{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35627/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35627","id":"gutenberg_35627","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35627","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME VII\n\nBy\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\n\n\n\nEDITION DE LA PACIFICATION\n\nTHE WORKS OF VOLTAIRE\n\nA CONTEMPORARY VERSION\n\n\n  With Notes by Tobias Smollett, Revised and Modernized\n     New Translations by William F. Fleming, and an\n           Introduction by Oliver H.G. Leigh\n\nA CRITIQUE AND BIOGRAPHY\n\nBY\n\nTHE RT. HON. JOHN MORLEY\n\nFORTY-THREE VOLUMES\n\n  One hundred and sixty-eight designs, comprising reproductions\n      of rare old engravings, steel plates, photogravures,\n                    and curious fac-similes\n\nVOLUME XI\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\nLIST OF PLATES--Vol. VII\n\n  OLD ROUEN--frontispiece\n  MONTESQUIEU\n  THE DREAM OF HUMAN LIFE\n  ANCIENT ROME\n\n\n\n[Illustration: Old Rouen.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY.\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL. VII\n\nJOSEPH-MISSION\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nJOSEPH.\n\n\nThe history of Joseph, considering it merely as an object of curiosity\nand literature, is one of the most precious monuments of antiquity which\nhas reached us. It appears to be the model of all the Oriental writers;\nit is more affecting than the \"Odyssey\"; for a hero who pardons is more\ntouching than one who avenges.\n\nWe regard the Arabs as the first authors of these ingenious fictions,\nwhich have passed into all languages; but I see among them no adventures\ncomparable to those of Joseph. Almost all in it is wonderful, and the\ntermination exacts tears of tenderness. He was a young man of sixteen\nyears of age, of whom his brothers were jealous; he is sold by them to a\ncaravan of Ishmaelite merchants, conducted into Egypt, and bought by a\neunuch of the king. This eunuch had a wife, which is not at all\nextraordinary; the kislar aga, a perfect eunuch, has a seraglio at this\nday at Constantinople; they left him some of his senses, and nature in\nconsequence is not altogether extinguished. No matter; the wife of\nPotiphar falls in love with the young Joseph, who, faithful to his\nmaster and benefactor, rejects the advances of this woman. She is\nirritated at it, and accuses Joseph of attempting to seduce her. Such is\nthe history of Hippolytus and Ph\u00e6dra, of Bellerophon and Zenobia, of\nHebrus and Damasippa, of Myrtilus and Hippodamia, etc.\n\nIt is difficult to know which is the original of all these histories;\nbut among the ancient Arabian authors there is a tract relating to the\nadventure of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, which is very ingenious. The\nauthor supposes that Potiphar, uncertain between the assertions of his\nwife and Joseph, regarded not Joseph's tunic, which his wife had torn as\na proof of the young man's outrage. There was a child in a cradle in his\nwife's chamber; and Joseph said that she seized and tore his tunic in\nthe presence of this infant. Potiphar consulted the child, whose mind\nwas very advanced for its age. The child said to Potiphar: \"See if the\ntunic is torn behind or before; if before, it is a proof that Joseph\nwould embrace your wife by force, and that she defended herself; if\nbehind, it is a proof that your wife detained Joseph.\" Potiphar, thanks\nto the genius of the child, recognized the innocence of his slave. It is\nthus that this adventure is related in the Koran, after the Arabian\nauthor. It informs us not to whom the infant belonged, who judged with\nso much wit. If it was not a son of Potiphar, Joseph was not the first\nwhom this woman had seduced.\n\nHowever that may be, according to Genesis, Joseph is put in prison,\nwhere he finds himself in company with the butler and baker of the king\nof Egypt. These two prisoners of state both dreamed one night. Joseph\nexplains their dreams; he predicted that in three days the butler would\nbe received again into favor, and that the baker would be hanged; which\nfailed not to happen.\n\nTwo years afterwards the king of Egypt also dreams, and his butler tells\nhim that there is a young Jew in prison who is the first man in the\nworld for the interpretation of dreams. The king causes the young man to\nbe brought to him, who foretells seven years of abundance and seven of\nsterility.\n\nLet us here interrupt the thread of the history to remark, of what\nprodigious antiquity is the interpretation of dreams. Jacob saw in a\ndream the mysterious ladder at the top of which was God Himself. In a\ndream he learned a method of multiplying his flocks, a method which\nnever succeeded with any but himself. Joseph himself had learned by a\ndream that he should one day govern his brethren. Abimelech, a long time\nbefore, had been warned in a dream, that Sarah was the wife of Abraham.\n\nTo return to Joseph: after explaining the dream of Pharaoh, he was made\nfirst minister on the spot. We doubt if at present a king could be\nfound, even in Asia, who would bestow such an office in return for an\ninterpreted dream. Pharaoh espoused Joseph to a daughter of Potiphar. It\nis said that this Potiphar was high-priest of Heliopolis; he was not\ntherefore the eunuch, his first master; or if it was the latter, he had\nanother title besides that of high-priest; and his wife had been a\nmother more than once.\n\nHowever, the famine happened, as Joseph had foretold; and Joseph, to\nmerit the good graces of his king, forced all the people to sell their\nland to Pharaoh, and all the nation became slaves to procure corn. This\nis apparently the origin of despotic power. It must be confessed, that\nnever king made a better bargain; but the people also should no less\nbless the prime minister.\n\nFinally, the father and brothers of Joseph had also need of corn, for\n\"the famine was sore in all lands.\" It is scarcely necessary to relate\nhere how Joseph received his brethren; how he pardoned and enriched\nthem. In this history is found all that constitutes an interesting epic\npoem--exposition, plot, recognition, adventures, and the marvellous;\nnothing is more strongly marked with the stamp of Oriental genius.\n\nWhat the good man Jacob, the father of Joseph, answered to Pharaoh,\nought to strike all those who know how to read. \"How old art thou?\" said\nthe king to him. \"The days of the years of my pilgrimage,\" said the old\nman, \"are an hundred and thirty years; few and evil have the days of the\nyears of my life been.\"\n\n\n\n\nJUD\u00c6A.\n\n\nI never was in Jud\u00e6a, thank God! and I never will go there. I have met\nwith men of all nations who have returned from it, and they have all of\nthem told me that the situation of Jerusalem is horrible; that all the\nland round it is stony; that the mountains are bare; that the famous\nriver Jordan is not more than forty feet wide; that the only good spot\nin the country is Jericho; in short, they all spoke of it as St. Jerome\ndid, who resided a long time in Bethlehem, and describes the country as\nthe refuse and rubbish of nature. He says that in summer the inhabitants\ncannot get even water to drink. This country, however, must have\nappeared to the Jews luxuriant and delightful, in comparison with the\ndeserts in which they originated. Were the wretched inhabitants of the\nLandes to quit them for some of the mountains of Lampourdan, how would\nthey exult and delight in the change; and how would they hope eventually\nto penetrate into the fine and fruitful districts of Languedoc, which\nwould be to them the land of promise!\n\nSuch is precisely the history of the Jews. Jericho and Jerusalem are\nToulouse and Montpellier, and the desert of Sinai is the country between\nBordeaux and Bayonne.\n\nBut if the God who conducted the Israelites wished to bestow upon them a\npleasant and fruitful land; if these wretched people had in fact dwelt\nin Egypt, why did he not permit them to remain in Egypt? To this we are\nanswered only in the usual language of theology.\n\nJud\u00e6a, it is said, was the promised land. God said to Abraham: \"I will\ngive thee all the country between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates.\"\n\nAlas! my friends, you never have had possession of those fertile banks\nof the Euphrates and the Nile. You have only been duped and made fools\nof. You have almost always been slaves. To promise and to perform, my\npoor unfortunate fellows, are different things. There was an old rabbi\nonce among you, who, when reading your shrewd and sagacious prophecies,\nannouncing for you a land of milk and honey, remarked that you had been\npromised more butter than bread. Be assured that were the great Turk\nthis very day to offer me the lordship (seigneurie) of Jerusalem, I\nwould positively decline it.\n\nFrederick III., when he saw this detestable country, said, loudly enough\nto be distinctly heard, that Moses must have been very ill-advised to\nconduct his tribe of lepers to such a place as that. \"Why,\" says\nFrederick, did he not go to Naples? Adieu, my dear Jews; I am extremely\nsorry that the promised land is the lost land.\n\n                           By the Baron de Broukans.\n\n\n\n\nJULIAN.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nJustice is often done at last. Two or three authors, either venal or\nfanatical, eulogize the cruel and effeminate Constantine as if he had\nbeen a god, and treat as an absolute miscreant the just, the wise, and\nthe great Julian. All other authors, copying from these, repeat both the\nflattery and the calumny. They become almost an article of faith. At\nlength the age of sound criticism arrives; and at the end of fourteen\nhundred years, enlightened men revise the cause which had been decided\nby ignorance. In Constantine we see a man of successful ambition,\ninternally scoffing at things divine as well as human. He has the\ninsolence to pretend that God sent him a standard in the air to assure\nhim of victory. He imbrues himself in the blood of all his relations,\nand is lulled to sleep in all the effeminacy of luxury; but he is a\nChristian--he is canonized.\n\nJulian is sober, chaste, disinterested, brave, and clement; but he is\nnot a Christian--he has long been considered a monster.\n\nAt the present day--after having compared facts, memorials and records,\nthe writings of Julian and those of his enemies--we are compelled to\nacknowledge that, if he was not partial to Christianity, he was somewhat\nexcusable in hating a sect stained with the blood of all his family; and\nthat although he had been persecuted, imprisoned, exiled, and threatened\nwith death by the Galileans, under the reign of the cruel and sanguinary\nConstantius, he never persecuted them, but on the contrary even pardoned\nten Christian soldiers who had conspired against his life. His letters\nare read and admired: \"The Galileans,\" says he, \"under my predecessor,\nsuffered exile and imprisonment; and those who, according to the change\nof circumstances, were called heretics, were reciprocally massacred in\ntheir turn. I have called home their exiles, I have liberated their\nprisoners, I have restored their property to those who were proscribed,\nand have compelled them to live in peace; but such is the restless rage\nof these Galileans that they deplore their inability any longer to\ndevour one another.\" What a letter! What a sentence, dictated by\nphilosophy, against persecuting fanaticism. Ten Christians conspiring\nagainst his life, he detects and he pardons them. How extraordinary a\nman! What dastardly fanatics must those be who attempt to throw disgrace\non his memory!\n\nIn short, on investigating facts with impartiality, we are obliged to\nadmit that Julian possessed all the qualities of Trajan, with the\nexception of that depraved taste too long pardoned to the Greeks and\nRomans; all the virtues of Cato, without either his obstinacy or\nill-humor; everything that deserves admiration in Julius C\u00e6sar, and none\nof his vices. He possessed the continence of Scipio. Finally, he was in\nall respects equal to Marcus Aurelius, who was reputed the first of men.\n\nThere are none who will now venture to repeat, after that slanderer\nTheodoret, that, in order to propitiate the gods, he sacrificed a woman\nin the temple of Carres; none who will repeat any longer the story of\nthe death scene in which he is represented as throwing drops of blood\nfrom his hand towards heaven, calling out to Jesus Christ: \"Galilean,\nthou hast conquered\"; as if he had fought against Jesus in making war\nupon the Persians; as if this philosopher, who died with such perfect\nresignation, had with alarm and despair recognized Jesus; as if he had\nbelieved that Jesus was in the air, and that the air was heaven! These\nridiculous absurdities of men, denominated fathers of the Church, are\nhappily no longer current and respected.\n\nStill, however, the effect of ridicule was, it seems, to be tried\nagainst him, as it was by the light and giddy citizens of Antioch. He is\nreproached for his ill-combed beard and the manner of his walk. But you,\nMr. Abb\u00e9 de la Bletterie, never saw him walk; you have, however, read\nhis letters and his laws, the monuments of his virtues. Of what\nconsequence was it, comparatively, that he had a slovenly beard and an\nabrupt, headlong walk, while his heart was full of magnanimity and all\nhis steps tended to virtue!\n\nOne important fact remains to be examined at the present day. Julian is\nreproached with attempting to falsify the prophecy of Jesus Christ, by\nrebuilding the temple of Jerusalem. Fires, it is asserted, came out of\nthe earth and prevented the continuance of the work. It is said that\nthis was a miracle, and that this miracle did not convert Julian, nor\nAlypius, the superintendent of the enterprise, nor any individual of the\nimperial court; and upon this subject the Abb\u00e9 de la Bletterie thus\nexpresses himself: \"The emperor and the philosophers of his court\nundoubtedly employed all their knowledge of natural philosophy to\ndeprive the Deity of the honor of so striking and impressive a prodigy.\nNature was always the favorite resource of unbelievers; but she serves\nthe cause of religion so very seasonably, that they might surely suspect\nsome collusion between them.\"\n\n1. It is not true that it is said in the Gospel, that the Jewish temple\nshould not be rebuilt. The gospel of Matthew, which was evidently\nwritten after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, prophesies,\ncertainly, that not one stone should remain upon another of the temple\nof the Idum\u00e6an Herod; but no evangelist says that it shall never be\nrebuilt. It is perfectly false that not one stone remained upon another\nwhen Titus demolished it. All its foundations remained together, with\none entire wall and the tower Antonia.\n\n2. Of what consequence could it be to the Supreme Being whether there\nwas a Jewish temple, a magazine, or a mosque, on the spot where the Jews\nwere in the habit of slaughtering bullocks and cows?\n\n3. It is not ascertained whether it was from within the circuit of the\nwalls of the city, or from within that of the temple, that those fires\nproceeded which burned the workmen. But it is not very obvious why the\nJews should burn the workmen of the emperor Julian, and not those of the\ncaliph Omar, who long afterwards built a mosque upon the ruins of the\ntemple; or those of the great Saladin who rebuilt the same mosque. Had\nJesus any particular predilection for the mosques of the Mussulmans?\n\n4. Jesus, notwithstanding his having predicted that there would not\nremain one stone upon another in Jerusalem, did not prevent the\nrebuilding of that city.\n\n5. Jesus predicted many things which God permitted never to come to\npass. He predicted the end of the world, and his coming in the clouds\nwith great power and majesty, before or about the end of the then\nexisting generation. The world, however, has lasted to the present\nmoment, and in all probability will last much longer.\n\n6. If Julian had written an account of this miracle, I should say that\nhe had been imposed upon by a false and ridiculous report; I should\nthink that the Christians, his enemies, employed every artifice to\noppose his enterprise, that they themselves killed the workmen, and\nexcited and promoted the belief of their being destroyed by a miracle;\nbut Julian does not say a single word on the subject. The war against\nthe Persians at that time fully occupied his attention; he put off the\nrebuilding of the temple to some other time, and he died before he was\nable to commence the building.\n\n7. This prodigy is related by Ammianus Marcellinus, who was a Pagan. It\nis very possible that it may have been an interpolation of the\nChristians. They have been charged with committing numberless others\nwhich have been clearly proved.\n\nBut it is not the less probable that at a time when nothing was spoken\nof but prodigies and stories of witchcraft, Ammianus Marcellinus may\nhave reported this fable on the faith of some credulous narrator. From\nTitus Livius to de Thou, inclusively, all historians have been infected\nwith prodigies.\n\n8. Contemporary authors relate that at the same period there was in\nSyria a great convulsion of the earth, which in many places broke out in\nconflagrations and swallowed up many cities. There was therefore more\nmiracle.\n\n9. If Jesus performed miracles, would it be in order to prevent the\nrebuilding of a temple in which he had himself sacrificed, and in which\nhe was circumcised? Or would he not rather perform miracles to convert\nto Christianity the various nations who at present ridicule it? Or\nrather still, to render more humane, more kind, Christians themselves,\nwho, from Arius and Athanasius down to Roland and the Paladins of the\nC\u00e9vennes, have shed torrents of human blood, and conducted themselves\nnearly as might be expected from cannibals?\n\nHence I conclude that \"nature\" is not in \"collusion\", as La Bletterie\nexpresses it, with Christianity, but that La Bletterie is in collusion\nwith some old women's stories, one of those persons, as Julian phrases\nit, \"quibus cum stolidis aniculis negotium erat.\"\n\nLa Bletterie, after having done justice to some of Julian's virtues, yet\nconcludes the history of that great man by observing, that his death was\nthe effect of \"divine vengeance\". If that be the case, all the heroes\nwho have died young, from Alexander to Gustavus Adolphus, have, we must\ninfer, been punished by God. Julian died the noblest of deaths, in the\npursuit of his enemies, after many victories. Jovian, who succeeded him,\nreigned a much shorter time than he did, and reigned in disgrace. I see\nno divine vengeance in the matter; and I see in La Bletterie himself\nnothing more than a disingenuous, dishonest declaimer. But where are the\nmen to be found who will dare to speak out?\n\nLibanius the Stoic was one of these extraordinary men. He celebrated the\nbrave and clement Julian in the presence of Theodosius, the wholesale\nmurderer of the Thessalonians; but Le Beau and La Bletterie fear to\npraise him in the hearing of their own puny parish officers.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nLet any one suppose for a moment that Julian had abandoned false gods\nfor Christianity; then examine him as a man, a philosopher, and an\nemperor; and let the examiner then point out the man whom he will\nventure to prefer to him. If he had lived only ten years longer, there\nis great probability that he would have given a different form to Europe\nfrom that which it bears at present.\n\nThe Christian religion depended upon his life; the efforts which he made\nfor its destruction rendered his name execrable to the nations who have\nembraced it. The Christian priests, who were his contemporaries, accuse\nhim of almost every crime, because he had committed what in their eyes\nwas the greatest of all--he had lowered and humiliated them. It is not\nlong since his name was never quoted without the epithet of apostate\nattached to it; and it is perhaps one of the greatest achievements of\nreason that he has at length ceased to be mentioned under so opprobrious\na designation. Who would imagine that in one of the \"Mercuries of\nParis\", for the year 1745, the author sharply rebukes a certain writer\nfor failing in the common courtesies of life, by calling this emperor\nJulian \"the apostate\"? Not more than a hundred years ago the man that\nwould not have treated him as an apostate would himself have been\ntreated as an atheist.\n\nWhat is very singular, and at the same time perfectly true, is that if\nyou put out of consideration the various disputes between Pagans and\nChristians, in which this emperor was engaged; if you follow him neither\nto the Christian churches nor idolatrous temples, but observe him\nattentively in his own household, in camp, in battle, in his manners,\nhis conduct, and his writings, you will find him in every respect equal\nto Marcus Aurelius.\n\nThus, the man who has been described as so abominable and execrable, is\nperhaps the first, or at least the second of mankind. Always sober,\nalways temperate, indulging in no licentious pleasures, sleeping on a\nmere bear's skin, devoting only a few hours, and even those with regret,\nto sleep; dividing his time between study and business, generous,\nsusceptible of friendship, and an enemy to all pomp, and pride, and\nostentation. Had he been merely a private individual he must have\nextorted universal admiration.\n\nIf we consider him in his military character, we see him constantly at\nthe head of his troops, establishing or restoring discipline without\nrigor, beloved by his soldiers and at the same time restraining their\nexcesses, conducting his armies almost always on foot, and showing them\nan example of enduring every species of hardship, ever victorious in all\nhis expeditions even to the last moments of his life, and at length\ndying at the glorious crisis when the Persians were routed. His death\nwas that of a hero, and his last words were those of a philosopher: \"I\nsubmit,\" says he, \"willingly to the eternal decrees of heaven, convinced\nthat he who is captivated with life, when his last hour is arrived, is\nmore weak and pusillanimous than he who would rush to voluntary death\nwhen it is his duty still to live.\" He converses to the last moment on\nthe immortality of the soul; manifests no regrets, shows no weakness,\nand speaks only of his submission to the decrees of Providence. Let it\nbe remembered that this is the death of an emperor at the age of\nthirty-two, and let it be then decided whether his memory should be\ninsulted.\n\nAs an emperor, we see him refusing the title of \"Dominus,\" which\nConstantine affected; relieving his people from difficulties,\ndiminishing taxes, encouraging the arts; reducing to the moderate amount\nof seventy ounces each those presents in crowns of gold, which had\nbefore been exacted from every city to the amount of three or four\nhundred marks; promoting the strict and general observance of the laws;\nrestraining both his officers and ministers from oppression, and\npreventing as much as possible all corruption.\n\nTen Christian soldiers conspire to assassinate him; they are discovered,\nand Julian pardons them. The people of Antioch, who united insolence to\nvoluptuousness, offer him an insult; he revenges himself only like a man\nof sense; and while he might have made them feel the weight of imperial\npower, he merely makes them feel the superiority of his mind. Compare\nwith this conduct the executions which Theodosius (who was very near\nbeing made a saint) exhibited in Antioch, and the ever dreadful and\nmemorable slaughter of all the inhabitants of Thessalonica, for an\noffence of a somewhat similar description; and then decide between these\ntwo celebrated characters.\n\nCertain writers, called fathers of the Church--Gregory of Nazianzen, and\nTheodoret--thought it incumbent on them to calumniate him, because he\nhad abandoned the Christian religion. They did not consider that it was\nthe triumph of that religion to prevail over so great a man, and even\nover a sage, after having resisted tyrants. One of them says that he\ntook a barbarous vengeance on Antioch and filled it with blood. How\ncould a fact so public and atrocious escape the knowledge of all other\nhistorians? It is perfectly known that he shed no blood at Antioch but\nthat of the victims sacrificed in the regular services of religion.\nAnother ventures to assert that before his death he threw some of his\nown blood towards heaven, and exclaimed, \"Galilean, thou hast\nconquered.\" How could a tale so insipid and so improbable, even for a\nmoment obtain credit? Was it against the Christians that he was then\ncombating? and is such an act, are such expressions, in the slightest\ndegree characteristic of the man?\n\nMinds of a somewhat superior order to those of Julian's detractors may\nperhaps inquire, how it could occur that a statesman like him, a man of\nso much intellect, a genuine philosopher, could quit the Christian\nreligion, in which he was educated, for Paganism, of which, it is almost\nimpossible not to suppose, he must have felt the folly and ridicule. It\nmight be inferred that if Julian yielded too much to the suggestions of\nhis reason against the mysteries of the Christian religion, he ought, at\nleast in all consistency, to have yielded more readily to the dictates\nof the same reason, when more correctly and decidedly condemning the\nfables of Paganism.\n\nPerhaps, by attending a little to the progress of his life, and the\nnature of his character, we may discover what it was that inspired him\nwith so strong an aversion to Christianity. The emperor Constantine, his\ngreat-uncle, who had placed the new religion on the throne, was stained\nby the murder of his wife, his son, his brother-in\u00adlaw, his nephew, and\nhis father-in-law. The three children of Constantine began their bloody\nand baleful reign, with murdering their uncle and their cousins. From\nthat time followed a series of civil wars and murders. The father, the\nbrother, and all the relations of Julian, and even Julian himself, were\nmarked down for destruction by Constantius, his uncle. He escaped this\ngeneral massacre, but the first years of his life were passed in exile,\nand he at last owed the preservation of his life, his fortune, and the\ntitle of C\u00e6sar, only to Eusebia, the wife of his uncle Constantius, who,\nafter having had the cruelty to proscribe his infancy, had the\nimprudence to appoint him C\u00e6sar, and the still further and greater\nimprudence of then persecuting him.\n\nHe was, in the first instance, a witness of the insolence with which a\ncertain bishop treated his benefactress Eusebia. He was called Leontius,\nand was bishop of Tripoli. He sent information to the empress, \"that he\nwould not visit her unless she would consent to receive him in a manner\ncorresponding to his episcopal dignity--that is, that she should advance\nto receive him at the door, that she should receive his benediction in a\nbending attitude, and that she should remain standing until he granted\nher permission to be seated.\" The Pagan pontiffs were not in the habit\nof treating princesses precisely in this manner, and such brutal\narrogance could not but make a deep impression on the mind of a young\nman attached at once to philosophy and simplicity.\n\nIf he saw that he was in a Christian family, he saw, at the same time,\nthat he was in a family rendered distinguished by parricides; if he\nlooked at the court bishops, he perceived that they were at once\naudacious and intriguing, and that all anathematized each other in turn.\nThe hostile parties of Arius and Athanasius filled the empire with\nconfusion and carnage; the Pagans, on the contrary, never had any\nreligious quarrels. It is natural therefore that Julian, who had been\neducated, let it be remembered, by philosophic Pagans, should have\nstrengthened by their discourses the aversion he must necessarily have\nfelt in his heart for the Christian religion. It is not more\nextraordinary to see Julian quit Christianity for false gods, than to\nsee Constantine quit false gods for Christianity. It is highly probable\nthat both changed for motives of state policy, and that this policy was\nmixed up in the mind of Julian with the stern loftiness of a stoic soul.\n\nThe Pagan priests had no dogmas; they did not compel men to believe that\nwhich was incredible; they required nothing but sacrifices, and even\nsacrifices were not enjoined under rigorous penalties; they did not set\nthemselves up as the first order in the state, did not form a state\nwithin a state, and did not mix in affairs of government. These might\nwell be considered motives to induce a man of Julian's character to\ndeclare himself on their side; and if he had piqued himself upon being\nnothing besides a Stoic, he would have had against him the priests of\nboth religions, and all the fanatics of each. The common people would\nnot at that time have endured a prince who was content simply with the\npure worship of a pure divinity and the strict observance of justice. It\nwas necessary to side with one of the opposing parties. We must\ntherefore believe that Julian submitted to the Pagan ceremonies, as the\nmajority of princes and great men attend the forms of worship in the\npublic temples. They are led thither by the people themselves, and are\noften obliged to appear what in fact they are not; and to be in public\nthe first and greatest slaves of credulity. The Turkish sultan must\nbless the name of Omar. The Persian sophi must bless the name of Ali.\nMarcus Aurelius himself was initiated in the mysteries of Eleusis.\n\nWe ought not therefore to be surprised that Julian should have debased\nhis reason by condescending to the forms and usages of superstition; but\nit is impossible not to feel indignant against Theodoret, as the only\nhistorian who relates that he sacrificed a woman in the temple of the\nmoon at Carres. This infamous story must be classed with the absurd tale\nof Ammianus, that the genius of the empire appeared to Julian before his\ndeath, and with the other equally ridiculous one, that when Julian\nattempted to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, there came globes of fire\nout of the earth, and consumed all the works and workmen without\ndistinction.\n\n_Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra._--Horace, book i, ep. ii, 16.\n\nBoth Christians and Pagans equally, circulated fables concerning Julian;\nbut the fables of the Christians, who were his enemies, were filled with\ncalumny. Who could ever be induced to believe that a philosopher\nsacrificed a woman to the moon, and tore out her entrails with his own\nhands? Is such atrocity compatible with the character of a rigid Stoic?\n\nHe never put any Christians to death. He granted them no favors, but he\nnever persecuted them. He permitted them, like a just sovereign, to keep\ntheir own property; and he wrote in opposition to them like a\nphilosopher. He forbade their teaching in the schools the profane\nauthors, whom they endeavored to decry--this was not persecuting them;\nand he prevented them from tearing one another to pieces in their\noutrageous hatred and quarrels--this was protecting them. They had in\nfact therefore nothing with which they could reproach him, but with\nhaving abandoned them, and with not being of their opinion. They found\nmeans, however, of rendering execrable to posterity a prince, who, but\nfor his change of religion, would have been admired and beloved by all\nthe world.\n\nAlthough we have already treated of Julian, under the article on\n\"Apostate\"; although, following the example of every sage, we have\ndeplored the dreadful calamity he experienced in not being a Christian,\nand have done justice elsewhere to his various excellences, we must\nnevertheless say something more upon the subject.\n\nWe do this in consequence of an imposture equally absurd and atrocious,\nwhich we casually met with in one of those petty dictionaries with which\nFrance is now inundated, and which unfortunately are so easily compiled.\nThis dictionary of theology which I am now alluding to proceeds from an\nex-Jesuit, called Paulian, who repeats the story, so discredited and\nabsurd, that the emperor Julian, after being mortally wounded in a\nbattle with the Persians, threw some of his blood towards heaven,\nexclaiming, \"Galilean, thou hast conquered\"--a fable which destroys\nitself, as Julian was conqueror in the battle, and Jesus Christ\ncertainly was not the God of the Persians.