysteries. The initiated were reproached\nwith treating each other as brethren and sisters, solely with a view to\nprofane that sacred name. They kissed, it was said, particular parts of\nthe persons of the priests, as is still practised in respect to the\nsantons of Africa; they stained themselves with all those pollutions\nwhich have since disgraced and stigmatized the templars. Both were\naccused of worshipping a kind of ass's head.\n\nWe have seen that the early Christian societies ascribed to each other,\nreciprocally, the most inconceivable infamies. The pretext for these\ncalumnies was the inviolable secret which every society made of its\nmysteries. It is upon this ground that in Minutius Felix, Cecilius, the\naccuser of the Christians, exclaims:\n\n\"Why do they so carefully endeavor to conceal what they worship, since\nwhat is decent and honorable always courts the light, and crimes alone\nseek secrecy?\"\n\n\"_Cur occultare et abscondere quidquid colunt magnopere nituntur? Quum\nhonesta semper publico gaudeant, scelera secreta sint.\"_\n\nIt cannot be doubted that these accusations, universally spread, drew\nupon the Christians more than one persecution. Whenever a society of\nmen, whatever they may be, are accused by the public voice, the\nfalsehood of the charge is urged in vain, and it is deemed meritorious\nto persecute them.\n\nHow could it easily be otherwise than that the first Christians should\nbe even held in horror, when St. Epiphanius himself urges against them\nthe most execrable imputations? He asserts that the Christian\nPhibionites committed indecencies, which he specifies, of the grossest\ncharacter; and, after passing through various scenes of pollution,\nexclaimed each of them: \"I am the Christ.\"\n\nAccording to the same writer, the Gnostics and the Stratiotics equalled\nthe Phibionites in exhibitions of licentiousness, and all three sects\nmingled horrid pollutions with their mysteries, men and women displaying\nequal dissoluteness.\n\nThe Carpocratians, according to the same father of the Church, even\nexceeded the horrors and abominations of the three sects just mentioned.\n\nThe Cerinthians did not abandon themselves to abominations such as\nthese; but they were persuaded that Jesus Christ was the son of Joseph.\n\nThe Ebionites, in their gospel, maintain that St. Paul, being desirous\nof marrying the daughter of Gamaliel, and not able to obtain her, became\na Christian, and established Christianity out of revenge.\n\nAll these accusations did not for some time reach the ear of the\ngovernment. The Romans paid but little attention to the quarrels and\nmutual reproaches which occurred between these little societies of\nJews, Greeks, and Egyptians, who were, as it were, hidden in the vast\nand general population; just as in London, in the present day, the\nparliament does not embarrass or concern itself with the peculiar forms\nor transactions of Mennonites, Pietists, Anabaptists, Millennarians,\nMoravians, or Methodists. It is occupied with matters of urgency and\nimportance, and pays no attention to their mutual charges and\nrecriminations till they become of importance from their publicity.\n\nThe charges above mentioned, at length, however, came to the ears of the\nsenate; either from the Jews, who were implacable enemies of the\nChristians, or from Christians themselves; and hence it resulted that\nthe crimes charged against some Christian societies were imputed to all;\nhence it resulted that their initiations were so long calumniated; hence\nresulted the persecutions which they endured. These persecutions,\nhowever, obliged them to greater circumspection; they strengthened\nthemselves, they combined, they disclosed their books only to the\ninitiated. No Roman magistrate, no emperor, ever had the slightest\nknowledge of them, as we have already shown. Providence increased,\nduring the course of three centuries, both their number and their\nriches, until at length, Constantius Chlorus openly protected them, and\nConstantine, his son, embraced their religion.\n\nIn the meantime the names of initiated and mysteries still subsisted,\nand they were concealed from the Gentiles as much as was possible. As to\nthe mysteries of the Gentiles, they continued down to the time of\nTheodosius.\n\n\n\n\nINNOCENTS.\n\n_Of the Massacre of the Innocents._\n\n\nWhen people speak of the massacre of the innocents, they do not refer to\nthe Sicilian Vespers, nor to the matins of Paris, known under the name\nof St. Bartholomew; nor to the inhabitants of the new world, who were\nmurdered because they were not Christians, nor to the _auto-da-f\u00e9s_ of\nSpain and Portugal, etc. They usually refer to the young children who\nwere killed within the precincts of Bethlehem, by order of Herod the\nGreat, and who were afterwards carried to Cologne, where they are still\nto be found.\n\nTheir number was maintained by the whole Greek Church to be fourteen\nthousand.\n\nThe difficulties raised by critics upon this point of history have been\nall solved by shrewd and learned commentators.\n\nObjections have been started in relation to the star which conducted the\nMagi from the recesses of the East to Jerusalem. It has been said that\nthe journey, being a long one, the star must have appeared for a long\ntime above the horizon; and yet that no historian besides St. Matthew\never took notice of this extraordinary star; that if it had shone so\nlong in the heavens, Herod and his whole court, and all Jerusalem, must\nhave seen it as well as these three Magi, or kings; that Herod\nconsequently could not, without absurdity, have inquired diligently, as\nMatthew expresses it, of these kings, at what time they had seen the\nstar; that, if these three kings had made presents of gold and myrrh and\nincense to the new-born infant, his parents must have been very rich;\nthat Herod could certainly never believe that this infant, born in a\nstable at Bethlehem, would be king of the Jews, as the kingdom of Jud\u00e6a\nbelonged to the Romans, and was a gift from C\u00e6sar; that if three kings\nof the Indies were, at the present day, to come to France under the\nguidance of a star, and stop at the house of a woman of Vaugirard, no\none could ever make the reigning monarch believe that the child of that\npoor woman would become king of France.\n\nA satisfactory answer has been given to these difficulties, which may be\nconsidered preliminary ones, attending the subject of the massacre of\nthe innocents; and it has been shown that what is impossible with man is\nnot impossible with God.\n\nWith respect to the slaughter of the little children, whether the number\nwas fourteen thousand, or greater, or less, it has been shown that this\nhorrible and unprecedented cruelty was not absolutely incompatible with\nthe character of Herod; that, after being established as king of Jud\u00e6a\nby Augustus, he could not indeed fear anything from the child of\nobscure and poor parents, residing in a petty village; but that\nlaboring at that time under the disorder of which he at length died, his\nblood might have become so corrupt that he might in consequence have\nlost both reason and humanity; that, in short, all these\nincomprehensible events, which prepared the way for mysteries still more\nincomprehensible, were directed by an inscrutable Providence.\n\nIt is objected that the historian Josephus, who was nearly contemporary,\nand who has related all the cruelties of Herod, has made no more mention\nof the massacre of the young children than of the star of the three\nkings; that neither the Jew Philo, nor any other Jew, nor any Roman\ntakes any notice of it; and even that three of the evangelists have\nobserved a profound silence upon these important subjects. It is replied\nthat they are nevertheless announced by St. Matthew, and that the\ntestimony of one inspired man is of more weight than the silence of all\nthe world.\n\nThe critics, however, have not surrendered; they have dared to censure\nSt. Matthew himself for saying that these children were massacred, \"that\nthe words of Jeremiah might be fulfilled. A voice is heard in Ramah, a\nvoice of groaning and lamentation. Rachel weeping for her children, and\nrefusing to be comforted, because they are no more.\"\n\nThese historical words, they observe, were literally fulfilled in the\ntribe of Benjamin, which descended from Rachel, when Nabuzaradan\ndestroyed a part of that tribe near the city of Ramah. It was no longer\na prediction, they say, any more than were the words \"He shall be called\na Nazarene. And He came to dwell in a city called Nazareth, that it\nmight be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. He shall be called\na Nazarene.\" They triumph in the circumstance that these words are not\nto be found in any one of the prophets; just as they do in the idea that\nRachel weeping for the Benjamites at Ramah has no reference whatever to\nthe massacre of the innocents by Herod.\n\nThey dare even to urge that these two allusions, being clearly false,\nare a manifest proof of the falsehood of this narrative; and conclude\nthat the massacre of the children, and the new star, and the journey of\nthe three kings, never had the slightest foundation in fact.\n\nThey even go much further yet; they think they find as palpable a\ncontradiction between the narrative of St. Matthew and that of St. Luke,\nas between the two genealogies adduced by them. St. Matthew says that\nJoseph and Mary carried Jesus into Egypt, fearing that he would be\ninvolved in the massacre. St. Luke, on the contrary, says, \"After having\nfulfilled all the ceremonies of the law, Joseph and Mary returned to\nNazareth, their city, and went every year to Jerusalem, to keep the\nPassover.\"\n\nBut thirty days must have expired before a woman could have completed\nher purification from childbirth and fulfilled all the ceremonies of the\nlaw. During these thirty days, therefore, the child must have been\nexposed to destruction by the general proscription. And if his parents\nwent to Jerusalem to accomplish the ordinance of the law, they certainly\ndid not go to Egypt.\n\nThese are the principal objections of unbelievers. They are effectually\nrefuted by the faith both of the Greek and Latin churches. If it were\nnecessary always to be clearing up the doubts of persons who read the\nScriptures, we must inevitably pass our whole lives in disputing about\nall the articles contained in them. Let us rather refer ourselves to our\nworthy superiors and masters; to the university of Salamanca when in\nSpain, to the Sorbonne in France, and to the holy congregation at Rome.\nLet us submit both in heart and in understanding to that which is\nrequired of us for our good.\n\n\n\n\nINQUISITION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe Inquisition is an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, established by the\nsee of Rome in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and even in the Indies, for the\npurpose of searching out and extirpating infidels, Jews, and heretics.\n\nThat we may not be suspected of resorting to falsehood in order to\nrender this tribunal odious, we shall in this present article give the\nabstract of a Latin work on the \"Origin and Progress of the Office of\nthe Holy Inquisition,\" printed by the royal press at Madrid in 1589, by\norder of Louis de Paramo, inquisitor in the kingdom of Sicily.\n\nWithout going back to the origin of the Inquisition, which Paramo thinks\nhe discovers in the manner in which God is related to have proceeded\nagainst Adam and Eve, let us abide by the new law of which Jesus Christ,\naccording to him, was the chief inquisitor. He exercised the functions\nof that office on the thirteenth day after his birth, by announcing to\nthe city of Jerusalem, through the three kings or Magi, his appearance\nin the world, and afterwards by causing Herod to be devoured alive by\nworms; by driving the buyers and sellers out of the temple; and finally,\nby delivering Jud\u00e6a into the hands of tyrants, who pillaged it in\npunishment of its unbelief.\n\nAfter Jesus Christ, St. Peter, St. Paul, and the rest of the apostles\nexercised the office of inquisitor, which they transmitted to the popes\nand bishops, and their successors. St. Dominic having arrived in France\nwith the bishop of Osma, of which he was archdeacon, became animated\nwith zeal against the Albigenses, and obtained the regard and favor of\nSimon, Count de Montfort. Having been appointed by the pope inquisitor\nin Languedoc, he there founded his order, which was approved of and\nratified, in 1216, by Honorius III. Under the auspices of St. Madelaine,\nCount Montfort took the city of Gezer by assault, and put all the\ninhabitants to the sword; and at Laval, four hundred Albigenses were\nburned at once. \"In all the histories of the Inquisition that I ever\nread,\" says Paramo, \"I never met with an act of faith so eminent, or a\nspectacle so solemn. At the village of Cazera, sixty were burned; and in\nanother place a hundred and eighty.\"\n\nThe Inquisition was adopted by the count of Toulouse in 1229, and\nconfided to the Dominicans by Pope Gregory IX. in 1233; Innocent IV. in\n1251 established it in the whole of Italy, with the exception of Naples.\nAt the commencement, indeed, heretics were not subjected in the Milanese\nto the punishment of death, which they nevertheless so richly deserved,\nbecause the popes were not sufficiently respected by the emperor\nFrederick, to whom that state belonged; but a short time afterwards\nheretics were burned at Milan, as well as in the other parts of Italy;\nand our author remarks, that in 1315 some thousands of heretics having\nspread themselves through Cremasco, a small territory included in the\njurisdiction of the Milanese, the Dominican brothers burned the greater\npart of them; and thus checked the ravages of the theological pestilence\nby the flames.\n\nAs the first canon of the Council of Toulouse enjoined the bishops to\nappoint in every parish a priest and two or three laymen of reputation,\nwho should be bound by oath to search carefully and frequently for\nheretics, in houses, caves, and all places wherever they might be able\nto hide themselves, and to give the speediest information to the\nbishop, the seigneur of the place, or his bailiff, after having taken\nall necessary precautions against the escape of any heretics discovered,\nthe inquisitors must have acted at this time in concert with the\nbishops. The prisons of the bishop and of the Inquisition were\nfrequently the same; and, although in the course of the procedure the\ninquisitor might act in his own name, he could not, without the\nintervention of the bishop, apply the torture, pronounce any definitive\nsentence, or condemn to perpetual imprisonment, etc. The frequent\ndisputes that occurred between the bishops and the inquisitors, on the\nlimits of their authority, on the spoils of the condemned, etc.,\ncompelled Pope Sixtus IV., in 1473, to make the Inquisitions independent\nand separate from the tribunals of the bishops. He created for Spain an\nInquisitor-general, with full powers to nominate particular inquisitors;\nand Ferdinand V., in 1478, founded and endowed the Inquisition.\n\nAt the solicitation of Turrecremata (or Torquemada), a brother of the\nDominican order, and grand inquisitor of Spain, the same Ferdinand,\nsurnamed the Catholic, banished from his kingdom all the Jews, allowing\nthem three months from the publication of his edict, after the\nexpiration of which period they were not to be found in any of the\nSpanish dominions under pain of death. They were permitted, on quitting\nthe kingdom, to take with them the goods and merchandise which they had\npurchased, but forbidden to take out of it any description of gold or\nsilver.\n\nThe brother Turrecremata followed up and strengthened this edict, in the\ndiocese of Toledo, by prohibiting all Christians, under pain of\nexcommunication, from giving anything whatever to the Jews, even that\nwhich might be necessary to preserve life itself.\n\nIn consequence of these decrees about a million Jews departed from\nCatalonia, the kingdom of Aragon, that of Valencia, and other countries\nsubject to the dominion of Ferdinand; the greater part of whom perished\nmiserably; so that they compare the calamities that they suffered during\nthis period to those they experienced under Titus and Vespasian. This\nexpulsion of the Jews gave incredible joy to all Catholic sovereigns.\n\nSome divines blamed these edicts of the king of Spain; their principal\nreasons are that unbelievers ought not to be constrained to embrace the\nfaith of Jesus Christ, and that these violences are a disgrace to our\nreligion.\n\nBut these arguments are very weak, and I contend, says Paramo, that the\nedict is pious, just, and praiseworthy, as the violence with which the\nJews are required to be converted is not an absolute but a conditional\nviolence, since they might avoid it by quitting their country. Besides,\nthey might corrupt those of the Jews who were newly converted, and even\nChristians themselves; but, as St. Paul says, what communion is there\nbetween justice and iniquity, light and darkness, Jesus Christ and\nBelial?\n\nWith respect to the confiscation of their goods, nothing could be more\nequitable, as they had acquired them only by usury towards Christians,\nwho only received back, therefore, what was in fact their own.\n\nIn short, by the death of our Lord, the Jews became slaves, and\neverything that a slave possesses belongs to his master. We could not\nbut suspend our narrative for a moment to make these remarks, in\nopposition to persons who have thus calumniated the piety, the spotless\njustice, and the sanctity of the Catholic king.\n\nAt Seville, where an example of severity to the Jews was ardently\ndesired, it was the holy will of God, who knows how to draw good out of\nevil, that a young man who was in waiting in consequence of an\nassignation, should see through the chinks of a partition an assembly of\nJews, and in consequence inform against them. A great number of the\nunhappy wretches were apprehended, and punished as they deserved. By\nvirtue of different edicts of the kings of Spain, and of the\ninquisitors, general and particular, established in that kingdom, there\nwere, in a very short time, about two thousand heretics burned at\nSeville, and more than four thousand from 1482 to 1520. A vast number of\nothers were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, or exposed to\ninflictions of different descriptions. The emigration from it was so\ngreat that five hundred houses were supposed to be left in consequence\nquite empty, and in the whole diocese, three thousand; and altogether\nmore than a hundred thousand heretics were put to death, or punished in\nsome other manner, or went into banishment to avoid severer suffering.\nSuch was the destruction of heretics accomplished by these pious\nbrethren.\n\nThe establishment of the Inquisition at Toledo was a fruitful source of\nrevenue to the Catholic Church. In the short space of two years it\nactually burned at the stake fifty-two obstinate heretics, and two\nhundred and twenty more were outlawed; whence we may easily conjecture\nof what utility the Inquisition has been from its original\nestablishment, since in so short a period it performed such wonders.\n\nFrom the beginning of the fifteenth century, Pope Boniface IX. attempted\nin vain to establish the Inquisition in Portugal, where he created the\nprovincial of the Dominicans, Vincent de Lisbon, inquisitor-general.\nInnocent VII., some years after, having named as inquisitor the Minim\nDidacus de Sylva, King John I. wrote to that pope that the establishment\nof the Inquisition in his kingdom was contrary to the good of his\nsubjects, to his own interests, and perhaps also to the interests of\nreligion.\n\nThe pope, affected by the representations of a too mild and easy\nmonarch, revoked all the powers granted to the inquisitors newly\nestablished, and authorized Mark, bishop of Senigaglia, to absolve the\npersons accused; which he accordingly did. Those who had been deprived\nof their dignities and offices were re-established in them, and many\nwere delivered from the fear of the confiscation of their property.\n\nBut how admirable, continues Paramo, is the Lord in all his ways! That\nwhich the sovereign pontiffs had been unable effectually to obtain with\nall their urgency, King John granted spontaneously to a dexterous\nimpostor, whom God made use of as an instrument for accomplishing the\ngood work. In fact, the wicked are frequently useful instruments in\nGod's hands, and he does not reject the good they bring about. Thus,\nwhen John remarks to our Lord Jesus Christ, \"Lord, we saw one who was\nnot Thy disciple casting out demons in Thy name, and we prevented him\nfrom doing so,\" Jesus answered him, \"Prevent him not; for he who works\nmiracles in My name will not speak ill of Me; and he who is not against\nMe is for Me.\"\n\nParamo relates afterwards that he saw in the library of St. Laurence, at\nthe Escorial, a manuscript in the handwriting of Saavedra, in which that\nknave details his fabrication of a false bull, and obtaining thereby his\n_entr\u00e9e_ into Seville as legate, with a train of a hundred and twenty\ndomestics; his defrauding of thirteen thousand ducats the heirs of a\nrich nobleman in that neighborhood, during his twenty days' residence in\nthe palace of the archbishop, by producing a counterfeit bond for the\nsame sum, which the nobleman acknowledged, in that instrument, to have\nborrowed of the legate when he visited Rome; and finally, after his\narrival at Badajoz, the permission granted him by King John III., to\nwhom he was presented by means of forged letters of the pope, to\nestablish tribunals of the Inquisition in the principal cities of the\nkingdom.\n\nThese tribunals began immediately to exercise their jurisdiction; and a\nvast number of condemnations and executions of relapsed heretics took\nplace, as also of absolutions of recanting and penitent heretics. Six\nmonths had passed in this manner, when the truth was made apparent of\nthat expression in the Gospel, \"There is nothing hid which shall not be\nmade known.\" The Marquis de Villeneuve de Barcarotta, a Spanish\nnobleman, assisted by the governor of Mora, had the impostor apprehended\nand conducted to Madrid. He was there carried before John de Tavera,\narchbishop of Toledo. That prelate, perfectly astonished at all that now\ntranspired of the knavery and address of the false legate, despatched\nall the depositions and documents relative to the case to Pope Paul\nIII.; as he did also the acts of the inquisitions which Saavedra had\nestablished, and by which it appeared that a great number of heretics\nhad already been judged and condemned, and that the impostor had\nextorted from his victims more than three hundred thousand ducats.\n\nThe pope could not help acknowledging in this the finger of God and a\nmiracle of His providence; he accordingly formed the congregation of the\ntribunal of the Inquisition, under the denomination of \"The Holy\nOffice,\" in 1545, and Sixtus V. confirmed it in 1588.\n\nAll writers but one agree with Paramo on the subject of the\nestablishment of the Inquisition in Portugal. Antoine de Sousa alone, in\nhis \"Aphorisms of Inquisitors,\" calls the history of Saavedra in\nquestion, under the pretence that he may very easily be conceived to\nhave accused himself without being in fact guilty, in consideration of\nthe glory which would redound to him from the event, and in the hope of\nliving in the memory of mankind. But Sousa, in the very narrative which\nhe substitutes for that of Paramo, exposes himself to the suspicion of\nbad faith, in citing two bulls of Paul III., and two others from the\nsame pope to Cardinal Henry, the king's brother; bulls which Sousa has\nnot introduced into his printed work, and which are not to be found in\nany collection of apostolical bulls extant; two decisive reasons for\nrejecting his opinion, and adhering to that of Paramo, Hiescas, Salasar,\nMendo\u00e7a, Fernandez, and Placentinus.\n\nWhen the Spaniards passed over to America they carried the Inquisition\nwith them; the Portuguese introduced it in the Indies, immediately upon\nits being established at Lisbon, which led to the observation which\nLouis de Paramo makes in his preface, that this flourishing and verdant\ntree had extended its branches and its roots throughout the world, and\nproduced the most pleasant fruits.\n\nIn order to form some correct idea of the jurisprudence of the\nInquisition, and the forms of its proceedings, unknown to civil\ntribunals, let us take a cursory view of the \"Directory of Inquisitors,\"\nwhich Nicolas Eymeric, grand inquisitor of the kingdom of Aragon about\nthe middle of the fourteenth century, composed in Latin, and addressed\nto his brother inquisitors, in virtue of the authority of his office.\n\nA short time after the invention of printing, an edition of this work\nwas printed at Barcelona, and soon conveyed to all the inquisitions in\nthe Christian world. A second edition appeared at Rome in 1578, in\nfolio, with scholia and commentaries by Francois Pegna, doctor in\ntheology and canonist.\n\nThe following eulogium on the work is given by the editor in an epistle\ndedicatory to Gregory XIII.: \"While Christian princes are everywhere\nengaged in combating with arms the enemies of the Catholic religion, and\npouring out the blood of their soldiers to support the unity of the\nChurch and the authority of the apostolic see, there are also zealous\nand devoted writers, who toil in obscurity, either to refute the\nopinions of innovators or to arm and direct the power of the laws\nagainst their persons, in order that the severity of punishments, and\nthe solemnity and torture attending executions, keeping them within the\nbounds of duty, may produce that effect upon them which cannot be\nproduced in them by the love of virtue.\n\n\"Although I fill only the lowest place among these defenders of\nreligion, I am nevertheless animated with the same zeal for repressing\nthe impious audacity and horrible depravity of the broachers of\ninnovation. The labor which I here present to you on the 'Directory of\nInquisitions,' will be a proof of my assertion. This work of Nicolas\nEymeric, respectable for its antiquity, contains a summary of the\nprincipal articles of faith, and an elaborate and methodical code of\ninstruction for the tribunals of the Holy Inquisition, on the means\nwhich they ought to employ for the repression and extirpation of\nheretics; on which account I felt it my duty to offer it in homage to\nyour holiness, as the chief of the Christian republic.\"\n\nHe declares, elsewhere, that he had it reprinted for the instruction of\ninquisitors; that the work is as much to be admired as respected, and\nteaches with equal piety and learning the proper means of repressing and\nexterminating heretics. He acknowledges, however, that he is in\npossession of other useful and judicious methods, for which he refers to\npractice, which will instruct much more effectually than any lessons,\nand that he more readily thus silently refers to practice, as there are\ncertain matters relating to the subject which it is of importance not to\ndivulge, and which, at the same time, are generally well known to\ninquisitors. He cites a vast number of writers, all of whom have\nfollowed the doctrine of the \"Directory\"; and he even complains that\nmany have availed themselves of it without ascribing any honor to\nEymeric for the good things they have in fact stolen from him.\n\nWe will secure ourselves from any reproach of this description, by\npointing out exactly what we mean to borrow both from the author and the\neditor. Eymeric says, in the fifty-eighth page, \"Commiseration for the\nchildren of the criminal, who by the severity used towards him are\nreduced to beggary, should never be permitted to mitigate that severity,\nsince both by divine and human laws children are punished for the faults\nof their fathers.\"\n\nPage 123. \"If a charge entered for prosecution were destitute of every\nappearance of truth, the inquisitor should not on that account expunge\nit from his register, because what at one period has not been\ndiscovered, may be so at another.\"\n\nPage 291. \"It is necessary for the inquisitor to oppose cunning and\nstratagem to those employed by heretics, that he may thus pay the\noffenders in their own coin, and be enabled to adopt the language of the\napostle, 'Being crafty, I caught you with guile.'\"\n\nPage 296. \"The information and depositions (_proc\u00e8s-verbal_) may be read\nover to the accused, completely suppressing the names of the accusers;\nand then it is for him to conjecture who the persons are that have\nbrought against him any particular charges, to challenge them as\nincompetent witnesses, or to weaken their testimony by contrary\nevidence. This is the method generally used. The accused must not be\npermitted to imagine that challenges of witnesses will be easily allowed\nin cases of heresy, for it is of no consequence whether witnesses are\nrespectable or infamous, accomplices in the prisoner's offence,\nexcommunicated, heretical, or in any manner whatever guilty, or\nperjured, etc. This has been so ruled in favor of the faith.\"\n\nPage 202. \"The appeal which a prisoner makes from the Inquisition does\nnot preclude that tribunal from trial and sentence of him upon other\nheads of accusation.\"\n\nPage 313. \"Although the form of the order for applying the torture may\nsuppose variation in the answers of the accused, and also in addition\nsufficient presumptive evidence against him for putting him to the\nquestion; both these circumstances are not necessary, and either will be\nsufficient for the purpose without the other.\"\n\nPegna informs us, in the hundred and eighteenth scholium on the third\nbook, that inquisitors generally employ only five kinds of torture when\nputting to the question, although Marsilius mentions fifteen kinds, and\nadds, that he has imagined others still--such, for example, as\nprecluding the possibility of sleep, in which he is approved by\nGrillandus and Locatus.\n\nEymeric continues, page 319: \"Care should be taken never to state in the\nform of absolution, that the prisoner is innocent, but merely that there\nwas not sufficient evidence against him; a precaution necessary to\nprevent the prisoner, absolved in one case, from pleading that\nabsolution in defence against any future charge that may be brought\nagainst him.\"\n\nPage 324. \"Sometimes abjuration and canonical purgation are prescribed\ntogether. This is done, when, to a bad reputation of an individual in\npoint of doctrine are joined inconsiderable presumptions, which, were\nthey a little stronger, would tend to convict him of having really said\nor done something injurious to the faith. The prisoner who stands in\nthese circumstances is compelled to abjure all heresy in general; and\nafter that, if he falls into any heresy of any description whatever,\nhowever different from those which may have constituted the matter of\nthe present charge or suspicion against him, he is punished as a\nrelapsed person, and delivered over to the secular arm.\"\n\nPage 331. \"Relapsed persons, when the relapse is clearly proved, must be\ndelivered up to secular justice, whatever protestation they may make as\nto their future conduct, and whatever contrition they may express. The\ninquisitor will, in such circumstances, inform the secular authorities,\nthat on such a particular day and hour, and in such a particular place,\na heretic will be delivered up to them and should provide that notice be\ngiven to the public that they will be expected to be present at the\nceremony, as the inquisitor will deliver a sermon on the occasion in\ndefence of the true faith, and those who attend will obtain the usual\nindulgences.\"\n\nThese indulgences are accordingly detailed: after the form of sentence\ngiven against the penitent heretic, the inquisitor will grant forty\ndays' indulgence to all persons present; three years to those who\ncontributed to the apprehension, abjuration, condemnation, etc., of the\nsaid heretic; and finally, three years also will be granted by our holy\nfather, the pope, to all who will denounce any other heretic.\n\nPage 332. \"When the culprit has been delivered over to the secular\nauthority, it shall pronounce its sentence, and the criminal shall be\nconveyed to the place of punishment; some pious persons shall accompany\nhim, and associate him in their prayers, and even pray with him; and not\nleave him till he has rendered up his soul to his Creator. But it is\ntheir duty to take particular care neither to say or to do anything\nwhich may hasten the moment of his death, for fear of falling into some\nirregularity. Accordingly, they should not exhort the criminal to mount\nthe scaffold, or present himself to the executioner, or advise the\nexecutioner to get ready and arrange his instruments of punishment, so\nthat the death may take place more quickly, and the prisoner be\nprevented from lingering; all for the sake of avoiding irregularity.\"\n\nPage 335. \"Should it happen that the heretic, when just about to be\nfixed to the stake to be burned, were to give signs of conversion, he\nmight, perhaps, out of singular lenity and favor, be allowed to be\nreceived and shut up, like penitent heretics, within four walls,\nalthough it would be weak to place much reliance on a confession of this\nnature, and the indulgence is not authorized by any express law; such\nlenity, however, is very dangerous. I was witness of an example in point\nat Barcelona: A priest who was condemned, with two other impenitent\nheretics, to be burned, and who was actually in the midst of the flames,\ncalled on the bystanders to pull him out instantly, for he was willing\nto be converted; he was accordingly extricated, dreadfully scorched on\none side. I do not mean to decide whether this was well or ill done; but\nI know that, fourteen years afterwards, he was still dogmatizing, and\nhad corrupted a considerable number of persons; he was therefore once\nmore given up to justice, and was burned to death.\"\n\n\"No person doubts,\" says Pegna, scholium 47, \"that heretics ought to be\nput to death; but the particular method of execution may well be a topic\nof discussion.\" Alphonso de Castro, in the second book of his work, \"On\nthe Just Punishment of Heretics,\" considers it a matter of great\nindifference whether they are destroyed by the sword, by fire, or any\nother method; but Hostiensis Godofredus, Covarruvias, Simancas, Roxas,\netc., maintain that they ought decidedly to be burned. In fact, as\nHostiensis very well expressed it, execution by fire is the punishment\nappropriate to heresy. We read in St. John, \"If any one remain not in\nme, he shall be cast forth, as a branch, and wither, and men shall\ngather it and cast it into the fire and burn it.\" \"It may be added,\"\ncontinued 'Pegna, \"that the universal custom of the Christian republic\nis in support of this opinion. Simancas and Roxas decide that heretics\nought to be burned alive; but one precaution should always be taken in\nburning them, which is tearing out the tongue and keeping the mouth\nperfectly closed, in order to prevent their scandalizing the spectators\nby their impieties.\"\n\nFinally, page 369, Eymeric enjoins those whom he addresses to proceed in\nmatters of heresy straight forward, without any wranglings of advocates,\nand without so many forms and solemnities as are generally employed in\ncriminal cases; that is, to make the process as short as possible, by\ncutting off useless delays, by going on with the hearing and trial of\nsuch causes, even on days when the labors of the other judges are\nsuspended; by disallowing every appeal which has for its apparent object\nmerely a postponement of final judgment; and by not admitting an\nunnecessary multitude of witnesses, etc.\n\nThis revolting system of jurisprudence has simply been put under some\nrestriction in Spain and Portugal; while at Milan the Inquisition itself\nhas at length been entirely suppressed.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThe Inquisition is well known to be an admirable and truly Christian\ninvention for increasing the power of the pope and monks, and rendering\nthe population of a whole kingdom hypocrites.\n\nSt. Dominic is usually considered as the person to whom the world is\nprincipally indebted for this institution. In fact, we have still extant\na patent granted by that great saint, expressed precisely in the\nfollowing words: \"I, brother Dominic, reconcile to the Church Roger, the\nbearer of these presents, on condition of his being scourged by a priest\non three successive Sundays from the entrance of the city to the church\ndoors; of his abstaining from meat all his life; of his fasting for the\nspace of three Lents in a year; of his never drinking wine; of his\ncarrying about him the '_san benito_' with crosses; of his reciting the\nbreviary every day, and ten paternosters in the course of the day, and\ntwenty at midnight; of his preserving perfect chastity, and of his\npresenting himself every month before the parish priest, etc.; the whole\nunder pain of being treated as heretical, perjured, and impenitent.\"\n\nAlthough Dominic was the real founder of the Inquisition, yet Louis de\nParamo, one of the most respectable writers and most brilliant\nluminaries of the Holy Office, relates, in the second chapter of his\nsecond book, that God was the first institutor of the Holy Office, and\nthat he exercised the power of the preaching brethren, that is of the\nDominican Order, against Adam. In the first place Adam is cited before\nthe tribunal: \"_Adam ubi es?_\"--Adam, where art thou? \"And in fact,\"\nadds Paramo, \"the want of this citation would have rendered the whole\nprocedure of God null.\"\n\nThe dresses formed of skins, which God made for Adam and Eve, were the\nmodel of the \"_san benito_,\" which the Holy Office requires to be worn\nby heretics. It is true that, according to this argument, God was the\nfirst tailor; it is not, however, the less evident, on account of that\nludicrous and profane inference, that he was the first inquisitor.\n\nAdam was deprived of the immovable property he possessed in the\nterrestrial paradise, and hence the Holy Office confiscates the property\nof all whom it condemns.\n\nLouis de Paramo remarks, that the inhabitants of Sodom were burned as\nheretics because their crime is a formal heresy. He thence passes to the\nhistory of the Jews: and in every part of it discovers the Holy Office.\n\nJesus Christ is the first inquisitor of the new law; the popes were\ninquisitors by divine right; and they afterwards communicated their\npower to St. Dominic.\n\nHe afterwards estimates the number of all those whom the Inquisition has\nput to death; he states it to be considerably above a hundred thousand.\n\nHis book was printed in 1589, at Madrid, with the approbation of\ndoctors, the eulogiums of bishops, and the privilege of the king. We\ncan, at the present day, scarcely form any idea of horrors at once so\nextravagant and abominable; but at that period nothing appeared more\nnatural and edifying. All men resemble Louis de Paramo when they are\nfanatics.