\n\nPaulian, notwithstanding, dares to assert that the fact is\nincontestable. And upon what ground does he assert it? Upon the ground\nof its being related by Theodoret, the author of so many distinguished\nlies; and even this notorious writer himself relates it only as a vague\nreport; he uses the expression, \"It is said.\" This story is worthy of\nthe calumniators who stated that Julian had sacrificed a woman to the\nmoon, and that after his death a large chest was found among his\nmovables filled with human heads.\n\nThis is not the only falsehood and calumny with which this ex-Jesuit\nPaulian is chargeable. If these contemptible wretches knew what injury\nthey did to our holy religion, by endeavoring to support it by\nimposture, and by the abominable abuse with which they assail the most\nrespectable characters, they would be less audacious and infuriated.\nThey care not, however, for supporting religion; what they want is to\ngain money by their libels; and despairing of being read by persons of\nsense, and taste, and fashion, they go on gathering and compiling\ntheological trash, in hopes that their productions will be adopted in\nthe seminaries.\n\nWe sincerely ask pardon of our well-informed and respectable readers for\nintroducing such names as those of the ex-Jesuits Paulian, Nonnotte, and\nPatouillet; but after having trampled to death serpents, we shall\nprobably be excused for crushing fleas.\n\n\n\n\nJUST AND UNJUST.\n\n\nWho has given us the perception of just and unjust? God, who gave us a\nbrain and a heart. But when does our reason inform us that there are\nsuch things as vice and virtue? Just at the same time it teaches us that\ntwo and two make four. There is no innate knowledge, for the same reason\nthat there is no tree that bears leaves and fruit when it first starts\nabove the earth. There is nothing innate, or fully developed in the\nfirst instance; but--we repeat here what we have often said--God causes\nus to be born with organs, which, as they grow and become unfolded, make\nus feel all that is necessary for our species to feel, for the\nconservation of that species.\n\nHow is this continual mystery performed? Tell me, ye yellow inhabitants\nof the Isles of Sunda, ye black Africans, ye beardless Indians; and\nyou--Plato, Cicero, and Epictetus. You all equally feel that it is\nbetter to give the superfluity of your bread, your rice, or your manioc,\nto the poor man who meekly requests it, than to kill him or scoop his\neyes out. It is evident to the whole world that a benefit is more\nhonorable to the performer than an outrage, that gentleness is\npreferable to fury.\n\nThe only thing required, then, is to exercise our reason in\ndiscriminating the various shades of what is right and wrong. Good and\nevil are often neighbors; our passions confound them; who shall\nenlighten and direct us? Ourselves, when we are calm and undisturbed.\nWhoever has written on the subject of human duties, in all countries\nthroughout the world, has written well, because he wrote with reason.\nAll have said the same thing; Socrates and Epictetus, Confucius and\nCicero, Marcus Antoninus and Amurath II. had the same morality.\n\nWe would repeat every day to the whole of the human race: Morality is\nuniform and invariable; it comes from God: dogmas are different; they\ncome from ourselves.\n\nJesus never taught any metaphysical dogmas; He wrote no theological\ncourses; He never said: I am consubstantial; I have two wills and two\nnatures with only one person. He left for the Cordeliers and the\nJacobins, who would appear twelve hundred years after Him, the delicate\nand difficult topic of argument, whether His mother was conceived in\noriginal sin. He never pronounced marriage to be the visible sign of a\nthing invisible; He never said a word about concomitant grace; He\ninstituted neither monks nor inquisitors; He appointed nothing of what\nwe see at the present day.\n\nGod had given the knowledge of just and unjust, right and wrong,\nthroughout all the ages which preceded Christianity. God never changed\nnor can change. The constitution of our souls, our principles of reason\nand morality, will ever be the same. How is virtue promoted by\ntheological distinctions, by dogmas founded on those distinctions, by\npersecutions founded on those dogmas? Nature, terrified and\nhorror-struck at all these barbarous inventions, calls aloud to all men:\nBe just, and not persecuting sophists.\n\nYou read in the \"_Zend-Avesta_,\" which is the summary of the laws of\nZoroaster, this admirable maxim: \"When it is doubtful whether the action\nyou are about to perform is just or unjust, abstain from doing it.\" What\nlegislator ever spoke better? We have not here the system of \"probable\nopinions\", invented by people who call themselves \"the Society of\nJesus\".\n\n\n\n\nJUSTICE.\n\n\nThat \"justice\" is often extremely unjust, is not an observation merely\nof the present day; \"_summum jus, summa injuria_,\" is one of the most\nancient proverbs in existence. There are many dreadful ways of being\nunjust; as, for example, that of racking the innocent Calas upon\nequivocal evidence, and thus incurring the guilt of shedding innocent\nblood by a too strong reliance on vain presumptions.\n\nAnother method of being unjust is condemning to execution a man who at\nmost deserves only three months' imprisonment; this species of injustice\nis that of tyrants, and particularly of fanatics, who always become\ntyrants whenever they obtain the power of doing mischief.\n\nWe cannot more completely demonstrate this truth than by the letter of a\ncelebrated barrister, written in 1766, to the marquis of Beccaria, one\nof the most celebrated professors of jurisprudence, at this time, in\nEurope:\n\n\n_Letter To The Marquis Of Beccaria, Professor Of Public Law At Milan, On\nThe Subject Of M. De Morangies, 1772._\n\nSir:--You are a teacher of laws in Italy, a country from which we derive\nall laws except those which have been transmitted to us by our own\nabsurd and contradictory customs, the remains of that ancient barbarism,\nthe rust of which subsists to this day in one of the most flourishing\nkingdoms of the earth.\n\nYour book upon crimes and punishments opened the eyes of many of the\nlawyers of Europe who had been brought up in absurd and inhuman usages;\nand men began everywhere to blush at finding themselves still wearing\ntheir ancient dress of savages.\n\nYour opinion was requested on the dreadful execution to which two young\ngentlemen, just out of their childhood, had been sentenced; one of whom,\nhaving escaped the tortures he was destined to, has become a most\nexcellent officer in the service of the great king, while the other, who\nhad inspired the brightest hopes, died like a sage, by a horrible death,\nwithout ostentation and without pusillanimity, surrounded by no less\nthan five executioners. These lads were accused of indecency in action\nand words, a fault which three months' imprisonment would have\nsufficiently punished, and which would have been infallibly corrected by\ntime. You replied, that their judges were assassins, and that all Europe\nwas of your opinion.\n\nI consulted you on the cannibal sentences passed on Calas, on Sirven,\nand Montbailli; and you anticipated the decrees which you afterwards\nissued from the chief courts and officers of law in the kingdom, which\njustified injured innocence and re-established the honor of the nation.\n\nI at present consult you on a cause of a very different nature. It is at\nonce civil and criminal. It is the case of a man of quality, a\nmajor-general in the army, who maintains alone his honor and fortune\nagainst a whole family of poor and obscure citizens, and against an\nimmense multitude consisting of the dregs of the people, whose\nexecrations against him are echoed through the whole of France. The poor\nfamily accuses the general officer of taking from it by fraud and\nviolence a hundred thousand crowns.\n\nThe general officer accuses these poor persons of trying to obtain from\nhim a hundred thousand crowns by means equally criminal. They complain\nthat they are not merely in danger of losing an immense property, which\nthey never appeared to possess, but also of being oppressed, insulted,\nand beaten by the officers of justice, who compelled them to declare\nthemselves guilty and consent to their own ruin and punishment. The\ngeneral solemnly protests, that these imputations of fraud and violence\nare atrocious calumnies. The advocates of the two parties contradict\neach other on all the facts, on all the inductions, and even on all the\nreasonings; their memorials are called tissues of falsehoods; and each\ntreats the adverse party as inconsistent and absurd,--an invariable\npractice in every dispute.\n\nWhen you have had the goodness, sir, to read their memorials, which I\nhave now the honor of sending to you, you will, I trust, permit me to\nsuggest the difficulties which I feel in this case; they are dictated by\nperfect impartiality. I know neither of the parties, and neither of the\nadvocates; but having, in the course of four and twenty years, seen\ncalumny and injustice so often triumph, I may be permitted to endeavor\nto penetrate the labyrinth in which these monsters unfortunately find\nshelter.\n\n_Presumptions Against The Verron Family._\n\n1. In the first place, there are four bills, payable to order, for a\nhundred thousand crowns, drawn with perfect regularity by an officer\notherwise deeply involved in debt; they are payable for the benefit of a\nwoman of the name of Verron, who called herself the widow of a banker.\nThey are presented by her grandson, Du Jonquay, her heir, recently\nadmitted a doctor of laws, although he is ignorant even of orthography.\nIs this enough? Yes, in an ordinary case it would be so; but if, in this\nvery extraordinary case, there is an extreme probability, that the\ndoctor of laws never did and never could carry the money which he\npretends to have delivered in his grandmother's name; if the\ngrandmother, who maintained herself with difficulty in a garret, by the\nmiserable occupation of pawnbroking, never could have been in the\npossession of the hundred thousand crowns; if, in short, the grandson\nand his mother have spontaneously confessed, and attested the written\nconfession by their actual signatures, that they attempted to rob the\ngeneral, and that he never received more than twelve hundred francs\ninstead of three hundred thousand livres;--in this case, is not the\ncause sufficiently cleared up? Is not the public sufficiently able to\njudge from these preliminaries?\n\n2. I appeal to yourself, sir, whether it is probable that the poor widow\nof a person unknown in society, who is said to have been a petty\nstock-jobber, and not a banker, could be in possession of so\nconsiderable a sum to lend, at an extreme risk, to an officer\nnotoriously in debt? The general, in short, contends, that this jobber,\nthe husband of the woman in question, died insolvent; that even his\ninventory was never paid for; that this pretended banker was originally\na baker's boy in the household of the duke of Saint-Agnan, the French\nambassador in Spain; that he afterwards took up the profession of a\nbroker at Paris; and that he was compelled by M. H\u00e9raut, lieutenant of\npolice, to restore certain promissory notes, or bills of exchange, which\nhe had obtained from some young man by extortion;--such the fatality\nimpending over this wretched family from bills of exchange! Should all\nthese statements be proved, do you conceive it at all probable that this\nfamily lent a hundred thousand crowns to an involved officer with whom\nthey were upon no terms of friendship or acquaintance?\n\n3. Do you consider it probable, that the jobber's grandson, the doctor\nof laws, should have gone on foot no less than five leagues, have made\ntwenty-six journeys, have mounted and descended three thousand steps,\nall in the space of five hours, without any stopping, to carry\n\"secretly\" twelve thousand four hundred and twenty-five louis d'or to a\nman, to whom, on the following day, he publicly gives twelve hundred\nfrancs? Does not such an account appear to be invented with an utter\ndeficiency of ingenuity, and even of common sense? Do those who believe\nit appear to be sages? What can you think, then, of those who solemnly\naffirm it without believing it?\n\n4. Is it probable, that young Du Jonquay, the doctor of laws, and his\nown mother, should have made and signed a declaration, upon oath, before\na superior judge, that this whole account was false, that they had never\ncarried the gold, and that they were confessed rogues, if in fact they\nhad not been such, and if grief and remorse had not extorted this\nconfession of their crime? And when they afterwards say, that they had\nmade this confession before the commissary, only because they had\npreviously been assaulted and beaten at the house of a proctor, would\nsuch an excuse be deemed by you reasonable or absurd?\n\nCan anything be clearer than that, if this doctor of laws had really\nbeen assaulted and beaten in any other house on account of this cause,\nhe should have demanded justice of the commissary for this violence,\ninstead of freely signing, together with his mother, that they were both\nguilty of a crime which they had not committed?\n\nWould it be admissible for them to say: We signed our condemnation\nbecause we thought that the general had bought over against us all the\npolice officers and all the chief judges?\n\nCan good sense listen for a moment to such arguments? Would any one have\ndared to suggest such even in the days of our barbarism, when we had\nneither laws, nor manners, nor cultivated reason?\n\nIf I may credit the very circumstantial memorials of the general, the\nVerrons, when put in prison upon his accusation, at first persisted in\nthe confession of their crime. They wrote two letters to the person whom\nthey had made the depositary of the bills extorted from the general;\nthey were terrified at the contemplation of their guilt, which they saw\nmight conduct them to the galleys or to the gibbet. They afterwards gain\nmore firmness and confidence. The persons with whom they were to divide\nthe fruit of their villainy encourage and support them; and the\nattractions of the vast sum in their contemplation seduce, hurry, and\nurge them on to persevere in the original charge. They call in to their\nassistance all the dark frauds and pettifogging chicanery to which they\ncan gain access, to clear them from a crime which they had themselves\nactually admitted. They avail themselves with dexterity of the\ndistresses to which the involved officer was occasionally reduced, to\ngive a color of probability to his attempting the re-establishment of\nhis affairs by the robbery or theft of a hundred thousand crowns. They\nrouse the commiseration of the populace, which at Paris is easily\nstimulated and frenzied. They appeal successfully for compassion to the\nmembers of the bar, who make it a point of indispensable duty to employ\ntheir eloquence in their behalf, and to support the weak against the\npowerful, the people against the nobility. The clearest case becomes in\ntime the most obscure. A simple cause, which the police magistrate would\nhave terminated in four days, goes on increasing for more than a whole\nyear by the mire and filth introduced into it through the numberless\nchannels of chicanery, interest, and party spirit. You will perceive\nthat the whole of this statement is a summary of memorials or documents\nthat appeared in this celebrated cause.\n\n_Presumptions In Favor Of The Verron Family_.\n\nWe shall consider the defence of the grandmother, the mother, and the\ngrandson (doctor of laws), against these strong presumptions.\n\n1. The hundred thousand crowns (or very nearly that sum), which it is\npretended the widow Verron never was possessed of, were formerly made\nover to her by her husband, in trust, together with the silver plate.\nThis deposit was \"secretly\" brought to her six months after her\nhusband's death, by a man of the name of Chotard. She placed them out,\nand always \"secretly\", with a notary called Gilet, who restored them to\nher, still \"secretly\", in 1760. She had therefore, in fact, the hundred\nthousand crowns which her adversary pretends she never possessed.\n\n2. She died in extreme old age, while the cause was going on,\nprotesting, after receiving the sacrament, that these hundred thousand\ncrowns were carried in gold to the general officer by her grandson, in\ntwenty-six journeys on foot, on Sept. 23, 1771.\n\n3. It is not at all probable, that an officer accustomed to borrowing,\nand broken down in circumstances, should have given bills payable to\norder for the sum of three hundred thousand livres, to a person unknown\nto him, unless he had actually received that sum.\n\n4. There are witnesses who saw counted out and ranged in order the bags\nfilled with this gold, and who saw the doctor of laws carry it to the\ngeneral on foot, under his great coat, in twenty-six journeys, occupying\nthe space of five hours. And he made these twenty-six astonishing\njourneys merely to satisfy the general, who had particularly requested\nsecrecy.\n\n5. The doctor of laws adds: \"Our grandmother and ourselves lived, it is\ntrue, in a garret, and we lent a little money upon pledges; but we lived\nso merely upon a principle of judicious economy; the object was to buy\nfor me the office of a counsellor of parliament, at a time when the\nmagistracy was purchasable. It is true that my three sisters gain their\nsubsistence by needle-work and embroidery; the reason of which was, that\nmy grandmother kept all her property for me. It is true that I have kept\ncompany only with procuresses, coachmen, and lackeys: I acknowledge that\nI speak and that I write in their style; but I might not on that account\nbe less worthy of becoming a magistrate, by making, after all, a good\nuse of my time.\"\n\n6. All worthy persons have commiserated our misfortune. M. Aubourg, a\nfarmer-general, as respectable as any in Paris, has generously taken our\nside, and his voice has obtained for us that of the public.\n\nThis defence appears in some part of it plausible. Their adversary\nrefutes it in the following manner:\n\n_Arguments Of The Major-General Against Those Of The Verron Family_.\n\n1. The story of the deposit must be considered by every man of sense as\nequally false and ridiculous with that of the six-and-twenty journeys on\nfoot. If the poor jobber, the husband of the old woman, had intended to\ngive at his death so much money to his wife, he might have done it in a\ndirect way from hand to hand, without the intervention of a third\nperson.\n\nIf he had been possessed of the pretended silver plate, one-half of it\nmust have belonged to the wife, as equal owner of their united goods.\nShe would not have remained quiet for the space of six months, in a\npaltry lodging of two hundred francs a year, without reclaiming her\nplate, and exerting her utmost efforts to obtain her right. Chotard\nalso, the alleged friend of her husband and herself, would not have\nsuffered her to remain for six long months in a state of such great\nindigence and anxiety.\n\nThere was, in reality, a person of the name of Chotard; but he was a man\nruined by debts and debauchery; a fraudulent bankrupt who embezzled\nforty thousand crowns from the tax office of the farmers-general in\nwhich he held a situation, and who is not likely to have given up a\nhundred thousand crowns to the grandmother of the doctor in laws.\n\nThe widow Verron pretends, that she employed her money at interest,\nalways it appears in secrecy, with a notary of the name of Gilet, but no\ntrace of this fact can be found in the office of that notary.\n\nShe declares, that this notary returned her the money, still secretly,\nin the year 1760: he was at that time dead.\n\nIf all these facts be true, it must be admitted that the cause of Du\nJonquay and the Verrons, built on a foundation of such ridiculous lies,\nmust inevitably fall to the ground.\n\n2. The will of widow Verron, made half an hour before her death, with\ndeath and the name of God on her lips, is, to all appearance, in itself\na respectable and even pious document. But if it be really in the number\nof those pious things which are every day observed to be merely\ninstrumental to crime--if this lender upon pledges, while recommending\nher soul to God, manifestly lied to God, what importance or weight can\nthe document bring with it? Is it not rather the strongest proof of\nimposture and villainy?\n\nThe old woman had always been made to state, while the suit was carried\non in her name, that she possessed only this sum of one hundred thousand\ncrowns which it was intended to rob her of; that she never had more than\nthat sum; and yet, behold! in her will she mentions five hundred\nthousand livres of her property! Here are two hundred thousand francs\nmore than any one expected, and here is the widow Verron convicted out\nof her own mouth. Thus, in this singular cause, does the at once\natrocious and ridiculous imposture of the family break out on every\nside, during the woman's life, and even when she is within the grasp of\ndeath.\n\n3. It is probable, and it is even in evidence, that the general would\nnot trust his bills for a hundred thousand crowns to a doctor of whom he\nknew little or nothing, without having an acknowledgment from him. He\ndid, however, commit this inadvertence, which is the fault of an\nunsuspecting and noble heart; he was led astray by the youth, by the\ncandor, by the apparent generosity of a man not more than twenty-seven\nyears of age, who was on the point of being raised to the magistracy,\nwho actually, upon an urgent occasion, lent him twelve hundred francs,\nand who promised in the course of a few days to obtain for him, from an\nopulent company, the sum of a hundred thousand crowns. Here is the knot\nand difficulty of the cause. We must strictly examine whether it be\nprobable, that a man, who is admitted to have received nearly a hundred\nthousand crowns in gold, should on the very morning after, come in great\nhaste, as for a most indispensable occasion, to the man who the evening\nbefore had advanced him twelve thousand four hundred and twenty-five\nlouis d'or.\n\nThere is not the slightest probability of his doing so. It is still less\nprobable, as we have already observed, that a man of distinction, a\ngeneral officer, and the father of a family, in return for the\ninvaluable and almost unprecedented kindness of lending him a hundred\nthousand crowns, should, instead of the sincerest gratitude to his\nbenefactor, absolutely endeavor to get him hanged; and this on the part\nof a man who had nothing more to do than to await quietly the distant\nexpirations of the periods of payment; who was under no temptation, in\norder to gain time, to commit such a profligate and atrocious villainy,\nand who had never in fact committed any villainy at all. Surely it is\nmore natural to think that the man, whose grandfather was a\npettifogging, paltry jobber, and whose grandmother was a wretched lender\nof small sums upon the pledges of absolute misery, should have availed\nhimself of the blind confidence of an unsuspecting soldier, to extort\nfrom him a hundred thousand crowns, and that he promised to divide this\nsum with the depraved and abominable accomplices of his baseness.\n\n4. There are witnesses who depose in favor of Du Jonquay and widow\nVerron. Let us consider who those witnesses are, and what they depose.\n\nIn the first place, there is a woman of the name of Tourtera, a broker,\nwho supported the widow in her peddling, insignificant concern of\npawnbroking, and who has been five times in the hospital in consequence\nof the scandalous impurities of her life; which can be proved with the\nutmost ease.\n\nThere is a coachman called Gilbert, who, sometimes firm, at other times\ntrembling in his wickedness, declared to a lady of the name of Petit, in\nthe presence of six persons, that he had been suborned by Du Jonquay. He\nsubsequently inquired of many other persons, whether he should yet be in\ntime to retract, and reiterated expressions of this nature before\nwitnesses.\n\nSetting aside, however, what has been stated of Gilbert's disposition to\nretract, it is very possible that he might be deceived, and may not be\nchargeable with falsehood and perjury. It is possible, that he might see\nmoney at the pawnbroker's, and that he might be told, and might believe,\nthat three hundred thousand livres were there. Nothing is more dangerous\nin many persons than a quick and heated imagination, which actually\nmakes men think that they have seen what it was absolutely impossible\nfor them to see.\n\nThen comes a man of the name of Aubriot, a godson of the procuress\nTourtera, and completely under her guidance. He deposes, that he saw, in\none of the streets of Paris, on Sept. 23, 1771, Doctor Du Jonquay in his\ngreat coat, carrying bags.\n\nSurely there is here no conclusive proof that the doctor on that day\nmade twenty-six journeys on foot, and travelled over five leagues of\nground, to deliver \"secretly\" twelve thousand four hundred and\ntwenty-five louis d'or, even admitting all that this testimony states to\nbe true. It appears clear, that Du Jonquay went this journey to the\ngeneral, and that he spoke to him; and it appears probable, that he\ndeceived him; but it is not clear that Aubriot saw him go and return\nthirteen times in one morning. It is still less clear, that this witness\ncould at that time see so many circumstances occurring in the street, as\nhe was actually laboring under a disorder which there is no necessity to\nname, and on that very day underwent for it the severe operation of\nmedicine, with his legs tottering, his head swelled, and his tongue\nhanging half out of his mouth. This was not precisely the moment for\nrunning into the street to see sights. Would his friend Du Jonquay have\nsaid to him: Come and risk your life, to see me traverse a distance of\nfive leagues loaded with gold: I am going to deliver the whole fortune\nof my family, secretly, to a man overwhelmed with debts; I wish to have,\nprivately, as a witness, a person of your character? This is not\nexceedingly probable. The surgeon who applied the medicine to the\nwitness Aubriot on this occasion, states that he was by no means in a\nsituation to go out; and the son of the surgeon, in his interrogatory,\nrefers the case to the academy of surgery.\n\nBut even admitting that a man of a particularly robust constitution\ncould have gone out and taken some turns in the street in this\ndisgraceful and dreadful situation, what could it have signified to the\npoint in question? Did he see Du Jonquay make twenty-six journeys\nbetween his garret and the general's hotel? Did he see twelve thousand\nfour hundred and twenty-five louis d'or carried by him? Was any\nindividual whatever a witness to this prodigy well worthy the \"Thousand\nand One Nights\"? Most certainly not; no person whatever. What is the\namount, then, of all his evidence on the subject?\n\n5. That the daughter of Mrs. Verron, in her garret, may have sometimes\nborrowed small sums on pledges; that Mrs. Verron may have lent them, in\norder to obtain and save a profit, to make her grandson a counsellor of\nparliament, has nothing at all to do with the substance of the case in\nquestion. In defiance of all this, it will ever be evident, that this\nmagistrate by anticipation did not traverse the five leagues to carry to\nthe general the hundred thousand crowns, and that the general never\nreceived them.\n\n6. A person named Aubourg comes forward, not merely as a witness, but as\na protector and benefactor of oppressed innocence. The advocates of the\nVerron family extol this man as a citizen of rare and intrepid virtue.\nHe became feelingly alive to the misfortunes of Doctor Du Jonquay, his\nmother, and grandmother, although he had no acquaintance with them; and\noffered them his credit and his purse, without any other object than\nthat of assisting persecuted merit.\n\nUpon examination it is found, that this hero of disinterested\nbenevolence is a contemptible wretch who began the world as a lackey,\nwas then successively an upholsterer, a broker, and a bankrupt, and is\nnow, like Mrs. Verron and Tourtera, by profession a pawnbroker. He flies\nto the assistance of persons of his own profession. The woman Tourtera,\nin the first place, gave him twenty-five louis d'or, to interest his\nprobity and kindness in assisting a desolate family. The generous\nAubourg had the greatness of soul to make an agreement with the old\ngrandmother, almost when she was dying, by which she gives him fifteen\nthousand crowns, on condition of his undertaking to defray the expenses\nof the cause. He even takes the precaution to have this bargain noticed\nand confirmed in the will, dictated, or pretended to be dictated, by\nthis old widow of the jobber on her death-bed. This respectable and\nvenerable man then hopes one day to divide with some of the witnesses\nthe spoils that are to be obtained from the general. It is the\nmagnanimous heart of Aubourg that has formed this disinterested scheme;\nit is he who has conducted the cause which he seems to have taken up as\na patrimony. He believed the bills payable to order would infallibly be\npaid. He is in fact a receiver who participates in the plunder effected\nby robbers, and who appropriates the better part to himself.\n\nSuch are the replies of the general: I neither subtract from them nor\nadd to them--I simply state them. I have thus explained to you, sir, the\nwhole substance of the cause, and stated all the strongest arguments on\nboth sides.\n\nI request your opinion of the sentence which ought to be pronounced, if\nmatters should remain in the same state, if the truth cannot be\nirrevocably obtained from one or other of the parties, and made to\nappear perfectly without a cloud.\n\nThe reasons of the general officer are thus far convincing. Natural\nequity is on his side. This natural equity, which God has established in\nthe hearts of all men, is the basis of all law. Ought we to destroy this\nfoundation of all justice, by sentencing a man to pay a hundred thousand\ncrowns which he does not appear to owe?\n\nHe drew bills for a hundred thousand crowns, in the vain hope that he\nshould receive the money; he negotiated with a young man whom he did not\nknow, just as he would have done with the banker of the king or of the\nempress-queen. Should his bills have more validity than his reasons? A\nman certainly cannot owe what he has not received. Bills, policies,\nbonds, always imply that the corresponding sums have been delivered and\nhad; but if there is evidence that no money has been had and delivered,\nthere can be no obligation to return or pay any. If there is writing\nagainst writing, document against document, the last dated cancels the\nformer ones. But in the present case the last writing is that of Du\nJonquay and his mother, and it states that the opposite party in the\ncause never received from them a hundred thousand crowns, and that they\nare cheats and impostors.\n\nWhat! because they have disavowed the truth of their confession, which\nthey state to have been made in consequence of their having received a\nblow or an assault, shall another man's property be adjudged to them?\n\nI will suppose for a moment (what is by no means probable), that the\njudges, bound down by forms, will sentence the general to pay what in\nfact he does not owe;--will they not in this case destroy his reputation\nas well as his fortune? Will not all who have sided against him in this\nmost singular adventure, charge him with calumniously accusing his\nadversaries of a crime of which he is himself guilty? He will lose his\nhonor, in their estimation, in losing his property. He will never be\nacquitted but in the judgments of those who examine profoundly. The\nnumber of these is always small. Where are the men to be found who have\nleisure, attention, capacity, impartiality, to consider anxiously every\naspect and bearing of a cause in which they are not themselves\ninterested? They judge in the same way as our ancient parliament judged\nof books--that is, without reading them.