\n\nParamo was a plain, direct man, very exact in dates, omitting no\ninteresting fact, and calculating with precision the number of human\nvictims immolated by the Holy Office throughout the world.\n\nHe relates, with great na\u00efvet\u00e9, the establishment of the Inquisition in\nPortugal, and coincides perfectly with four other historians who have\ntreated of that subject. The following account they unanimously agree\nin:\n\n_Singular. Establishment of the Inquisition in Portugal._\n\nPope Boniface had long before, at the beginning of the fifteenth\ncentury, delegated some Dominican friars to go to Portugal, from one\ncity to another, to burn heretics, Mussulmans, and Jews; but these were\nitinerant and not stationary; and even the kings sometimes complained of\nthe vexations caused by them. Pope Clement VII. was desirous of giving\nthem a fixed residence in Portugal, as they had in Aragon and Castile.\nDifficulties, however, arose between the court of Rome and that of\nLisbon; tempers became irritated, the Inquisition suffered by it, and\nwas far from being perfectly established.\n\nIn 1539, there appeared at Lisbon a legate of the pope, who came, he\nsaid, to establish the holy Inquisition on immovable foundations. He\ndelivered his letters to King John III. from Pope Paul III. He had other\nletters from Rome for the chief officers of the court; his patents as\nlegate were duly sealed and signed; and he exhibited the most ample\npowers for creating a grand inquisitor and all the judges of the Holy\nOffice. He was, however, in fact an impostor of the name of Saavedra,\nwho had the talent of counterfeiting hand-writings, seals, and\ncoats-of-arms. He had acquired the art at Rome, and was perfected in it\nat Seville, at which place he arrived in company with two other\nsharpers. His train was magnificent, consisting of more than a hundred\nand twenty domestics. To defray, at least in part, the enormous expense\nwith which all this splendor was attended, he and his associates\nborrowed at Seville large sums in the name of the apostolic chamber of\nRome; everything was concerted with the most consummate art.\n\n[Illustration: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE INQUISITION IN PORTUGAL]\n\nThe king of Portugal was at first perfectly astonished at the pope's\ndespatching a legate to him without any previous announcement to him of\nhis intention. The legate hastily observed that in a concern so urgent\nas that of establishing the Inquisition on a firm foundation, his\nholiness could admit of no delays, and that the king might consider\nhimself honored by the holy father's having appointed a legate to be the\nfirst person to announce his intention. The king did not venture to\nreply. The legate on the same day constituted a grand inquisitor, and\nsent about collectors to receive the tenths; and before the court could\nobtain answers from Rome to its representations on the subject, the\nlegate had brought two hundred victims to the stake, and collected more\nthan two hundred thousand crowns.\n\nHowever, the marquis of Villanova, a Spanish nobleman, of whom the\nlegate had borrowed at Seville a very considerable sum upon forged\nbills, determined, if possible, to repay himself the money with his own\nhands, instead of going to Lisbon and exposing himself to the intrigues\nand influence of the swindler there. The legate was at this time making\nhis circuit through the country, and happened very conveniently to be on\nthe borders of Spain. The marquis unexpectedly advanced upon him with\nfifty men well armed, carried him off prisoner, and conducted him to\nMadrid.\n\nThe whole imposture was speedily discovered at Lisbon; the Council of\nMadrid condemned the legate Saavedra to be flogged and sent to the\ngalleys for ten years; but the most admirable circumstance was, that\nPope Paul IV. confirmed subsequently all that the impostor had\nestablished; out of the plenitude of his divine power he rectified all\nthe little irregularities of the various procedures, and rendered sacred\nwhat before was merely human. Of what importance the arm which God\nemploys in His sacred service?--\"_Qu'importe de quel bras Dieu daigne se\nservir?_\"\n\nSuch was the manner in which the Inquisition became established at\nLisbon; and the whole kingdom extolled the wisdom and providence of God\non the occasion.\n\nTo conclude, the methods of procedure adopted by this tribunal are\ngenerally known; it is well known how strongly they are opposed to the\nfalse equity and blind reason of all other tribunals in the world. Men\nare imprisoned on the mere accusation of persons the most infamous; a\nson may denounce his father, and the wife her husband; the accused is\nnever confronted with the accusers; and the property of the person\nconvicted is confiscated for the benefit of the judges: such at least\nwas the manner of its proceeding down to our own times. Surely in this\nwe must perceive something decidedly divine; for it is absolutely\nincomprehensible that men should have patiently submitted to this yoke.\n\nAt length Count Aranda has obtained the blessings of all Europe by\nparing the nails and filing the teeth of the monster in Spain; it\nbreathes, however, still.\n\n\n\n\nINSTINCT.\n\n\n\"Instinctus, _impulsus_,\" impulse; but what power impels us?\n\nAll feeling is instinct. A secret conformity of our organs to their\nrespective objects forms our instinct. It is solely by instinct that we\nperform numberless involuntary movements, just as it is by instinct that\nwe possess curiosity, that we run after novelty, that menaces terrify\nus, that contempt irritates us, that an air of submission appeases us,\nand that tears soften us.\n\nWe are governed by instinct, as well as cats and goats; this is one\nfurther circumstance in which we resemble the mere animal tribes--a\nresemblance as incontestable as that of our blood, our necessities, and\nthe various functions of our bodies.\n\nOur instinct is never so shrewd and skilful as theirs, and does not even\napproach it; a calf and a lamb, as soon as they are born, rush to the\nfountain of their mother's milk; but unless the mother of the infant\nclasped it in her arms, and folded it to her bosom, it would inevitably\nperish.\n\nNo woman in a state of pregnancy was ever invincibly impelled to prepare\nfor her infant a convenient wicker cradle, as the wren with its bill and\nclaws prepares a nest for her offspring. But the power of reflection\nwhich we possess, in conjunction with two industrious hands presented to\nus by nature, raises us to an equality with the instinct of animals, and\nin the course of time places us infinitely above them, both in respect\nto good and evil--a proposition condemned by the members of the ancient\nparliament and by the Sorbonne, natural philosophers of distinguished\neminence, and who, it is well known, have admirably promoted the\nperfection of the arts.\n\nOur instinct, in the first place, impels us to beat our brother when he\nvexes us, if we are roused into a passion with him and feel that we are\nstronger than he is. Afterwards, our sublime reason leads us on to the\ninvention of arrows, swords, pikes, and at length muskets, to kill our\nneighbors with.\n\nInstinct alone urges us all to _make_ love--\"_Amor omnibus idem_;\" but\nVirgil, Tibullus, and Ovid _sing_ it. It is from instinct alone that a\nyoung artisan stands gazing with respect and admiration before the\nsuperfine gilt coach of a commissioner of taxes. Reason comes to the\nassistance of the young artisan; he is made a collector; he becomes\npolished; he embezzles; he rises to be a great man in his turn, and\ndazzles the eyes of his former comrades as he lolls at ease in his own\ncarriage, more profusely gilded than that which originally excited his\nadmiration and ambition.\n\nWhat is this instinct which governs the whole animal kingdom, and which\nin us is strengthened by reason or repressed by habit? Is it \"_divin\u00e6\nparticula aur\u00e6_?\" Yes, undoubtedly it is something divine; for\neverything is so. Everything is the incomprehensible effect of an\nincomprehensible cause. Everything is swayed, is impelled by nature. We\nreason about everything, and originate nothing.\n\n\n\n\nINTEREST.\n\n\nWe shall teach men nothing, when we tell them that everything we do is\ndone from interest. What! it will be said, is it from motives of\ninterest that the wretched fakir remains stark naked under the burning\nsun, loaded with chains, dying with hunger, half devoured by vermin, and\ndevouring them in his turn? Yes, most undoubtedly it is; as we have\nstated elsewhere, he depends upon ascending to the eighteenth heaven,\nand looks with an eye of pity on the man who will be admitted only into\nthe ninth.\n\nThe interest of the Malabar widow, who burns herself with the corpse of\nher husband, is to recover him in another world, and be there more happy\neven than the fakir. For, together with their metempsychosis, the\nIndians have another world; they resemble ourselves; their system admits\nof contradictions.\n\nWere you ever acquainted with any king or republic that made either war\nor peace, that issued decrees, or entered into conventions, from any\nother motive than that of interest?\n\nWith respect to the interest of money, consult, in the great\n\"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" the article of M. d'Alembert, on \"Calculation,\" and that\nof M. Boucher d'Argis, on \"Jurisprudence.\" We will venture to add a few\nreflections.\n\n1. Are gold and silver merchandise? Yes; the author of the \"Spirit of\nLaws\" does not think so when he says: \"Money, which is the price of\ncommodities, is hired and not bought.\"\n\nIt is both lent and bought. I buy gold with silver, and silver with\ngold; and their price fluctuates in all commercial countries from day to\nday.\n\nThe law of Holland requires bills of exchange to be paid in the silver\ncoin of the country, and not in gold, if the creditor demands it. Then I\nbuy silver money, and I pay for it in gold, or in cloth, corn, or\ndiamonds.\n\nI am in want of money, corn, or diamonds, for the space of a year; the\ncorn, money, or diamond merchant says--I could, for this year, sell my\nmoney, corn, or diamonds to advantage. Let us estimate at four, five, or\nsix per cent., according to the usage of the country, what I should lose\nby letting you have it. You shall, for instance, return me at the end of\nthe year, twenty-one carats of diamonds for the twenty which I now lend\nyou; twenty-one sacks of corn for the twenty; twenty-one thousand crowns\nfor twenty thousand crowns. Such is interest. It is established among\nall nations by the law of nature. The maximum or highest rate of\ninterest depends, in every country, on its own particular law. In Rome\nmoney is lent on pledges at two and a half per cent., according to law,\nand the pledges are sold, if the money be not paid at the appointed\ntime. I do not lend upon pledges, and I require only the interest\ncustomary in Holland. If I were in China, I should ask of you the\ncustomary interest at Macao and Canton.\n\n2. While the parties were proceeding with this bargain at Amsterdam, it\nhappened that there arrived from St. Magliore, a Jansenist (and the fact\nis perfectly true, he was called the Abb\u00e9 des Issarts); this Jansenist\nsays to the Dutch merchant, \"Take care what you are about; you are\nabsolutely incurring damnation; money must not produce money, '_nummus\nnummum non parit_.' No one is allowed to receive interest for his money\nbut when he is willing to sink the principal. The way to be saved is to\nmake a contract with the gentleman; and for twenty thousand crowns which\nyou are never to have returned to you, you and your heirs will receive a\nthousand crowns per annum to all eternity.\"\n\n\"You jest,\" replies the Dutchman; \"you are in this very case proposing\nto me a usury that is absolutely of the nature of an infinite series. I\nshould (that is, myself and heirs would) in that case receive back my\ncapital at the end of twenty years, the double of it in forty, the\nfour-fold of it in eighty; this you see would be just an infinite\nseries. I cannot, besides, lend for more than twelve months, and I am\ncontented with a thousand crowns as a remuneration.\"\n\nTHE ABB\u00c9 DES ISSARTS.--I am grieved for your Dutch soul; God forbade the\nJews to lend at interest, and you are well aware that a citizen of\nAmsterdam should punctually obey the laws of commerce given in a\nwilderness to runaway vagrants who had no commerce.\n\nTHE DUTCHMAN.--That is clear; all the world ought to be Jews; but it\nseems to me, that the law permitted the Hebrew horde to gain as much by\nusury as they could from foreigners, and that, in consequence of this\npermission, they managed their affairs in the sequel remarkably well.\nBesides, the prohibition against one Jew's taking interest from another\nmust necessarily have become obsolete, since our Lord Jesus, when\npreaching at Jerusalem, expressly said that interest was in his time\none hundred per cent.; for in the parable of the talents he says, that\nthe servant who had received five talents gained five others in\nJerusalem by them; that he who had two gained two by them; and that the\nthird who had only one, and did not turn that to any account, was shut\nup in a dungeon by his master, for not laying it out with the\nmoney-changers. But these money-changers were Jews; it was therefore\nbetween Jews that usury was practised at Jerusalem; therefore this\nparable, drawn from the circumstances and manners of the times,\ndecidedly indicates that usury or interest was at the rate of a hundred\nper cent. Read the twenty-fifth chapter of St. Matthew; he was\nconversant with the subject; he had been a commissioner of taxes in\nGalilee. Let me finish my argument with this gentleman; and do not make\nme lose both my money and my time.\n\nTHE ABB\u00c9 DES ISSARTS.--All that you say is very good and very fine; but\nthe Sorbonne has decided that lending money on interest is a mortal sin.\n\nTHE DUTCHMAN.--You must be laughing at me, my good friend, when you cite\nthe Sorbonne as an authority to a merchant of Amsterdam. There is not a\nsingle individual among those wrangling railers themselves who does not\nobtain, whenever he can, five or six per cent, for his money by\npurchasing revenue bills, India bonds, assignments, and Canada bills.\nThe clergy of France, as a corporate body, borrow at interest. In many\nof the provinces of France, it is the custom to stipulate for interest\nwith the principal. Besides, the university of Oxford and that of\nSalamanca have decided against the Sorbonne. I acquired this information\nin the course of my travels; and thus we have authority against\nauthority. Once more, I must beg you to interrupt me no longer.\n\nTHE ABB\u00c9 DES ISSARTS.--The wicked, sir, are never at a loss for reasons.\nYou are, I repeat, absolutely destroying yourself, for the Abb\u00e9 de St.\nCyran, who has not performed any miracles, and the Abb\u00e9 Paris, who\nperformed some in St. M\u00e9dard....\n\n3. Before the abb\u00e9 had finished his speech, the merchant drove him out\nof his counting-house; and after having legally lent his money, to the\nlast penny, went to represent the conversation between himself and the\nabb\u00e9, to the magistrates, who forbade the Jansenists from propagating a\ndoctrine so pernicious to commerce.\n\n\"Gentlemen,\" said the chief bailiff, \"give us of efficacious grace as\nmuch as you please, of predestination as much as you please, and of\ncommunion as little as you please; on these points you are masters; but\ntake care not to meddle with the laws of commerce.\"\n\n\n\n\nINTOLERANCE.\n\n\nRead the article on \"Intolerance\" in the great \"Encyclop\u00e6dia.\" Read the\ntreatise on \"Toleration\" composed on occasion of the dreadful\nassassination of John Calas, a citizen of Toulouse; and if, after that,\nyou allow of persecution in matters of religion, compare yourself at\nonce to Ravaillac. Ravaillac, you know, was highly intolerant. The\nfollowing is the substance of all the discourses ever delivered by the\nintolerant:\n\nYou monster; you will be burned to all eternity in the other world, and\nwhom I will myself burn as soon as ever I can in this, you really have\nthe insolence to read de Thou and Bayle, who have been put into the\nindex of prohibited authors at Rome! When I was preaching to you in the\nname of God, how Samson had killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an\nass, your head, still harder than the arsenal from which Samson obtained\nhis arms, showed me by a slight movement from left to right that you\nbelieved nothing of what I said. And when I stated that the devil\nAsmodeus, who out of jealousy twisted the necks of the seven husbands of\nSarah among the Medes, was put in chains in upper Egypt, I saw a small\ncontraction of your lips, in Latin called _cachinnus_ (a grin) which\nplainly indicated to me that in the bottom of your soul you held the\nhistory of Asmodeus in derision.\n\nAnd as for you, Isaac Newton; Frederick the Great, king of Prussia and\nelector of Brandenburg; John Locke; Catherine, empress of Russia,\nvictorious over the Ottomans; John Milton; the beneficent sovereign of\nDenmark; Shakespeare; the wise king of Sweden; Leibnitz; the august\nhouse of Brunswick; Tillotson; the emperor of China; the Parliament of\nEngland; the Council of the great Mogul; in short, all you who do not\nbelieve one word which I have taught in my courses on divinity, I\ndeclare to you, that I regard you all as pagans and publicans, as, in\norder to engrave it on your unimpressible brains, I have often told you\nbefore. You are a set of callous miscreants; you will all go to gehenna,\nwhere the worm dies not and the fire is not quenched; for I am right,\nand you are all wrong; and I have grace, and you have none. I confess\nthree devotees in my neighborhood, while you do not confess a single\none; I have executed the mandates of bishops, which has never been the\ncase with you; I have abused philosophers in the language of the\nfish-market, while you have protected, imitated, or equalled them; I\nhave composed pious defamatory libels, stuffed with infamous calumnies,\nand you have never so much as read them. I say mass every day in Latin\nfor fourteen sous, and you are never even so much as present at it, any\nmore than Cicero, Cato, Pompey, C\u00e6sar, Horace, or Virgil, were ever\npresent at it--consequently you deserve each of you to have your right\nhand cut off, your tongue cut out, to be put to the torture, and at last\nburned at a slow fire; for God is merciful.\n\nSuch, without the slightest abatement, are the maxims of the intolerant,\nand the sum and substance of all their books. How delightful to live\nwith such amiable people!\n\n\n\n\n\nINUNDATION.\n\n\n\"Was there ever a time when the globe was entirely inundated? It is\nphysically impossible.\n\nIt is possible that the sea may successively have covered every land,\none part after another; and even this can only have happened by very\nslow gradation, and in a prodigious number of centuries. In the course\nof five hundred years the sea has retired from Aigues-Mortes, Fr\u00e9jus,\nand Ravenna, which were considerable ports, and left about two leagues\nof land dry. According to the ratio of such progression, it is clear\nthat it would require two million and two hundred and fifty thousand\nyears to produce the same effect through the whole circuit of the globe.