\n\nYou, sir, are fully acquainted with this, and know that men generally\njudge of everything by prejudice, hearsay, and chance. No one reflects\nthat the cause of a citizen ought to interest the whole body of\ncitizens, and that we may ourselves have to endure in despair the same\nfate which we perceive, with eyes and feelings of indifference, falling\nheavily upon him. We write and comment every day upon the judgments\npassed by the senate of Rome and the areopagus of Athens; but we think\nnot for a moment of what passes before our own tribunals.\n\nYou, sir, who comprehend all Europe in your researches and decisions,\nwill, I sincerely hope, deign to communicate to me a portion of your\nlight. It is possible, certainly, that the formalities and chicanery\nconnected with law proceedings, and with which I am little conversant,\nmay occasion to the general the loss of the cause in court; but it\nappears to me that he must gain it at the tribunal of an enlightened\npublic, that awful and accurate judge who pronounces after deep\ninvestigation, and who is the final disposer of character.\n\n\n\n\nKING.\n\n\nKing, _basileus, tyrannos, rex, dux, imperator, melch, baal, bel,\npharaoh, eli, shadai, adonai, shak, sophi, padisha, bogdan, chazan, kan,\nkrall, kong, k\u00f6nig, etc._--all expressions which signify the same\noffice, but which convey very different ideas.\n\nIn Greece, neither \"_basileus_\" nor \"_tyrannos_\" ever conveyed the idea\nof absolute power. He who was able obtained this power, but it was\nalways obtained against the inclination of the people.\n\nIt is clear, that among the Romans kings were not despotic. The last\nTarquin deserved to be expelled, and was so. We have no proof that the\npetty chiefs of Italy were ever able, at their pleasure, to present a\nbowstring to the first man of the state, as is now done to a vile Turk\nin his seraglio, and like barbarous slaves, still more imbecile, suffer\nhim to use it without complaint.\n\nThere was no king on this side the Alps, and in the North, at the time\nwe became acquainted with this large quarter of the world. The Cimbri,\nwho marched towards Italy, and who were exterminated by Marius, were\nlike famished wolves, who issued from those forests with their females\nand whelps. As to a crowned head among these animals, or orders on the\npart of a secretary of state, of a grand butler, of a chancellor--any\nnotion of arbitrary taxes, commissaries, fiscal edicts, etc.--they knew\nno more of any of these than of the vespers and the opera.\n\nIt is certain that gold and silver, coined and uncoined, form an\nadmirable means of placing him who has them not, in the power of him who\nhas found out the secret of accumulation. It is for the latter alone to\npossess great officers, guards, cooks, girls, women, jailers, almoners,\npages, and soldiers.\n\nIt would be very difficult to insure obedience with nothing to bestow\nbut sheep and sheep-skins. It is also very likely, after all the\nrevolutions of our globe, that it was the art of working metals which\noriginally made kings, as it is the art of casting cannon which now\nmaintains them.\n\nC\u00e6sar was right when he said, that with gold we may procure men, and\nwith men acquire gold.\n\nThis secret had been known for ages in Asia and Egypt, where the princes\nand the priests shared the benefit between them.\n\nThe prince said to the priest: Take this gold, and in return uphold my\npower, and prophesy in my favor; I will be anointed, and thou shalt\nanoint me; constitute oracles, manufacture miracles; thou shalt be well\npaid for thy labor, provided that I am always master. The priest, thus\nobtaining land and wealth, prophesies for himself, makes the oracles\nspeak for himself, chases the sovereign from the throne, and very often\ntakes his place. Such is the history of the shotim of Egypt, the magi of\nPersia, the soothsayers of Babylon, the chazin of Syria (if I mistake\nthe name it amounts to little)--all which holy persons sought to rule.\nWars between the throne and the altar have in fact existed in all\ncountries, even among the miserable Jews.\n\nWe, inhabitants of the temperate zone of Europe, have known this well\nfor a dozen centuries. Our minds not being so temperate as our climate,\nwe well know what it has cost us. Gold and silver form so entirely the\n_primum mobile_ of the holy connection between sovereignty and religion,\nthat many of our kings still send it to Rome, where it is seized and\nshared by priests as soon as it arrives.\n\nWhen, in this eternal conflict for dominion, leaders have become\npowerful, each has exhibited his pre-eminence in a mode of his own. It\nwas a crime to spit in the presence of the king of the Medes. The earth\nmust be stricken nine times by the forehead in the presence of the\nemperor of China. A king of England imagines that he cannot take a glass\nof beer unless it be presented on the knees. Another king will have his\nright foot saluted, and all will take the money of their people. In some\ncountries the krall, or chazin, is allowed an income, as in Poland,\nSweden, and Great Britain. In others, a piece of paper is sufficient for\nhis treasury to obtain all that it requires.\n\nSince we write upon the rights of the people, on taxation, on customs,\netc., let us endeavor, by profound reasoning, to establish the novel\nmaxim, that a shepherd ought to shear his sheep, and not to flay them.\n\nAs to the due limits of the prerogatives of kings, and of the liberty of\nthe people, I recommend you to examine that question at your ease in\nsome hotel in the town of Amsterdam.\n\n\n\n\nKISS.\n\n\nI ask pardon of young ladies and gentlemen, for they will not find here\nwhat they may possibly expect. This article is only for learned and\nserious people, and will suit very few of them.\n\nThere is too much of kissing in the comedies of the time of Moli\u00e8re. The\nvalets are always requesting kisses from the waiting-women, which is\nexceedingly flat and disagreeable, especially when the actors are ugly\nand must necessarily exhibit against the grain.\n\nIf the reader is fond of kisses, let him peruse the \"Pastor Fido\": there\nis an entire chorus which treats only of kisses, and the piece itself is\nfounded only on a kiss which Mirtillo one day bestows on the fair\nAmaryllis, in a game at blindman's buff--\"_un bacio molto saporito._\"\n\nIn a chapter on kissing by John de la Casa, archbishop of Benevento, he\nsays, that people may kiss from the head to the foot. He complains,\nhowever, of long noses, and recommends ladies who possess such to have\nlovers with short ones.\n\nTo kiss was the ordinary manner of salutation throughout all antiquity.\nPlutarch relates, that the conspirators, before they killed C\u00e6sar,\nkissed his face, his hands, and his bosom. Tacitus observes, that when\nhis father-in-law, Agricola, returned to Rome, Domitian kissed him\ncoldly, said nothing to him, and left him disregarded in the surrounding\ncrowd. An inferior, who could not aspire to kiss his superior, kissed\nhis own hand, and the latter returned the salute in a similar manner, if\nhe thought proper.\n\nThe kiss was ever used in the worship of the gods. Job, in his parable,\nwhich is possibly the oldest of our known books, says that he had not\nadored the sun and moon like the other Arabs, or suffered his mouth to\nkiss his hand to them.\n\nIn the West there remains of this civility only the simple and innocent\npractice yet taught in country places to children--that of kissing their\nright hands in return for a sugar-plum.\n\nIt is horrible to betray while saluting; the assassination of C\u00e6sar is\nthereby rendered much more odious. It is unnecessary to add, that the\nkiss of Judas has become a proverb.\n\nJoab, one of the captains of David, being jealous of Amasa, another\ncaptain, said to him, \"Art thou in health, my brother?\" and took him by\nthe beard with his right hand to kiss him, while with the other he drew\nhis sword and smote him so that his bowels were \"shed upon the ground\".\n\nWe know not of any kissing in the other assassinations so frequent among\nthe Jews, except possibly the kisses given by Judith to the captain\nHolofernes, before she cut off his head in his bed; but no mention is\nmade of them, and therefore the fact is only to be regarded as probable.\n\nIn Shakespeare's tragedy of \"Othello\", the hero, who is a Moor, gives\ntwo kisses to his wife before he strangles her. This appears abominable\nto orderly persons, but the partisans of Shakespeare say, that it is a\nfine specimen of nature, especially in a Moor.\n\nWhen John Galeas Sforza was assassinated in the cathedral of Milan, on\nSt. Stephen's day; the two Medicis, in the church of Reparata; Admiral\nColigni, the prince of Orange, Marshal d'Ancre, the brothers De Witt,\nand so many others, there was at least no kissing.\n\nAmong the ancients there was something, I know not what, symbolical and\nsacred attached to the kiss, since the statues of the gods were kissed,\nas also their beards, when the sculptors represented them with beards.\nThe initiated kissed one another in the mysteries of Ceres, in sign of\nconcord.\n\nThe first Christians, male and female, kissed with the mouth at their\nAgap\u00e6, or love-feasts. They bestowed the holy kiss, the kiss of peace,\nthe brotherly and sisterly kiss, \"_hagion philema._\" This custom, lasted\nfor four centuries, and was finally abolished in distrust of the\nconsequences. It was this custom, these kisses of peace, these\nlove-feasts, these appellations of brother and sister, which drew on the\nChristians, while little known, those imputations of debauchery bestowed\nupon them by the priests of Jupiter and the priestesses of Vesta. We\nread in Petronius and in other authors, that the dissolute called one\nanother brother and sister; and it was thought, that among Christians\nthe same licentiousness was intended. They innocently gave occasion for\nthe scandal upon themselves.\n\nIn the commencement, seventeen different Christian societies existed, as\nthere had been nine among the Jews, including the two kinds of\nSamaritans. Those bodies which considered themselves the most orthodox\naccused the others of inconceivable impurities. The term \"gnostic\", at\nfirst so honorable, and which signifies the learned, enlightened, pure,\nbecame an epithet of horror and of contempt, and a reproach of heresy.\nSt. Epiphanius, in the third century, pretended that the males and\nfemales at first tickled each other, and at length proceeded to\nlascivious kisses, judging of the degree of faith in each other by the\nwarmth of them. A Christian husband in presenting his wife to a\nnewly-initiated member, would exhort her to receive him, as above\nstated, and was always obeyed.\n\nWe dare not repeat, in our chaste language, all that Epiphanius adds in\nGreek. We shall simply observe, that this saint was probably a little\nimposed upon, that he suffered himself to be transported by his zeal,\nand that all the heretics were not execrable debauchees. The sect of\npietists, wishing to imitate the early Christians, at present bestow on\neach other kisses of peace, on departing from their assemblies, and also\ncall one another brother and sister. The ancient ceremony was a kiss\nwith the lips, and the pietists have carefully preserved it.\n\nThere was no other manner of saluting the ladies in France, Italy,\nGermany, and England. The cardinals enjoyed the privilege of kissing the\nlips of queens, even in Spain, though--what is singular--not in France,\nwhere the ladies have always had more liberties than elsewhere; but\nevery country has its ceremonies, and there is no custom so general but\nchance may have produced an exception. It was an incivility, a rudeness,\nin receiving the first visit of a nobleman, if a lady did not kiss his\nlips--no matter about his mustaches. \"It is an unpleasant custom,\" says\nMontaigne, \"and offensive to the ladies to have to offer their lips to\nthe three valets in his suite, however repulsive.\" This custom is,\nhowever, the most ancient in the world.\n\nIf it is disagreeable to a young and pretty mouth to glue itself to one\nwhich is old and ugly, there is also great danger in the junction of\nfresh and vermilion lips of the age of twenty to twenty-five--a truth\nwhich has finally abolished the ceremony of kissing in mysteries and\nlove-feasts. Hence also the seclusion of women throughout the East, who\nkiss only their fathers and brothers--a custom long ago introduced into\nSpain by the Arabs.\n\nAttend to the danger: there is a nerve which runs from the mouth to the\nheart, and thence lower still, which produces in the kiss an exquisitely\ndangerous sensation. Virtue may suffer from a prolonged and ardent kiss\nbetween two young pietists of the age of eighteen.\n\nIt is remarkable that mankind, and turtles, and pigeons alone practise\nkissing; hence the Latin word \"_columbatim_\", which our language cannot\nrender.\n\nWe cannot decorously dwell longer on this interesting subject, although\nMontaigne says, \"It should be spoken of without reserve; we boldly speak\nof killing, wounding, and betraying, while on this point we dare only\nwhisper.\"\n\n\n\n\nLAUGHTER.\n\n\nThat laughter is the sign of joy, as tears are of grief, is doubted by\nno one that ever laughed. They who seek for metaphysical causes of\nlaughter are not mirthful, while they who are aware that laughter draws\nthe zygomatic muscle backwards towards the ears, are doubtless very\nlearned. Other animals have this muscle as well as ourselves, yet never\nlaugh any more than they shed tears. The stag, to be sure, drops\nmoisture from its eyes when in the extremity of distress, as does a dog\ndissected alive; but they weep not for their mistresses or friends, as\nwe do. They break not out like us into fits of laughter at the sight of\nanything droll. Man is the only animal which laughs and weeps.\n\nAs we weep only when we are afflicted, and laugh only when we are gay,\ncertain reasoners have pretended that laughter springs from pride, and\nthat we deem ourselves superior to that which we laugh at. It is true\nthat man, who is a risible animal, is also a proud one; but it is not\npride which produces laughter. A child who laughs heartily, is not merry\nbecause he regards himself as superior to those who excite his mirth;\nnor, laughing when he is tickled, is he to be held guilty of the mortal\nsin of pride. I was eleven years of age when I read to myself, for the\nfirst time, the \"Amphitryon\" of Moli\u00e8re, and laughed until I nearly fell\nbackward. Was this pride? We are seldom proud when alone. Was it pride\nwhich caused the master of the golden ass to laugh when he saw the ass\neat his supper? He who laughs is joyful at the moment, and is prompted\nby no other cause.\n\nIt is not all joy which produces laughter: the greatest enjoyments are\nserious. The pleasures of love, ambition, or avarice, make nobody laugh.\n\nLaughter may sometimes extend to convulsions; it is even said that\npersons may die of laughter. I can scarcely believe it; but certainly\nthere are more who die of grief.\n\nViolent emotions, which sometimes move to tears and sometimes to the\nappearance of laughter, no doubt distort the muscles of the mouth; this,\nhowever, is not genuine laughter, but a convulsion and a pain. The tears\nmay sometimes be genuine, because the object is suffering, but laughter\nis not. It must have another name, and be called the \"_risus\nsardonicus_\"--sardonic smile.\n\nThe malicious smile, the \"_perfidum ridens_,\" is another thing; being\nthe joy which is excited by the humiliation of another. The grin,\n\"_cachinnus_,\" is bestowed on those who promise wonders and perform\nabsurdities; it is nearer to hooting than to laughter. Our pride derides\nthe vanity which would impose upon us. They hoot our friend Fr\u00e9ron in\n\"The Scotchwoman\", rather than laugh at him. I love to speak of friend\nFr\u00e9ron, as in that case I laugh unequivocally.\n\n\n\n\nLAW (NATURAL).\n\n\nB. What is natural law?\n\nA. The instinct by which we feel justice.\n\nB. What do you call just and unjust?\n\nA. That which appears so to the whole world.\n\nB. The world is made up of a great many heads. It is said that at\nLaced\u00e6mon thieves were applauded, while at Athens they were condemned to\nthe mines.\n\nA. That is all a mere abuse of words, mere logomachy and ambiguity.\nTheft was impossible at Sparta, where all property was common. What you\ncall theft was the punishment of avarice.\n\nB. It was forbidden for a man to marry his sister at Rome. Among the\nEgyptians, the Athenians, and even the Jews, a man was permitted to\nmarry his sister by the father's side. It is not without regret that I\ncite the small and wretched nation of the Jews, who certainly ought\nnever to be considered as a rule for any person, and who--setting aside\nreligion--were never anything better than an ignorant, fanatical, and\nplundering horde. According to their books, however, the young Tamar,\nbefore she was violated by her brother Ammon, addressed him in these\nwords: \"I pray thee, my brother, do not so foolishly, but ask me in\nmarriage of my father: he will not refuse thee.\"\n\nA. All these cases amount to mere laws of convention, arbitrary usages,\ntransient modes. What is essential remains ever the same. Point out to\nme any country where it would be deemed respectable or decent to plunder\nme of the fruits of my labor, to break a solemn promise, to tell an\ninjurious lie, to slander, murder, or poison, to be ungrateful to a\nbenefactor, or to beat a father or mother presenting food to you.\n\nB. Have you forgotten that Jean Jacques, one of the fathers of the\nmodern Church, has said that the first person who dared to enclose and\ncultivate a piece of ground was an enemy of the human race; that he\nought to be exterminated; and that the fruits of the earth belonged to\nall, and the land to none? Have we not already examined this\nproposition, so beautiful in itself, and so conducive to the happiness\nof society?\n\nA. Who is this Jean Jacques? It is certainly not John the Baptist, nor\nJohn the Evangelist, nor James the Greater, nor James the Less; he must\ninevitably be some witling of a Hun, to write such abominable\nimpertinence, or some ill-conditioned, malicious \"_bufo magro_,\" who is\nnever more happy than when sneering at what all the rest of the world\ndeem most valuable and sacred. For, instead of damaging and spoiling the\nestate of a wise and industrious neighbor, he had only to imitate him,\nand induce every head of a family to follow his example, in order to\nform in a short time a most flourishing and happy village. The author of\nthe passage quoted seems to me a thoroughly unsocial animal.\n\nB. You are of opinion, then, that by insulting and plundering the good\nman, for surrounding his garden and farmyard with a quick-set hedge, he\nhas offended against natural law.\n\nA. Yes, most certainly; there is, I must repeat, a natural law; and it\nconsists in neither doing ill to another, nor rejoicing at it, when from\nany cause whatsoever it befalls him.\n\nB. I conceive that man neither loves ill nor does it with any other view\nthan to his own advantage. But so many men are urged on to obtain\nadvantage to themselves by the injury of another; revenge is a passion\nof such violence; there are examples of it so terrible and fatal; and\nambition, more terrible and fatal still, has so drenched the world with\nblood; that when I survey the frightful picture, I am tempted to\nconfess, that a man is a being truly diabolical. I may certainly\npossess, deeply rooted in my heart, the notion of what is just and\nunjust; but an Attila, whom St. Leon extols and pays his court to; a\nPhocas, whom St. Gregory flatters with the most abject meanness;\nAlexander VI., polluted by so many incests, murders, and poisonings, and\nwith whom the feeble Louis XII., commonly called \"the Good,\" enters into\nthe most strict and base alliance; a Cromwell, whose protection Cardinal\nMazarin eagerly solicits, and to gratify whom he expels from France the\nheirs of Charles I., cousins-german of Louis XIV.--these, and a thousand\nsimilar examples, easily to be found in the records of history, totally\ndisturb and derange my ideas, and I no longer know what I am doing or\nwhere I am.\n\nA. Well; but should the knowledge that storms are coming prevent our\nenjoying the beautiful sunshine and gentle and fragrant gales of the\npresent day? Did the earthquake that destroyed half the city of Lisbon\nprevent your making a very pleasant journey from Madrid? If Attila was a\nbandit, and Cardinal Mazarin a knave, are there not some princes and\nministers respectable and amiable men? Has it not been remarked, that in\nthe war of 1701, the Council of Louis XIV. consisted of some of the most\nvirtuous of mankind--the duke of Beauvilliers, the Marquis de Torcy,\nMarshal Villars, and finally Chamillard, who was not indeed considered a\nvery able but still an honorable man? Does not the idea of just and\nunjust still exist? It is in fact on this that all laws are founded. The\nGreeks call laws \"the daughters of heaven\", which means simply, the\ndaughters of nature. Have you no laws in your country?\n\nB. Yes; some good, and others bad.\n\nA. Where could you have taken the idea of them, but from the notions of\nnatural law which every well-constructed mind has within itself? They\nmust have been derived from these or nothing.\n\nB. You are right; there is a natural law, but it is still more natural\nto many people to forget or neglect it.\n\nA. It is natural also to be one-eyed, humpbacked, lame, deformed, and\nsickly; but we prefer persons well made and healthy.\n\nB. Why are there so many one-eyed and deformed minds?\n\nA. Hush! Consult, however, the article on \"Omnipotence.\"\n\n\n\n\nLAW (SALIC).\n\n\nHe who says that the Salic law was written with a pen from the wing of a\ntwo-headed eagle, by Pharamond's almoner, on the back of the patent\ncontaining Constantine's donation, was not, perhaps, very much mistaken.\n\nIt is, say the doughty lawyers, the fundamental law of the French\nEmpire. The great Jerome Bignon, in his book on \"The Excellence of\nFrance,\" says that this law is derived from natural law, according to\nthe great Aristotle, because \"in families it was the father who\ngoverned, and no dower was given to daughters, as we read in relation to\nthe father, mother, and brothers of Rebecca.\"\n\nHe asserts that the kingdom of France is so excellent that it has\nreligiously preserved this law, recommended both by Aristotle and the\nOld Testament. And to prove this excellence of France, he observes also,\nthat the emperor Julian thought the wine of Sur\u00eane admirable.\n\nBut in order to demonstrate the excellence of the Salic law, he refers\nto Froissart, according to whom the twelve peers of France said that\n\"the kingdom of France is of such high nobility that it never ought to\npass in succession to a female.\"\n\nIt must be acknowledged that this decision is not a little uncivil to\nSpain, England, Naples, and Hungary, and more than all the rest to\nRussia, which has seen on its throne four empresses in succession.\n\nThe kingdom of France is of great nobility; no doubt it is; but those of\nSpain, of Mexico, and Peru are also of great nobility, and there is\ngreat nobility also in Russia.\n\nIt has been alleged that Sacred Scripture says the lilies neither toil\nnor spin; and thence it has been inferred that women ought not to reign\nin France. This certainly is another instance of powerful reasoning; but\nit has been forgotten that the leopards, which are--it is hard to say\nwhy--the arms of England, spin no more than the lilies which are--it is\nequally hard to say why--the arms of France. In a word, the circumstance\nthat lilies have never been seen to spin does not absolutely demonstrate\nthe exclusion of females from the throne to have been a fundamental law\nof the Gauls.\n\n\n_Of Fundamental Laws_.\n\nThe fundamental law of every country is, that if people are desirous of\nhaving bread, they must sow corn; that if they wish for clothing, they\nmust cultivate flax and hemp; that every owner of a field should have\nthe uncontrolled management and dominion over it, whether that owner be\nmale or female; that the half-barbarous Gaul should kill as many as ever\nhe can of the wholly barbarous Franks, when they come from the banks of\nthe Main, which they have not the skill and industry to cultivate, to\ncarry off his harvests and flocks; without doing which the Gaul would\neither become a serf of the Frank, or be assassinated by him.\n\nIt is upon this foundation that an edifice is well supported. One man\nbuilds upon a rock, and his house stands firm; another on the sands, and\nit falls to the ground. But a fundamental law, arising from the\nfluctuating inclinations of men, and yet at the same time irrevocable,\nis a contradiction in terms, a mere creature of imagination, a chimera,\nan absurdity; the power that makes the laws can change them. The Golden\nBull was called \"the fundamental law of the empire.\" It was ordained\nthat there should never be more than seven Teutonic electors, for the\nvery satisfactory and decisive reason that a certain Jewish chandelier\nhad had no more than seven branches, and that there are no more than\nseven gifts of the Holy Spirit. This fundamental law had the epithet\n\"eternal\" applied to it by the all-powerful authority and infallible\nknowledge of Charles IV. God, however, did not think fit to allow of\nthis assumption of \"eternal\" in Charles's parchments. He permitted other\nGerman emperors, out of their all-powerful authority and infallible\nknowledge, to add two branches to the chandelier, and two presents to\nthe seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. Accordingly the electors are now\nnine in number.\n\nIt was a very fundamental law that the disciples of the Lord Jesus\nshould possess no private property, but have all things in common. There\nwas afterwards a law that the bishops of Rome should be rich, and that\nthe people should choose them. The last fundamental law is, that they\nare sovereigns, and elected by a small number of men clothed in scarlet,\nand constituting a society absolutely unknown in the time of Jesus. If\nthe emperor, king of the Romans, always august, was sovereign master of\nRome in fact, as he is according to the style of his patents and\nheraldry, the pope would be his grand almoner, until some other law,\nforever irrevocable, was announced, to be destroyed in its turn by some\nsucceeding one.\n\nI will suppose--what may very possibly and naturally happen--that an\nemperor of Germany may have no issue but an only daughter, and that he\nmay be a quiet, worthy man, understanding nothing about war. I will\nsuppose that if Catherine II. does not destroy the Turkish Empire, which\nshe has severely shaken in the very year in which I am now writing my\nreverie (the year 1771), the Turk will come and invade this good prince,\nnotwithstanding his' being cherished and beloved by all his nine\nelectors; that his daughter puts herself at the head of the troops with\ntwo young electors deeply enamored of her; that she beats the Ottomans,\nas Deborah beat General Sisera, and his three hundred thousand soldiers,\nand his three thousand chariots of war, in a little rocky plain at the\nfoot of Mount Tabor; that this warlike princess drives the Mussulman\neven beyond Adrianople; that her father dies through joy at her success,\nor from any other cause; that the two lovers of the princess induce\ntheir seven colleagues to crown her empress, and that all the princes of\nthe empire, and all the cities give their consent to it; what, in this\ncase, becomes of the fundamental and eternal law which enacts that the\nholy Roman Empire cannot possibly pass from the lance to the distaff,\nthat the two-headed eagle cannot spin, and that it is impossible to sit\non the imperial throne without breeches? The old and absurd law would be\nderided, and the heroic empress reign at once in safety and in glory.\n\n_How The Salic Law Came To Be Established._\n\nWe cannot contest the custom which has indeed passed into law, that\ndecides against daughters inheriting the crown in France while there\nremains any male of the royal blood. This question has been long\ndetermined, and the seal of antiquity has been put to the decision. Had\nit been expressly brought from heaven, it could not be more revered by\nthe French nation than it is. It certainly does not exactly correspond\nwith the gallant courtesy of the nation; but the fact is, that it was in\nstrict and rigorous observance before the nation was ever distinguished\nfor its gallant courtesy.\n\nThe president H\u00e9nault repeats, in his \"Chronicle,\" what had been stated\nat random before him, that Clovis digested the Salic law in 511, the\nvery year in which he died. I am very well disposed to believe that he\nactually did digest this law, and that he knew how to read and write,\njust as I am to believe that he was only fifteen years old when he\nundertook the conquest of the Gauls; but I do sincerely wish that any\none would show me in the library of St.-Germain-des-Pr\u00e9s, or of St.\nMartin, the original document of the Salic law actually signed Clovis,\nor Clodovic, or Hildovic; from that we should at least learn his real\nname, which nobody at present knows.\n\nWe have two editions of this Salic law; one by a person by the name of\nHerold, the other by Francis Pithou; and these are different, which is\nby no means a favorable presumption. When the text of a law is given\ndifferently in two documents, it is not only evident that one of the two\nis false, but it is highly probable that they are both so. No custom or\nusage of the Franks was written in our early times, and it would be\nexcessively strange that the law of the Salii should have been so. This\nlaw, moreover, is in Latin, and it does not seem at all probable that,\nin the swamps between Suabia and Batavia, Clovis, or his predecessors,\nshould speak Latin.\n\nIt is supposed that this law has reference to the kings of France; and\nyet all the learned are agreed that the Sicambri, the Franks, and the\nSalii, had no kings, nor indeed any hereditary chiefs.\n\nThe title of the Salic law begins with these words: \"_In Christi\nnomine_\"--\"In the name of Christ.\" It was therefore made out of the\nSalic territory, as Christ was no more known by these barbarians than by\nthe rest of Germany and all the countries of the North.\n\nThis law is stated to have been drawn up by four distinguished lawyers\nof the Frank nation; these, in Herold's edition, are called Vuisogast,\nArogast, Salegast, and Vuindogast. In Pithou's edition, the names are\nsomewhat different. It has been unluckily discovered that these names\nare the old names, somewhat disguised, of certain cantons of Germany.\n\nIn whatever period this law was framed in bad Latin, we find, in the\narticle relating to allodial or freehold lands, \"that no part of Salic\nland can be inherited by women.\" It is clear that this pretended law was\nby no means followed. In the first place, it appears from the formul\u00e6 of\nMarculphus that a father might leave his allodial land to his daughter,\nrenouncing \"a certain Salic law which is impious and abominable.\"\n\nSecondly, if this law be applied to fiefs, it is evident that the\nEnglish kings, who were not of the Norman race, obtained all their great\nfiefs in France only through daughters.\n\nThirdly, it is alleged to be necessary that a fief should be possessed\nby a man, because he was able as well as bound to fight for his lord;\nthis itself shows that the law could not be understood to affect the\nrights to the throne. All feudal lords might fight just as well for a\nqueen as for a king. A queen was not obliged to follow the practice so\nlong in use, to put on a cuirass, and cover her limbs with armor, and\nset off trotting against the enemy upon a carthorse.\n\nIt is certain, therefore, that the Salic law could have no reference to\nthe crown, neither in connection with allodial lands, nor feudal holding\nand service.\n\nM\u00e9zeray says, \"The imbecility of the sex precludes their reigning.\"\nM\u00e9zeray speaks here like a man neither of sense nor politeness. History\npositively and repeatedly falsifies his assertion. Queen Anne of\nEngland, who humbled Louis XIV.; the empress-queen of Hungary, who\nresisted King Louis XV., Frederick the Great, the elector of Bavaria,\nand various other princes; Elizabeth of England, who was the strength\nand support of our great Henry; the empress of Russia, of whom we have\nspoken already; all these decidedly show that M\u00e9zeray is not more\ncorrect than he is courteous in his observation. He could scarcely help\nknowing that Queen Blanche was in fact the reigning monarch under the\nname of her son; as Anne of Brittany was under that of Louis XII.