\nIt is a somewhat remarkable circumstance that this period of time nearly\nfalls in with that which the axis of the earth would require to be\nraised, so as to coincide with the equator; a change extremely probable,\nwhich began to be considered so only about fifty years since, and which\ncould not be completed in a shorter period of time than two million and\nthree hundred thousand years.\n\nThe beds or strata of shells, which have been discovered at the distance\nof some leagues from the sea, are an incontestable evidence that it has\ngradually deposited these marine productions on tracts which were\nformerly shores of the ocean; but that the water should have ever\ncovered the whole globe at once is an absurd chimera in physics,\ndemonstrated to be impossible by the laws of gravitation, by the laws\nof fluids, and by the insufficient quantity of water for the purpose. We\ndo not, however, by these observations, at all mean to impeach the truth\nof the universal deluge, related in the Pentateuch; on the contrary,\nthat is a miracle which it is our duty to believe; it is a miracle, and\ntherefore could not have been accomplished by the laws of nature.\n\nAll is miracle in the history of the deluge--a miracle, that forty days\nof rain should have inundated the four quarters of the world, and have\nraised the water to the height of fifteen cubits above the tops of the\nloftiest mountains; a miracle, that there should have been cataracts,\nfloodgates, and openings in heaven; a miracle, that all sorts of animals\nshould have been collected in the ark from all parts of the world; a\nmiracle that Noah found the means of feeding them for a period of ten\nmonths; a miracle that all the animals with all their provisions could\nhave been included and retained in the ark; a miracle, that the greater\npart of them did not die; a miracle, that after quitting the ark, they\nfound food enough to maintain them; and a further miracle, but of a\ndifferent kind, that a person, by the name of Lepelletier, thought\nhimself capable of explaining how all the animals could be contained and\nfed in Noah's ark naturally, that is, without a miracle.\n\nBut the history of the deluge being that of the most miraculous event of\nwhich the world ever heard, it must be the height of folly and madness\nto attempt an explanation of it: it is one of the mysteries which are\nbelieved by faith; and faith consists in believing that which reason\ndoes not believe--which is only another miracle.\n\nThe history of the universal deluge, therefore, is like that of the\ntower of Babel, of Balaam's ass, of the falling of the walls of Jericho\nat the sound of trumpets, of waters turned into blood, of the passage of\nthe Red Sea, and of the whole of the prodigies which God condescended to\nperform in favor of his chosen people--depths unfathomable to the human\nunderstanding.\n\n\n\n\nJEHOVAH.\n\n\nJehovah, the ancient name of God. No people ever pronounced it \"Geova,\"\nas the French do; they pronounced it \"I\u00ebvo\"; you find it so written in\nSanchoniathon, cited by Eusebius, Prep., book x.; in Diodorus, book ii.;\nand in Macrobius, Sat., book i. All nations have pronounced it _ie_ and\nnot _g_. This sacred name was formed out of the vowels _i_, _e_, _o_,\n_u_, in the east. Some pronounced _\u00efe_, _oh_, with an aspirate, _i_, _e\no_, _va_. The word was always to be constituted of four letters,\nalthough we have here used five, for want of power to express these four\ncharacters.\n\nWe have already observed that, according to Clement of Alexandria, by\nseizing on the correct pronunciation of this name a person had it in his\npower to produce the death of any man. Clement gives an instance of it.\n\nLong before the time of Moses, Seth had pronounced the name of\n\"Jehovah,\" as is related in the fourth chapter of Genesis; and,\naccording to the Hebrew, Seth was even called \"Jehovah.\" Abraham swore\nto the king of Sodom by Jehovah, chap. xiv. 22.\n\nFrom the word \"Jehovah,\" the Latins derived \"_Jove_,\" \"_Jovis_,\"\n\"_Jovispeter_,\" \"_Jupiter_.\" In the bush, the Almighty says to Moses,\n\"My name is Jehovah.\" In the orders which he gave Him for the court of\nPharaoh, he says to him: \"I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as\nthe mighty God, only by my name, Adonai,' I was not known to them, and I\nmade a covenant with them.\"\n\nThe Jews did not for a long time pronounce this name. It was common to\nthe Ph\u0153nicians and Egyptians. It signified, that which is; and hence,\nprobably, is derived the inscription of Isis: \"I am all that is.\"\n\n\n\n\nJEPHTHAH.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nIt is evident from the text of the Book of Judges that Jephthah promised\nto sacrifice the first person that should come out of his house to\ncongratulate him on his victory over the Ammonites. His only daughter\npresented herself before him for that purpose; he tore his garments and\nimmolated her, after having promised her to go and deplore in the\nrecesses of the mountains the calamity of her dying a virgin. The\ndaughters of Israel long continued to celebrate this painful event, and\ndevoted four days in the year to lamentation for the daughter of\nJephthah.\n\nIn whatever period this history was written, whether it was imitated\nfrom the Greek history of Agamemnon and Idomeneus, or was the model from\nwhich that history was taken; whether it might be anterior or posterior\nto similar narratives in Assyrian history is not the point I am now\nexamining. I keep strictly to the text. Jephthah vowed to make his\ndaughter a burnt offering, and fulfilled his vow.\n\nIt was expressly commanded by the Jewish law to sacrifice men devoted to\nthe Lord: \"Every man that shall be devoted shall not be redeemed, but\nshall be put to death without remission.\" The Vulgate translates it: \"He\nshall not be redeemed, but shall die the death.\"\n\nIt was in virtue of this law that Samuel hewed in pieces King Agag,\nwhom, as we have already seen, Saul had pardoned. In fact, it was for\nsparing Agag that Saul was rebuked by the Lord, and lost his kingdom.\n\nThus, then, we perceive sacrifices of human blood clearly established;\nthere is no point of history more incontestable: we can only judge of a\nnation by its own archives, and by what it relates concerning itself.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nThere are, then, it seems, persons to be found who hesitate at nothing,\nwho falsify a passage of Scripture as intrepidly as if they were quoting\nits very words, and who hope to deceive mankind by their falsehoods,\nknowing them perfectly to be such. If such daring impostors are to be\nfound now, we cannot help supposing, that before the invention of\nprinting, which affords such facility, and almost certainty of\ndetection, there existed a hundred times as many.\n\nOne of the most impudent falsifiers who have lately appeared, is the\nauthor of an infamous libel entitled \"The Anti-Philosophic Dictionary,\"\nwhich truly deserves its title. But my readers will say, \"Do not be so\nirritated; what is it to you that a contemptible book has been\npublished?\" Gentlemen, it is to the subject of Jephthah, to the subject\nof human victims, of the blood of men sacrificed to God, that I am now\ndesirous of drawing your attention!\n\nThe author, whoever he may be, translates the thirty-ninth verse of the\nfirst chapter of the history of Jephthah as follows: \"She returned to\nthe house of her father, who fulfilled the consecration which he had\npromised by his vow, and his daughter remained in the state of\nvirginity.\"\n\nYes, falsifier of the Bible, I am irritated at it, I acknowledge; but\nyou have lied to the holy spirit; which you ought to know is a sin which\nis never pardoned.\n\nThe passage in the Vulgate is as follows:\n\n\"_Et reversa est ad patrem suum, et fecit ei sicut voverat qu\u00e6 ignorabat\nvirum. Exinde mos increbruit in Israel et consuetudo servata est, ut\npost anni circulum conveniant in unum fili\u00e6 Israel, et plangant filiam\nJephte Galaadit\u00e6, diebus quatuor._\"\n\n\"And she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed, to\nher who had never known man; and hence came the usage, and the custom is\nstill observed, that the daughters of Israel assemble every year to\nlament the daughter of Jephthah for four days.\"\n\nYou will just have the goodness, Mr. Anti-philosopher, to tell us,\nwhether four days of lamentation every year have been devoted to weeping\nthe fate of a young woman because she was consecrated?\n\nWhether any nuns (_religieuses_) were ever solemnly appointed among a\npeople who considered virginity an opprobrium?\n\nAnd also, what is the natural meaning of the phrase, he did to her as he\nhad vowed--\"_Fecit ei sicut voverat?_\"\n\nWhat had Jephthah vowed? What had he promised by an oath to perform? To\nkill his daughter; to offer her up as a burnt offering--and he did kill\nher.\n\nRead Calmet's dissertation on the rashness of Jephthah's vow and its\nfulfilment; read the law which he cites, that terrible law of Leviticus,\nin the twenty-seventh chapter, which commands that all which shall be\ndevoted to the Lord shall not be ransomed, but shall die the death:\n\"_Non redimetur, sed morte morletur_.\"\n\nObserve the multitude of examples by which this most astonishing truth\nis attested. Look at the Amalekites and Canaanites; look at the king of\nArvad and all his family subjected to the law of devotion; look at the\npriest Samuel slaying King Agag with his own hands, and cutting him into\npieces as a butcher cuts up an ox in his slaughter-house. After\nconsidering all this, go and corrupt, falsify, or deny holy Scripture,\nin order to maintain your paradox; and insult those who revere the\nScripture, however astonishing and confounding they may find it. Give\nthe lie direct to the historian Josephus, who transcribes the narrative\nin question, and positively asserts that Jephthah immolated his\ndaughter. Pile revilings upon falsehoods, and calumny upon ignorance;\nsages will smile at your impotence; and sages, thank God, are at present\nneither few nor weak. Oh, that you could but see the sovereign contempt\nwith which they look down upon the Rouths, when they corrupt the holy\nScripture, and when they boast of having disputed with the president\nMontesquieu in his last hour, and convinced him that he ought to think\nexactly like the Jesuits!\n\n\n\n\nJESUITS; OR PRIDE.\n\n\nThe Jesuits have been so much a subject of discourse and discussion\nthat, after having engaged the attention of Europe for a period of two\nhundred years, they at last begin to weary and disgust it, whether they\nwrite themselves, or whether any one else writes for or against that\nsingular society; in which it must be confessed there have been found,\nand are to be found still, individuals of very extraordinary merit.\n\nThey have been reproached, in the six thousand volumes that have been\nwritten against them, with their lax morality, which has not, however,\nbeen more lax than that of the Capuchins; and with their doctrine\nrelating to the safety of the person of kings; a doctrine which after\nall is not to be compared with the horn-handled knife of James Clement;\nnor with the prepared host, the sprinkled wafer, which so well answered\nthe purpose of Ange de Montepulciano, another Jacobin, and which\npoisoned the emperor Henry VII.\n\nIt is not versatile grace which has been their ruin, nor the fraudulent\nbankruptcy of the reverend Father Lavalette, prefect of the apostolic\nmissions. A whole order has not been expelled from France and Spain and\nthe two Sicilies, because that order contained a single bankrupt. Nor\nwas it affected by the odious deviations of the Jesuit\nGuyot-Desfontaines, or the Jesuit Fr\u00e9ron, or the reverend father Marsy,\nso injurious, in the latter instance, to the youthful and high-born\nvictim. The public refused to attend these Greek and Latin imitations of\nAnacreon and Horace.\n\nWhat is it then that was their ruin?--_pride_, What, it may be asked by\nsome, were the Jesuits prouder than any other monks? Yes; and so much so\nthat they procured a _lettre de cachet_ against an ecclesiastic for\ncalling them monks. One member of the society, called Croust, more\nbrutal than the rest, a brother of the confessor of the second\ndauphiness, was absolutely, in my presence, going to beat the son of M.\nde Guyot, afterwards king's advocate (pr\u00eateur-royal) at Strasburg,\nmerely for saying he would go to see him in his convent.\n\nIt is perfectly incredible with what contempt they considered every\nuniversity where they had not been educated, every book which they had\nnot written, every ecclesiastic who was not \"a man of quality.\" Of this\nI have myself, times without number, been a witness. They express\nthemselves in the following language, in their libel entitled \"It is\nTime to Speak Out\": \"Should we condescend even to speak to a magistrate\nwho says the Jesuits are proud and ought to be humbled?\" They were so\nproud that they would not suffer any one to blame their pride!\n\nWhence did this hateful pride originate? From Father Guinard's having\nbeen hanged? which is literally true.\n\nIt must be remarked that after the execution of that Jesuit under Henry\nIV., and after the banishment of the society from the kingdom, they were\nrecalled only on the indispensable condition that one Jesuit should\nalways reside at court, who should be responsible for all the rest.\nCoton was the person who thus became a hostage at the court of Henry\nIV.; and that excellent monarch, who was not without his little\nstratagems of policy, thought to conciliate the pope by making a hostage\nof his confessor.\n\nFrom that moment every brother of the order seemed to feel as if he had\nbeen raised to be king's confessor. This place of first spiritual\nphysician became a department of the administration under Louis XIII.,\nand moreso still under Louis XIV. The brother Vadbl\u00e9, valet de chambre\nof Father La Chaise, granted his protection to the bishops of France;\nand Father Letellier ruled with a sceptre of iron those who were very\nwell disposed to be so ruled. It was impossible that the greater part of\nthe Jesuits should not be puffed up by the consequence and power to\nwhich these two members of their society had been raised, and that they\nshould not become as insolent as the lackeys of M. Louvois. There have\nbeen among them, certainly, men of knowledge, eloquence, and genius;\nthese possessed some modesty, but those who had only mediocrity of\ntalent or acquirement were tainted with that pride which generally\nattaches to mediocrity and to the pedantry of a college.\n\nFrom the time of Father Garasse almost all their polemical works have\nbeen pervaded with an indecent and scornful arrogance which has roused\nthe indignation of all Europe. This arrogance frequently sank into the\nmost pitiful meanness; so that they discovered the extraordinary secret\nof being objects at once of envy and contempt. Observe, for example, how\nthey expressed themselves of the celebrated Pasquier, advocate-general\nof the chamber of accounts:\n\n\"Pasquier is a mere porter, a Parisian varlet, a second-rate showman and\njester, a journeyman retailer of ballads and old stories, a contemptible\nhireling, only fit to be a lackey's valet, a scrub, a disgusting\nragamuffin, strongly suspected of heresy, and either heretical or much\nworse, a libidinous and filthy satyr, a master-fool by nature, in sharp,\nin flat, and throughout the whole gamut, a three-shod fool, a fool\ndouble-dyed, a fool in grain, a fool in every sort of folly.\"\n\nThey afterwards polished their style; but pride, by becoming less gross,\nonly became the more revolting.\n\nEverything is pardoned except pride; and this accounts for the fact that\nall the parliaments in the kingdom, the members of which had the greater\npart of them been disciples of the Jesuits, seized the first opportunity\nof effecting their annihilation; and the whole land rejoiced in their\ndownfall.\n\nSo deeply was the spirit of pride rooted in them that it manifested\nitself with the most indecent rage, even while they were held down to\nthe earth by the hand of justice, and their final sentence yet remained\nto be pronounced. We need only read the celebrated memorial already\nmentioned, entitled \"It is Time to Speak Out,\" printed at Avignon in\n1763, under the assumed name of Anvers. It begins with an ironical\npetition to the persons holding the court of parliament. It addresses\nthem with as much superiority and contempt as could be shown in\nreprimanding a proctor's clerk. The illustrious M. de Montclar,\nprocureur-g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, the oracle of the Parliament of Provence, is\ncontinually treated as \"M. Ripert,\" and rebuked with as much consequence\nand authority as a mutinous and ignorant scholar by a professor in his\nchair. They pushed their audacity so far as to say that M. de Montclar\n\"blasphemed\" in giving an account of the institution of the Jesuits.\n\nIn their memorial, entitled \"All Shall be Told,\" they insult still more\ndaringly the Parliament of Metz, and always in the style of arrogance\nand dictation derived from the schools.\n\nThey have retained this pride even in the very ashes to which France and\nSpain have now reduced them. From the bottom of those ashes the serpent,\nscotched as it has been, has again raised its hostile head. We have seen\na contemptible creature, of the name of Nonnotte, set himself up for a\ncritic on his masters; and, although possessing merely talent enough for\npreaching to a mob in the church-yard, discoursing with all the ease of\nimpudence about things of which he has not the slightest notion. Another\ninsolent member of the society, called Patouillet, dared, in the\nbishop's mandates, to insult respectable citizens and officers of the\nking's household, whose very lackeys would not have permitted him to\nspeak to them.\n\nOne of the things on which they most prided themselves, was introducing\nthemselves into the houses of the great in their last illness, as\nambassadors of God, to open to them the gates of heaven, without their\npreviously passing through purgatory. Under Louis XIV. it was considered\nas having a bad aspect, it was unfashionable and discreditable, to die\nwithout having passed through the hands of a Jesuit; and the wretch,\nimmediately after the fatal scene had closed, would go and boast to his\ndevotees that he had just been converting a duke and peer, who, without\nhis protection, would have been inevitably damned.\n\nThe dying man might say: \"By what right, you college excrement, do you\nintrude yourself on me in my dying moments? Was I ever seen to go to\nyour cells when any of you had the fistula or gangrene, and were about\nto return your gross and unwieldy bodies to the earth? Has God granted\nyour soul any rights over mine? Do I require a preceptor at the age of\nseventy? Do you carry the keys of Paradise at your girdle? You dare to\ncall yourself an ambassador of God; show me your patent and if you have\nnone, let me die in peace. No Benedictine, Chartreux, or Premonstrant,\ncomes to disturb my dying moments; they have no wish to erect a trophy\nto their pride upon the bed of our last agony; they remain peacefully in\ntheir cells; do you rest quietly in yours; there can be nothing in\ncommon between you and me.