\n\nVelly, the last writer of the history of France, and who on that very\naccount ought to be the best, as he possessed all the accumulated\nmaterials of his predecessors, did not, however, always know how to turn\nhis advantages to the best account. He inveighs with bitterness against\nthe judicious and profound Rapin de Thoyras, and attempts to prove to\nhim that no princess ever succeeded to the crown while any males\nremained who were capable of succeeding. That we all know perfectly\nwell, and Thoyras never said the contrary.\n\nIn that long age of barbarism, when the only concern of Europe was to\ncommit usurpations and to sustain them, it must be acknowledged that\nkings, being often chiefs of banditti or warriors armed against those\nbanditti, it was not possible to be subject to the government of a\nwoman. Whoever was in possession of a great warhorse would engage in the\nwork of rapine and murder only under the standard of a man mounted upon\na great horse like himself. A buckler of oxhide served for a throne. The\ncaliphs governed by the Koran, the popes were deemed to govern by the\nGospel. The South saw no woman reign before Joan of Naples, who was\nindebted for her crown entirely to the affection of the people for King\nRobert, her grandfather, and to their hatred of Andrew, her husband.\nThis Andrew was in reality of royal blood, but had been born in Hungary,\nat that time in a state of barbarism. He disgusted the Neapolitans by\nhis gross manners, intemperance, and drunkenness. The amiable king\nRobert was obliged to depart from immemorial usage, and declare Joan\nalone sovereign by his will, which was approved by the nation.\n\nIn the North we see no queen reigning in her own right before Margaret\nof Waldemar, who governed for some months in her own name about the year\n1377.\n\nSpain had no queen in her own right before the able Isabella in 1461. In\nEngland the cruel and bigoted Mary, daughter of Henry VIII., was the\nfirst woman who inherited the throne, as the weak and criminal Mary\nStuart was in Scotland in the sixteenth century. The immense territory\nof Russia had no female sovereign before the widow of Peter the Great.\n\nThe whole of Europe, and indeed I might say the whole world, was\ngoverned by warriors in the time when Philip de Valois supported his\nright against Edward III. This right of a male who succeeded to a male,\nseemed the law of all nations. \"You are grandson of Philip the Fair,\"\nsaid Valois to his competitor, \"but as my right would be superior to\nthat of the mother, it must be still more decidedly superior to that of\nthe son. Your mother, in fact, could not communicate a right which she\ndid not possess.\"\n\nIt was therefore perfectly recognized in France that a prince of the\nblood royal, although in the remotest possible degree, should be heir to\nthe crown in exclusion even of the daughter of the king. It is a law on\nwhich there is now not the slightest dispute whatever. Other nations\nhave, since the full and universal recognition of this principle among\nourselves, adjudged the throne to princesses. But France has still\nobserved its ancient usage. Time has conferred on this usage the force\nof the most sacred of laws. At what time the Salic law was framed or\ninterpreted is not of the slightest consequence; it does exist, it is\nrespectable, it is useful; and its utility has rendered it sacred.\n\n_Examination Whether Daughters Are In All Cases Deprived Of Every\nSpecies Of Inheritance By This Salic Law._\n\nI have already bestowed the empire on a daughter in defiance of the\nGolden Bull. I shall have no difficulty in conferring on a daughter the\nkingdom of France. I have a better right to dispose of this realm than\nPope Julian II., who deprived Louis XII. of it, and transferred it by\nhis own single authority to the emperor Maximilian. I am better\nauthorized to plead in behalf of the daughters of the house of France,\nthan Pope Gregory XIII. and Cordelier Sextus-Quintus were to exclude\nfrom the throne our princes of the blood, under the pretence actually\nurged by these excellent priests, that Henry IV. and the princes of\nCond\u00e9 were a \"bastard and detestable race\" of Bourbon--refined and holy\nwords, which deserve ever to be remembered in order to keep alive the\nconviction of all we owe to the bishops of Rome. I may give my vote in\nthe states-general, and no pope certainly can have any suffrage on it. I\ntherefore give my vote without hesitation, some three or four hundred\nyears from the present time, to a daughter of France, then the only\ndescendant remaining in a direct line from Hugh Capet. I constitute her\nqueen, provided she shall have been well educated, have a sound\nunderstanding, and be no bigot. I interpret in her favor that law which\ndeclares \"_que fille ne doit mie succ\u00e9der_\"--that a daughter must in no\ncase come to her succession. I understand by the words, that she must in\nno case succeed as long as there shall be any male. But on failure of\nmales, I prove that the kingdom belongs to her by nature, which ordains\nit, and for the benefit of the nation.\n\nI invite all good Frenchmen to show the same respect as myself for the\nblood of so many kings. I consider this as the only method of preventing\nfactions which would dismember the state. I propose that she shall reign\nin her own right, and that she shall be married to some amiable and\nrespectable prince, who shall assume her name and arms, and who, in his\nown right, shall possess some territory which shall be annexed to\nFrance; as we have seen Maria Theresa of Hungary united in marriage to\nFrancis, duke of Lorraine, the most excellent prince in the world.\n\nWhat Celt will refuse to acknowledge her, unless we should discover some\nother beautiful and accomplished princess of the issue of Charlemagne,\nwhose family was expelled by Hugh Capet, notwithstanding the Salic law?\nor unless indeed we should find a princess fairer and more accomplished\nstill, an unquestionable descendant from Clovis, whose family was before\nexpelled by Pepin, his own domestic, notwithstanding, be it again\nremembered, the Salic law.\n\nI shall certainly find no involved and difficult intrigues necessary to\nobtain the consecration of my royal heroine at Rheims, or Chartres, or\nin the chapel of the Louvre--for either would effectually answer the\npurpose; or even to dispense with any consecration at all. For monarchs\nreign as well when not consecrated as when consecrated. The kings and\nqueens of Spain observe no such ceremony.\n\nAmong all the families of the king's secretaries, no person will be\nfound to dispute the throne with this Capetian princess. The most\nillustrious houses are so jealous of each other that they would\ninfinitely prefer obeying the daughter of kings to being under the\ngovernment of one of their equals.\n\nRecognized by the whole of France, she will receive the homage of all\nher subjects with a grace and majesty which will induce them to love as\nmuch as they revere her; and all the poets will compose verses in her\nhonor.\n\n\n\n\nLAW (CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL).\n\n\nThe following notes were found among the papers of a lawyer, and are\nperhaps deserving some consideration:\n\nThat no ecclesiastical law should be of any force until it has received\nthe express sanction of government. It was upon this principle that\nAthens and Rome were never involved in religious quarrels.\n\nThese quarrels fall to the lot of those nations only that have never\nbeen civilized, or that have afterwards been again reduced to barbarism.\n\nThat the magistrate alone should have authority to prohibit labor on\nfestivals, because it does not become priests to forbid men to cultivate\ntheir fields.\n\nThat everything relating to marriages depends solely upon the\nmagistrate, and that the priests should be confined to the august\nfunction of blessing them.\n\nThat lending money at interest is purely an object of the civil law, as\nthat alone presides over commerce.\n\nThat all ecclesiastical persons should be, in all cases whatever, under\nthe perfect control of the government, because they are subjects of the\nstate.\n\nThat men should never be so disgracefully ridiculous as to pay to a\nforeign priest the first year's revenue of an estate, conferred by\ncitizens upon a priest who is their fellow-citizen.\n\nThat no priest should possess authority to deprive a citizen even of the\nsmallest of his privileges, under the pretence that that citizen is a\nsinner; because the priest, himself a sinner, ought to pray for sinners,\nand not to judge them.\n\nThat magistrates, cultivators, and priests, should alike contribute to\nthe expenses of the state, because all alike belong to the state.\n\nThat there should be only one system of weights and measures, and\nusages.\n\nThat the punishment of criminals should be rendered useful. A man that\nis hanged is no longer useful; but a man condemned to the public works\nis still serviceable to his country, and a living lecture against crime.\n\nThat the whole law should be clear, uniform, and precise; to interpret\nit is almost always to corrupt it.\n\nThat nothing should be held infamous but vice.\n\nThat taxes should be imposed always in just proportion.\n\nThat law should never be in contradiction to usage; for, if the usage is\ngood, the law is worth nothing.\n\n\n\n\nLAWS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nIt is difficult to point out a single nation living under a system of\ngood laws. This is not attributable merely to the circumstance that laws\nare the productions of men, for men have produced works of great utility\nand excellence; and those who invented and brought to perfection the\nvarious arts of life were capable of devising a respectable code of\njurisprudence. But laws have proceeded, in almost every state, from the\ninterest of the legislator, from the urgency of the moment, from\nignorance, and from superstition, and have accordingly been made at\nrandom, and irregularly, just in the same manner in which cities have\nbeen built. Take a view of Paris, and observe the contrast between that\nquarter of it where the fish-market (Halles) is situated, the St.\nPierre-aux-b\u0153ufs, the streets Brisemiche and Pet-au-diable and the\nbeauty and splendor of the Louvre and the Tuileries. This is a correct\nimage of our laws.\n\nIt was only after London had been reduced to ashes that it became at all\nfit to be inhabited. The streets, after that catastrophe, were widened\nand straightened. If you are desirous of having good laws, burn those\nwhich you have at present, and make fresh ones.\n\nThe Romans were without fixed laws for the space of three hundred years;\nthey were obliged to go and request some from the Athenians, who gave\nthem such bad ones that they were almost all of them soon abrogated. How\ncould Athens itself be in possession of a judicious and complete system?\nThat of Draco was necessarily abolished, and that of Solon soon expired.\n\nOur customary or common law of Paris is interpreted differently by\nfour-and-twenty commentaries, which decidedly proves, the same number of\ntimes, that it is ill conceived. It is in contradiction to a hundred and\nforty other usages, all having the force of law in the same nation, and\nall in contradiction to each other. There are therefore, in a single\ndepartment in Europe, between the Alps and the Pyrenees, more than forty\ndistinct small populations, who call themselves fellow-countrymen, but\nwho are in reality as much strangers to one another as Tonquin is to\nCochin China.\n\nIt is the same in all provinces of Spain. It is in Germany much worse.\nNo one there knows what are the rights of the chief or of the members.\nThe inhabitant of the banks of the Elbe is connected with the cultivator\nof Suabia only in speaking nearly the same language, which, it must be\nadmitted, is rather an unpolished and coarse one.\n\nThe English nation has more uniformity; but having extricated itself\nfrom servitude and barbarism only by occasional efforts, by fits and\nconvulsive starts, and having even in its state of freedom retained many\nlaws formerly promulgated, either by the great tyrants who contended in\nrivalship for the throne, or the petty tyrants who seized upon the power\nand honors of the prelacy, it has formed altogether a body of laws of\ngreat vigor and efficacy, but which still exhibit many bruises and\nwounds, very clumsily patched and plastered.\n\nThe intellect of Europe has made greater progress within the last\nhundred years than the whole world had done before since the days of\nBrahma, Fohi, Zoroaster, and the Thaut of Egypt. What then is the cause\nthat legislation has made so little?\n\nAfter the fifth century, we were all savages. Such are the revolutions\nwhich take place on the globe; brigands pillaging and cultivators\npillaged made up the masses of mankind from the recesses of the Baltic\nSea to the Strait of Gibraltar; and when the Arabs made their appearance\nin the South, the desolation of ravage and confusion was universal.\n\nIn our department of Europe, the small number, being composed of daring\nand ignorant men, used to conquest and completely armed for battle, and\nthe greater number, composed of ignorant, unarmed slaves, scarcely any\none of either class knowing how to read or write--not even Charlemagne\nhimself--it happened very naturally that the Roman Church, with its pen\nand ceremonies, obtained the guidance and government of those who passed\ntheir life on horseback with their lances couched and the morion on\ntheir heads.\n\nThe descendants of the Sicambri, the Burgundians, the Ostrogoths,\nVisigoths, Lombards, Heruli, etc., felt the necessity of something in\nthe shape of laws. They sought for them where they were to be found. The\nbishops of Rome knew how to make them in Latin. The barbarians received\nthem with greater respect in consequence of not understanding them. The\ndecretals of the popes, some genuine, others most impudently forged,\nbecame the code of the new governors, \"_regas_\"; lords, \"_leus_\"; and\nbarons, who had appropriated the lands. They were the wolves who\nsuffered themselves to be chained up by the foxes. They retained their\nferocity, but it was subjugated by credulity and the fear which\ncredulity naturally produces. Gradually Europe, with the exception of\nGreece and what still belonged to the Eastern Empire, became subjected\nto the dominion of Rome, and the poet's verse might be again applied as\ncorrectly as before: _Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam._--\u00c6neid,\ni, 286.\n\n     The subject world shall Rome's dominion own,\n     And prostrate shall adore the nation of the gown.\n                                             --DRYDEN.\n\nAlmost all treaties being accompanied by the sign of the cross, and by\nan oath which was frequently administered over some relics, everything\nwas thus brought within the jurisdiction of the Church. Rome, as\nmetropolitan, was supreme judge in causes, from the Cimbrian Chersonesus\nto Gascony; and a thousand feudal lords, uniting their own peculiar\nusages with the canon law, produced in the result that monstrous\njurisprudence of which there at present exist so many remains. Which\nwould have been better--no laws at all, or such as these?\n\nIt was beneficial to an empire of more vast extent than that of Rome to\nremain for a long time in a state of chaos; for, as every valuable\ninstitution was still to be formed, it was easier to build a new edifice\nthan to repair one whose ruins were looked upon as sacred.\n\nThe legislatrix of the North, in 1767, collected deputies from all the\nprovinces which contained about twelve hundred thousand square leagues.\nThere were Pagans, Mahometans of the sect of Ali, and others of the sect\nof Omar, and about twelve different sects of Christians. Every law was\ndistinctly proposed to this new synod; and if it appeared conformable to\nthe interest of all the provinces, it then received the sanction of the\nempress and the nation.\n\nThe first law that was brought forward and carried, was a law of\ntoleration, that the Greek priest might never forget that the Latin\npriest was his fellow-man; that the Mussulman might bear with his Pagan\nbrother; and that the Roman Catholic might not be tempted to sacrifice\nhis brother Presbyterian.\n\nThe empress wrote with her own hand, in this grand council of\nlegislation, \"Among so many different creeds, the most injurious error\nwould be intolerance.\"\n\nIt is now unanimously agreed that there is in a state only one\nauthority; that the proper expressions to be used are, \"civil power,\"\nand \"ecclesiastical discipline\"; and that the allegory of the two swords\nis a dogma of discord.\n\nShe began with emancipating the serfs of her own particular domain. She\nemancipated all those of the ecclesiastical domains. She might thus be\nsaid to have created men out of slaves.\n\nThe prelates and monks were paid out of the public treasury. Punishments\nwere proportioned to crimes, and the punishments were of a useful\ncharacter; offenders were for the greater part condemned to labor on\npublic works, as the dead man can be of no service to the living.\n\nThe torture was abolished, because it punishes a man before he is known\nto be guilty; because the Romans never put any to the torture but their\nslaves; and because torture tends to saving the guilty and destroying\nthe innocent.\n\nThis important business had proceeded thus far, when Mustapha III., the\nson of Mahmoud, obliged the empress to suspend her code and proceed to\nfighting.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nI have attempted to discover some ray of light in the mythological times\nof China which precede Fohi, but I have attempted in vain.\n\nAt the period, however, in which Fohi flourished, which was about three\nthousand years before the new and common era of our northwestern part of\nthe world, I perceive wise and mild laws already established by a\nbeneficent sovereign. The ancient books of the Five Kings, consecrated\nby the respect of so many ages, treat of the institution of agriculture,\nof pastoral economy, of domestic economy, of that simple astronomy which\nregulates the different seasons, and of the music which, by different\nmodulations, summoned men to their respective occupations. Fohi\nflourished, beyond dispute, more than five thousand years ago. We may\ntherefore form some judgment of the great antiquity of an immense\npopulation, thus instructed by an emperor on every topic that could\ncontribute to their happiness. In the laws of that monarch I see nothing\nbut what is mild, useful and amiable.\n\nI was afterwards induced to inspect the code of a small nation, or\nhorde, which arrived about two thousand years after the period of which\nwe have been speaking, from a frightful desert on the banks of the river\nJordan, in a country enclosed and bristled with peaked mountains. These\nlaws have been transmitted to ourselves, and are daily held up to us as\nthe model of wisdom. The following are a few of them:\n\n\"Not to eat the pelican, nor the ossifrage, nor the griffin, nor the\nixion, nor the eel, nor the hare, because the hare ruminates, and has\nnot its foot cloven.\"\n\n\"Against men sleeping with their wives during certain periodical\naffections, under pain of death to both of the offending parties.\"\n\n\"To exterminate without pity all the unfortunate inhabitants of the land\nof Canaan, who were not even acquainted with them; to slaughter the\nwhole; to massacre all, men and women, old men, children, and animals,\nfor the greater glory of God.\"\n\n\"To sacrifice to the Lord whatever any man shall have devoted as an\nanathema to the Lord, and to slay it without power of ransom.\"\n\n\"To burn widows who, not being able to be married again to their\nbrothers-in-law, had otherwise consoled themselves on the highway or\nelsewhere,\" etc.\n\nA Jesuit, who was formerly a missionary among the cannibals, at the time\nwhen Canada still belonged to the king of France, related to me that\nonce, as he was explaining these Jewish laws to his neophytes, a little\nimpudent Frenchman, who was present at the catechising, cried out, \"They\nare the laws of cannibals.\" One of the Indians replied to him, \"You are\nto know, Mr. Flippant, that we are people of some decency and kindness.\nWe never had among us any such laws; and if we had not some kindness and\ndecency, we should treat you as an inhabitant of Canaan, in order to\nteach you civil language.\"\n\nIt appears upon a comparison of the code of the Chinese with that of the\nHebrews, that laws naturally follow the manners of the people who make\nthem. If vultures and doves had laws, they would undoubtedly be of a\nvery different character.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nSheep live in society very mildly and agreeably; their character passes\nfor being a very gentle one, because we do not see the prodigious\nquantity of animals devoured by them. We may, however, conceive that\nthey eat them very innocently and without knowing it, just as we do when\nwe eat Sassenage cheese. The republic of sheep is a faithful image of\nthe age of gold.\n\nA hen-roost exhibits the most perfect representation of monarchy. There\nis no king comparable to a cock. If he marches haughtily and fiercely in\nthe midst of his people, it is not out of vanity. If the enemy is\nadvancing, he does not content himself with issuing an order to his\nsubjects to go and be killed for him, in virtue of his unfailing\nknowledge and resistless power; he goes in person himself, ranges his\nyoung troops behind him, and fights to the last gasp. If he conquers, it\nis himself who sings the \"_Te Deum._\" In his civil or domestic life,\nthere is nothing so gallant, so respectable, and so disinterested.\nWhether he has in his royal beak a grain of corn or a grub-worm, he\nbestows it on the first of his female subjects that comes within his\npresence. In short, Solomon in his harem was not to be compared to a\ncock in a farm-yard.\n\nIf it be true that bees are governed by a queen to whom all her subjects\nmake love, that is a more perfect government still.\n\nAnts are considered as constituting an excellent democracy. This is\nsuperior to every other state, as all are, in consequence of such a\nconstitution, on terms of equality, and every individual is employed for\nthe happiness of all. The republic of beavers is superior even to that\nof ants; at least, if we may judge by their performances in masonry.\n\nMonkeys are more like merry-andrews than a regularly governed people;\nthey do not appear associated under fixed and fundamental laws, like the\nspecies previously noticed.\n\nWe resemble monkeys more than any other animals in the talent of\nimitation, in the levity of our ideas, and in that inconstancy which has\nalways prevented our having uniform and durable laws.\n\nWhen nature formed our species, and imparted to us a certain portion of\ninstinct, self-love for our own preservation, benevolence for the safety\nand comfort of others, love which is common to every class of animal\nbeing, and the inexplicable gift of combining more ideas than all the\ninferior animals together--after bestowing on us this outfit she said to\nus: \"Go, and do the best you can.\"\n\nThere is not a good code of laws in any single country. The reason is\nobvious: laws have been made for particular purposes, according to time,\nplace, exigencies, and not with general and systematic views.\n\nWhen the exigencies upon which laws were founded are changed or removed,\nthe laws themselves become ridiculous. Thus the law which forbade eating\npork and drinking wine was perfectly reasonable in Arabia, where pork\nand wine are injurious; but at Constantinople it is absurd.\n\nThe law which confers the whole fief or landed property on the eldest\nson, is a very good one in a time of general anarchy and pillage. The\neldest is then the commander of the castle, which sooner or later will\nbe attacked by brigands; the younger brothers will be his chief\nofficers, and the laborers his soldiers. All that is to be apprehended\nis that the younger brother may assassinate or poison the elder, his\nliege lord, in order to become himself the master of the premises; but\nsuch instances are uncommon, because nature has so combined our\ninstincts and passions, that we feel a stronger horror against\nassassinating our elder brother, than we feel a desire to succeed to his\nauthority and estate. But this law, which was suitable enough to the\nowners of the gloomy, secluded, and turreted mansions, in the days of\nChilperic, is detestable when the case relates wholly to the division of\nfamily property in a civilized and well-governed city.\n\nTo the disgrace of mankind, the laws of play or gaming are, it is well\nknown, the only ones that are throughout just, clear, inviolable, and\ncarried into impartial and perfect execution. Why is the Indian who laid\ndown the laws of a game of chess willingly and promptly obeyed all over\nthe world, while the decretals of the popes, for example, are at present\nan object of horror and contempt? The reason is, that the inventor of\nchess combined everything with caution and exactness for the\nsatisfaction of the players, and that the popes in their decretals\nlooked solely to their own advantage. The Indian was desirous at once of\nexercising the minds of men and furnishing them with amusement; the\npopes were desirous of debasing and brutifying them. Accordingly, the\ngame of chess has remained substantially the same for upwards of five\nthousand years, and is common to all the inhabitants of the earth; while\nthe decretals are known only at Spoleto, Orvieto, and Loretto, and are\nthere secretly despised even by the most shallow and contemptible of the\npractitioners.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nDuring the reigns of Vespasian and Titus, when the Romans were\ndisembowelling the Jews, a rich Israelite fled with all the gold he had\naccumulated by his occupation as a usurer, and conveyed to Ezion-Geber\nthe whole of his family, which consisted of his wife, then far advanced\nin years, a son, and a daughter; he had in his train two eunuchs, one of\nwhom acted as a cook, and the other as a laborer and vine-dresser; and a\npious Essenian, who knew the Pentateuch completely by heart, acted as\nhis almoner. All these embarked at the port of Ezion-Geber, traversed\nthe sea commonly called Red, although it is far from being so, and\nentered the Persian Gulf to go in search of the land of Ophir, without\nknowing where it was. A dreadful tempest soon after this came on, which\ndrove the Hebrew family towards the coast of India; and the vessel was\nwrecked on one of the Maldive islands now called Padrabranca, but which\nwas at that time uninhabited.\n\nThe old usurer and his wife were drowned; the son and daughter, the two\neunuchs, and the almoner were saved. They took as much of the provisions\nout of the wreck as they were able; erected for themselves little cabins\non the island, and lived there with considerable convenience and\ncomfort. You are aware that the island of Padrabranca is within five\ndegrees of the line, and that it furnishes the largest cocoanuts and the\nbest pineapples in the world; it was pleasant to have such a lovely\nasylum at a time when the favorite people of God were elsewhere exposed\nto persecution and massacre; but the Essenian could not refrain from\ntears when he reflected, that perhaps those on that happy island were\nthe only Jews remaining on the earth, and that the seed of Abraham was\nto be annihilated.\n\n\"Its restoration depends entirely upon you,\" said the young Jew; \"marry\nmy sister.\" \"I would willingly,\" said the almoner, \"but it is against\nthe law. I am an Essenian; I have made a vow never to marry; the law\nenjoins the strictest observance of a vow; the Jewish race may come to\nan end, if it must be so; but I will certainly not marry your sister in\norder to prevent it, beautiful and amiable as I admit she is.\"\n\n\"My two eunuchs,\" resumed the Jew, \"can be of no service in this affair;\nI will therefore marry her myself, if you have no objection; and you\nshall bestow the usual marriage benediction.\"\n\n\"I had a hundred times rather be disembowelled by the Roman soldiers,\"\nsaid the almoner, \"than to be instrumental to your committing incest;\nwere she your sister by the father's side only, the law would allow of\nyour marriage; but as she is your sister by the same mother, such a\nmarriage would be abominable.\"\n\n\"I can readily admit,\" returned the young man, \"that it would be a crime\nat Jerusalem, where I might see many other young women, one of whom I\nmight marry; but in the isle of Padrabranca, where I see nothing but\ncocoanuts, pineapples, and oysters, I consider the case to be very\nallowable.\"\n\nThe Jew accordingly married his sister, and had a daughter by her,\nnotwithstanding all the protestations of the Essenian; and this was the\nonly offspring of a marriage which one of them thought very legitimate,\nand the other absolutely abominable.\n\nAfter the expiration of fourteen years, the mother died; and the father\nsaid to the almoner, \"Have you at length got rid of your old prejudices?\nWill you marry my daughter?\" \"God preserve me from it,\" said the\nEssenian. \"Then,\" said the father, \"I will marry her myself, come what\nwill of it; for I cannot bear that the seed of Abraham should be totally\nannihilated.\" The Essenian, struck with inexpressible horror, would\ndwell no longer with a man who thus violated and defiled the law, and\nfled. The new-married man loudly called after him, saying, \"Stay here,\nmy friend. I am observing the law of nature, and doing good to my\ncountry; do not abandon your friends.\" The other suffered him to call,\nand continue to call, in vain; his head was full of the law; and he\nstopped not till he had reached, by swimming, another island.\n\nThis was the large island of Attola, highly populous and civilized; as\nsoon as he landed he was made a slave. He complained bitterly of the\ninhospitable manner in which he had been received; he was told that such\nwas the law, and that, ever since the island had been very nearly\nsurprised and taken by the inhabitants of that of Ada, it had been\nwisely enacted that all strangers landing at Attola should be made\nslaves. \"It is impossible that can ever be a law,\" said the Essenian,\n\"for it is not in the Pentateuch.\" He was told in reply, that it was to\nbe found in the digest of the country; and he remained a slave:\nfortunately he had a kind and wealthy master, who treated him very well,\nand to whom he became strongly attached.\n\nSome murderers once came to the house in which he lived, to kill his\nmaster and carry off his treasure. They inquired of the slaves if he was\nat home, and had much money there. \"We assure you, on our oaths,\" said\nthe slaves, \"that he is not at home.\" But the Essenian said: \"The law\ndoes not allow lying; I swear to you that he is at home, and that he has\na great deal of money.\" The master was, in consequence, robbed and\nmurdered; the slaves accused the Essenian, before the judges, of having\nbetrayed his master. The Essenian said, that he would tell no lies, and\nthat nothing in the world should induce him to tell one; and he was\nhanged.\n\nThis history was related to me, with many similar ones, on the last\nvoyage I made from India to France. When I arrived, I went to Versailles\non business, and saw in the street a beautiful woman, followed by many\nothers who were also beautiful. \"Who is that beautiful woman?\" said I to\nthe barrister who had accompanied me; for I had a cause then depending\nbefore the Parliament of Paris about some dresses that I had had made in\nIndia, and I was desirous of having my counsel as much with me as\npossible. \"She is the daughter of the king,\" said he, \"she is amiable\nand beneficent; it is a great pity that, in no case or circumstance\nwhatever, such a woman as that can become queen of France.\" \"What!\" I\nreplied, \"if we had the misfortune to lose all her relations and the\nprinces of the blood--which God forbid--would not she, in that case,\nsucceed to the throne of her father?\" \"No,\" said the counsellor; \"the\nSalic law expressly forbids it.\" \"And who made this Salic law?\" said I\nto the counsellor. \"I do not at all know,\" said he; \"but it is\npretended, that among an ancient people called the Salii, who were\nunable either to read or write, there existed a written law, which\nenacted, that in the Salic territory a daughter should not inherit any\nfreehold.