\"\n\nA comic circumstance occurred on a truly mournful occasion, when an\nEnglish Jesuit, of the name of Routh, eagerly strove to possess himself\nof the last hour of the great Montesquieu. \"He came,\" he said, \"to bring\nback that virtuous soul to religion;\" as if Montesquieu had not known\nwhat religion was better than a Routh; as if it had been the will of God\nthat Montesquieu should think like a Routh! He was driven out of the\nchamber, and went all over Paris, exclaiming, \"I have converted that\ncelebrated man; I prevailed upon him to throw his 'Persian Letters' and\nhis 'Spirit of Laws' into the fire.\" Care was taken to print the\nnarrative of the conversion of President Montesquieu by the reverend\nfather Routh in the libel entitled \"The Anti-Philosophic Dictionary.\"\n\nAnother subject of pride and ambition with the Jesuits was making\nmissions to various cities, just as if they had been among Indians or\nJapanese. They would oblige the whole magistracy to attend them in the\nstreets; a cross was borne before them, planted in the principal public\nplaces; they dispossessed the resident clergy; they became complete\nmasters of the city. A Jesuit of the name of Aubert performed one of\nthese missions to Colmar, and compelled the advocate-general of the\nsovereign council to burn at his feet his copy of \"Bayle,\" which had\ncost him no less than fifty crowns. For my own part, I acknowledge that\nI would rather have burned brother Aubert himself. Judge how the pride\nof this Aubert must have swelled with this sacrifice as he boasted of it\nto his comrades at night, and as he exultingly wrote the account of it\nto his general.\n\nO monks, monks! be modest, as I have already advised you; be moderate,\nif you wish to avoid the calamities impending over you.\n\n\n\n\nJEWS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nYou order me to draw you a faithful picture of the spirit of the Jews,\nand of their history, and--without entering into the ineffable ways of\nProvidence, which are not our ways--you seek in the manners of this\npeople the source of the events which that Providence prepared.\n\nIt is certain that the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world\nhas ever seen; and although, in a political view, the most contemptible\nof all, yet in the eyes of a philosopher, it is, on various accounts,\nworthy consideration.\n\nThe Guebers, the Banians, and the Jews, are the only nations which exist\ndispersed, having no alliance with any people, are perpetuated among\nforeign nations, and continue apart from the rest of the world.\n\nThe Guebers were once infinitely more considerable than the Jews, for\nthey are castes of the Persians, who had the Jews under their dominion;\nbut they are now scattered over but one part of the East.\n\nThe Banians, who are descended from the ancient people among whom\nPythagoras acquired his philosophy, exist only in India and Persia; but\nthe Jews are dispersed over the whole face of the earth and if they were\nassembled, would compose a nation much more numerous than it ever was in\nthe short time that they were masters of Palestine. Almost every people\nwho have written the history of their origin, have chosen to set it off\nby prodigies; with them all has been miracle; their oracles have\npredicted nothing but conquest; and such of them as have really become\nconquerors have had no difficulty in believing these ancient oracles\nwhich were verified by the event. The Jews are distinguished among the\nnations by this--that their oracles are the only true ones, of which we\nare not permitted to doubt. These oracles, which they understand only in\nthe literal sense, have a hundred times foretold to them that they\nshould be masters of the world; yet they have never possessed anything\nmore than a small corner of land, and that only for a small number of\nyears, and they have not now so much as a village of their own. They\nmust, then, believe, and they do believe, that their predictions will\none day be fulfilled, and that they shall have the empire of the earth.\n\nAmong the Mussulmans and the Christians they are the lowest of all\nnations, but they think themselves the highest. This pride in their\nabasement is justified by an unanswerable reason--viz., that they are in\nreality the fathers of both Christians and Mussulmans. The Christian and\nthe Mussulman religion acknowledge the Jewish as their parent; and, by a\nsingular contradiction, they at once hold this parent in reverence and\nin abhorrence.\n\nIt were foreign to our present purpose to repeat that continued\nsuccession of prodigies which astonishes the imagination and exercises\nthe faith. We have here to do only with events purely historical, wholly\napart from the divine concurrence and the miracles which God, for so\nlong a time, vouchsafed to work in this people's favor.\n\nFirst, we find in Egypt a family of seventy persons producing, at the\nend of two hundred and fifteen years, a nation counting six hundred\nthousand fighting men; which makes, with the women, the children and the\nold men, upward of two millions of souls. There is no example upon earth\nof so prodigious an increase of population; this people, having come out\nof Egypt, stayed forty years in the deserts of Stony Arabia, and in that\nfrightful country the people much diminished.\n\nWhat remained of this nation advanced a little northward in those\ndeserts. It appears that they had the same principles which the tribes\nof Stony and Desert Arabia have since had, of butchering without mercy\nthe inhabitants of little towns over whom they had the advantage, and\nreserving only the young women. The interests of population have ever\nbeen the principal object of both. We find that when the Arabs had\nconquered Spain, they imposed tributes of marriageable girls; and at\nthis day the Arabs of the desert make no treaty without stipulating for\nsome girls and a few presents.\n\nThe Jews arrived in a sandy, mountainous country, where there were a few\ntowns, inhabited by a little people called the Midianites. In one\nMidianite camp, alone, they took six hundred and seventy-five thousand\nsheep, seventy-two thousand oxen, sixty-one thousand asses, and\nthirty-two thousand virgins. All the men, all the wives, and all the\nmale children, were massacred; the girls and the booty were divided\nbetween the people and the sacrificers.\n\nThey then took, in the same country, the town of Jericho; but having\ndevoted the inhabitants of that place to the anathema, they massacred\nthem all, including the virgins, pardoning none but Rahab, a courtesan,\nwho had aided them in surprising the town.\n\nThe learned have agitated the question whether the Jews, like so many\nother nations, really sacrificed men to the Divinity. This is a dispute\non words; those, whom the people consecrated to the anathema were not\nput to death on an altar, with religious rites; but they were not the\nless immolated, without its being permitted to pardon any one of them.\nLeviticus (xxvii., 29) expressly forbids the redeeming of those who\nshall have been devoted. Its words are, \"They shall surely be put to\ndeath.\" By virtue of this law it was that Jephthah devoted and killed\nhis daughter, that Saul would have killed his son, and that the prophet\nSamuel cut in pieces King Agag, Saul's prisoner. It is quite certain\nthat God is the master of the lives of men, and that it is not for us to\nexamine His laws. We ought to limit ourselves to believing these things,\nand reverencing in silence the designs of God, who permitted them.\n\nIt is also asked what right had strangers like the Jews to the land of\nCanaan? The answer is, that they had what God gave them.\n\nNo sooner had they taken Jericho and Lais than they had a civil war\namong themselves, in which the tribe of Benjamin was almost wholly\nexterminated--men, women, and children; leaving only six hundred males.\nThe people, unwilling that one of the tribes should be annihilated,\nbethought themselves of sacking the whole city of the tribe of Manasseh,\nkilling all the men, old and young, all the children, all the married\nwomen, all the widows, and taking six hundred virgins, whom they gave to\nthe six hundred survivors of the tribe of Benjamin, to restore that\ntribe, in order that the number of their twelve tribes might still be\ncomplete.\n\nMeanwhile, the Ph\u0153nicians, a powerful people settled in the coasts\nfrom time immemorial, being alarmed at the depredations and cruelties of\nthese newcomers, frequently chastised them; the neighboring princes\nunited against them; and they were seven times reduced to slavery, for\nmore than two hundred years.\n\nAt last they made themselves a king, whom they elected by lot. This king\ncould not be very mighty; for in the first battle which the Jews fought\nunder him, against their masters, the Philistines, they had, in the\nwhole army, but one sword and one lance, and not one weapon of steel.\nBut David, their second king, made war with advantage. He took the city\nof Salem, afterwards so celebrated under the name of Jerusalem, and then\nthe Jews began to make some figure on the borders of Syria. Their\ngovernment and their religion took a more august form. Hitherto they had\nnot the means of raising a temple, though every neighboring nation had\none or more. Solomon built a superb one, and reigned over this people\nabout forty years.\n\nNot only were the days of Solomon the most flourishing days of the Jews,\nbut all the kings upon earth could not exhibit a treasure approaching\nSolomon's. His father, David, whose predecessor had not even iron, left\nto Solomon twenty-five thousand six hundred and forty-eight millions of\nFrench livres in ready money. His fleets, which went to Ophir, brought\nhim sixty-eight millions per annum in pure gold, without reckoning the\nsilver and jewels. He had forty thousand stables, and the same number of\ncoach-houses, twelve thousand stables for his cavalry, seven hundred\nwives, and three hundred concubines. Yet he had neither wood nor workmen\nfor building his palace and the temple; he borrowed them of Hiram, king\nof Tyre, who also furnished gold; and Solomon gave Hiram twenty towns in\npayment. The commentators have acknowledged that these things need\nexplanation, and have suspected some literal error in the copyist, who\nalone can have been mistaken.\n\nOn the death of Solomon, a division took place among the twelve tribes\ncomposing the nation. The kingdom was torn asunder, and separated into\ntwo small provinces, one of which was called Judah, the other\nIsrael--nine tribes and a half composing the Israelitish province, and\nonly two and a half that of Judah. Then there was between these two\nsmall peoples a hatred, the more implacable as they were kinsmen and\nneighbors, and as they had different religions; for at Sichem and at\nSamaria they worshipped \"_Baal_\"--giving to God a Sidonian name; while\nat Jerusalem they worshipped \"_Adonai_.\" At Sichem were consecrated two\ncalves; at Jerusalem, two cherubim--which were two winged animals with\ndouble heads, placed in the sanctuary. So, each faction having its\nkings, its gods, its worship, and its prophets, they made a bloody war\nupon each other.\n\n\"While this war was carried on, the kings of Assyria, who conquered the\ngreater part of Asia, fell upon the Jews; as an eagle pounces upon two\nlizards while they are fighting. The nine and a half tribes of Samaria\nand Sichem were carried off and dispersed forever; nor has it been\nprecisely known to what places they were led into slavery.\n\nIt is but twenty leagues from the town of Samaria to Jerusalem, and\ntheir territories joined each other; so that when one of these towns was\nenslaved by powerful conquerors, the other could not long hold out.\nJerusalem was sacked several times; it was tributary to kings Hazael and\nRazin, enslaved under Tiglath-Pileser, three times taken by\nNebuchodonosor, or Nebuchadnezzar, and at last destroyed. Zedekiah, who\nhad been set up as king or governor by this conqueror, was led, with his\nwhole people, into captivity in Babylonia; so that the only Jews left in\nPalestine were a few enslaved peasants, to sow the ground.\n\nAs for the little country of Samaria and Sichem, more fertile than that\nof Jerusalem, it was re-peopled by foreign colonies, sent there by\nAssyrian kings, who took the name of Samaritans.\n\nThe two and a half tribes that were slaves in Babylonia and the\nneighboring towns for seventy years, had time to adopt the usages of\ntheir masters, and enriched their own tongue by mixing with it the\nChald\u00e6an; this is incontestable. The historian Josephus tells us that he\nwrote first in Chald\u00e6an, which is the language of his country. It\nappears that the Jews acquired but little of the science of the Magi;\nthey turned brokers, money-changers, and old-clothes men; by which they\nmade themselves necessary, as they still do, and grew rich.\n\nTheir gains enabled them to obtain, under Cyrus, the liberty of\nrebuilding Jerusalem; but when they were to return into their own\ncountry, those who had grown rich at Babylon, would not quit so fine a\ncountry for the mountains of C\u0153lesyria, nor the fruitful banks of the\nEuphrates and the Tigris, for the torrent of Kedron. Only the meanest\npart of the nation returned with Zorobabel. The Jews of Babylon\ncontributed only their alms to the rebuilding of the city and the\ntemple; nor was the collection a large one; for Esdras relates that no\nmore than seventy thousand crowns could be raised for the erection of\nthis temple, which was to be that of all the earth.\n\nThe Jews still remained subject to the Persians; they were likewise\nsubject to Alexander; and when that great man, the most excusable of all\nconquerors, had, in the early years of his victorious career, begun to\nraise Alexandria, and make it the centre of the commerce of the world,\nthe Jews flocked there to exercise their trade of brokers; and there it\nwas that their rabbis at length learned something of the sciences of the\nGreeks. The Greek tongue became absolutely necessary to all trading\nJews.\n\nAfter Alexander's death, this people continued subject in Jerusalem to\nthe kings of Syria, and in Alexandria to the kings of Egypt; and when\nthese kings were at war, this people always shared the fate of their\nsubjects, and belonged to the conqueror.\n\nFrom the time of their captivity at Babylon, the Jews never had\nparticular governors taking the title of king. The pontiffs had the\ninternal administration, and these pontiffs were appointed by their\nmasters; they sometimes paid very high for this dignity, as the Greek\npatriarch at Constantinople pays for his at present.\n\nUnder Antiochus Epiphanes they revolted; the city was once more\npillaged, and the walls demolished. After a succession of similar\ndisasters, they at length obtained, for the first time, about a hundred\nand fifty years before the Christian era, permission to coin money,\nwhich permission was granted them by Antiochus Sidetes. They then had\nchiefs, who took the name of kings, and even wore a diadem. Antigonus\nwas the first who was decorated with this ornament, which, without the\npower, confers but little honor.\n\nAt that time the Romans were beginning to become formidable to the kings\nof Syria, masters of the Jews; and the latter gained over the Roman\nsenate by presents and acts of submission. It seemed that the wars in\nAsia Minor would, for a time at least, give some relief to this\nunfortunate people; but Jerusalem no sooner enjoyed some shadow of\nliberty than it was torn by civil wars, which rendered its condition\nunder its phantoms of kings much more pitiable than it had ever been in\nso long and various a succession of bondages.\n\nIn their intestine troubles, they made the Romans their judges. Already\nmost of the kingdoms of Asia Minor, Southern Africa, and three-fourths\nof Europe, acknowledged the Romans as their arbiters and masters.\n\nPompey came into Syria to judge the nation and to depose several petty\ntyrants. Being deceived by Aristobulus, who disputed the royalty of\nJerusalem, he avenged himself upon him and his party. He took the city;\nhad some of the seditious, either priests or Pharisees, crucified; and\nnot long after, condemned Aristobulus, king of the Jews, to execution.\n\nThe Jews, ever unfortunate, ever enslaved, and ever revolting, again\nbrought upon them the Roman arms. Crassus and Cassius punished them; and\nMetellus Scipio had a son of King Aristobulus, named Alexander, the\nauthor of all the troubles, crucified.\n\nUnder the great C\u00e6sar, they were entirely subject and peaceable. Herod,\nfamed among them and among us, for a long time was merely tetrarch, but\nobtained from Antony the crown of Jud\u00e6a, for which he paid dearly; but\nJerusalem would not recognize this new king, because he was descended\nfrom Esau, and not from Jacob, and was merely an Idum\u00e6an. The very\ncircumstance of his being a foreigner caused him to be chosen by the\nRomans, the better to keep this people in check. The Romans protected\nthe king of their nomination with an army; and Jerusalem was again taken\nby assault, sacked, and pillaged.\n\nHerod, afterwards protected by Augustus, became one of the most powerful\nsovereigns among the petty kings of Arabia. He restored Jerusalem,\nrepaired the fortifications that surrounded the temple, so dear to the\nJews, and rebuilt the temple itself; but he could not finish it, for he\nwanted money and workmen. This proves that, after all, Herod was not\nrich; and the Jews, though fond of their temple, were still fonder of\ntheir money.\n\nThe name of king was nothing more than a favor granted by the Romans; it\nwas not a title of succession. Soon after Herod's death, Jud\u00e6a was\ngoverned as a subordinate Roman province, by the proconsul of Syria,\nalthough from time to time the title of king was granted, sometimes to\none Jew, sometimes to another, for a considerable sum of money, as under\nthe emperor Claudius, when it was granted to the Jew Agrippa.\n\nA daughter of Agrippa was that Berenice, celebrated for having been\nbeloved by one of the best emperors Rome can boast. She it was who, by\nthe injustice she experienced from her countrymen, drew down the\nvengeance of the Romans upon Jerusalem. She asked for justice, and the\nfactions of the town refused it. The seditious spirit of the people\nimpelled them to fresh excesses. Their character at all times was to be\ncruel; and their fate, to be punished.\n\nThis memorable siege, which ended in the destruction of the city, was\ncarried on by Vespasian and Titus. The exaggerating Josephus pretends\nthat in this short war more than a million of Jews were slaughtered. It\nis not to be wondered at that an author who puts fifteen thousand men in\neach village should slay a million. What remained were exposed in the\npublic markets; and each Jew was sold at about the same price as the\nunclean animal of which they dare not eat.\n\nIn this last dispersion they again hoped for a deliverer; and under\nAdrian, whom they curse in their prayers, there arose one Barcochebas,\nwho called himself a second Moses--a Shiloh--a Christ. Having assembled\nmany of these wretched people under his banners, which they believed to\nbe sacred, he perished with all his followers. It was the last struggle\nof this nation, which has never lifted its head again. Its constant\nopinion, that barrenness is a reproach, has preserved it; the Jews have\never considered as their two first duties, to get money and children.\n\nFrom this short summary it results that the Hebrews have ever been\nvagrants, or robbers, or slaves, or seditious. They are still vagabonds\nupon the earth, and abhorred by men, yet affirming that heaven and\nearth and all mankind were created for them alone.