\" \"And I,\" said I to him, \"I abolish that law; you assure me\nthat this princess is amiable and beneficent; she would, therefore,\nshould the calamity occur of her being the last existing personage of\nroyal blood, have an incontestable right to the crown: my mother\ninherited from her father; and in the case supposed, I am resolved that\nthis princess shall inherit from hers.\"\n\nOn the ensuing day, my suit was decided in one of the chambers of\nparliament, and I lost everything by a single vote; my counsellor told\nme, that in another chamber I should have gained everything by a single\nvote. \"That is a very curious circumstance,\" said I: \"at that rate each\nchamber proceeds by a different law.\" \"That is just the case,\" said he:\n\"there are twenty-five commentaries on the common law of Paris: that is\nto say, it is proved five and twenty times over, that the common law of\nParis is equivocal; and if there had been five and twenty chambers of\njudges, there would be just as many different systems of jurisprudence.\nWe have a province,\" continued he, \"fifteen leagues distant from Paris,\ncalled Normandy, where the judgment in your cause would have been very\ndifferent from what it was here.\" This statement excited in me a strong\ndesire to see Normandy; and I accordingly went thither with one of my\nbrothers. At the first inn, we met with a young man who was almost in a\nstate of despair. I inquired of him what was his misfortune; he told me\nit was having an elder brother. \"Where,\" said I, \"can be the great\ncalamity of having an elder brother? The brother I have is my elder, and\nyet we live very happily together.\" \"Alas! sir,\" said he to me, \"the law\nof this place gives everything to the elder brother, and of course\nleaves nothing for the younger ones.\" \"That,\" said I, \"is enough,\nindeed, to disturb and distress you; among us everything is divided\nequally; and yet, sometimes, brothers have no great affection for one\nanother.\"\n\nThese little adventures occasioned me to make some observations, which\nof course were very ingenious and profound, upon the subject of laws;\nand I easily perceived that it was with them as it is with our garments:\nI must wear a doliman at Constantinople, and a coat at Paris.\n\n\"If all human laws,\" said I, \"are matters of convention, nothing is\nnecessary but to make a good bargain.\" The citizens of Delhi and Agra\nsay that they have made a very bad one with Tamerlane: those of London\ncongratulate themselves on having made a very good one with King William\nof Orange. A citizen of London once said to me: \"Laws are made by\nnecessity, and observed through force.\" I asked him if force did not\nalso occasionally make laws, and if William, the bastard and conqueror,\nhad not chosen simply to issue his orders without condescending to make\nany convention or bargain with the English at all. \"True,\" said he, \"it\nwas so: we were oxen at that time; William brought us under the yoke,\nand drove us with a goad; since that period we have been metamorphosed\ninto men; the horns, however, remain with us still, and we use them as\nweapons against every man who attempts making us work for him and not\nfor ourselves.\"\n\nWith my mind full of all these reflections, I could not help feeling a\nsensible gratification in thinking, that there exists a natural law\nentirely independent of all human conventions: The fruit of my labor\nought to be my own: I am bound to honor my father and mother: I have no\nright over the life of my neighbor, nor has my neighbor over mine, etc.\nBut when I considered, that from Chedorlaomer to Mentzel, colonel of\nhussars, every one kills and plunders his neighbor according to law, and\nwith his patent in his pocket, I was greatly distressed.\n\nI was told that laws existed even among robbers, and that there were\nlaws also in war. I asked what were the laws of war. \"They are,\" said\nsome one, \"to hang up a brave officer for maintaining a weak post\nwithout cannon; to hang a prisoner, if the enemy have hanged any of\nyours; to ravage with fire and sword those villages which shall not have\ndelivered up their means of subsistence by an appointed day, agreeably\nto the commands of the gracious sovereign of the vicinage.\" \"Good,\" said\nI, \"that is the true spirit of laws.\" After acquiring a good deal of\ninformation, I found that there existed some wise laws, by which a\nshepherd is condemned to nine years' imprisonment and labor in the\ngalleys, for having given his sheep a little foreign salt. My neighbor\nwas ruined by a suit on account of two oaks belonging to him, which he\nhad cut down in his wood, because he had omitted a mere form of\ntechnicality with which it was almost impossible that he should have\nbeen acquainted; his wife died, in consequence, in misery; and his son\nis languishing out a painful existence. I admit that these laws are\njust, although their execution is a little severe; but I must\nacknowledge I am no friend to laws which authorize a hundred thousand\nneighbors loyally to set about cutting one another's throats. It appears\nto me that the greater part of mankind have received from nature a\nsufficient portion of what is called common sense for making laws, but\nthat the whole world has not justice enough to make good laws.\n\nSimple and tranquil cultivators, collected from every part of the world,\nwould easily agree that every one should be free to sell the superfluity\nof his own corn to his neighbor, and that every law contrary to it is\nboth inhuman and absurd; that the value of money, being the\nrepresentative of commodities, ought no more to be tampered with than\nthe produce of the earth; that the father of a family should be master\nin his own house; that religion should collect men together, to unite\nthem in kindness and friendship, and not to make them fanatics and\npersecutors; and that those who labor ought not to be deprived of the\nfruits of their labor, to endow superstition and idleness. In the course\nof an hour, thirty laws of this description, all of a nature beneficial\nto mankind, would be unanimously agreed to.\n\nBut let Tamerlane arrive and subjugate India, and you will then see\nnothing but arbitrary laws. One will oppress and grind down a whole\nprovince, merely to enrich one of Tamerlane's collectors of revenue;\nanother will screw up to the crime of high treason, speaking\ncontemptuously of the mistress of a rajah's chief valet; a third will\nextort from the farmer a moiety of his harvest, and dispute with him the\nright to the remainder; in short, there will be laws by which a Tartar\nsergeant will be authorized to seize your children in the cradle--to\nmake one, who is robust, a soldier--to convert another, who is weak,\ninto a eunuch--and thus to leave the father and mother without\nassistance and without consolation.\n\nBut which would be preferable, being Tamerlane's dog or his subject? It\nis evident that the condition of his dog would be by far the better one.\n\n\n\n\nLAWS (SPIRIT OF).\n\n\nIt would be admirable, if from all the books upon laws by Bodin, Hobbes,\nGrotius, Puffendorf, Montesquieu, Barbeyrac, and Burlamaqui, some\ngeneral law was adopted by the whole of the tribunals of Europe upon\nsuccession, contracts, revenue offences, etc. But neither the citations\nof Grotius, nor those of Puffendorf, nor those of the \"Spirit of Laws,\"\nhave ever led to a sentence in the Ch\u00e2telet of Paris or the Old Bailey\nof London. We weary ourselves with Grotius, pass some agreeable moments\nwith Montesquieu; but if process be deemed advisable, we run to our\nattorney.\n\nIt has been said that the letter kills, but that in the spirit there is\nlife. It is decidedly the contrary in the book of Montesquieu; the\nspirit is diffusive, and the letter teaches nothing.\n\n_False Citations In The \"Spirit Of Laws\", And False Consequences Drawn\nFrom Them By The Author._\n\nIt is observed, that \"the English, to favor liberty, have abstracted all\nthe intermediate powers which formed part of their constitution.\"\n\nOn the contrary, they have preserved the Upper House, and the greater\npart of the jurisdictions which stand between the crown and the people.\n\n\"The establishment of a vizier in a despotic state is a fundamental\nlaw.\"\n\n[Illustration: Montesquieu.]\n\nA judicious critic has remarked that this is as much as to say that the\noffice of the mayors of the palace was a fundamental office. Constantine\nwas highly despotic, yet had no grand vizier. Louis XIV. was less\ndespotic, and had no first minister. The popes are sufficiently\ndespotic, and yet seldom possess them.\n\n\"The sale of employments is good in monarchical states, because it makes\nit the profession of persons of family to undertake employments, which\nthey would not fulfil from disinterested motives alone.\"\n\nIs it Montesquieu who writes these odious lines? What! because the vices\nof Francis I. deranged the public finances, must we sell to ignorant\nyoung men the right of deciding upon the honor, fortune, and lives of\nthe people? What! is it good in a monarchy, that the office of\nmagistrate should become a family provision? If this infamy was\nsalutary, some other country would have adopted it as well as France;\nbut there is not another monarchy on earth which has merited the\nopprobrium. This monstrous anomaly sprang from the prodigality of a\nruined and spendthrift monarch, and the vanity of certain citizens whose\nfathers possessed money; and the wretched abuse has always been weakly\nattacked, because it was felt that reimbursement would be difficult. It\nwould be a thousand times better, said a great jurisconsult, to sell the\ntreasure of all the convents, and the plate of all the churches, than to\nsell justice. When Francis I. seized the silver grating of St. Martin,\nhe did harm to no one; St. Martin complained not, and parted very easily\nwith his screen; but to sell the place of judge, and at the same time\nmake the judge swear that he has not bought it, is a base sacrilege.\n\nLet us complain that Montesquieu has dishonored his work by such\nparadoxes--but at the same time let us pardon him. His uncle purchased\nthe office of a provincial president, and bequeathed it to him. Human\nnature is to be recognized in everything, and there are none of us\nwithout weakness.\n\n\"Behold how industriously the Muscovite government seeks to emerge from\ndespotism.\"\n\nIs it in abolishing the patriarchate and the active militia of the\nstrelitzes; in being the absolute master of the troops, of the revenue,\nand of the church, of which the functionaries are paid from the public\ntreasury alone? or is it proved by making laws to render that power as\nsacred as it is mighty? It is melancholy, that in so many citations and\nso many maxims, the contrary of what is asserted should be almost always\nthe truth.\n\n\"The luxury of those who possess the necessaries of life only, will be\nzero; the luxury of those who possess as much again, will be equal to\none; of those who possess double the means of the latter, three; and so\non.\"\n\nThe latter will possess three times the excess beyond the necessaries of\nlife; but it by no means follows that he will possess three times as\nmany luxuries; for he may be thrice as avaricious, or may employ the\nsuperfluity in commerce, or in portions to his daughters. These\npropositions are not affairs of arithmetic, and such calculations are\nmiserable quackery.\n\n\"The Samnites had a fine custom, which must have produced admirable\nresults. The young man declared the most worthy chose a wife where he\npleased; he who had the next number of suffrages in his favor followed,\nand so on throughout.\"\n\nThe author has mistaken the Sunites, a people of Scythia, for the\nSamnites, in the neighborhood of Rome. He quotes a fragment of Nicholas\nde Demas, preserved by Stob\u00e6us: but is the said Nicholas a sufficient\nauthority? This fine custom would moreover be very injurious in a\nwell-governed country; for if the judges should be deceived in the young\nman declared the most worthy; if the female selected should not like\nhim; or if he were objectionable in the eyes of the girl's parents, very\nfatal results might follow.\n\n\"On reading the admirable work of Tacitus on the manners of the Germans,\nit will be seen that it is from them the English drew the idea of their\npolitical government. That admirable system originated in the woods.\"\n\nThe houses of peers and of commons, and the English courts of law and\nequity, found in the woods! Who would have supposed it? Without doubt,\nthe English owe their squadrons and their commerce to the manners of the\nGermans; and the sermons of Tillotson to those pious German sorcerers\nwho sacrificed their prisoners, and judged of their success in war by\nthe manner in which the blood flowed. We must believe, also, that the\nEnglish are indebted for their fine manufactures to the laudable\npractice of the Germans, who, as Tacitus observers, preferred robbery to\ntoil.\n\n\"Aristotle ranked among monarchies the governments both of Persia and\nLaced\u00e6mon; but who cannot perceive that the one was a despotism, the\nother a republic?\"\n\nWho, on the contrary, cannot perceive that Laced\u00e6mon had a single king\nfor four hundred years, and two kings until the extinction of the\nHeraclid\u00e6, a period of about a thousand years? We know that no king was\ndespotic of right, not even in Persia; but every bold and dissembling\nprince who amasses money, becomes despotic in a little time, either in\nPersia or Laced\u00e6mon; and, therefore, Aristotle distinguishes every state\npossessing perpetual and hereditary chiefs, from republics.\n\n\"People of warm climates are timid, like old men; those of cold\ncountries are courageous, like young ones.\"\n\nWe should take great care how general propositions escape us. No one has\never been able to make a Laplander or an Esquimaux warlike, while the\nArabs in fourscore years conquered a territory which exceeded that of\nthe whole Roman Empire. This maxim of M. Montesquieu is equally\nerroneous with all the rest on the subject of climate.\n\n\"Louis XIII. was extremely averse to passing a law which made the\nnegroes of the French colonies slaves; but when he was given to\nunderstand that it was the most certain way of converting them, he\nconsented.\"\n\nWhere did the author pick up this anecdote? The first arrangement for\nthe treatment of the negroes was made in 1673, thirty years after the\ndeath of Louis XIII. This resembles the refusal of Francis I. to listen\nto the project of Christopher Columbus, who had discovered the Antilles\nbefore Francis I. was born.\n\n\"The Romans never exhibited any jealousy on the score of commerce. It\nwas as a rival, not as a commercial nation, that they attacked\nCarthage.\"\n\nIt was both as a warlike and as a commercial nation, as the learned Huet\nproves in his \"Commerce of the Ancients,\" when he shows that the Romans\nwere addicted to commerce a long time before the first Punic war.\n\n\"The sterility of the territory of Athens established a popular\ngovernment there, and the fertility of that of Laced\u00e6mon an aristocratic\none.\"\n\nWhence this chimera? From enslaved Athens we still derive cotton, silk,\nrice, corn, oil, and skins; and from the country of Laced\u00e6mon nothing.\nAthens was twenty times richer than Laced\u00e6mon. With respect to the\ncomparative fertility of the soil, it is necessary to visit those\ncountries to appreciate it; but the form of a government is never\nattributed to the greater or less fertility. Venice had very little corn\nwhen her nobles governed. Genoa is assuredly not fertile, and yet is an\naristocracy. Geneva is a more popular state, and has not the means of\nexisting a fortnight upon its own productions. Sweden, which is equally\npoor, has for a long time submitted to the yoke of a monarchy; while\nfertile Poland is aristocratic. I cannot conceive how general rules can\nbe established, which may be falsified upon the slightest appeal to\nexperience.\n\n\"In Europe, empires have never been able to exist.\" Yet the Roman Empire\nexisted for five hundred years, and that of the Turks has maintained\nitself since the year 1453.\n\n\"The duration of the great empires of Asia is principally owing to the\nprevalence of vast plains.\" M. Montesquieu forgets the mountains which\ncross Natolia and Syria, Caucasus, Taurus, Ararat, Imaus, and others,\nthe ramifications of which extend throughout Asia.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nAfter thus convincing ourselves that errors abound in the \"Spirit of\nLaws\"; after everybody is satisfied that this work wants method, and\npossesses neither plan nor order, it is proper to inquire into that\nwhich really forms its merit, and which has led to its great reputation.\n\nIn the first place, it is written with great wit, while the authors of\nall the other books on this subject are tedious. It was on this account\nthat a lady, who possessed as much wit as Montesquieu, observed, that\nhis book was \"_l'esprit sur les lois_.\" It can never be more correctly\ndefined.\n\nA still stronger reason is that the book exhibits grand views, attacks\ntyranny, superstition, and grinding taxation--three things which mankind\ndetest. The author consoles slaves in lamenting their fetters, and the\nslaves in return applaud him.\n\nOne of the most bitter and absurd of his enemies, who contributed most\nby his rage to exalt the name of Montesquieu throughout Europe, was the\njournalist of the Convulsionaries. He called him a Spinozist and deist;\nthat is to say, he accused him at the same time of not believing in God\nand of believing in God alone.\n\nHe reproaches him with his esteem for Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, and\nthe Stoics; and for not loving Jansenists--the Abb\u00e9 de St. Cyran and\nFather Quesnel. He asserts that he has committed an unpardonable crime\nin calling Bayle a great man.\n\nHe pretends that the \"Spirit of Laws\" is one of those monstrous works\nwith which France has been inundated since the Bull _Unigenitus_, which\nhas corrupted the consciences of all people.\n\nThis tatterdemalion from his garret, deriving at least three hundred per\ncent. from his ecclesiastical gazette, declaimed like a fool against\ninterest upon money at the legal rate. He was seconded by some pedants\nof his own sort; and the whole concluded in their resembling the slaves\nplaced at the foot of the statue of Louis XIV.; they are crushed, and\ngnaw their own flesh in revenge.\n\nMontesquieu was almost always in error with the learned, because he was\nnot learned; but he was always right against the fanatics and promoters\nof slavery. Europe owes him eternal gratitude.\n\n\n\n\nLENT.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nOur questions on Lent will merely regard the police. It appeared useful\nto have a time in the year in which we should eat fewer oxen, calves,\nlambs, and poultry. Young fowls and pigeons are not ready in February\nand March, the time in which Lent falls; and it is good to cease the\ncarnage for some weeks in countries in which pastures are not so fertile\nas those of England and Holland.\n\nThe magistrates of police have very wisely ordered that meat should be a\nlittle dearer at Paris during this time, and that the profit should be\ngiven to the hospitals. It is an almost insensible tribute paid by\nluxury and gluttony to indigence; for it is the rich who are not able to\nkeep Lent--the poor fast all the year.\n\nThere are very few farming men who eat meat once a month. If they ate of\nit every day, there would not be enough for the most flourishing\nkingdom. Twenty millions of pounds of meat a day would make seven\nthousand three hundred millions of pounds a year. This calculation is\nalarming.\n\nThe small number of the rich, financiers, prelates, principal\nmagistrates, great lords, and great ladies who condescend to have maigre\nserved at their tables, fast during six weeks on soles, salmon, turbots,\nsturgeons, etc.\n\nOne of our most famous financiers had couriers, who for a hundred crowns\nbrought him fresh sea fish every day to Paris. This expense supported\nthe couriers, the dealers who sold the horses, the fishermen who\nfurnished the fish, the makers of nets, constructors of boats, and the\ndruggists from whom were procured the refined spices which give to a\nfish a taste superior to that of meat. Lucullus could not have kept Lent\nmore voluptuously.\n\nIt should further be remarked that fresh sea fish, in coming to Paris,\npays a considerable tax. The secretaries of the rich, their valets de\nchambre, ladies' maids, and stewards, partake of the dessert of\nCr\u0153sus, and fast as deliciously as he.\n\nIt is not the same with the poor; not only if for four sous they partake\nof a small portion of tough mutton do they commit a great sin, but they\nseek in vain for this miserable aliment. What do they therefore feed\nupon? Chestnuts, rye bread, the cheeses which they have pressed from the\nmilk of their cows, goats or sheep, and some few of the eggs of their\npoultry.\n\nThere are churches which forbid them the eggs and the milk. What then\nremains for them to eat? Nothing. They consent to fast; but they consent\nnot to die. It is absolutely necessary that they should live, if it be\nonly to cultivate the lands of the fat rectors and lazy monks.\n\nWe therefore ask, if it belongs not to the magistrates of the police of\nthe kingdom, charged with watching over the health of the inhabitants,\nto give them permission to eat the cheeses which their own hands have\nformed, and the eggs which their fowls have laid?\n\nIt appears that milk, eggs, cheese, and all which can nourish the\nfarmer, are regulated by the police, and not by a religious rule.\n\nWe hear not that Jesus Christ forbade omelets to His apostles; He said\nto them: \"Eat such things as are set before you.\"\n\nThe Holy Church has ordained Lent, but in quality of the Church it\ncommands it only to the heart; it can inflict spiritual pains alone; it\ncannot as formerly burn a poor man, who, having only some rusty bacon,\nput a slice of it on a piece of black bread the day after Shrove\nTuesday.\n\nSometimes in the provinces the pastors go beyond their duty, and\nforgetting the rights of the magistracy, undertake to go among the\ninnkeepers and cooks, to see if they have not some ounces of meat in\ntheir saucepans, some old fowls on their hooks, or some eggs in a\ncupboard; for eggs are forbidden in Lent. They intimidate the poor\npeople, and proceed to violence towards the unfortunates, who know not\nthat it belongs alone to the magistracy to interfere. It is an odious\nand punishable inquisition.\n\nThe magistrates alone can be rightly informed of the more or less\nabundant provisions required by the poor people of the provinces. The\nclergy have occupations more sublime. Should it not therefore belong to\nthe magistrates to regulate what the people eat in Lent? Who should pry\ninto the legal consumption of a country if not the police of that\ncountry?\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nDid the first who were advised to fast put themselves under this regimen\nby order of the physician, for indigestion? The want of appetite which\nwe feel in grief--was it the first origin of fast-days prescribed in\nmelancholy religions?\n\nDid the Jews take the custom of fasting from the Egyptians, all of whose\nrites they imitated, including flagellation and the scape-goat? Why\nfasted Jesus for forty days in the desert, where He was tempted by the\ndevil--by the \"Chathbull\"? St. Matthew remarks that after this Lent He\nwas hungry; He was therefore not hungry during the fast.\n\nWhy, in days of abstinence, does the Roman Church consider it a crime to\neat terrestrial animals, and a good work to be served with soles and\nsalmon? The rich Papist who shall have five hundred francs' worth of\nfish upon his table shall be saved, and the poor wretch dying with\nhunger, who shall have eaten four sous' worth of salt pork, shall be\ndamned.\n\nWhy must we ask permission of the bishop to eat eggs? If a king ordered\nhis people never to eat eggs, would he not be thought the most\nridiculous of tyrants? How strange the aversion of bishops to omelets!\n\nCan we believe that among Papists there have been tribunals imbecile,\ndull, and barbarous enough to condemn to death poor citizens, who had no\nother crimes than that of having eaten of horseflesh in Lent? The fact\nis but too true; I have in my hands a sentence of this kind. What\nrenders it still more strange is that the judges who passed such\nsentences believed themselves superior to the Iroquois.\n\nFoolish and cruel priests, to whom do you order Lent? Is it to the rich?\nthey take good care to observe it. Is it to the poor? they keep Lent all\nthe year. The unhappy peasant scarcely ever eats meat, and has not\nwherewithal to buy fish. Fools that you are, when will you correct your\nabsurd laws?\n\n\n\n\nLEPROSY, ETC.\n\n\nThis article relates to two powerful divinities, one ancient and the\nother modern, which have reigned in our hemisphere. The reverend father\nDom Calmet, a great antiquarian, that is, a great compiler of what was\nsaid in former times and what is repeated at the present day, has\nconfounded lues with leprosy. He maintains that it was the lues with\nwhich the worthy Job was afflicted, and he supposes, after a confident\nand arrogant commentator of the name of Pineida, that the lues and\nleprosy are precisely the same disorder. Calmet is not a physician,\nneither is he a reasoner, but he is a citer of authorities; and in his\nvocation of commentator, citations are always substituted for reasons.\nWhen Astruc, in his history of lues, quotes authorities that the\ndisorder came in fact from San Domingo, and that the Spaniards brought\nit from America, his citations are somewhat more conclusive.\n\nThere are two circumstances which, in my opinion, prove that lues\noriginated in America; the first is, the multitude of authors, both\nmedical and surgical, of the sixteenth century, who attest the fact; and\nthe second is, the silence of all the physicians and all the poets of\nantiquity, who never were acquainted with this disease, and never had\neven a name for it. I here speak of the silence of physicians and of\npoets as equally demonstrative. The former, beginning with Hippocrates,\nwould not have failed to describe this malady, to state its symptoms, to\napply to it a name, and suggest some remedy. The poets, equally as\nmalicious and sarcastic as physicians are studious and investigative,\nwould have detailed in their satires, with minute particularity, all the\nsymptoms and consequences of this dreadful disorder; you do not find,\nhowever, a single verse in Horace or Catullus, in Martial or Juvenal,\nwhich has the slightest reference to lues, although they expatiate on\nall the effects of debauchery with the utmost freedom and delight.\n\nIt is very certain that smallpox was not known to the Romans before the\nsixth century; that the American lues was not introduced into Europe\nuntil the fifteenth century; and that leprosy is as different from those\ntwo maladies, as palsy from St. Guy's or St. Vitus' dance.\n\nLeprosy was a scabious disease of a dreadful character. The Jews were\nmore subject to it than any other people living in hot climates, because\nthey had neither linen, nor domestic baths. These people were so\nnegligent of cleanliness and the decencies of life that their\nlegislators were obliged to make a law to compel them even to wash their\nhands.\n\nAll that we gained in the end by engaging in the crusades, was leprosy;\nand of all that we had taken, that was the only thing that remained with\nus. It was necessary everywhere to build lazarettos, in which to confine\nthe unfortunate victims of a disease at once pestilential and incurable.\n\nLeprosy, as well as fanaticism and usury, had been a distinguishing\ncharacteristic of the Jews. These wretched people having no physicians,\nthe priests took upon themselves the management and regulation of\nleprosy, and made it a concern of religion. This has occasioned some\nindiscreet and profane critics to remark that the Jews were no better\nthan a nation of savages under the direction of their jugglers. Their\npriests in fact never cured leprosy, but they cut off from society those\nwho were infected by it, and thus acquired a power of the greatest\nimportance. Every man laboring under this disease was imprisoned, like a\nthief or a robber; and thus a woman who was desirous of getting rid of\nher husband had only to secure the sanction of the priest, and the\nunfortunate husband was shut up--it was the \"_lettre de cachet_\" of the\nday. The Jews and those by whom they were governed were so ignorant that\nthey imagined the moth-holes in garments, and the mildew upon walls, to\nbe the effects of leprosy. They actually conceived their houses and\nclothes to have leprosy; thus the people themselves, and their very rags\nand hovels, were all brought under the rod of the priesthood.\n\nOne proof that, at the time of the first introduction of the lues, there\nwas no connection between that disorder and leprosy, is that the few\nlepers that remained at the conclusion of the fifteenth century were\noffended at any kind of comparison between themselves and those who were\naffected by lues.\n\nSome of the persons thus affected were in the first instance sent to the\nhospital for lepers, but were received by them with indignation. The\nlepers presented a petition to be separated from them; as persons\nimprisoned for debt or affairs of honor claim a right not to be\nconfounded with the common herd of criminals.\n\nWe have already observed that the Parliament of Paris, on March 6, 1496,\nissued an order, by which all persons laboring under lues, unless they\nwere citizens of Paris, were enjoined to depart within twenty-four\nhours, under pain of being hanged. This order was neither Christian,\nlegal, nor judicious; but it proves that lues was regarded as a new\nplague which had nothing in common with leprosy; as lepers were not\nhanged for residing in Paris, while those afflicted by lues were so.\n\nMen may bring the leprosy on themselves by their uncleanliness and\nfilth, just as is done by a species of animals to which the very lowest\nof the vulgar may too naturally be compared; but with respect to lues,\nit was a present made to America by nature. We have already reproached\nthis same nature, at once so kind and so malicious, so sagacious and yet\nso blind, with defeating her own object by thus poisoning the source of\nlife; and we still sincerely regret that we have found no solution of\nthis dreadful difficulty.\n\nWe have seen elsewhere that man in general, one with another, or (as it\nis expressed) on the average, does not live above two-and-twenty years;\nand during these two-and-twenty years he is liable to two-and-twenty\nthousand evils, many of which are incurable.\n\nYet even in this dreadful state men still strut and figure on the stage\nof life; they make love at the hazard of destruction; and intrigue,\ncarry on war, and form projects, just as if they were to live in luxury\nand delight for a thousand ages.\n\n\n\n\nLETTERS (MEN OF).\n\n\nIn the barbarous times when the Franks, Germans, Bretons, Lombards, and\nSpanish Mozarabians knew neither how to read nor write, we instituted\nschools and universities almost entirely composed of ecclesiastics, who,\nknowing only their own jargon, taught this jargon to those who would\nlearn it. Academies were not founded until long after; the latter have\ndespised the follies of the schools, but they have not always dared to\noppose them, because there are follies which we respect when they are\nattached to respectable things.\n\nMen of letters who have rendered the most service to the small number of\nthinking beings scattered over the earth are isolated scholars, true\nsages shut up in their closets, who have neither publicly disputed in\nthe universities, nor said things by halves in the academies; and such\nhave almost all been persecuted. Our miserable race is so created that\nthose who walk in the beaten path always throw stones at those who would\nshow them a new one.\n\nMontesquieu says that the Scythians put out the eyes of their slaves\nthat they might be more attentive to the making of their butter. It is\nthus that the Inquisition acts, and almost every one is blinded in the\ncountries in which this monster reigns. In England people have had two\neyes for more than a hundred years. The French are beginning to open one\neye--but sometimes men in place will not even permit us to be one-eyed.\n\nThese miserable statesmen are like Doctor Balouard of the Italian\ncomedy, who will only be served by the fool Harlequin, and who fears to\nhave too penetrating a servant.\n\nCompose odes in praise of Lord Superbus Fatus, madrigals for his\nmistress; dedicate a book of geography to his porter, and you will be\nwell received. Enlighten men, and you will be crushed.\n\nDescartes is obliged to quit his country; Gassendi is calumniated;\nArnaud passes his days in exile; all the philosophers are treated as the\nprophets were among the Jews.\n\nWho would believe that in the eighteenth century, a philosopher has been\ndragged before the secular tribunals, and treated as impious by\nreasoning theologians, for having said that men could not practise the\narts if they had no hands? I expect that they will soon condemn to the\ngalleys the first who shall have the insolence to say that a man could\nnot think if he had no head; for a learned bachelor will say to him, the\nsoul is a pure spirit, the head is only matter; God can place the soul\nin the heel as well as in the brain; therefore I denounce you as a\nblasphemer.\n\nThe great misfortune of a man of letters is not perhaps being the object\nof the jealousy of his brothers, the victim of cabals, and the contempt\nof the powerful of the world--it is being judged by fools. Fools\nsometimes go very far, particularly when fanaticism is joined to folly,\nand folly to the spirit of vengeance. Further, the great misfortune of a\nman of letters is generally to hold to nothing. A citizen buys a little\nsituation, and is maintained by his fellow-citizens. If any injustice is\ndone to him, he soon finds defenders. The literary man is without aid;\nhe resembles the flying fish; if he rises a little, the birds devour\nhim; if he dives, the fishes eat him up. Every public man pays tribute\nto malignity; but he is repaid in deniers and honors.\n\n\n\n\nLIBEL.\n\n\nSmall, offensive books are termed libels. These books are usually small,\nbecause the authors, having few reasons to give, and usually writing not\nto inform, but mislead, if they are desirous of being read, must\nnecessarily be brief. Names are rarely used on these occasions, for\nassassins fear being detected in the employment of forbidden weapons.\n\nIn the time of the League and the Fronde, political libels abounded.\nEvery dispute in England produces hundreds; and a library might be\nformed of those written against Louis XIV.\n\nWe have had theological libels for sixteen hundred years; and what is\nworse, these are esteemed holy by the vulgar. Only see how St. Jerome\ntreats Rufinus and Vigilantius. The latest libels are those of the\nMolinists and Jansenists, which amount to thousands. Of all this mass\nthere remains only \"The Provincial Letters.\"\n\nMen of letters may dispute the number of their libels with the\ntheologians. Boileau and Fontenelle, who attacked one another with\nepigrams, both said that their chambers would not contain the libels\nwith which they had been assailed. All these disappear like the leaves\nin autumn. Some people have maintained that anything offensive written\nagainst a neighbor is a libel.\n\nAccording to them, the railing attacks which the prophets occasionally\nsang to the kings of Israel, were defamatory libels to excite the people\nto rise up against them. As the populace, however, read but little\nanywhere, it is believed that these half-disclosed satires never did any\ngreat harm. Sedition is produced by speaking to assemblies of the\npeople, rather than by writing for them. For this reason, one of the\nfirst things done by Queen Elizabeth of England on her accession, was to\norder that for six months no one should preach without express\npermission.\n\nThe \"Anti-Cato\" of C\u00e6sar was a libel, but C\u00e6sar did more harm to Cato by\nthe battle of Pharsalia, than by his \"Diatribes\". The \"Philippics\" of\nCicero were libels, but the proscriptions of the Triumvirs were far more\nterrible libels.\n\nSt. Cyril and St. Gregory Nazianzen compiled libels against the emperor\nJulian, but they were so generous as not to publish them until after his\ndeath.\n\nNothing resembles libels more than certain manifestoes of sovereigns.\nThe secretaries of the sultan Mustapha made a libel of his declaration\nof war. God has punished them for it; but the same spirit which animated\nC\u00e6sar, Cicero, and the secretaries of Mustapha, reigns in all the\nreptiles who spin libels in their garrets. \"_Natura est semper sibi\nconsona._\" Who would believe that the souls of Garasse, Nonnotte,\nPaulian, Fr\u00e9ron, and he of Langliviet, calling himself La Beaumelle,\nwere in this respect of the same temper as those of C\u00e6sar, Cicero, St.\nCyril, and of the secretary of the grand seignior? Nothing is, however,\nmore certain.\n\n\n\n\nLIBERTY.\n\n\nEither I am much deceived, or Locke has very well defined liberty to be\n\"power\". I am still further deceived, or Collins, a celebrated\nmagistrate of London, is the only philosopher who has profoundly\ndeveloped this idea, while Clarke has only answered him as a theologian.\nOf all that has been written in France on liberty, the following little\ndialogue has appeared to me the most comprehensive:\n\nA. A battery of cannon is discharged at our ears; have you the liberty\nto hear it, or not to hear it, as you please?\n\nB. Undoubtedly I cannot hinder myself from hearing it.\n\nA. Are you willing that these cannon shall take off your head and those\nof your wife and daughter who walk with you?\n\nB. What a question! I cannot, at least while I am in my right senses,\nwish such a thing; it is impossible.\n\nA. Good; you necessarily hear these cannon, and you necessarily wish not\nfor the death of yourself and your family by a discharge from them. You\nhave neither the power of not hearing it, nor the power of wishing to\nremain here.\n\nB. That is clear.\n\nA. You have, I perceive, advanced thirty paces to be out of the reach of\nthe cannon; you have had the power of walking these few steps with me.\n\nB. That is also very clear.\n\nA. And if you had been paralytic, you could not have avoided being\nexposed to this battery; you would necessarily have heard, and received\na wound from the cannon; and you would have as necessarily died.\n\nB. Nothing is more true.\n\nA. In what then consists your liberty, if not in the power that your\nbody has acquired of performing that which from absolute necessity your\nwill requires?\n\nB. You embarrass me. Liberty then is nothing more than the power of\ndoing what I wish?\n\nA. Reflect; and see whether liberty can be understood otherwise.\n\nB. In this case, my hunting dog is as free as myself; he has necessarily\nthe will to run when he sees a hare; and the power of running, if there\nis nothing the matter with his legs. I have therefore nothing above my\ndog; you reduce me to the state of the beasts.\n\nA. These are poor sophisms, and they are poor sophists who have\ninstructed you. You are unwilling to be free like your dog. Do you not\neat, sleep, and propagate like him, and nearly in the same attitudes?\nWould you smell otherwise than by your nose? Why would you possess\nliberty differently from your dog?\n\nB. But I have a soul which reasons, and my dog scarcely reasons at all.\nHe has nothing beyond simple ideas, while I have a thousand metaphysical\nideas.\n\nA. Well, you are a thousand times more free than he is; you have a\nthousand times more power of thinking than he has; but still you are not\nfree in any other manner than your dog is free.\n\nB. What! am I not free to will what I like?\n\nA. What do you understand by that?\n\nB. I understand what all the world understands. Is it not every day said\nthat the will is free?\n\nA. An adage is not a reason; explain yourself better.\n\nB. I understand that I am free to will as I please.\n\nA. With your permission, that is nonsense; see you not that it is\nridiculous to say--I will will? Consequently, you necessarily will the\nideas only which are presented to you. Will you be married, yes or no?\n\nB. Suppose I answer that I will neither the one nor the other.\n\nA. In that case you would answer like him who said: Some believe\nCardinal Mazarin dead, others believe him living; I believe neither the\none nor the other.\n\nB. Well, I will marry!\n\nA. Aye, that is an answer. Why will you marry?\n\nB. Because I am in love with a young, beautiful, sweet, well-educated,\nrich girl, who sings very well, whose parents are very honest people,\nand I flatter myself that I am beloved by her and welcome to the family.\n\nA. There is a reason. You see that you cannot will without a motive. I\ndeclare to you that you are free to marry, that is to say, that you have\nthe power of signing the contract, keeping the wedding, and sleeping\nwith your wife.\n\nB. How! I cannot will without a motive? Then what will become of the\nother proverb--\"_Sit pro ratione voluntas_\"--my will is my reason--I\nwill because I will?\n\nA. It is an absurd one, my dear friend; you would then have an effect\nwithout a cause.\n\nB. What! when I play at odd or even, have I a reason for choosing even\nrather than odd?\n\nA. Undoubtedly.\n\nB. And what is the reason, if you please?\n\nA. It is, that the idea of even is presented to your mind rather than\nthe opposite idea. It would be extraordinary if there were cases in\nwhich we will because there is a motive, and others in which we will\nwithout one. When you would marry, you evidently perceive the\npredominant reason for it; you perceive it not when you play at odd or\neven, and yet there must be one.\n\nB. Therefore, once more, I am not free.\n\nA. Your will is not free, but your actions are. You are free to act when\nyou have the power of acting.\n\nB. But all the books that I have read on the liberty of indifference--\n\nA. What do you understand by the liberty of indifference?\n\nB. I understand spitting on the right or the left hand--sleeping on the\nright or left side--walking up and down four times or five.\n\nA. That would be a pleasant liberty, truly! God would have made you a\nfine present, much to boast of, certainly! What use to you would be a\npower which could only be exercised on such futile occasions? But in\ntruth it is ridiculous to suppose the will of willing to spit on the\nright or left. Not only is the will of willing absurd, but it is certain\nthat several little circumstances determine these acts which you call\nindifferent. You are no more free in these acts than in others. Yet you\nare free at all times, and in all places, when you can do what you wish\nto do.\n\nB. I suspect that you are right. I will think upon it.\n\n\n\n\nLIBERTY OF OPINION.\n\n\nTowards the year 1707, the time at which the English gained the battle\nof Saragossa, protected Portugal, and for some time gave a king to\nSpain, Lord Boldmind, a general officer who had been wounded, was at the\nwaters of Bar\u00e8ges. He there met with Count Medroso, who having fallen\nfrom his horse behind the baggage, at a league and a half from the field\nof battle, also came to take the waters. He was a familiar of the\nInquisition, while Lord Boldmind was only familiar in conversation. One\nday after their wine, he held this dialogue with Medroso:\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--You are then the sergeant of the Dominicans? You exercise a villainous\ntrade.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--It is true; but I would rather be their servant than their victim, and\nI have preferred the unhappiness of burning my neighbor to that of being\nroasted myself.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--What a horrible alternative! You were a hundred times happier under\nthe yoke of the Moors, who freely suffered you to abide in all your\nsuperstitions, and conquerors as they were, arrogated not to themselves\nthe strange right of sending souls to hell.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--What would you have? It is not permitted us either to write, speak, or\neven to think. If we speak, it is easy to misinterpret our words, and\nstill more our writings; and as we cannot be condemned in an\n_auto-da-f\u00e9_ for our secret thoughts, we are menaced with being burned\neternally by the order of God himself, if we think not like the\nJacobins. They have persuaded the government that if we had common sense\nthe entire state would be in combustion, and the nation become the most\nmiserable upon earth.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--Do you believe that we English who cover the seas with vessels, and\nwho go to gain battles for you in the south of Europe, can be so\nunhappy? Do you perceive that the Dutch, who have ravished from you\nalmost all your discoveries in India, and who at present are ranked as\nyour protectors, are cursed of God for having given entire liberty to\nthe press, and for making commerce of the thoughts of men? Has the Roman\nEmpire been less powerful because Tullius Cicero has written with\nfreedom?\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--Who is this Tullius Cicero? I have never heard his name pronounced at\nSt. Hermandad.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--He was a bachelor of the university of Rome, who wrote that which he\nthought, like Julius C\u00e6sar, Marcus Aurelius, Titus Lucretius Carus,\nPlinius, Seneca, and other sages.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--I know none of them; but I am told that the Catholic religion,\nBiscayan and Roman, is lost if we begin to think.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--It is not for you to believe it; for you are sure that your religion\nis divine, and that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. If that\nis the case, nothing will ever destroy it.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--No; but it may be reduced to very little; and it is through having\nthought, that Sweden, Denmark, all your island, and the half of Germany\ngroan under the frightful misfortune of not being subjects of the pope.\nIt is even said that, if men continue to follow their false lights, they\nwill soon have merely the simple adoration of God and of virtue. If the\ngates of hell ever prevail so far, what will become of the holy office?\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--If the first Christians had not the liberty of thought, does it not\nfollow that there would have been no Christianity?\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--I understand you not.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--I readily believe it. I would say, that if Tiberius and the first\nemperors had fostered Jacobins, they would have hindered the first\nChristians from having pens and ink; and had it not been a long time\npermitted in the Roman Empire to think freely, it would be impossible\nfor the Christians to establish their dogmas. If, therefore,\nChristianity was only formed by liberty of opinion, by what\ncontradiction, by what injustice, would you now destroy the liberty on\nwhich alone it is founded?\n\nWhen some affair of interest is proposed to us, do we not examine it for\na long time before we conclude upon it? What interest in the world is so\ngreat as our eternal happiness or misery? There are a hundred religions\non earth which all condemn us if we believe your dogmas, which _they\n_call impious and absurd; why, therefore, not examine these dogmas?\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--How can I examine them? I am not a Jacobin.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--You are a man, and that is sufficient.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--Alas! you are more of a man than I am.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--You have only to teach yourself to think; you are born with a mind,\nyou are a bird in the cage of the Inquisition, the holy office has\nclipped your wings, but they will grow again. He who knows not geometry\ncan learn it: all men can instruct themselves. Is it not shameful to put\nyour soul into the hands of those to whom you would not intrust your\nmoney? Dare to think for yourself.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--It is said that if the world thought for itself, it would produce\nstrange confusion.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--Quite the contrary. When we assist at a spectacle, every one freely\ntells his opinion of it, and the public peace is not thereby disturbed;\nbut if some insolent protector of a poet would force all people of taste\nto proclaim that to be good which appears to them bad, blows would\nfollow, and the two parties would throw apples of discord at one\nanother's heads, as once happened at London. Tyrants over mind have\ncaused a part of the misfortunes of the world. We are happy in England\nonly because every one freely enjoys the right of speaking his opinion.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--We are all very tranquil at Lisbon, where no person dares speak his.\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--You are tranquil, but you are not happy: it is the tranquillity of\ngalley-slaves, who row in cadence and in silence.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--You believe, then, that my soul is at the galleys?\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--Yes, and I would deliver it.\n\nMEDROSO.\n\n--But if I find myself well at the galleys?\n\nBOLDMIND.\n\n--Why, then, you deserve to be there.\n\n\n\n\nLIBERTY OF THE PRESS.\n\n\nWhat harm can the prediction of Jean Jacques do to Russia? Any? We allow\nhim to explain it in a mystical, typical, allegorical sense, according\nto custom. The nations which will destroy the Russians will possess the\nbelles-lettres, mathematics, wit, and politeness, which degrade man and\npervert nature.\n\nFrom five to six thousand pamphlets have been printed in Holland against\nLouis XIV., none of which contributed to make him lose the battles of\nBlenheim, Turin, and Ramillies.\n\nIn general, we have as natural a right to make use of our pens as our\nlanguage, at our peril, risk, and fortune. I know many books which\nfatigue, but I know of none which have done real evil. Theologians, or\npretended politicians, cry: \"Religion is destroyed, the government is\nlost, if you print certain truths or certain paradoxes. Never attempt to\nthink, till you have demanded permission from a monk or an officer. It\nis against good order for a man to think for himself. Homer, Plato,\nCicero, Virgil, Pliny, Horace, never published anything but with the\napprobation of the doctors of the Sorbonne and of the holy Inquisition.\"\n\n\"See into what horrible decay the liberty of the press brought England\nand Holland. It is true that they possess the commerce of the whole\nworld, and that England is victorious on sea and land; but it is merely\na false greatness, a false opulence: they hasten with long strides to\ntheir ruin. An enlightened people cannot exist.\"\n\nNone can reason more justly, my friends; but let us see, if you please,\nwhat state has been lost by a book. The most dangerous, the most\npernicious of all, is that of Spinoza. Not only in the character of a\nJew he attacks the New Testament, but in the character of a scholar he\nruins the Old; his system of atheism is a thousand times better composed\nand reasoned than those of Straton and of Epicurus. We have need of the\nmost profound sagacity to answer to the arguments by which he endeavors\nto prove that one substance cannot form another.\n\nLike yourself, I detest this book, which I perhaps understand better\nthan you, and to which you have very badly replied; but have you\ndiscovered that this book has changed the face of the world? Has any\npreacher lost a florin of his income by the publication of the works of\nSpinoza? Is there a bishop whose rents have diminished? On the contrary,\ntheir revenues have doubled since his time: all the ill is reduced to a\nsmall number of peaceable readers, who have examined the arguments of\nSpinoza in their closets, and have written for or against them works but\nlittle known.\n\nFor yourselves, it is of little consequence to have caused to be printed\n\"_ad usum Delphini,_\" the atheism of Lucretius--as you have already been\nreproached with doing--no trouble, no scandal, has ensued from it: so\nleave Spinoza to live in peace in Holland. Lucretius was left in repose\nat Rome.\n\nBut if there appears among you any new book, the ideas of which shock\nyour own--supposing you have any--or of which the author may be of a\nparty contrary to yours--or what is worse, of which the author may not\nbe of any party at all--then you cry out Fire! and let all be noise,\nscandal, and uproar in your small corner of the earth. There is an\nabominable man who has printed that if we had no hands we could not make\nshoes nor stockings. Devotees cry out, furred doctors assemble, alarms\nmultiply from college to college, from house to house, and why? For five\nor six pages, about which there no longer will be a question at the end\nof three months. Does a book displease you? refute it. Does it tire you?\nread it not.\n\nOh! say you to me, the books of Luther and Calvin have destroyed the\nRoman Catholic religion in one-half of Europe? Why say not also, that\nthe books of the patriarch Photius have destroyed this Roman religion in\nAsia, Africa, Greece, and Russia?\n\nYou deceive yourself very grossly, when you think that you have been\nruined by books. The empire of Russia is two thousand leagues in extent,\nand there are not six men who are aware of the points disputed by the\nGreek and Latin Church. If the monk Luther, John Calvin, and the vicar\nZuinglius had been content with writing, Rome would yet subjugate all\nthe states that it has lost; but these people and their adherents ran\nfrom town to town, from house to house, exciting the women, and were\nmaintained by princes. Fury, which tormented Amata, and which, according\nto Virgil, whipped her like a top, was not more turbulent. Know, that\none enthusiastic, factious, ignorant, supple, vehement Capuchin, the\nemissary of some ambitious monks, preaching, confessing, communicating,\nand caballing, will much sooner overthrow a province than a hundred\nauthors can enlighten it. It was not the Koran which caused Mahomet to\nsucceed: it was Mahomet who caused the success of the Koran.\n\nNo! Rome has not been vanquished by books; it has been so by having\ncaused Europe to revolt at its rapacity; by the public sale of\nindulgences; for having insulted men, and wishing to govern them like\ndomestic animals; for having abused its power to such an extent that it\nis astonishing a single village remains to it. Henry VIII., Elizabeth,\nthe duke of Saxe, the landgrave of Hesse, the princes of Orange, the\nCond\u00e9s and Colignys, have done all, and books nothing. Trumpets have\nnever gained battles, nor caused any walls to fall except those of\nJericho.\n\nYou fear books, as certain small cantons fear violins. Let us read, and\nlet us dance--these two amusements will never do any harm to the world.\n\n\n\n\nLIFE.\n\n\nThe following passage is found in the \"_Syst\u00e8me de la Nature,_\" London\nedition, page 84: \"We ought to define _life_, before we reason\nconcerning _soul_; but I hold it to be impossible to do so.\"\n\nOn the contrary, I think a definition of life quite possible. Life is\norganization with the faculty of sensation. Thus all animals are said to\nlive. Life is attributed to plants, only by a species of metaphor or\ncatachresis. They are organized and vegetate; but being incapable of\nsensation, do not properly possess life.\n\nWe may, however, live without actual sensation; for we feel nothing in a\ncomplete apoplexy, in a lethargy, or in a sound sleep without dreams;\nbut yet possess the capacity of sensation. Many persons, it is too well\nknown, have been buried alive, like Roman vestals, and it is what\nhappens after every battle, especially in cold countries. A soldier lies\nwithout motion, and breathless, who, if he were duly assisted, might\nrecover; but to settle the matter speedily, they bury him.\n\nWhat is this capacity of sensation? Formerly, life and soul meant the\nsame thing, and the one was no better understood than the other; at\nbottom, is it more understood at present?\n\nIn the sacred books of the Jews, soul is always used for life.\n\n\"_Dixit etiam Deus, producant aqu\u00e6 reptile anim\u00e6 viventis._\" (And God\nsaid, let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature which\nhath a living soul.)\n\n\"_Creavit Deus cete grandia, et omnem animam viventem, atque motabilem\nquam produxerant aqu\u00e6._ (And God created great dragons (_tannitiim_),\nand every living soul that moveth, which the waters brought forth.) It\nis difficult to explain the creation of these watery dragons, but such\nis the text, and it is for us to submit to it.\n\n\"_Producat terra animam viventem in genere suo, jumenta et reptilia._\"\n(Let the earth produce the living soul after its kind, cattle and\ncreeping things.)\n\n\"_Et in quibus est anima vivens, ad vescendum._\" (And to everything\nwherein there is a living soul [every green herb], for meat.)\n\n\"_Et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vit\u00e6, et factus est homo in\nanimam viventem._\" (And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,\nand man became a living soul.)\n\n\"_Sanguinem enim animarum vestrarum requiram de manu cunctarum betiarum,\net de manu hominis,_\" etc. (I shall require back your souls from the\nhands of man and beast.)\n\nSouls here evidently signify lives. The sacred text certainly did not\nmean that beasts had swallowed the souls of men, but their blood, which\nis their life; and as to the hands given by this text to beasts, it\nsignifies their claws.\n\nIn short, more than two hundred passages may be quoted in which the soul\nis used for the life, both of beasts and man; but not one which explains\neither life or soul.\n\nIf life be the faculty of sensation, whence this faculty? In reply to\nthis question, all the learned quote systems, and these systems are\ndestructive of one another. But why the anxiety to ascertain the source\nof sensation? It is as difficult to conceive the power which binds all\nthings to a common centre as to conceive the cause of animal sensation.\nThe direction of the needle towards the pole, the paths of comets, and a\nthousand other phenomena are equally incomprehensible.\n\nProperties of matter exist, the principle of which will never be known\nto us; and that of sensation, without which there cannot be life, is\namong the number.\n\nIs it possible to live without experiencing sensation? No. An infant\nwhich dies in a lethargy that has lasted from its birth has existed, but\nnot lived.\n\nLet us imagine an idiot unable to form complex ideas, but who possesses\nsensation; he certainly lives without thinking, forming simple ideas\nfrom his sensations. Thought, therefore, is not necessary to life, since\nthis idiot has lived without thinking.\n\nHence, certain thinkers _think _that thought is not of the essence of\nman. They maintain that many idiots who think not, are men; and so\ndecidedly men as to produce other men, without the power of constructing\na single argument.\n\nThe doctors who maintain the essentiality of thought, reply that these\nidiots have certain ideas from their sensation. Bold reasoners rejoin,\nthat a well-taught mind possesses more consecutive ideas, and is very\nsuperior to these idiots, whence has sprung a grand dispute upon the\nsoul, of which we shall speak--possibly at too great a length--in the\narticle on \"Soul.\"\n\n\n\n\nLOVE.\n\n\nThere are so many kinds of love, that in order to define it, we scarcely\nknow which to direct our attention to. Some boldly apply the name of\n\"love\" to a caprice of a few days, a connection without attachment,\npassion without affection, the affectations of cicisbeism, a cold usage,\na romantic fancy, a taste speedily followed by a distaste. They apply\nthe name to a thousand chimeras.\n\nShould any philosophers be inclined profoundly to investigate a subject\nin itself so little philosophical, they may recur to the banquet of\nPlato, in which Socrates, the decent and honorable lover of Alcibiades\nand Agathon, converses with them on the metaphysics of love.\n\nLucretius speaks of it more as a natural philosopher; and Virgil follows\nthe example of Lucretius. \"_Amor omnibus idem._\"\n\nIt is the embroidery of imagination on the stuff of nature. If you wish\nto form an idea of love, look at the sparrows in your garden; behold\nyour doves; contemplate the bull when introduced to the heifer; look at\nthat powerful and spirited horse which two of your grooms are conducting\nto the mare that quietly awaits him, and is evidently pleased at his\napproach; observe the flashing of his eyes, notice the strength and\nloudness of his neighings, the boundings, the curvetings, the ears\nerect, the mouth opening with convulsive gaspings, the distended\nnostrils, the breath of fire, the raised and waving mane, and the\nimpetuous movement with which he rushes towards the object which nature\nhas destined for him; do not, however, be jealous of his happiness; but\nreflect on the advantages of the human species; they afford ample\ncompensation in love for all those which nature has conferred on mere\nanimals--strength, beauty, lightness, and rapidity.\n\nThere are some classes, however, even of animals totally unacquainted\nwith sexual association. Fishes are destitute of this enjoyment. The\nfemale deposits her millions of eggs on the slime of the waters, and the\nmale that meets them passes over them and communicates the vital\nprinciple, never consorting with, or perhaps even perceiving the female\nto whom they belong.\n\nThe greater part of those animals which copulate are sensible of the\nenjoyment only by a single sense; and when appetite is satisfied, the\nwhole is over. No animal, besides man, is acquainted with embraces; his\nwhole frame is susceptible; his lips particularly experience a delight\nwhich never wearies, and which is exclusively the portion of his\nspecies; finally, he can surrender himself at all seasons to the\nendearments of love, while mere animals possess only limited periods. If\nyou reflect on these high pre-eminences, you will readily join in the\nearl of Rochester's remark, that love would impel a whole nation of\natheists to worship the divinity.\n\nAs men have been endowed with the talent of perfecting whatever nature\nhas bestowed upon them, they have accordingly perfected the gift of\nlove. Cleanliness, personal attention, and regard to health render the\nframe more sensitive, and consequently increase its capacity of\ngratification. All the other amiable and valuable sentiments enter\nafterwards into that of love, like the metals which amalgamate with\ngold; friendship and esteem readily fly to its support; and talents both\nof body and of mind are new and strengthening bonds.\n\n     _Nam facit ipsa suis interdum femina factis,_\n     _Morigerisque modis, et mundo corpore cultu_\n     _Ut facile insuescat secum vir degere vitam._\n                                     --LUCRETIUS, iv, 1275.\n\nSelf-love, above all, draws closer all these various ties. Men pride\nthemselves in the choice they have made; and the numberless illusions\nthat crowd around constitute the ornament of the work, of which the\nfoundation is so firmly laid by nature.\n\nSuch are the advantages possessed by man above the various tribes of\nanimals. But, if he enjoys delights of which they are ignorant, howe\nmany vexations and disgusts, on the other hand, is he exposed to, from\nwhich they are free! The most dreadful of these is occasioned by\nnature's having poisoned the pleasures of love and sources of life over\nthree-quarters of the world by a terrible disease, to which man alone is\nsubject; nor is it with this pestilence as with various other maladies,\nwhich are the natural consequences of excess. It was not introduced into\nthe world by debauchery. The Phrynes and Laises, the Floras and\nMessalinas, were never attacked by it. It originated in islands where\nmankind dwelt together in innocence, and has thence been spread\nthroughout the Old World.\n\nIf nature could in any instance be accused of despising her own work,\nthwarting her own plan, and counteracting her own views, it would be in\nthis detestable scourge which has polluted the earth with horror and\nshame. And can this, then, be the best of all possible worlds? What! if\nC\u00e6sar and Antony and Octavius never had this disease, was it not\npossible to prevent Francis the First from dying of it? No, it is said;\nthings were so ordered all for the best; I am disposed to believe it;\nbut it is unfortunate for those to whom Rabelais has dedicated his book.