\n\nIt is evident, from the situation of Jud\u00e6a, and the genius of this\npeople, that they could not but be continually subjugated. It was\nsurrounded by powerful and warlike nations, for which it had an\naversion; so that it could neither be in alliance with them, nor\nprotected by them. It was impossible for it to maintain itself by its\nmarine; for it soon lost the port which in Solomon's time it had on the\nRed Sea; and Solomon himself always employed Tyrians to build and to\nsteer his vessels, as well as to erect his palace and his temple. It is\nthen manifest that the Hebrews had neither trade nor manufactures, and\nthat they could not compose a flourishing people. They never had an army\nalways ready for the field, like the Assyrians, the Medes, the Persians,\nthe Syrians, and the Romans. The laborers and artisans took up arms only\nas occasion required, and consequently could not form well-disciplined\ntroops. Their mountains, or rather their rocks, are neither high enough,\nnor sufficiently contiguous, to have afforded an effectual barrier\nagainst invasion. The most numerous part of the nation, transported to\nBabylon, Persia, and to India, or settled in Alexandria, were too much\noccupied with their traffic and their brokerage to think of war. Their\ncivil government, sometimes republican, sometimes pontifical, sometimes\nmonarchial, and very often reduced to anarchy, seems to have been no\nbetter than their military discipline.\n\nYou ask, what was the philosophy of the Hebrews? The answer will be a\nvery short one--they had none. Their legislator himself does not\nanywhere speak expressly of the immortality of the soul, nor of the\nrewards of another life. Josephus and Philo believe the soul to be\nmaterial; their doctors admitted corporeal angels; and when they\nsojourned at Babylon, they gave to these angels the names given them by\nthe Chald\u00e6ans--Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel. The name of Satan is\nBabylonian, and is in somewise the Arimanes of Zoroaster. The name of\nAsmodeus also is Chald\u00e6an; and Tobit, who lived in Nineveh, is the first\nwho employed it. The dogma of the immortality of the soul was developed\nonly in the course of ages, and among the Pharisees. The Sadducees\nalways denied this spirituality, this immortality, and the existence of\nthe angels. Nevertheless, the Sadducees communicated uninterruptedly\nwith the Pharisees, and had even sovereign pontiffs of their own sect.\nThe prodigious difference in opinion between these two great bodies did\nnot cause any disturbance. The Jews, in the latter times of their\nsojourn at Jerusalem, were scrupulously attached to nothing but the\nceremonials of their law. The man who had eaten pudding or rabbit would\nhave been stoned; while he who denied the immortality of the soul might\nbe high-priest.\n\nIt is commonly said that the abhorrence in which the Jews held other\nnations proceeded from their horror of idolatry; but it is much more\nlikely that the manner in which they at the first exterminated some of\nthe tribes of Canaan, and the hatred which the neighboring nations\nconceived for them, were the cause of this invincible aversion. As they\nknew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that in abhorring them\nthey detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the\nenemies of all men.\n\nOne proof that this hatred was not caused by the idolatry of the nations\nis that we find in the history of the Jews that they were very often\nidolaters. Solomon himself sacrificed to strange gods. After him, we\nfind scarcely any king in the little province of Judah that does not\npermit the worship of these gods and offer them incense. The province of\nIsrael kept its two calves and its sacred groves, or adored other\ndivinities.\n\nThis idolatry, with which so many nations are reproached, is a subject\non which but little light has been thrown. Perhaps it would not be\ndifficult to efface this stain upon the theology of the ancients. All\npolished nations had the knowledge of a supreme God, the master of the\ninferior gods and of men. The Egyptians themselves recognized a first\nprinciple, which they called Knef, and to which all beside was\nsubordinate. The ancient Persians adored the good principle, named\nOrosmanes; and were very far from sacrificing to the bad principle,\nArimanes, whom they regarded nearly as we regard the devil. Even to this\nday, the Guebers have retained the sacred dogma of the unity of God. The\nancient Brahmins acknowledged one only Supreme Being; the Chinese\nassociated no inferior being with the Divinity, nor had any idol until\nthe times when the populace were Jed astray by the worship of Fo, and\nthe superstitions of the bonzes. The Greeks and the Romans,\nnotwithstanding the multitude of their gods, acknowledged in Jupiter the\nabsolute sovereign of heaven and earth. Homer, himself in the most\nabsurd poetical fictions, has never lost sight of this truth. He\nconstantly represents Jupiter as the only Almighty, sending good and\nevil upon earth, and, with a motion of his brow, striking gods and men\nwith awe. Altars were raised, and sacrifices offered to inferior gods,\ndependent on the one supreme. There is not a single monument of\nantiquity in which the title of sovereign of heaven is given to any\nsecondary deity--to Mercury, to Apollo, to Mars. The thunderbolt was\never the attribute of the master of all, and of him only.\n\nThe idea of a sovereign being, of his providence, of his eternal\ndecrees, is to be found among all philosophers and all poets. In short,\nit is perhaps as unjust to think that the ancients equalled the heroes,\nthe genii, the inferior gods, to him whom they called \"the father and\nmaster of the gods,\" as it would be ridiculous to imagine that we\nassociate with God the blessed and the angels.\n\nYou then ask whether the ancient philosophers and law-givers borrowed\nfrom the Jews, or the Jews from them? We must refer the question to\nPhilo; he owns that before the translation of the Septuagint the books\nof his nation were unknown to strangers. A great people cannot have\nreceived their laws and their knowledge from a little people, obscure\nand enslaved. In the time of Osias, indeed, the Jews had no books; in\nhis reign was accidentally found the only copy of the law then in\nexistence. This people, after their captivity at Babylon, had no other\nalphabet than the Chald\u00e6an; they were not famed for any art, any\nmanufacture whatsoever; and even in the time of Solomon they were\nobliged to pay dear for foreign artisans. To say that the Egyptians, the\nPersians, the Greeks, were instructed by the Jews, were to say that the\nRomans learned the arts from the people of Brittany. The Jews never were\nnatural philosophers, nor geometricians, nor astronomers. So far were\nthey from having public schools for the instruction of youth, that they\nhad not even a term in their language to express such an institution.\nThe people of Peru and Mexico measured their year much better than the\nJews. Their stay in Babylon and in Alexandria, during which individuals\nmight instruct themselves, formed the people to no art save that of\nusury. They never knew how to stamp money; and when Antiochus Sidetes\npermitted them to have a coinage of their own, they were almost\nincapable of profiting by this permission for four or five years;\nindeed, this coin is said to have been struck at Samaria. Hence, it is,\nthat Jewish medals are so rare, and nearly all false. In short, we find\nin them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the\nmost sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most\ninvincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and\nenriched. Still, we ought not to burn them.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_The Jewish Law._\n\nTheir law must appear, to every polished people, as singular as their\nconduct; if it were not divine, it would seem to be the law of savages\nbeginning to assemble themselves into a nation; and being divine, one\ncannot understand how it is that it has not existed from all ages, for\nthem, and for all men.\n\nBut it is more strange than all that the immortality of the soul is not\neven intimated in this law, entitled \"Vaicrah and Addebarim,\" Leviticus\nand Deuteronomy.\n\nIn this law it is forbidden to eat eels, because they have no scales;\nand hares, because they chew the cud, and have cloven feet. Apparently,\nthe Jews had hares different from ours. The griffin is unclean, and\nfour-footed birds are unclean, which animals are somewhat rare. Whoever\ntouches a mouse, or a mole is unclean. The women are forbidden to lie\nwith horses or asses. The Jewish women must have been subject to this\nsort of gallantry. The men are forbidden to offer up their seed to\nMoloch; and here the term seed is not metaphorical. It seems that it was\ncustomary, in the deserts of Arabia, to offer up this singular present\nto the gods; as it is said to be usual in Cochin and some other\ncountries of India, for the girls to yield their virginity to an iron\nPriapus in a temple. These two ceremonies prove that mankind is capable\nof everything. The Kaffirs, who deprive themselves of one testicle, are\na still more ridiculous example of the extravagance of superstition.\n\nAnother law of the Jews, equally strange, is their proof of adultery. A\nwoman accused by her husband must be presented to the priests, and she\nis made to drink of the waters of jealousy, mixed with worm-wood and\ndust. If she is innocent, the water makes her more beautiful; if she is\nguilty, her eyes start from her head, her belly swells, and she bursts\nbefore the Lord.\n\nWe shall not here enter into the details of all these sacrifices, which\nwere nothing more than the operations of ceremonial butchers; but it of\ngreat importance to remark another kind of sacrifice too common in those\nbarbarous times. It is expressly ordered, in the twenty-seventh chapter\nof Leviticus, that all men, vowed in anathema to the Lord, be immolated;\nthey \"shall surely be put to death\"; such are the words of the text.\nHere is the origin of the story of Jephthah, whether his daughter was\nreally immolated, or the story was copied from that of Iphigenia. Here,\ntoo, is the source of the vow made by Saul, who would have immolated his\nson, but that the army, less superstitious than himself, saved the\ninnocent young man's life.\n\nIt is then but too true that the Jews, according to their law,\nsacrificed human victims. This act of religion is in accordance with\ntheir manners; their own books represent them as slaughtering without\nmercy all that came in their way, reserving only the virgins for their\nuse.\n\nIt would be very difficult--and should be very unimportant--to know at\nwhat time these laws were digested into the form in which we now have\nthem. That they are of very high antiquity is enough to inform us how\ngross and ferocious the manners of that antiquity were.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_The Dispersion of the Jews._\n\nIt has been pretended that the dispersion of this people had been\nforetold, as a punishment for their refusing to acknowledge Jesus Christ\nas the Messiah; the asserters affecting to forget that they had been\ndispersed throughout the known world long before Jesus Christ. The books\nthat are left us of this singular nation make no mention of a return of\nthe twelve tribes transported beyond the Euphrates by Tiglath-Pileser\nand his successor Shalmaneser; and it was six hundred years after, that\nCyrus sent back to Jerusalem the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which\nNebuchodonosor had brought away into the provinces of his empire. The\nActs of the Apostles certify that fifty-three days after the death of\nJesus Christ, there were Jews from every nation under heaven assembled\nfor the feast of Pentecost. St. James writes to the twelve dispersed\ntribes; and Josephus and Philo speak of the Jews as very numerous\nthroughout the East.\n\nIt is true that, considering the carnage that was made of them under\nsome of the Roman emperors, and the slaughter of them so often repeated\nin every Christian state, one is astonished that this people not only\nstill exists, but is at this day no less numerous than it was formerly.\nTheir numbers must be attributed to their exemption from bearing arms,\ntheir ardor for marriage, their custom of contracting it in their\nfamilies early, their law of divorce, their sober and regular way of\nlife, their abstinence, their toil, and their exercise.\n\nTheir firm attachment to the Mosaic law is no less remarkable,\nespecially when we consider their frequent apostasies when they lived\nunder the government of their kings and their judges; and Judaism is\nnow, of all the religions in the world, the one most rarely\nabjured--which is partly the fruit of the persecutions it has suffered.\nIts followers, perpetual martyrs to their creed, have regarded\nthemselves with progressively increasing confidence, as the fountain of\nall sanctity; looking upon us as no other than rebellious Jews, who have\nabjured the law of God, and put to death or torture those who received\nit from His hand.\n\nIndeed, if while Jerusalem and its temple existed, the Jews were\nsometimes driven from their country by the vicissitudes of empires, they\nhave still more frequently been expelled through a blind zeal from every\ncountry in which they have dwelt since the progress of Christianity and\nMahometanism. They themselves compare their religion to a mother, upon\nwhom her two daughters, the Christian and the Mahometan, have inflicted\na thousand wounds. But, how ill soever she has been treated by them, she\nstill glories in having given them birth. She makes use of them both to\nembrace the whole world, while her own venerable age embraces all time.\n\nIt is singular that the Christians pretend to have accomplished the\nprophecies by tyrannizing over the Jews, by whom they were transmitted.\nWe have already seen how the Inquisition banished the Jews from Spain.\nObliged to wander from land to land, from sea to sea, to gain a\nlivelihood; everywhere declared incapable of possessing any landed\nproperty, or holding any office, they have been obliged to disperse, and\nroam from place to place, unable to establish themselves permanently in\nany country, for want of support, of power to maintain their ground, and\nof knowledge in the art of war. Trade, a profession long despised by\nmost of the nations of Europe, was, in those barbarous ages, their only\nresource; and as they necessarily grew rich by it, they were treated as\ninfamous usurers. Kings who could not ransack the purses of their\nsubjects, put the Jews, whom they regarded not as citizens, to torture.\n\nWhat was done to them in England may give some idea of what they\nexperienced in other countries. King John, being in want of money, had\nthe rich Jews in his kingdom imprisoned. One of them, having had seven\nof his teeth drawn one after another, to obtain his property, gave, on\nlosing the eighth, a thousand marks of silver. Henry III. extorted from\nAaron, a Jew of York, fourteen thousand marks of silver, and ten\nthousand for his queen. He sold the rest of the Jews of his country to\nhis brother Richard, for the term of one year, in order, says Matthew\nParis, that this count might disembowel those whom his brother had\nflayed.\n\nIn France they were put in prison, plundered, sold, accused of magic, of\nsacrificing children, of poisoning the fountains. They were driven out\nof the kingdom; they were suffered to return for money; and even while\nthey were tolerated, they were distinguished from the rest of the\ninhabitants by marks of infamy. And, by an inconceivable whimsicality,\nwhile in other countries the Jews were burned to make them embrace\nChristianity, in France the property of such as became Christians was\nconfiscated. Charles IV., by an edict given at Basville, April 4, 1392,\nabrogated this tyrannical custom, which, according to the Benedictine\nMabillon, had been introduced for two reasons:\n\nFirst, to try the faith of these new converts, as it was but too common\nfor those of this nation to feign submission to the gospel for some\npersonal interest, without internally changing their belief.\n\nSecondly, because as they had derived their wealth chiefly from usury,\nthe purity of Christian morals appeared to require them to make a\ngeneral restitution, which was effected by confiscation.\n\nBut the true reason of this custom, which the author of the \"Spirit of\nLaws\" has so well developed, was a sort of \"_droit d'amortissement_\"--a\nredemption for the sovereign, or the seigneurs, of the taxes which they\nlevied on the Jews, as mortmainable serfs, whom they succeeded; for they\nwere deprived of this benefit when the latter were converted to the\nChristian faith.\n\nAt length, being incessantly proscribed in every country, they\ningeniously found the means of saving their fortunes and making their\nretreats forever secure. Being driven from France under Philip the Long,\nin 1318, they took refuge in Lombardy; there they gave to the merchants\nbills of exchange on those to whom they had entrusted their effects at\ntheir departure, and these were discharged.\n\nThe admirable invention of bills of exchange sprang from the extremity\nof despair; and then, and not until then, commerce was enabled to elude\nthe efforts of violence, and to maintain itself throughout the world.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_In Answer to Some Objections._\n\n_Letters to Joseph, Ben, Jonathan, Aaron, Mathatai, and David Wincker._\n\n\nFIRST LETTER.\n\nGentlemen: When, forty-four years ago, your countryman Medina became a\nbankrupt in London, being twenty thousand francs in my debt, he told me\nthat \"it was not his fault; that he was unfortunate\"; that \"he had never\nbeen one of the children of Belial\"; that \"he had always endeavored to\nlive as a son of God\"--that is, as an honest man, a good Israelite. I\nwas affected; I embraced him; we joined in the praise of God; and I lost\neighty per cent.\n\nYou ought to know that I never hated your nation; I hate no one; not\neven Fr\u00e9ron.\n\nFar from hating, I have always pitied you. If, like my protector, good\nPope Lambertini, I have sometimes bantered a little, I am not therefore\nthe less sensitive. I wept, at the age of sixteen, when I was told that\na mother and her daughter had been burned at Lisbon for having eaten,\nstanding, a little lamb, cooked with lettuce, on the fourteenth day of\nthe red moon; and I can assure you that the extreme beauty that this\ngirl was reported to have possessed, had no share in calling forth my\ntears, although it must have increased the spectators' horror for the\nassassins, and their pity for the victim.\n\nI know not how it entered my head to write an epic poem at the age of\ntwenty. (Do you know what an epic poem is? For my part I knew nothing of\nthe matter.) The legislator Montesquieu had not yet written his \"Persian\nLetters,\" which you reproach me with having commented on; but I had\nalready of myself said, speaking of a monster well known to your\nancestors, and which even now is not without devotees:\n\n       _Il vient; le fanatisme est son horrible nom;_\n     _Enfant d\u00e9natur\u00e9 de la religion;_\n     _Arm\u00e9 pour la d\u00e9fendre, il cherche \u00e0 la d\u00e9truire,_\n     _Et re\u00e7u dans son sein, l'embrasse et le d\u00e9chire,_\n\n     _C'est lui qui dans Raba, sur les bords de l'Arnon_\n     _Guidait les descendans du malheureux Ammon,_\n     _Quand \u00e0 Moloch leur dieu des m\u00e8res g\u00e9missantes_\n     _Offraient de leurs enfans les entrailles fumantes._\n     _Il dicta de Jepht\u00e9 le serment inhumain;_\n     _Dans le c\u0153ur de sa fille il conduisait sa main._\n     _C'est lui qui, de Calchas ouvrant la bouche impie_\n     _Demanda par sa voix la mort d'Iphig\u00e9nie._\n     _France, dans tes for\u00eats il habita long-temps,_\n     _\u00c0 l'affreux Tentat\u00e8s il offrit ton encens._\n     _Tu n'a point oubli\u00e9 ces sacres homicides,_\n     _Qu' \u00e0 tes indignes dieux pr\u00e9sentaient tes druides._\n     _Du haut du capitole il criait aux Pa\u00efens._\n     _\"Frappez, exterminez, d\u00e9chirez les chr\u00e9tiens.