\n\nErotic philosophers have frequently discussed the question, whether\nH\u00e9lo\u00efse could truly love Ab\u00e9lard after he became a monk and mutilated?\nOne of these states much wronged the other.\n\nBe comforted, however, Ab\u00e9lard, you were really beloved; imagination\ncomes in aid of the heart. Men feel a pleasure in remaining at table,\nalthough they can no longer eat. Is it love? is it simply recollection?\nis it friendship? It is a something compounded of all these. It is a\nconfused feeling, resembling the fantastic passions which the dead\nretained in the Elysian Fields. The heroes who while living had shone in\nthe chariot races, guided imaginary chariots after death. H\u00e9lo\u00efse lived\nwith you on illusions and supplements. She sometimes caressed you, and\nwith so much the more pleasure as, after vowing at Paraclet that she\nwould love you no more, her caresses were become more precious to her in\nproportion as they had become more culpable. A woman can never form a\npassion for a eunuch, but she may retain her passion for her lover after\nhis becoming one, if he still remains amiable.\n\nThe case is different with respect to a lover grown old in the service;\nthe external appearance is no longer the same; wrinkles affright,\ngrizzly eyebrows repel, decaying teeth disgust, infirmities drive away;\nall that can be done or expected is to have the virtue of being a\npatient and kind nurse, and bearing with the man that was once beloved,\nall which amounts to--burying the dead.\n\n\n\n\nLOVE OF GOD.\n\n\nThe disputes that have occurred about the love of God have kindled as\nmuch hatred as any theological quarrel. The Jesuits and Jansenists have\nbeen contending for a hundred years as to which party loved God in the\nmost suitable and appropriate manner, and which should at the same time\nmost completely harass and torment their neighbor.\n\nWhen the author of \"Telemachus,\" who was in high reputation at the court\nof Louis XIV., recommended men to love God in a manner which did not\nhappen to coincide with that of the author of the \"Funeral Orations\",\nthe latter, who was a complete master of the weapons of controversy,\ndeclared open war against him, and procured his condemnation in the\nancient city of Romulus, where God was the very object most loved, after\ndomination, ease, luxury, pleasure, and money.\n\nIf Madame Guyon had been acquainted with the story of the good old\nwoman, who brought a chafingdish to burn paradise, and a pitcher of\nwater to extinguish hell, that God might be loved for Himself alone, she\nwould not perhaps have written so much as she did. She must inevitably\nhave felt that she could herself never say anything better than that;\nbut she loved God and nonsense so sincerely that she was imprisoned for\nfour months, on account of her affectionate attachment; treatment\ndecidedly rigorous and unjust. Why punish as a criminal a woman whose\nonly offence was composing verse in the style of the Abb\u00e9 Cotin, and\nprose in the taste of the popular favorite Punchinello? It is strange\nthat the author of \"Telemachus\" and the frigid loves of Eucharis should\nhave said in his \"Maxims of Saints,\" after the blessed Francis de Sales:\n\"I have scarcely any desires; but, were I to be born again, I should not\nhave any at all. If God came to me, I would also go to Him; if it were\nnot His will to come to me, I would stay where I was, and not go to\nHim.\"\n\nHis whole work turns upon this proposition. Francis de Sales was not\ncondemned, but F\u00e9nelon was. Why should that have been? the reason is,\nthat Francis de Sales had not a bitter enemy at the court of Turin, and\nthat F\u00e9nelon had one at Versailles.\n\nThe most sensible thing that was written upon this mystical controversy\nis to be found perhaps in Boileau's satire, On the Love of God, although\nthat is certainly by no means his best work.\n\n     _Qui fait exactement ce que, ma loi commande, A pour_\n     _moi, dit ce Dieu, l'amour que je demande._\n                                          --EP. xii. 99.\n\n     Attend exactly to my law's command,\n     Such, says this God, the worship I demand.\n\nIf we must pass from the thorns of theology to those of philosophy,\nwhich are not so long and are less piercing, it seems clear that an\nobject may be loved by any one without any reference to self, without\nany mixture of interested self-love. We cannot compare divine things to\nearthly ones, or the love of God to any other love. We have an infinity\nof steps to mount above our grovelling human inclinations before we can\nreach that sublime love. Since, however, we have nothing to rest upon\nexcept the earth, let us draw our comparisons from that. We view some\nmasterpiece of art, in painting, sculpture, architecture, poetry, or\neloquence; we hear a piece of music that absolutely enchants our ears\nand souls; we admire it, we love it, without any return of the slightest\nadvantage to ourselves from this attachment; it is a pure and refined\nfeeling; we proceed sometimes so far as to entertain veneration or\nfriendship for the author; and were he present should cordially embrace\nhim.\n\nThis is almost the only way in which we can explain our profound\nadmiration and the impulses of our heart towards the eternal architect\nof the world. We survey the work with an astonishment made up of respect\nand a sense of our own nothingness, and our heart warms and rises as\nmuch as possible towards the divine artificer.\n\nBut what is this feeling? A something vague and indeterminate--an\nimpression that has no connection with our ordinary affections. A soul\nmore susceptible than another, more withdrawn from worldly business and\ncares, may be so affected by the spectacle of nature as to feel the most\nardent as well as pious aspirations towards the eternal Lord who formed\nit. Could such an amiable affection of the mind, could so powerful a\ncharm, so strong an evidence of feeling, incur censure? Was it possible\nin reality to condemn the affectionate and grateful disposition of the\narchbishop of Cambray? Notwithstanding the expressions of St. Francis de\nSales, above given, he adhered steadily to this assertion, that the\nauthor may be loved merely and simply for the beauty of his works. With\nwhat heresy could he be reproached? The extravagances of style of a lady\nof Montargis, and a few unguarded expressions of his own, were not a\nlittle injurious to him.\n\nWhere was the harm that he had done? Nothing at present is known about\nthe matter. This dispute, like numberless others, is completely\nannihilated. Were every dogmatist to say to himself: A few years hence\nno one will care a straw for my dogmas, there would be far less\ndogmatizing in the world than there is! Ah! Louis the Fourteenth! Louis\nthe Fourteenth! when two men of genius had departed so far from the\nnatural scope and direction of their talents, as to write the most\nobscure and tiresome works ever written in your dominions, how much\nbetter would it have been to have left them to their own wranglings!\n\n     _Pour finir tous ces d\u00e9bats-l\u00e0,_\n     _Tu n'avais qu'\u00e0 les laisser faire._\n     To end debates in such a tone\n     'Twas but to leave the men alone.\n\nIt is observable under all the articles of morality and history, by what\nan invisible chain, by what unknown springs, all the ideas that disturb\nour minds and all the events that poison our days are bound together and\nbrought to co-operate in the formation of our destinies. F\u00e9nelon dies in\nexile in consequence of holding two or three mystical conversations with\na pious but fanciful woman. Cardinal Bouillon, nephew of the great\nTurenne, is persecuted in consequence of not himself persecuting at Rome\nthe archbishop of Cambray, his friend: he is compelled to quit France,\nand he also loses his whole fortune.\n\nBy a like chain of causes and effects, the son of a solicitor at Vire\ndetects, in a dozen of obscure phrases of a book printed at Amsterdam,\nwhat is sufficient to fill all the dungeons of France with victims; and\nat length, from the depth of those dungeons arises a cry for redress and\nvengeance, the echo of which lays prostrate on the earth an able and\ntyrannical society which had been established by an ignorant madman.\n\n\n\n\nLOVE (SOCRATIC LOVE).\n\n\nIf the love called Socratic and Platonic is only a becoming sentiment,\nit is to be applauded; if an unnatural license, we must blush for\nGreece.\n\nIt is as certain as the knowledge of antiquity can well be, that\nSocratic love was not an infamous passion. It is the word \"love\" which\nhas deceived the world. Those called the lovers of a young man were\nprecisely such as among us are called the minions of our\nprinces--honorable youths attached to the education of a child of\ndistinction, partaking of the same studies and the same military\nexercises--a warlike and correct custom, which has been perverted into\nnocturnal feasts and midnight orgies.\n\nThe company of lovers instituted by Laius was an invincible troop of\nyoung warriors, bound by oath each to preserve the life of any other at\nthe expense of his own. Ancient discipline never exhibited anything more\nfine.\n\nSextus Empiricus and others have boldly affirmed that this vice was\nrecommended by the laws of Persia. Let them cite the text of such a law;\nlet them exhibit the code of the Persians; and if such an abomination be\neven found there, still I would disbelieve it, and maintain that the\nthing was not true, because it is impossible. No; it is not in human\nnature to make a law which contradicts and outrages nature itself--a law\nwhich would annihilate mankind, if it were literally observed. Moreover,\nI will show you the ancient law of the Persians as given in the\n\"Sadder.\" It says, in article or gate 9, that the greatest sin must not\nbe committed. It is in vain that a modern writer seeks to justify Sextus\nEmpiricus and pederasty. The laws of Zoroaster, with which he is\nunacquainted, incontrovertibly prove that this vice was never\nrecommended to the Persians. It might as well be said that it is\nrecommended to the Turks. They boldly practise it, but their laws\ncondemn it.\n\nHow many persons have mistaken shameful practices, which are only\ntolerated in a country, for its laws. Sextus Empiricus, who doubted\neverything, should have doubted this piece of jurisprudence. If he had\nlived in our days, and witnessed the proceedings of two or three young\nJesuits with their pupils, would he have been justified in the assertion\nthat such practices were permitted by the institutes of Ignatius Loyola?\n\nIt will be permitted to me here to allude to the Socratic love of the\nreverend father Polycarp, a Carmelite, who was driven away from the\nsmall town of Gex in 1771, in which place he taught religion and Latin\nto about a dozen scholars. He was at once their confessor, tutor, and\nsomething more. Few have had more occupations, spiritual and temporal.\nAll was discovered; and he retired into Switzerland, a country very\ndistant from Greece.\n\nThe monks charged with the education of youth have always exhibited a\nlittle of this tendency, which is a necessary consequence of the\ncelibacy to which the poor men are condemned.\n\nThis vice was so common at Rome that it was impossible to punish a crime\nwhich almost every one committed. Octavius Augustus, that murderer,\ndebauchee, and coward, who exiled Ovid, thought it right in Virgil to\nsing the charms of Alexis. Horace, his other poetical favorite,\nconstructed small odes on Ligurinus; and this same Horace, who praised\nAugustus for reforming manners, speak in his satires in much the same\nway of both boys and girls. Yet the ancient law \"_Scantinia,_\" which\nforbade pederasty, always existed, and was put in force by the emperor\nPhilip, who drove away from Rome the boys who made a profession of it.\nIf, however, Rome had witty and licentious students, like Petronius, it\nhad also such preceptors as Quintilian; and attend to the precautions he\nlays down in his chapter of \"The Preceptor,\" in order to preserve the\npurity of early youth. \"_Cavendum non solum crimine turpitudinis, sed\netiam suspicione._\" We must not only beware of a shameful crime but even\nof the suspicion of it. To conclude, I firmly believe that no civilized\nnation ever existed which made formal laws against morals.\n\n\n_Observations By Another Hand._\n\nWe may be permitted to make a few additional reflections on an odious\nand disgusting subject, which however, unfortunately, forms a part of\nthe history of opinions and manners.\n\nThis offence may be traced to the remotest periods of civilization.\nGreek and Roman history in particular allows us not to doubt it. It was\ncommon before people formed regular societies, and were governed by\nwritten laws.\n\nThe latter fact is the reason that the laws have treated it with so much\nindulgence. Severe laws cannot be proposed to a free people against a\nvice, whatever it may be, which is common and habitual. For a long time\nmany of the German nations had written laws which admitted of\ncomposition and murder. Solon contented himself with forbidding these\nodious practices between the citizens and slaves. The Athenians might\nperceive the policy of this interdiction, and submit to it; especially\nas it operated against the slaves only, and was enacted to prevent them\nfrom corrupting the young free men. Fathers of families, however lax\ntheir morals, had no motive to oppose it.\n\nThe severity of the manners of women in Greece, the use of public baths,\nand the passion for games in which men appeared altogether naked,\nfostered this turpitude, notwithstanding the progress of society and\nmorals. Lycurgus, by allowing more liberty to the women, and by certain\nother institutions, succeeded in rendering this vice less common in\nSparta than in the other towns of Greece.\n\nWhen the manners of a people become less rustic, as they improve in\narts, luxury, and riches, if they retain their former vices, they at\nleast endeavor to veil them. Christian morality, by attaching shame to\nconnections between unmarried people, by rendering marriage\nindissoluble, and proscribing concubinage by ecclesiastical censures,\nhas rendered adultery common. Every sort of voluptuousness having been\nequally made sinful, that species is naturally preferred which is\nnecessarily the most secret; and thus, by a singular contradiction,\nabsolute crimes are often made more frequent, more tolerated, and less\nshameful in public opinion, than simple weaknesses. When the western\nnations began a course of refinement, they sought to conceal adultery\nunder the veil of what is called gallantry. Then men loudly avowed a\npassion in which it was presumed the women did not share. The lovers\ndared demand nothing; and it was only after more than ten years of pure\nlove, of combats and victories at tournaments that a cavalier might hope\nto discover a moment of weakness in the object of his adoration. There\nremains a sufficient number of records of these times to convince us\nthat the state of manners fostered this species of hypocrisy. It was\nsimilar among the Greeks, when they had become polished. Connections\nbetween males were not shameful; young people united themselves to each\nother by oaths, but it was to live and die for their country. It was\nusual for a person of ripe age to attach himself to a young man in a\nstate of adolescence, ostensibly to form, instruct, and guide him; and\nthe passion which mingled in these friendships was a sort of love--but\nstill innocent love. Such was the veil with which public decency\nconcealed vices which general opinion tolerated.\n\nIn short, in the same manner as chivalric gallantry is often made a\ntheme for eulogy in modern society, as proper to elevate the soul and\ninspire courage, was it common among the Greeks to eulogize that love\nwhich attached citizens to each other.\n\nPlato said that the Thebans acted laudably in adopting it, because it\nwas necessary to polish their manners, supply greater energy to their\nsouls and to their spirits, which were benumbed by the nature of their\nclimate. We perceive by this, that a virtuous friendship alone was\ntreated of by Plato. Thus, when a Christian prince proclaimed a\ntournament, at which every one appeared in the colors of his mistress,\nit was with the laudable intention of exciting emulation among its\nknights, and to soften manners; it was not adultery, but gallantry, that\nhe would encourage within his dominions. In Athens, according to Plato,\nthey set bounds to their toleration. In monarchical states, it was\npolitic to prevent these attachments between men, but in republics they\nmaterially tended to prevent the double establishment of tyranny. In the\nsacrifice of a citizen, a tyrant knew not whose vengeance he might arm\nagainst himself, and was liable, without ceasing, to witness\nconspiracies grow out of the resolutions which this ambiguous affection\nproduced among men.\n\nIn the meantime, in spite of ideas so remote from our sentiments and\nmanners, this practice was regarded as very shameful among the Greeks,\nevery time it was exhibited without the excuse of friendship or\npolitical ties. When Philip of Macedon saw extended on the field of\nbattle of Ch\u00e6ronea, the soldiers who composed the sacred battalion or\nband of friends at Thebes, all killed in the ranks in which they had\ncombated: \"I will never believe,\" he exclaimed, \"that such brave men\nhave committed or suffered anything shameful.\" This expression from a\nman himself soiled with this infamy furnishes an indisputable proof of\nthe general opinion of Greece.\n\nAt Rome, this opinion was still stronger. Many Greek heroes, regarded as\nvirtuous men, have been supposed addicted to the vice; but among the\nRomans it was never attributed to any of those characters in whom great\nvirtue was acknowledged. It only seems, that with these two nations no\nidea of crime or even dishonor was attached to it unless carried to\nexcess, which renders even a passion for women disgraceful.\n\nPederasty is rare among us, and would be unknown, but for the defects of\npublic education.\n\nMontesquieu pretends that it prevails in certain Mahometan nations, in\nconsequence of the facility of possessing women. In our opinion, for\n\"facility\" we should read difficulty.\n\n\n\n\nLUXURY.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nIn a country where all the inhabitants went bare-footed, could luxury be\nimputed to the first man who made a pair of shoes for himself? Or\nrather, was he not a man of sense and industry?\n\nIs it not just the same with him who procured the first shirt? With\nrespect to the man who had it washed and ironed, I consider him as an\nabsolute genius, abundant in resources, and qualified to govern a state.\nThose however who were not used to wear clean shirts, considered him as\na rich, effeminate coxcomb who was likely to corrupt the nation.\n\n\"Beware of luxury,\" said Cato to the Romans; \"you have conquered the\nprovince of Phasis, but never eat any pheasants. You have subjugated the\ncountry in which cotton grows; still however continue to sleep on the\nbare ground. You have plundered the gold, and silver, and jewels of\ninnumerable nations, but never become such fools as to use them. After\ntaking everything, remain destitute of everything. Highway robbers\nshould be virtuous and free.\"\n\nLucullus replied, \"You should rather wish, my good friend, that Crassus,\nand Pompey, and C\u00e6sar, and myself should spend all that we have taken in\nluxury. Great robbers must fight about the division of the spoil; but\nRome will inevitably be enslaved, and it will be enslaved by one or\nother of us much more speedily, and much more securely, if we place that\nvalue upon money that you do, than if we spend it in superfluities and\npleasures. Wish that Pompey and C\u00e6sar may so far impoverish themselves\nas not to have money enough to pay the armies.\"\n\nNot long since a Norwegian was upbraiding a Dutchman with luxury. \"Where\nnow,\" says he, \"are the happy times when a merchant, quitting Amsterdam\nfor the great Indies, left a quarter of smoked beef in his kitchen and\nfound it untouched on his return? Where are your wooden spoons and iron\nforks? Is it not shameful for a sensible Dutchman to sleep in a bed of\ndamask?\"\n\n\"Go to Batavia,\" replied the Amsterdammer; \"gain, as I have done, ten\ntons of gold; and then see if you have not some inclination to be well\nclothed, well fed, and well lodged.\"\n\nSince this conversation, twenty volumes have been written about luxury,\nand these books have neither increased nor diminished it.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nLuxury has been declaimed against for the space of two thousand years,\nboth in verse and prose; and yet it has been always liked.\n\nWhat has not been said of the Romans? When, in the earlier periods of\ntheir history, these banditti ravaged and carried off their neighbor's\nharvests; when, in order to augment their own wretched village, they\ndestroyed the poor villages of the Volsci and Samnites, they were, we\nare told, men disinterested and virtuous. They could not as yet, be it\nremembered, carry away gold, and silver; and jewels, because the towns\nwhich they sacked and plundered had none; nor did their woods and swamps\nproduce partridges or pheasants; yet people, forsooth, extol their\ntemperance!\n\nWhen, by a succession of violences, they had pillaged and robbed every\ncountry from the recesses of the Adriatic to the Euphrates, and had\nsense enough to enjoy the fruit of their rapine; when they cultivated\nthe arts, and tasted all the pleasures of life, and communicated them\nalso to the nations which they conquered; then, we are told, they ceased\nto be wise and good.\n\nAll such declamations tend just to prove this--that a robber ought not\nto eat the dinner he has taken, nor wear the habit he has stolen, nor\nornament his finger with the ring he has plundered from another. All\nthis, it is said, should be thrown into the river, in order to live like\ngood people; but how much better would it be to say, never rob--it is\nyour duty not to rob? Condemn the brigands when they plunder; but do not\ntreat them as fools or madmen for enjoying their plunder. After a number\nof English sailors have obtained their prize money for the capture of\nPondicherry, or Havana, can they be blamed for purchasing a little\npleasure in London, in return for the labor and pain they have suffered\nin the uncongenial climes of Asia or America?\n\nThe declaimers we have mentioned would wish men to bury the riches that\nmight be accumulated by the fortune of war, or by agriculture, commerce,\nand industry in general. They cite Laced\u00e6mon; why do they not also cite\nthe republic of San Marino? What benefit did Sparta do to Greece? Had\nshe ever a Demosthenes, a Sophocles, an Apelles, or a Phidias? The\nluxury of Athens formed great men of every description. Sparta had\ncertainly some great captains, but even these in a smaller number than\nother cities. But allowing that a small republic like Laced\u00e6mon may\nmaintain its poverty, men uniformly die, whether they are in want of\neverything, or enjoying the various means of rendering life agreeable.\nThe savage of Canada subsists and attains old age, as well as the\nEnglish citizen who has fifty thousand guineas a year. But who will ever\ncompare the country of the Iroquois to England?\n\nLet the republic of Ragusa and the canton of Zug enact sumptuary laws;\nthey are right in so doing. The poor must not expend beyond their means;\nbut I have somewhere read, that if partially injurious, luxury benefits\na great nation upon the whole.\n\n     _Sachez surtout que le luxe enrichit_\n     _Un grand \u00e9tat, s'il en perd un petit._\n\nIf by luxury you mean excess, we know that excess is universally\npernicious, in abstinence as well as gluttony, in parsimony or\nprofusion. I know not how it has happened, that in my own village, where\nthe soil is poor and meagre, the imposts heavy, and the prohibition\nagainst a man's exporting the corn he has himself sown and reaped,\nintolerable, there is hardly a single cultivator who is not well\nclothed, and who has not an ample supply of warmth and food. Should this\ncultivator go to plough in his best clothes and with his hair dressed\nand powdered, there would in that case exist the greatest and most\nabsurd luxury; but were a wealthy citizen of Paris or London to appear\nat the play in the dress of this peasant, he would exhibit the grossest\nand most ridiculous parsimony.\n\n     _Est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines,_\n     _Quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum._\n                          --HORACE, i. sat. i. v. 106.\n\n     Some certain mean in all things may be found,\n     To mark our virtues, and our vices, bound.\n                                            --FRANCIS.\n\nOn the invention of scissors, which are certainly not of the very\nhighest antiquity, what was not said of those who pared their nails and\ncut off some of their hair that was hanging down over their noses? They\nwere undoubtedly considered as prodigals and coxcombs, who bought at an\nextravagant price an instrument just calculated to spoil the work of the\nCreator. What an enormous sin to pare the horn which God Himself made to\ngrow at our fingers' ends! It was absolutely an insult to the Divine\nBeing Himself. When shirts and socks were invented, it was far worse. It\nis well known with what wrath and indignation the old counsellors, who\nhad never worn socks, exclaimed against the young magistrates who\nencouraged so dreadful and fatal a luxury.\n\n\n\n\nMADNESS.\n\n\nWhat is madness? To have erroneous perceptions, and to reason correctly\nfrom them? Let the wisest man, if he would understand madness, attend to\nthe succession of his ideas while he dreams. If he be troubled with\nindigestion during the night, a thousand incoherent ideas torment him;\nit seems as if nature punished him for having taken too much food, or\nfor having injudiciously selected it, by supplying involuntary\nconceptions; for we think but little during sleep, except when annoyed\nby a bad digestion. Unquiet dreams are in reality a transient madness.\n\nMadness is a malady which necessarily hinders a man from thinking and\nacting like other men. Not being able to manage property, the madman is\nwithheld from it; incapable of ideas suitable to society, he is shut out\nfrom it; if he be dangerous, he is confined altogether; and if he be\nfurious, they bind him. Sometimes he is cured by baths, by bleeding, and\nby regimen.\n\nThis man is not, however, deprived of ideas; he frequently possesses\nthem like other men, and often when he sleeps. We might inquire how the\nspiritual and immortal soul, lodged in his brain, receives all its ideas\ncorrectly and distinctly, without the capacity of judgment. It perceives\nobjects, as the souls of Aristotle, of Plato, of Locke, and of Newton,\nperceived them. It hears the same sounds, and possesses the same sense\nof feeling--how therefore, receiving impressions like the wisest, does\nthe soul of the madman connect them extravagantly, and prove unable to\ndisperse them?\n\nIf this simple and eternal substance enjoys the same properties as the\nsouls which are lodged in the sagest brains, it ought to reason like\nthem. Why does it not? If my madman sees a thing red, while the wise men\nsee it blue; if when my sages hear music, my madman hears the braying of\nan ass; if when they attend a sermon, he imagines himself to be\nlistening to a comedy; if when they understand yes, he understands no;\nthen I conceive clearly that his soul ought to think contrary to theirs.\nBut my madman having the same perceptions as they have, there is no\napparent reason why his soul, having received all the necessary\nmaterials, cannot make a proper use of them. It is pure, they say, and\nsubject to no infirmity; behold it provided with all the necessary\nassistance; nothing which passes in the body can change its essence; yet\nit is shut up in a close carriage, and conveyed to Charenton.\n\nThis reflection may lead us to suspect that the faculty of thought,\nbestowed by God upon man, is subject to derangement like the other\nsenses. A madman is an invalid whose brain is diseased, while the gouty\nman is one who suffers in his feet and hands. People think by means of\nthe brain, and walk on their feet, without knowing anything of the\nsource of either this incomprehensible power of walking, or the equally\nincomprehensible power of thinking; besides, the gout may be in the\nhead, instead of the feet. In short, after a thousand arguments, faith\nalone can convince us of the possibility of a simple and immaterial\nsubstance liable to disease.\n\nThe learned may say to the madman: \"My friend, although deprived of\ncommon sense, thy soul is as pure, as spiritual, and as immortal, as our\nown; but our souls are happily lodged, and thine not so. The windows of\nits dwelling are closed; it wants air, and is stifled.\"\n\nThe madman, in a lucid interval, will reply to them: \"My friends, you\nbeg the question, as usual. My windows are as wide open as your own,\nsince I can perceive the same objects and listen to the same sounds. It\nnecessarily follows that my soul makes a bad use of my senses; or that\nmy soul is a vitiated sense, a depraved faculty. In a word, either my\nsoul is itself diseased, or I have no soul.\"\n\nOne of the doctors may reply: \"My brother, God has possibly created\nfoolish souls, as well as wise ones.\"\n\nThe madman will answer: \"If I believed what you say, I should be a still\ngreater madman than I am. Have the kindness, you who know so much, to\ntell me why I am mad?\"\n\nSupposing the doctors to retain a little sense, they would say: \"We know\nnothing about the matter.\"\n\nNeither are they more able to comprehend how a brain possesses regular\nideas, and makes a due use of them. They call themselves sages, and are\nas weak as their patient.\n\nIf the interval of reason of the madman lasts long enough, he will say\nto them: \"Miserable mortals, who neither know the cause of my malady,\nnor how to cure it! Tremble, lest ye become altogether like me, or even\nstill worse than I am! You are not of the highest rank, like Charles VI.\nof France, Henry VI. of England, and the German emperor Wincenslaus, who\nall lost their reason in the same century. You have not nearly so much\nwit as Blaise Pascal, James Abadie, or Jonathan Swift, who all became\ninsane. The last of them founded a hospital for us; shall I go there and\nretain places for you?\"\n\nN.B. I regret that Hippocrates should have prescribed the blood of an\nass's colt for madness; and I am still more sorry that the \"_Manuel des\nDames_\" asserts that it may be cured by catching the itch. Pleasant\nprescriptions these, and apparently invented by those who were to take\nthem!\n\n\n\n\nMAGIC.\n\n\nMagic is a more plausible science than astrology and the doctrine of\ngenii. As soon as we began to think that there was in man a being quite\ndistinct from matter, and that the understanding exists after death, we\ngave this understanding a fine, subtile, aerial body, resembling the\nbody in which it was lodged. Two quite natural reasons introduced this\nopinion; the first is, that in all languages the soul was called spirit,\nbreath, wind. This spirit, this breath, this wind, was therefore very\nfine and delicate. The second is, that if the soul of a man had not\nretained a form similar to that which it possessed during its life, we\nshould not have been able after death to distinguish the soul of one man\nfrom that of another. This soul, this shade, which existed, separated\nfrom its body, might very well show itself upon occasion, revisit the\nplace which it had inhabited, its parents and friends, speak to them and\ninstruct them. In all this there is no incompatibility.\n\nAs departed souls might very well teach those whom they came to visit\nthe secret of conjuring them, they failed not to do so; and the word\n\"Abraxa\", pronounced with some ceremonies, brought up souls with whom he\nwho pronounced it wished to speak. I suppose an Egyptian saying to a\nphilosopher: \"I descend in a right line from the magicians of Pharaoh,\nwho changed rods into serpents, and the waters of the Nile into blood;\none of my ancestors married the witch of Endor, who conjured up the soul\nof Samuel at the request of Saul; she communicated her secrets to her\nhusband, who made her the confidant of his own; I possess this\ninheritance from my father and mother; my genealogy is well attested; I\ncommand the spirits and elements.