\"_\n     _Mais lorsqu'au fils de Dieu Rome enfin, fut soumise,_\n     _Du capitole en cendre il passa dans l'Eglise;_\n     _Et dans les c\u0153urs chr\u00e9tiens inspirant ses fureurs,_\n     _De martyrs qu'ils \u00e9taient les fit pers\u00e9cuteurs._\n     _Dans Londres il a form\u00e9 la secte turbulente_\n     _Qui sur un roi trop faible a mis sa main sanglante;_\n     _Dans Madrid, dans Lisbonne, il allume ces feux,_\n     _Ces buchers solennels o\u00f9 des Juifs malheureux_\n     _Sont tous les ans en pompe envoy\u00e9s par des pr\u00eatres,_\n     _Pour n'avoir point quitt\u00e9 la foi de leurs anc\u00eatres._\n\n       He comes; the fiend Fanaticism comes--\n     Religion's horrid and unnatural child--\n     Armed to defend her, arming to destroy--\n     Tearing her bosom in his feigned embrace.\n\n       'Twas he who guided Amnion's wretched race\n     On Anion's banks, where mothers offered up\n     Their children's mangled limbs on Moloch's altars.\n     'Twas he who prompted Jephthah's barbarous oath,\n     And aimed the poniard at his daughter's heart.\n     'Twas he who spoke, when Calchas' impious tongue\n     Called for the blameless Iphigenia's death.\n     France, he long revelled in thy forest shades,\n     Offering thy incense to the grim Tent\u00e2tes,\n     Whetting the savage Druid's murderous knife\n     To sate his worthless gods with human gore.\n     He, from the Capitol, stirred Pagan hearts\n     To exterminate Christ's followers; and he,\n     When Rome herself had bowed to Christian truth,\n     Quitted the Capitol to rule the church--\n     To reign supreme in every Christian soul,\n     And make the Pagans martyrs in their turn.\n     His were in England the fierce sect who laid\n     Their bloody hands on a too feeble king.\n     His are Madrid's and Lisbon's horrid fires,\n     The yearly portion of unhappy Jews,\n     By priestly judges doomed to temporal flames\n     For thinking their forefathers' faith the best.\n\nYou clearly see, then, that even so long ago I was your servant, your\nfriend, your brother; although my father and mother had preserved to me\nmy fore-skin.\n\nI am aware that virility, whether circumcised or uncircumcised, has\ncaused very fatal quarrels. I know what it cost Priam's son Paris, and\nAgamemnon's brother Menelaus. I have read enough of your books to know\nthat Hamor's son Sichem ravished Leah's daughter Dinah, who at most was\nnot more than five years old, but was very forward for her age. He\nwanted to make her his wife; and Jacob's sons, brothers of the violated\ndamsel, gave her to him in marriage on condition that he and all his\npeople should be circumcised. When the operation was performed, and all\nthe Sichemites, or Sechemites, were lying-in of the pains consequent\nthereupon, the holy patriarchs Simeon and Levi cut all their throats one\nafter another. But, after all, I do not believe that uncircumcision\nought now to produce such abominable horrors; and especially I do not\nthink that men should hate, detest, anathematize, and damn one another\nevery Saturday and Sunday, on account of a morsel more or less of flesh.\n\nIf I have said that some of the circumcised have clipped money at Metz,\nat Frankfort on the Oder, and at Warsaw (which I do not remember) I ask\ntheir pardon; for, being almost at the end of my pilgrimage, I have no\nwish to embroil myself with Israel.\n\nI have the honor to be (as they say),\n\n                                        Yours, etc.\n\n\nSECOND LETTER.\n\n_Antiquity of the Jews._\n\nGentlemen: I have ever agreed, having read a few historical books for\namusement, that you are a very ancient people, and your origin may be\ndated much farther back than that of the Teutones, the Celts, the\nSlavonians, the Angles, and Hurons. I see you assembling as a people in\na capital called, sometimes Hershala\u00efm, sometimes Shaheb, on the hill\nMoriah, and on the hill Sion, near a desert, on a stony soil, by a\nsmall torrent which is dry six months of the year.\n\nWhen you began to-establish yourselves in your corner, I will not say of\nland, but of pebbles, Troy had been destroyed by the Greeks about two\ncenturies.\n\nMedon was archon of Athens. Echestratus was reigning in Laced\u00e6mon.\nLatinus Sylvius was reigning in Latium; and Osochor in Egypt. The Indies\nhad been flourishing for a long succession of ages.\n\nThis was the most illustrious period of Chinese history. The emperor\nTchin-wang was reigning with glory over that vast empire; all the\nsciences were there cultivated; and the public annals inform us that the\nking of Cochin China, being come to pay his respects to this emperor,\nTchin-wang, received from him a present of a mariner's compass. This\ncompass might have been of great service to your Solomon, for his fleets\nthat went to the fine country of Ophir, which no one has ever known\nanything about.\n\nThus, after the Chald\u00e6ans, the Syrians, the Persians, the Phoenicians,\nthe Egyptians, the Greeks, the Indians, the Chinese, the Latins, and the\nEtruscans, you are the first people upon earth who had any known form of\ngovernment.\n\nThe Banians, the Guebers, and yourselves, are the only nations which,\ndispersed out of their own country, have preserved their ancient rites;\nif I make no account of the little Egyptian troops, called Zingari in\nItaly, Gypsies in England, and Bohemians in France, which had preserved\nthe antique ceremonies of the worship of Isis, the sistrum, the cymbals,\nthe dance of Isis, the prophesying, and the art of robbing hen-roosts.\n\nThese sacred troops are beginning to disappear from the face of the\nearth; while their pyramids still belong to the Turks, who perhaps will\nnot always be masters of them--the figure of all things on this earth\ndoth so pass away.\n\nYou say, that you have been settled in Spain ever since the days of\nSolomon: I believe it, and will even venture to think that the\nPh\u0153nicians might have carried some Jews thither long before, when you\nwere slaves in Ph\u0153nicia, after the horrid massacres which you say\nwere committed by the robber Joshua, and by that other robber Caleb.\n\nYour books indeed say, that you were reduced to slavery under\nChushan-Rashataim, king of Mesopotamia, for eight years; under Eglon,\nking of Moab, for eighteen years; then under Jabin, king of Canaan, for\ntwenty years; then in the little canton of Midian, from which you had\nissued, and where you dwelt in caverns, for seven years; then in Gilead,\nfor eighteen years--notwithstanding that Jair, your prince, had thirty\nsons, each mounted on a fine ass--then under the Ph\u0153nicians (called\nby you Philistines), for forty years--until at last the Lord Adonai sent\nSamson, who tied three hundred foxes, one to another by the tails, and\nslew a thousand Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass, from which\nissued a fountain of clear water; which has been very well represented\nat the Com\u00e9die Italienne.\n\nHere are, by your own confession, ninety-six years of captivity in the\nland of promise. Now it is very probable that the Syrians, who were the\nfactors for all nations, and navigated as far as the great ocean, bought\nsome Jewish slaves, and took them to Cadiz, which they founded. You see\nthat you are much more ancient than you think. It is indeed very likely\nthat you inhabited Spain several centuries before the Romans, the Goths,\nthe Vandals, and the Moors.\n\nI am not only your friend, your brother, but moreover your genealogist.\nI beg, gentlemen, that you will have the goodness to believe, that I\nnever have believed, I do not believe, and I never will believe, that\nyou are descended from those highway robbers whose ears and noses were\ncut off by order of King Actisanes, and whom, according to Diodorus of\nSicily, he sent into the desert between Lake Sirbo and Mount Sinai--a\nfrightful desert where water and every other necessary of life are\nwanting. They made nets to catch quails, which fed them for a few weeks,\nduring the passage of the birds.\n\nSome of the learned have pretended that this origin perfectly agrees\nwith your history. You yourselves say, that you inhabited this desert,\nthat there you wanted water, and lived on quails, which in reality\nabound there. Your accounts appear in the main to confirm that of\nDiodorus; but I believe only the Pentateuch. The author does not say\nthat you had your ears and noses cut off. As far as I remember, (for I\nhave not Diodorus at hand), you lost only your noses. I do not now\nrecollect where I read that your ears were of the party; it might be in\nsome fragments of Manetho, cited by St. Ephraem.\n\nIn vain does the secretary, who has done me the honor of writing to me\nin your name, assure me that you stole to the amount of upwards of nine\nmillions in gold, coined or carved, to go and set up your tabernacle in\nthe desert. I maintain, that you carried off nothing but what lawfully\nbelonged to you, reckoning interest at forty per cent., which was the\nlawful rate.\n\nBe this as it may, I certify that you are of very good nobility, and\nthat you were lords of Hershala\u00efm long before the houses of Suabia,\nAnhalt, Saxony, and Bavaria were heard of.\n\nIt may be that the negroes of Angola, and those of Guinea, are much more\nancient than you, and that they adored a beautiful serpent before the\nEgyptians knew their Isis, and you dwelt near Lake Sirbo; but the\nnegroes have not yet communicated their books to us.\n\n\nTHIRD LETTER.\n\n_On a few Crosses which befell God's People._\n\nFar from accusing you, gentlemen, I have always regarded you with\ncompassion. Permit me here to remind you of what I have read in the\npreliminary discourse to the \"Essay on the Spirit and Manners of\nNations,\" and on general history. Here we find, that two hundred and\nthirty-nine thousand and twenty Jews were slaughtered by one another,\nfrom the worshipping of the golden calf to the taking of the ark by the\nPhilistines--which cost fifty thousand and seventy Jews their lives, for\nhaving dared to look upon the ark, while those who had so insolently\ntaken it in war, were acquitted with only the piles, and a fine of five\ngolden mice, and five golden anuses. You will not deny that the\nslaughter of two hundred and thirty-nine thousand and twenty men, by\nyour fellow-countrymen, without reckoning those whom you lost in\nalternate war and slavery, must have been very detrimental to a rising\ncolony.\n\nHow should I do otherwise than pity you? seeing that ten of your tribes\nwere absolutely annihilated, or perhaps reduced to two hundred families,\nwhich, it is said, are to be found in China and Tartary. As for the two\nother tribes, I need not tell you what has happened to them. Suffer then\nmy compassion, and do not impute to me ill-will.\n\n\nFOURTH LETTER.\n\n_The Story of Micah._\n\nBe not displeased at my asking from you some elucidation of a singular\npassage in your history, with which the ladies of Paris and people of\nfashion are but slightly acquainted.\n\nYour Moses had not been dead quite thirty-eight years when the mother\nof Micah, of the tribe of Benjamin, lost eleven hundred shekels, which\nare said to be equivalent to about six hundred livres of our money. Her\nson returned them to her; the text does not inform us that he had not\nstolen them. The good Jewess immediately had them made into idols, and,\naccording to custom, built them a little movable chapel. A Levite of\nBethlehem offered himself to perform the service for ten francs per\nannum, two tunics, and his victuals.\n\nA tribe (afterwards called the tribe of Dan) searching that neighborhood\nfor something to plunder, passed near Micah's house. The men of Dan,\nknowing that Micah's mother had in her house a priest, a seer, a\ndiviner, a rho\u00eb, inquired of him if their excursion would be lucky--if\nthey should find a good booty. The Levite promised them complete\nsuccess. They began by robbing Micah's chapel, and took from her even\nher Levite. In vain did Micah and his mother cry out: \"You are carrying\naway my gods! You are stealing my priest!\" The robbers silenced them,\nand went, through devotion, to put to fire and sword the little town of\nDan, whose name this tribe adopted.\n\nThese freebooters were very grateful to Micah's gods, which had done\nthem such good service, and placed them in a new tabernacle. The crowd\nof devotees increasing, a new priest was wanted, and one presented\nhimself. Those who are not conversant with your history will never\ndivine who this chaplain was: but, gentlemen, _you_ know that it was\nMoses' own grandson, one Jonathan, son of Gershom, son of Moses and\nJethro's daughter.\n\nYou will agree with me, that the family of Moses was rather a singular\none. His brother, at the age of one hundred, cast a golden calf and\nworshipped it; and his grandson turned chaplain to the idols for money.\nDoes not this prove that your religion was not yet formed, and that you\nwere a long time groping in the dark before you became perfect\nIsraelites as you now are?\n\nTo my question you answer, that our Simon Peter Barjonas did as much;\nthat he commenced his apostleship with denying his master. I have\nnothing to reply, except it be, that we must always distrust ourselves;\nand so great is my own self-distrust, that I conclude my letter with\nassuring you of my utmost indulgence, and requesting yours.\n\n\nFIFTH LETTER.\n\n_Jewish Assassinations. Were the Jews Cannibals? Had their Mothers\nCommerce with Goats? Did their Fathers and Mothers Immolate their\nChildren? With a few other fine Actions of God's People._\n\nGentlemen,--I have been somewhat uncourteous to your secretary. It is\nagainst the rules of politeness to scold a servant in the presence of\nhis master; but self-important ignorance is revolting in a Christian who\nmakes himself the servant of a Jew. I address myself directly to you,\nthat I may have nothing more to do with your livery.\n\n_Jewish Calamities and Great Assassinations._\n\nPermit me, in the first place, to lament over all your calamities; for,\nbesides the two hundred and thirty-nine thousand and twenty Israelites\nkilled by order of the Lord, I find that Jephthah's daughter was\nimmolated by her father. Turn which way you please--twixt the text as\nyou will--dispute as you like against the fathers of the Church; still\nhe did to her as he had vowed; and he had vowed to cut his daughter's\nthroat in thanksgiving to God. An excellent thanksgiving!\n\nYes, you have immolated human victims to the Lord; but be consoled; I\nhave often told you that our Celts and all nations have done so\nformerly. What says M. de Bougainville, who has returned from the island\nof Otaheite--that island of Cytherea, whose inhabitants, peaceful, mild,\nhumane, and hospitable, offer to the traveller all that they\npossess--the most delicious of fruits--the most beautiful and most\nobliging of women? He tells us that these people have their jugglers;\nand that these jugglers force them to sacrifice their children to apes,\nwhich they call their gods.\n\nI find that seventy brothers of Abimelech were put to death on the same\nstone by this Abimelech, the son of Gideon and a prostitute. This son of\nGideon was a bad kinsman, and this Gideon, the friend of God, was very\ndebauched.\n\nYour Levite going on his ass to Gibeah--the Gibeonites wanting to\nviolate him--his poor wife violated in his stead, and dying in\nconsequence--the civil war that ensued--all your tribe of Benjamin\nexterminated, saving only six hundred men--give me inexpressible pain.\n\nYou lost, all at once, five fine towns which the Lord destined for you,\nat the end of the lake of Sodom; and that for an inconceivable attempt\nupon the modesty of two angels. Really, this is much worse than what\nyour mothers are accused of with the goats. How should I have other than\nthe greatest pity for you, when I find murder and bestiality established\nagainst your ancestors, who are our first spiritual fathers, and our\nnear kinsmen according to the flesh? For after all, if you are descended\nfrom Shem, we are descended from Japhet. We are therefore evidently\ncousins.\n\n_Melchim, or Petty Kings of the Jews._\n\nYour Samuel had good reason for not wishing you to have kings; for\nnearly all your kings were assassins, beginning with David, who\nassassinated Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, his tender friend, whom he\n\"loved with a love-greater than that of woman\"; who assassinated Uriah,\nthe husband of Bathsheba; who assassinated even the infants at the\nbreast in the villages in alliance with his protector Achish; who on his\ndeath-bed commanded the assassination of his general Joab and his\ncounsel Shimei--beginning, I say, with this David, and with Solomon, who\nassassinated his own brother Adonijah, clinging in vain to the altar,\nand ending with Herod \"the Great,\" who assassinated his brother-in-law,\nhis wife, and all his kindred, including even his children.\n\nI say nothing of the fourteen thousand little boys whom your petty king,\nthis mighty Herod, had slaughtered in the village of Bethlehem. They\nare, as you know, buried at Cologne with our eleven thousand virgins;\nand one of these infants is still to be seen entire. You do not believe\nthis authentic story, because it is not in your canon, and your Flavius\nJosephus makes no mention of it. I say nothing of the eleven hundred\nthousand men killed in the town of Jerusalem alone, during its siege by\nTitus. In good faith, the cherished nation is a very unlucky one.\n\n_Did the Jews Eat Human Flesh?_\n\nAmong your calamities, which have so often made me shudder, I have\nalways reckoned your misfortune in having eaten human flesh. You say\nthat this happened only on great occasions; that it was not you whom the\nLord invited to His table to eat the horse and the horseman, and that\nonly the birds were the guests. I am willing to believe it.\n\n_Were the Jewish Ladies Intimate with Goats?_\n\nYou assert that your mothers had no commerce with he-goats, nor your\nfathers with she-goats. But pray, gentlemen, why are you the only people\nupon earth whose laws have forbidden such commerce? Would any legislator\never have thought of promulgating this extraordinary law if the offence\nhad not been common?\n\n_Did the Jews Immolate Human Victims?_\n\nYou venture to affirm that you have never immolated human victims to the\nLord. What, then, was the murder of Jephthah's daughter, who was really\nimmolated, as we have already shown from your own books?\n\nHow will you explain the anathema of the thirty-two virgins, that were\nthe tribute of the Lord, when you took thirty-two thousand Midianitish\nvirgins and sixty-one thousand asses? I will not here tell you, that\naccording to this account there were not two asses for each virgin; but\nI will ask you, what was this tribute for the Lord? According to your\nBook of Numbers, there were sixteen thousand girls for your soldiers,\nsixteen thousand for your priests, and on the soldiers' share there was\nlevied a tribute of thirty-two virgins for the Lord. What became of\nthem? You had no nuns. What was the Lord's share in all your wars, if it\nwas not blood? Did not the priest Samuel hack in pieces King Agag, whose\nlife King Saul had saved? Did he not sacrifice him as the Lord's share?\n\nEither renounce your sacred books, in which, according to the decision\nof the church, I firmly believe, or acknowledge that your forefathers\noffered up to God rivers of human blood, unparalleled by any people on\nearth.\n\n_The Thirty-two Thousand Virgins, the Seventy-five Thousand Oxen, and\nthe Fruitful Desert of Midian._\n\nLet your secretary no longer evade--no longer equivocate, respecting the\ncarnage of the Midianites and their villages. I feel great concern that\nyour butcher-priest Eleazar, general of the Jewish armies, should have\nfound in that little miserable and desert country, seventy-five thousand\noxen, sixty-one thousand asses, and six hundred and seventy-five\nthousand sheep, without reckoning the rams and the lambs.\n\nNow if you took thirty-two thousand infant girls, it is likely that\nthere were as many infant boys, and as many fathers and mothers. These\nunited amount to a hundred and twenty-eight thousand captives, in a\ndesert where there is nothing to eat, nothing to drink but brackish\nwater, and which is inhabited by some wandering Arabs, to the number of\ntwo or three thousand at most. You will besides observe, that, on all\nthe maps, this frightful country is not more than eight leagues long,\nand as many broad.\n\nBut were it as large, as fertile, and as populous as Normandy or the\nMilanese, no matter. I hold to the text, which says, the Lord's share\nwas thirty-two maidens. Confound as you please Midian by the Red Sea\nwith Midian by Sodom; I shall still demand an account of my thirty-two\nthousand virgins. Have you employed your secretary to calculate how many\noxen and maidens the fine country of Midian is capable of feeding?\n\nGentlemen, I inhabit a canton which is not the Land of Promise; but we\nhave a lake much finer than that of Sodom, and our soil is moderately\nproductive. Your secretary tells me that an acre of Midian will feed\nthree oxen: I assure you, gentlemen, that with us an acre will feed but\none. If your secretary will triple the revenue of my lands, I will give\nhim good wages, and will not pay him with drafts on the\nreceivers-general. He will not find a better situation in all the\ncountry of Midian than with me; but unfortunately this man knows no more\nof oxen than he does of golden calves.\n\nAs for the thirty-two thousand maidenheads, I wish him joy of them. Our\nlittle country is as large as Midian. It contains about four thousand\ndrunkards, a dozen attorneys, two men of sense, and four thousand\npersons of the fair sex, who are not uniformly pretty. These together\nmake about eight thousand people, supposing that the registrar who gave\nme the account did not exaggerate by one-half, according to custom.\nEither your priests or ours would have had considerable difficulty in\nfinding thirty-two thousand virgins for their use in our country. This\nmakes me very doubtful concerning the numberings of the Roman people, at\nthe time when their empire extended just four leagues from the Tarpeian\nrock, and they carried a handful of hay at the end of a pole for a\nstandard. Perhaps you do not know that the Romans passed five hundred\nyears in plundering their neighbors before they had any historian, and\nthat their numberings, like their miracles, are very suspicious.\n\nAs for the sixty-one thousand asses, the fruits of your conquests in\nMidian--enough has been said of asses.\n\n_Jewish Children Immolated by their Mothers._\n\nI tell you, that your fathers immolated their children; and I call your\nprophets to witness. Isaiah reproaches them with this cannibalish crime:\n\"Slaying the children of the valleys under the clefts of the rocks.\"\n\nYou will tell me, that it was not to the Lord Adonai that the women\nsacrificed the fruit of their womb--that it was to some other god. But\nwhat matters it whether you called him to whom you offered up your\nchildren Melkom, or Sada\u00ef, or Baal, or Adonai? That which it concerns us\nto know is, that you were parricides. It was to strange idols, you say,\nthat your fathers made their offerings. Well,--I pity you still more for\nbeing descended from fathers at once both parricidal and idolatrous. I\ncondole with you, that your fathers were idolaters for forty successive\nyears in the desert of Sinai, as is expressly said by Jeremiah, Amos,\nand St. Stephen.\n\nYou were idolaters in the time of the Judges; and the grandson of Moses\nwas priest of the tribe of Dan, who, as we have seen, were all\nidolaters; for it is necessary to repeat--to insist; otherwise\neverything is forgotten.\n\nYou were idolaters under your kings; you were not faithful to one God\nonly, until after Esdras had restored your books. Then it was that your\nuninterruptedly true worship began; and by an incomprehensible\nprovidence of the Supreme Being, you have been the most unfortunate of\nall men ever since you became the most faithful--under the kings of\nSyria, under the kings of Egypt, under Herod the Idum\u00e6an, under the\nRomans, under the Persians, under the Arabs, under the Turks--until now,\nthat you do me the honor of writing to me, and I have the honor of\nanswering you.\n\n\nSIXTH LETTER.\n\n_Beauty of the Land of Promise._\n\nDo not reproach me with not loving you. I love you so much that I wish\nyou were in Hershala\u00efm, instead of the Turks, who ravage your country;\nbut who, nevertheless, have built a very fine mosque on the foundations\nof your temple, and on the platform constructed by your Herod.\n\nYou would cultivate that miserable desert, as you cultivated it\nformerly; you would carry earth to the bare tops of your arid mountains;\nyou would not have much corn, but you would have very good vines, a few\npalms, olive trees, and pastures.\n\nThough Palestine does not equal Provence, though Marseilles alone is\nsuperior to all Jud\u00e6a, which had not one sea-port; though the town of\nAix is incomparably better situated than Jerusalem, you might\nnevertheless make of your territory almost as much as the Provencals\nhave made of theirs. You might execute, to your hearts' content, your\nown detestable psalmody in your own detestable jargon.\n\nIt is true, that you would have no horses; for there are not, nor have\nthere ever been, about Hershala\u00efm, any but asses. You would often be in\nwant of wheat, but you would obtain it from Egypt or Syria.\n\nYou might convey merchandise to Damascus and to Said on your asses--or\nindeed on camels--which you never knew anything of in the time of your\nMelchim, and which would be a great assistance to you. In short,\nassiduous toil, to which man is born, would fertilize this land, which\nthe lords of Constantinople and Asia Minor neglect.\n\nThis promised land of yours is very bad. Are you acquainted with St.\nJerome? He was a Christian priest, one of those men whose books you do\nnot read. However, he lived a long time in your country; he was a very\nlearned person--not indeed slow to anger, for when contradicted he was\nprodigal of abuse--but knowing your language better than you do, for he\nwas a good grammarian. Study was his ruling passion; anger was only\nsecond to it. He had turned priest, together with his friend Vincent, on\ncondition that they should never say mass nor vespers, lest they should\nbe too much interrupted in their studies; for being directors of women\nand girls, had they been moreover obliged to labor in the priestly\noffice, they would not have had two hours in the day left for Greek,\nChaldee, and the Jewish idiom. At last, in order to have more leisure,\nJerome retired altogether, to live among the Jews at Bethlehem, as Huet,\nbishop of Avranches, retired to the Jesuits, at the house of the\nprofessed, Rue St. Antoine, at Paris.\n\nJerome did, it is true, embroil himself with the bishop of Jerusalem,\nnamed John, with the celebrated priest Rufinus, and with several of his\nfriends; for, as I have already said, Jerome was full of choler and\nself-love, and St. Augustine charges him with levity and fickleness: but\nhe was not the less holy, he was not the less learned, nor is his\ntestimony the less to be received, concerning the nature of the wretched\ncountry in which his ardor for study and his melancholy confined him.\n\nBe so obliging as to read his letter to Dardanus, written in the year\n414 of our era, which, according to the Jewish reckoning, is the year of\nthe world 4000, or 4001, or 4003, or 4004, as you please.\n\n\"I beg of those who assert that the Jewish people, after the coming out\nof Egypt, took possession of this country, which to us, by the passion\nand resurrection of our Saviour, has become truly a land of promise--I\nbeg of them, I say, to show us what this people possessed. Their whole\ndominions extended only from Dan to Beersheba, about one hundred and\nsixty miles in length. The Holy Scriptures give no more to David and to\nSolomon.... I am ashamed to say what is the breadth of the land of\npromise, and I fear that the pagans will thence take occasion to\nblaspheme. It is but forty-six miles from Joppa to our little town of\nBethlehem, beyond which all is a frightful desert.\"\n\nRead also the letter to one of his devotees, in which he says, that from\nJerusalem to Bethlehem there is nothing but pebbles, and no water to\ndrink; but that farther on, towards the Jordan, you find very good\nvalleys in that country full of bare mountains. This really was a land\nof milk and honey, in comparison with the abominable desert of Horeb and\nSinai, from which you originally came. The sorry province of Champagne\nis the land of promise, in relation to some parts of the Landes of\nBordeaux--the banks of the Aar are the land of promise, when compared\nwith the little Swiss cantons; all Palestine is very bad land, in\ncomparison with Egypt, which you say you came out of as thieves; but it\nis a delightful country, if you compare it with the deserts of\nJerusalem, Sodom, Horeb, Sinai, Kadesh, etc.\n\nGo back to Jud\u00e6a as soon as you can. I ask of you only two or three\nHebrew families, in order to establish a little necessary trade at Mount\nKrapak, where I reside. For, if you are (like us) very ridiculous\ntheologians, you are very intelligent buyers and sellers, which we are\nnot.\n\n\nSEVENTH LETTER.\n\n_Charity which God's People and the Christians should entertain for each\nother._\n\nMy tenderness for you has only a few words more to say. We have been\naccustomed for ages to hang you up between two dogs; we have repeatedly\ndriven you away through avarice; we have recalled you through avarice\nand stupidity; we still, in more towns than one, make you pay for\nliberty to breathe the air: we have, in more kingdoms than one,\nsacrificed you to God; we have burned you as holocausts--for I will not\nfollow your example, and dissemble that we have offered up sacrifices of\nhuman blood; all the difference is, that our priests, content with\napplying your money to their own use, have had you burned by laymen;\nwhile your priests always immolated the human victims with their own\nsacred hands. You were monsters of cruelty and fanaticism in Palestine;\nwe have been so in Europe: my friends, let all this be forgotten.\n\nWould you live in peace? Imitate the Banians and the Guebers. They are\nmuch more ancient than you are; they are dispersed like you; they are,\nlike you, without a country. The Guebers, in particular, who are the\nancient Persians, are slaves like you, after being for a long while\nmasters. They say not a word. Follow their example. You are calculating\nanimals--try to be thinking ones.\n\n\n\n\nJOB.\n\n\nGood day, friend Job! thou art one of the most ancient originals of\nwhich books make mention; thou wast not a Jew; we know that the book\nwhich bears thy name is more ancient than the Pentateuch. If the\nHebrews, who translated it from the Arabic, made use of the word\n\"Jehovah\" to signify God, they borrowed it from the Phoenicians and\nEgyptians, of which men of learning are assured. The word \"Satan\" was\nnot Hebrew; it was Chald\u00e6an, as is well known.\n\nThou dwelledst on the confines of Chald\u00e6a. Commentators, worthy of their\nprofession, pretend that thou didst believe in the resurrection,\nbecause, being prostrate on thy dunghill, thou hast said, in thy\nnineteenth chapter, that thou wouldst one day rise up from it. A patient\nwho wishes his cure is not anxious for resurrection in lieu of it; but I\nwould speak to thee of other things.\n\nConfess that thou wast a great babbler; but thy friends were much\ngreater. It is said that thou possessedst seven thousand sheep, three\nthousand camels, one thousand cows, and five hundred she-asses. I will\nreckon up their value:\n\n                                               LIVRES\nSeven thousand sheep, at three livres ten\n  sous apiece                                  22,500\n\nThree thousand camels at fifty crowns apiece  450,000\n\nA thousand cows, one with the other, cannot\n  be valued at less than                       80,000\n\nAnd five hundred she-asses, at twenty francs\n  an ass                                       10,000\n\nThe whole amounts to                          562,500\n\nwithout reckoning thy furniture, rings and jewels.\n\nI have been much richer than thou; and though I have lost a great part\nof my property and am ill, like thyself I have not murmured against God,\nas thy friends seem to reproach thee with sometimes doing.\n\nI am not at all pleased with Satan, who, to induce thee to sin, and to\nmake thee forget God, demanded permission to take away all thy property,\nand to give thee the itch. It is in this state that men always have\nrecourse to divinity. They are prosperous people who forgot God. Satan\nknew not enough of the world at that time; he has improved himself\nsince; and when he would be sure of any one, he makes him a\nfarmer-general, or something better if possible, as our friend Pope has\nclearly shown in his history of the knight Sir Balaam.\n\nThy wife was an impertinent, but thy pretended friends Eliphaz the\nTemanite, Bildad the Shuite, and Zophar, the Naamathite, were much more\ninsupportable. They exhorted thee to patience in a manner that would\nhave roused the mildest of men; they made thee long sermons more\ntiresome than those preached by the knave V----e at Amsterdam, and by so\nmany other people.\n\nIt is true that thou didst not know what thou saidst, when\nexclaiming--\"My God, am I a sea or a whale, to be shut up by Thee as in\na prison?\" But thy friends knew no more when they answered thee, \"that\nthe morn cannot become fresh without dew, and that the grass of the\nfield cannot grow without water.\" Nothing is less consolatory than this\naxiom.\n\nZophar of Naamath reproached thee with being a prater; but none of these\ngood friends lent thee a crown. I would not have treated thee thus.\nNothing is more common than people who advise; nothing more rare than\nthose who assist. Friends are not worth much, from whom we cannot\nprocure a drop of broth if we are in misery. I imagine that when God\nrestored thy riches and health, these eloquent personages dared not\npresent themselves before thee, hence the comforters of Job have become\na proverb.\n\nGod was displeased with them, and told them sharply, in chap, xlii.,\nthat they were tiresome and imprudent, and he condemned them to a fine\nof seven bullocks and seven rams, for having talked nonsense. I would\nhave condemned them for not having assisted their friend.\n\nI pray thee, tell me if it is true, that thou livedst a hundred and\nforty years after this adventure. I like to learn that honest people\nlive long; but men of the present day must be great rogues, since their\nlives are comparatively so short.\n\nAs to the rest, the book of Job is one of the most precious of\nantiquity. It is evident that this book is the work of an Arab who lived\nbefore the time in which we place Moses. It is said that Eliphaz, one of\nthe interlocutors, is of Teman, which was an ancient city of Arabia.\nBildad was of Shua, another town of Arabia. Zophar was of Naamath, a\nstill more eastern country of Arabia.\n\nBut what is more remarkable, and which shows that this fable cannot be\nthat of a Jew, is, that three constellations are spoken of, which we now\ncall Arcturus, Orion, and the Pleiades. The Hebrews never had the least\nknowledge of astronomy; they had not even a word to express this\nscience; all that regards the mental science was unknown to them,\ninclusive even of the term geometry.\n\nThe Arabs, on the contrary, living in tents, and being continually led\nto observe the stars, were perhaps the first who regulated their years\nby the inspection of the heavens.\n\nThe more important observation is, that one God alone is spoken of in\nthis book. It is an absurd error to imagine that the Jews were the only\npeople who recognized a sole God; it was the doctrine of almost all the\nEast, and the Jews were only plagiarists in that as in everything else.\n\nIn chapter xxxviii. God Himself speaks to Job from the midst of a\nwhirlwind, which has been since imitated in Genesis. We cannot too often\nrepeat, that the Jewish books are very modern. Ignorance and fanaticism\nexclaim, that the Pentateuch is the most ancient book in the world. It\nis evident, that those of Sanchoniathon, and those of Thaut, eight\nhundred years anterior to those of Sanchoniathon; those of the first\nZerdusht, the \"Shasta,\" the \"Vedas\" of the Indians, which we still\npossess; the \"Five Kings of China\"; and finally the Book of Job, are of\na much remoter antiquity than any Jewish book. It is demonstrated that\nthis little people could only have annals while they had a stable\ngovernment; that they only had this government under their kings; that\nits jargon was only formed, in the course of time, of a mixture of\nPh\u0153nician and Arabic. These are incontestable proofs that the\nPh\u0153nicians cultivated letters a long time before them. Their\nprofession was pillage and brokerage; they were writers only by chance.\nWe have lost the books of the Egyptians and Ph\u0153nicians, the Chinese,\nBrahmins, and Guebers; the Jews have preserved theirs. All these\nmonuments are curious, but they are monuments of human imagination\nalone, in which not a single truth, either physical or historical, is to\nbe learned. There is not at present any little physical treatise that\nwould not be more useful than all the books of antiquity.\n\nThe good Calmet, or Dom Calmet (for the Benedictines like us to give\nthem their Dom), that simple compiler of so many reveries and\nimbecilities; that man whom simplicity has rendered so useful to whoever\nwould laugh at antique nonsense, faithfully relates the opinion of those\nwho would discover the malady with which Job was attacked, as if Job was\na real personage. He does not hesitate in saying that Job had the\nsmallpox, and heaps passage upon passage, as usual, to prove that which\nis not. He had not read the history of the smallpox by Astruc; for\nAstruc being neither a father of the Church nor a doctor of Salamanca,\nbut a very learned physician, the good man Calmet knew not that he\nexisted. Monkish compilers are poor creatures!\n\n                                    BY AN INVALID,\n                          At the Baths of Aix-la-Chapelle.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 06","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":76161}