\"\n\nThe philosopher, in reply, will have nothing to do but to demand his\nprotection; for if disposed to deny and dispute, the magician will shut\nhis mouth by saying: \"You cannot deny the facts; my ancestors have been\nincontestably great magicians, and you doubt it not; you have no reason\nto believe that I am inferior to them, particularly when a man of honor\nlike myself assures you that he is a sorcerer.\"\n\nThe philosopher, to be sure, might say to him: \"Do me the pleasure to\nconjure up a shade; allow me to speak to a soul; change this water into\nblood, and this rod into a serpent.\"\n\nThe magician will answer: \"I work not for philosophers; but I have shown\nspirits to very respectable ladies, and to simple people who never\ndispute; you should at least believe that it is very possible for me to\nhave these secrets, since you are forced to confess that my ancestors\npossessed them. What was done formerly can be done now; and you ought to\nbelieve in magic without my being obliged to exercise my art before\nyou.\"\n\nThese reasons are so good that all nations have had sorcerers. The\ngreatest sorcerers were paid by the state, in order to discover the\nfuture clearly in the heart and liver of an ox. Why, therefore, have\nothers so long been punished with death? They have done more marvellous\nthings; they should, therefore, be more honored; above all, their power\nshould be feared. Nothing is more ridiculous than to condemn a true\nmagician to be burned; for we should presume that he can extinguish the\nfire and twist the necks of his judges. All that we can do is to say to\nhim: \"My friend, we do not burn you as a true sorcerer, but as a false\none; you boast of an admirable art which you possess not; we treat you\nas a man who utters false money; the more we love the good, the more\nseverely we punish those who give us counterfeits; we know very well\nthat there were formerly venerable conjurors, but we have reason to\nbelieve that you are not one, since you suffer yourself to be burned\nlike a fool.\"\n\nIt is true, that the magician so pushed might say: My conscience extends\nnot so far as to extinguish a pile without water, and to kill my judges\nwith words. I can only call up spirits, read the future, and change\ncertain substances into others; my power is bounded; but you should not\nfor that reason burn me at a slow fire. It is as if you caused a\nphysician to be hanged who could cure fever, and not a paralysis.\n\nThe judges might, however, still reasonably observe: Show us then some\nsecret of your art, or consent to be burned with a good grace.\n\n\n\n\nMALADY--MEDICINE.\n\n\nI will suppose that a fair princess who never heard speak of anatomy is\nill either from having eaten or danced too much, or having done too much\nof what several princesses occasionally do. I suppose the following\ncontroversy takes place:\n\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nMadam, for your health to be good, it is necessary for your cerebrum and\ncerebellum to distribute a fine, well-conditioned marrow, in the spine\nof your back down to your highness's rump; and that this marrow should\nequally animate fifteen pairs of nerves, each right and left. It is\nnecessary that your heart should contract and dilate itself with a\nconstantly equal force; and that all the blood which it forces into your\narteries should circulate in all these arteries and veins about six\nhundred times a day. This blood, in circulating with a rapidity which\nsurpasses that of the Rhone, ought to dispose on its passage of that\nwhich continually forms the lymph, urine, bile, etc., of your\nhighness--of that which furnishes all these secretions, which insensibly\nrender your skin soft, fresh, and fair, that without them would be\nyellow, gray, dry, and shrivelled, like old parchment.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nWell, sir, the king pays you to attend to all this: fail not to put all\nthings in their place, and to make my liquids circulate so that I may be\ncomfortable. I warn you that I will not suffer with impunity.\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nMadam, address your orders to the Author of nature. The sole power which\nmade millions of planets and comets to revolve round millions of suns\nhas directed the course of your blood.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nWhat! are you a physician, and can you prescribe nothing?\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nNo, madam; we can only take away from, we can add nothing to nature.\nYour servants clean your palace, but the architect built it. If your\nhighness has eaten greedily, I can cleanse your entrails with cassia,\nmanna, and pods of senna; it is a broom which I introduce to cleanse\nyour inside. If you have a cancer, I must cut off your breast, but I\ncannot give you another. Have you a stone in your bladder? I can deliver\nyou from it. I can cut off a gangrened foot, leaving you to walk on the\nother.\n\nIn a word, we physicians perfectly resemble teethdrawers, who extract a\ndecayed tooth, without the power of substituting a sound one, quacks as\nthey are.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nYou make me tremble; I believed that physicians cured all maladies.\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nWe infallibly cure all those which cure themselves. It is generally, and\nwith very few exceptions, with internal maladies as with external\nwounds. Nature alone cures those which are not mortal. Those which are\nso will find no resource in it.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nWhat! all these secrets for purifying the blood, of which my ladies have\nspoken to me; this _Baume de Vie _of the Sieur de Lievre; these packets\nof the Sieur Arnauld; all these pills so much praised by _femmes de\nchambre_--\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nAre so many inventions to get money, and to flatter patients, while\nnature alone acts.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nBut there are specifics?\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nYes, madam, like the water of youth in romances.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nIn what, then, consists medicine?\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nI have already told you, in cleaning and keeping in order the house\nwhich we cannot rebuild.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nThere are, however, salutary things, and others hurtful?\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nYou have guessed all the secret. Eat moderately that which you know by\nexperience will agree with you. Nothing is good for the body but what is\neasily digested. What medicine will best assist digestion? Exercise.\nWhat best recruit your strength? Sleep. What will diminish incurable\nills? Patience. What change a bad constitution? Nothing. In all violent\nmaladies, we have only the recipe of Molire, \"_seipnare, purgare;_\" and,\nif we will, \"_clisterium donare._\" There is not a fourth. All, I have\ntold you amounts only to keeping a house in order, to which we cannot\nadd a peg. All art consists in adaptation.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nYou puff not your merchandise. You are an honest man. When I am queen, I\nwill make you my first physician.\n\nPHYSICIAN.\n\nLet nature be your first physician. It is she who made all. Of those who\nhave lived beyond a hundred years, none were of the faculty. The king of\nFrance has already buried forty of his physicians, as many chief\nphysicians, besides physicians of the establishment, and others.\n\nPRINCESS.\n\nAnd, truly, I hope to bury you also.\n\n\n\n\nMAN.\n\n\nTo know the natural philosophy of the human race, it is necessary to\nread works of anatomy, or rather to go through a course of anatomy.\n\nTo be acquainted with the man we call \"moral,\" it is above all necessary\nto have lived and reflected. Are not all moral works contained in these\nwords of Job? \"Man that is born of a woman hath but a few days to live,\nand is full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down:\nhe fleeth as a shadow, and continueth not.\"\n\nWe have already seen that the human race has not above two-and-twenty\nyears to live, reckoning those who die at their nurses' breasts, and\nthose who for a hundred years drag on the remains of a miserable and\nimbecile life.\n\nIt is a fine apologue, that ancient fable of the first man who was at\nfirst destined to live twenty years at most, and who reduced it to five\nyears by estimating one life with another. The man was in despair, and\nhad near him a caterpillar, a butterfly, a peacock, a horse, a fox, and\nan ape.\n\n\"Prolong my life,\" said he to Jupiter; \"I am more worthy than these\nanimals; it is just that I and my family should live long to command all\nbeasts.\" \"Willingly,\" said Jupiter; \"but I have only a certain number of\ndays to divide among the whole of the beings to whom I have granted\nlife. I can only give to thee by taking away from others; for imagine\nnot, that because I am Jupiter, I am infinite and all-powerful; I have\nmy nature and my limits. Now I will grant thee some years more, by\ntaking them from these six animals, of which thou art jealous, on\ncondition that thou shalt successively assume their manner of living.\nMan shall first be a caterpillar, dragging himself along in his earliest\ninfancy. Until fifteen, he shall have the lightness of a butterfly; in\nhis youth, the vanity of a peacock. In manhood he must undergo the\nlabors of a horse. Towards fifty, he shall have the tricks of a fox; and\nin his old age, be ugly and ridiculous like an ape. This, in general, is\nthe destiny of man.\"\n\nRemark further, that notwithstanding these bounties of Jupiter, the\nanimal man has still but two or three and twenty years to live, at most.\nTaking mankind in general, of this a third must be taken away for sleep,\nduring which we are in a certain sense dead; thus there remain fifteen,\nand from these fifteen we must take at least eight for our first\ninfancy, which is, as it has been called, the vestibule of life. The\nclear product will be seven years, and of these seven years the half at\nleast is consumed in grief of all kinds. Take three years and a half for\nlabor, fatigue, and dissatisfaction, and we shall have none remaining.\nWell, poor animal, will you still be proud?\n\nUnfortunately, in this fable Jupiter forgot to dress this animal as he\nclothed the ass, horse, peacock, and even the caterpillar. Man had only\nhis bare skin, which, continually exposed to the sun, rain, and hail,\nbecame chapped, tanned, and spotted. The male in our continent was\ndisfigured by spare hairs on his body, which rendered him frightful\nwithout covering him. His face was hidden by these hairs. His skin\nbecame a rough soil which bore a forest of stalks, the roots of which\ntended upwards, and the branches of which grew downwards. It was in this\nstate and in this image, that this animal ventured to paint God, when in\ncourse of time he learned the art of description.\n\nThe female being more weak, became still more disgusting and frightful\nin her old age; and, in short, without tailors, and mantua-makers,\none-half of mankind would never have dared to show itself to the other.\nYet, before having clothes, before even knowing how to speak, some ages\nmust have passed away--a truth which has been proved, but which must be\noften repeated.\n\nIt is a little extraordinary that we should have harassed an innocent,\nestimable man of our time, the good Helvetius, for having said that if\nmen had not hands, they could not build houses and work tapestry.\nApparently, those who have condemned this proposition, have discovered a\nsecret for cutting stones and wood, and working at the needle with their\nfeet.\n\nI liked the author of the work \"On Mind\". This man was worth more than\nall his enemies together; but I never approved either the errors of his\nbook, or the trivial truths which he so emphatically enforced. I have,\nhowever, boldly taken his part when absurd men have condemned him for\nthese same truths.\n\nI have no terms to express the excess of my contempt for those who, for\nexample's sake, would magisterially proscribe this passage: \"The Turks\ncan only be considered deists.\" How then, pedant! would you have them\nregarded as atheists, because they adore only one God!\n\nYou condemn this other proposition: \"The man of sense knows that men are\nwhat they must be; that all hatred against them is unjust; that a fool\ncommits fooleries as a wild stock bears bitter fruits.\"\n\nSo, crabbed stocks of the schools, you persecute a man because he hates\nyou not! Let us, however, leave the schools, and pursue our subject.\n\nReason, industrious hands, a head capable of generalizing ideas, a\nlanguage pliant enough to express them--these are great benefits granted\nby the Supreme Being to man, to the exclusion of other animals.\n\nThe male in general lives rather a shorter time than the female. He is\nalso generally larger in proportion. A man of the loftiest stature is\ncommonly two or three inches higher than the tallest woman.\n\nHis strength is almost always superior; he is more active; and having\nall his organs stronger, he is more capable of a fixed attention. All\narts have been invented by him, and not by woman. We should remark, that\nit is not the fire of imagination, but persevering meditation and\ncombination of ideas which have invented arts, as mechanics, gunpowder,\nprinting, dialling, etc.\n\nMan alone knows that he must die, and knows it only by experience. A\nchild brought up alone, and transported into a desert island, would\ndream of death no more than a plant or a cat.\n\nA singular man has written that the human body is a fruit, which is\ngreen until old age, and that the moment of death is that of maturity. A\nstrange maturity, ashes and putrefaction! The head of this philosopher\nwas not ripe. How many extravagances has the rage for telling novelties\nproduced?\n\nThe principal occupations of our race are the provision of food,\nlodging, and clothing; all the rest are nearly accessory; and it is this\npoor accessory which has produced so many ravages and murders.\n\nDifferent Races Of Men.\n\nWe have elsewhere seen how many different races of men this globe\ncontains, and to what degrees the first negro and the first white who\nmet were astonished at one another.\n\nIt is likely enough that several weakly species of men and animals have\nperished. It is thus that we no longer discover any of the murex, of\nwhich the species has probably been devoured by other animals who\nseveral ages after visited the shores inhabited by this little\nshellfish.\n\nSt. Jerome, in his \"History of the Father of the Desert\", speaks of a\ncentaur who had a conversation with St. Anthony the hermit. He\nafterwards gives an account of a much longer discourse that the same\nAnthony had with a satyr.\n\nSt. Augustine, in his thirty-third sermon, addressed \"To his Brothers in\nthe Desert,\" tell things as extraordinary as Jerome. \"I was already\nbishop of Hippo, when I went into Ethiopia with some servants of Christ,\nthere to preach the gospel. In this country we saw many men and women\nwithout heads, who had two great eyes in their breasts. In countries\nstill more southerly, we saw a people who had but one eye in their\nforeheads,\" etc.\n\nApparently, Augustine and Jerome then spoke \"with economy\"; they\naugmented the works of creation to raise greater admiration of the works\nof God. They sought to astonish men by fables, to render them more\nsubmissive to the yoke of faith.\n\nWe can be very good Christians without believing in centaurs, men\nwithout heads, or with only one eye, one leg, etc. But can we doubt that\nthe interior structure of a negro may be different to that of a white,\nsince the mucous netted membrane beneath the skin is white in the one,\nand black in the other? I have already told you so, but you are deaf.\n\nThe Albinos and the Darians--the first originally of Africa, and the\nsecond of the middle of America--are as different from us as from the\nnegroes. There are yellow, red, and gray races. We have already seen\nthat all the Americans are without beards or hair on their bodies,\nexcept the head and eyebrows. All are equally men, but only as a fir, an\noak, and a pear tree are equally trees; the pear tree comes not from the\nfir, nor the fir from the oak.\n\nBut whence comes it, that in the midst of the Pacific Ocean, in an\nisland named Otaheite, the men are bearded? It is to ask why we are so,\nwhile the Peruvians, Mexicans, and Canadians are not. It is to ask, why\napes have tails, and why nature has refused us an ornament which, at\nleast among us, is an extreme rarity.\n\nThe inclinations and characters of men differ as much as their climates\nand governments. It has never been possible to compose a regiment of\nLaplanders and Samoyeds, whilst the Siberians, their neighbors, become\nintrepid soldiers.\n\nNeither can you make good grenadiers of a poor Darian or an Albino. It\nis not because they have partridge eyes, or that their hair and eyebrows\nare like the finest and whitest silk; but it is because their bodies,\nand consequently their courage, partake of the most extreme weakness.\nThere is none but a blind man, and even an obstinate blind man, who can\ndeny the existence of all these different species. It is as great and\nremarkable as that of apes.\n\nThat All Races Of Men Have Constantly Lived In Society.\n\nAll the men whom we have discovered in the most uncultivated and\nfrightful countries herd together like beavers, ants, bees, and several\nother species of animals.\n\nWe have never seen countries in which they lived separate; or in which\nthe male only joined with the female by chance, and abandoned her the\nmoment after in disgust; or in which the mother estranged herself from\nher children, after having brought them up; or in which human beings\nlived without family and society. Some poor jesters have abused their\nunderstandings so far as to hazard the astonishing paradox, that man is\noriginally created to live alone, and that it is society which has\ndepraved his nature. They might as well say that herrings were created\nto swim alone in the sea; and that it is by an excess of corruption,\nthat they pass in a troop from the Frozen Ocean to our shores; that\nformerly cranes flew in the air singly, and that, by a violation of\ntheir natural instinct, they have subsequently chosen to travel in\ncompany.\n\nEvery animal has its instinct, and the instinct of man, fortified by\nreason, disposes him towards society, as towards eating and drinking. So\nfar from the want of society having degraded man, it is estrangement\nfrom society which degrades him. Whoever lived absolutely alone, would\nsoon lose the faculty of thinking and expressing himself; he would be a\nburden to himself, and it would only remain to metamorphose him into a\nbeast. An excess of powerless pride, which rises up against the pride of\nothers, may induce a melancholy man to fly from his fellows; but it is a\nspecies of depravity, and punishes itself. That pride is its own\npunishment, which frets itself into solitude and secretly resents being\ndespised and forgotten. It is enduring the most horrible slavery, in\norder to be free.\n\nWe have enlarged the bounds of ordinary folly so far as to say that it\nis not natural for a man to be attached to a woman during the nine\nmonths of her pregnancy. The appetite is satisfied, says the author of\nthese paradoxes; the man has no longer any want of woman, nor the woman\nof man; and the latter need not have the least care, nor perhaps the\nleast idea of the effects of the transient intercourse. They go\ndifferent ways, and there is no appearance, until the end of nine\nmonths, that they have ever been known to one another. Why should he\nhelp her after her delivery? Why assist to bring up a child whom he\ncannot instinctively know belongs to him alone?\n\nAll this is execrable; but happily nothing is more false. If this\nbarbarous indifference was the true instinct of nature, mankind would\nalways have acted thus. Instinct is unchangeable, its inconsistencies\nare very rare; the father would always abandon the mother, and the\nmother would abandon her child. There would have been much fewer men on\nearth than voracious animals; for the wild beasts better provided and\nbetter armed, have a more prompt instinct, more sure means of living,\nand a more certain nourishment than mankind.\n\nOur nature is very different from the frightful romance which this man,\npossessed of the devil, has made of it. Except some barbarous souls\nentirely brutish, or perhaps a philosopher more brutal still, the\nroughest man, by a prevailing instinct, loves the child which is not yet\nborn, the womb which bears it; and the mother redoubles her love for him\nfrom whom she has received the germ of a being similar to himself.\n\nThe instinct of the colliers of the Black Forest speaks to them as\nloudly, and animates them as strongly in favor of their children as the\ninstinct of pigeons and nightingales induces them to feed their little\nones. Time has therefore been sadly lost in writing these abominable\nabsurdities.\n\nThe great fault of all these paradoxical books lies in always supposing\nnature very different from what it is. If the satires on man and woman\nwritten by Boileau were not pleasantries, they would sin in the\nessential point of supposing all men fools and all women coquettes.\n\nThe same author, an enemy to society, like the fox without a tail who\nwould have his companions cut off theirs, thus in a magisterial style\nexpresses himself:\n\n\"The first who, having enclosed an estate, took upon himself to say:\n'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the\ntrue founder of society. What crimes, wars, murders, miseries, and\nhorrors, might have been spared to mankind if some one, seizing the\nstakes, or filling up the pit, had cried to his companions: 'Take care\nhow you listen to this impostor; you are lost if you forget that the\nfruits are common to all, and that the earth belongs to nobody!'\"\n\nThus, according to this fine philosopher, a thief, a destroyer, would\nhave been the benefactor of mankind, and we should punish an honest man\nwho says to his children: \"Let us imitate our neighbor; he has enclosed\nhis field, the beasts will no longer ravage it, his land will become\nmore fertile; let us work ours as he has labored his; it will aid us,\nand we shall improve it. Each family cultivating its own enclosure, we\nshall be better fed, more healthy, more peaceable, and less unhappy. We\nwill endeavor to establish a distributive justice, which will console\nour unhappy race; and we shall be raised above the foxes and polecats,\nto whom this babbler would compare us.\"\n\nWould not this discourse be more sensible and honest than that of the\nsavage fool who would destroy the good man's orchard? What philosophy\ntherefore is that which says things that common sense disclaims from\nChina to Canada? Is it not that of a beggar, who would have all the rich\nrobbed by the poor, in order that fraternal union might be better\nestablished among men?\n\nIt is true, that if all the hedges, forests, and plains were covered\nwith wholesome and delicious fruits, it would be impossible, unjust, and\nridiculous, to guard them.\n\nIf there are any islands in which nature produces food and all\nnecessaries without trouble, let us go and live there, far from the\ntrash of our laws; but as soon as you have peopled them, we must return\nto _meum _and _tuum, _and to laws which are often very bad, but which we\ncannot rationally abolish.\n\n\n_Is Man Born Wicked?_\n\nIs it not demonstrated that man is _not _born perverse and the child of\nthe devil? If such was his nature, he would commit enormous crimes and\nbarbarities as soon as he could walk; he would use the first knife he\ncould find, to wound whoever displeased him. He would necessarily\nresemble little wolves and foxes, who bite as soon as they can.\n\nOn the contrary, throughout the world, he partakes of the nature of the\nlamb, while he is an infant. Why, therefore, and how is it, that he so\noften becomes a wolf and fox? Is it not that, being born neither good\nnor wicked, education, example, the government into which he is\nthrown--in short, occasion of every kind--determines him to virtue or\nvice?\n\nPerhaps human nature could not be otherwise. Man could not always have\nfalse thoughts, nor always true affections; be always sweet, or always\ncruel.\n\nIt is demonstrable that woman is elevated beyond men in the scale of\ngoodness. We see a hundred brothers enemies to each other, to one\nClytemnestra.\n\nThere are professions which necessarily render the soul pitiless--those\nof the soldier, the butcher, the officer of justice, and the jailer; and\nall trades which are founded on the annoyance of others.\n\nThe officer, the soldier, the jailer, for example, are only happy in\nmaking others miserable. It is true, they are necessary against\nmalefactors, and so far useful to society; but of a thousand men of the\nkind, there is not one who acts from the motive of the public good, or\nwho even reflects that it is a public good.\n\nIt is above all a curious thing to hear them speak of their prowess as\nthey count the number of their victims; their snares to entrap them, the\nills which they have made them suffer, and the money which they have got\nby it.\n\nWhoever has been able to descend to the subaltern detail of the bar;\nwhoever has only heard lawyears reason familiarly among themselves, and\napplaud themselves for the miseries of their clients, must have a very\npoor opinion of human nature.\n\nThere are more frightful possessions still, which are, however,\ncanvassed for like a canonship. There are some which change an honest\nman into a rogue, and which accustom him to lie in spite of himself, to\ndeceive almost without perceiving it, to put a blind before the eyes of\nothers, to prostrate himself by the interest and vanity of his\nsituation, and without remorse to plunge mankind into stupid blindness.\n\nWomen, incessantly occupied with the education of their children, and\nshut up in their domestic cares, are excluded from all these\nprofessions, which pervert human nature and render it atrocious. They\nare everywhere less barbarous than men.\n\nPhysics join with morals to prevent them from great crimes; their blood\nis milder; they are less addicted to strong liquors, which inspire\nferocity. An evident proof is, that of a thousand victims of justice in\na thousand executed assassins, we scarcely reckon four women. It is also\nproved elsewhere, I believe, that in Asia there are not two examples of\nwomen condemned to a public punishment. It appears, therefore, that our\ncustoms and habits have rendered the male species very wicked.\n\nIf this truth was general and without exceptions, the species would be\nmore horrible than spiders, wolves, and polecats are to our eyes. But\nhappily, professions which harden the heart and fill it with odious\npassions, are very rare. Observe, that in a nation of twenty millions,\nthere are at most two hundred thousand soldiers. This is but one soldier\nto two hundred individuals. These two hundred thousand soldiers are held\nin the most severe discipline, and there are among them very honest\npeople, who return to their villages and finish their old age as good\nfathers and husbands.\n\nThe number of other trades which are dangerous to manners, is but small.\nLaborers, artisans, and artists are too much occupied often to deliver\nthemselves up to crime. The earth will always bear detestable wretches,\nand books will always exaggerate the number, which, rather than being\ngreater, is less than we say.\n\nIf mankind had been under the empire of the devil, there would be no\nlonger any person upon earth. Let us console ourselves: we have seen,\nand we shall always see, fine minds from Pekin to la Rochelle; and\nwhatever licentiates and bachelors may say, the Tituses, Trajans,\nAntoninuses, and Peter Bayles were very honest men.\n\n\n_Of Man In The State Of Pure Nature._\n\nWhat would man be in the state which we call that of pure nature? An\nanimal much below the first Iroquois whom we found in the north of\nAmerica. He would be very inferior to these Iroquois, since they knew\nhow to light fires and make arrows. He would require ages to arrive at\nthese two arts.\n\nMan, abandoned to pure nature, would have, for his language, only a few\ninarticulate sounds; the species would be reduced to a very small\nnumber, from the difficulty of getting nourishment and the want of help,\nat least in our harsh climates. He would have no more knowledge of God\nand the soul, than of mathematics; these ideas would be lost in the care\nof procuring food. The race of beavers would be infinitely preferable.\n\nMan would then be only precisely like a robust child; and we have seen\nmany men who are not much above that state, as it is. The Laplanders,\nthe Samoyeds, the inhabitants of Kamchatka, the Kaffirs, and Hottentots\nare--with respect to man in a state of pure nature--that which the\ncourts of Cyrus and Semiramis were in comparison with the inhabitants of\nthe C\u00e9vennes. Yet the inhabitants of Kamchatka and the Hottentots of our\ndays, so superior to men entirely savage, are animals who live six\nmonths of the year in caverns, where they eat the vermin by which they\nare eaten.\n\nIn general, mankind is not above two or three degrees more civilized\nthan the Kamchatkans. The multitude of brute beasts called men, compared\nwith the little number of those who think, is at least in the proportion\nof a hundred to one in many nations.\n\nIt is pleasant to contemplate on one side, Father Malebranche, who\ntreats familiarly of \"the Word\"; and on the other, these millions of\nanimals similar to him, who have never heard speak of \"the Word,\" and\nwho have not one metaphysical idea.\n\nBetween men of pure instinct and men of genius floats this immense\nnumber occupied solely with subsisting.\n\nThis subsistence costs us so much pains, that in the north of America an\nimage of God often runs five or six leagues to get a dinner; whilst\namong us the image of God bedews the ground with the sweat of his brow,\nin order to procure bread.\n\nAdd to this bread--or the equivalent--a hut, and a poor dress, and you\nwill have man such as he is in general, from one end of the universe to\nthe other: and it is only in a multitude of ages that he has been able\nto arrive at this high degree of attainment.\n\nFinally, after other ages, things got to the point at which we see them.\nHere we represent a tragedy in music; there we kill one another on the\nhigh seas of another hemisphere, with a thousand pieces of cannon. The\nopera and a ship of war of the first rank always astonish my\nimagination. I doubt whether they can be carried much farther in any of\nthe globes with which the heavens are studded. More than half the\nhabitable world, however, is still peopled with two-footed animals, who\nlive in the horrible state approaching to pure nature, existing and\nclothing themselves with difficulty, scarcely enjoying the gift of\nspeech, scarcely perceiving that they are unfortunate, and living and\ndying almost without knowing it.\n\n\n_Examination Of A Thought Of Pascal On Man._\n\n\"I can conceive a man without hands or feet, and I could even conceive\nhim without a head, if experience taught me not that it is with the head\nhe thinks. It is therefore thought which makes the being of man, without\nwhich we cannot conceive him.\"--(Thoughts of Pascal.)\n\nHow! conceive a man, without feet, hands, and head? This would be as\ndifferent a thing from a man as a gourd.\n\nIf all men were without heads, how could yours conceive that there are\nanimals like yourselves, since they would have nothing of what\nprincipally constitutes your being? A head is something; the five senses\nare contained in it, and thought also. An animal, which from the nape of\nits neck downwards might resemble a man, or one of those apes which we\ncall ourang-outang or the man of the woods, would no more be a man than\nan ape or a bear whose head and tail were cut off.\n\nIt is therefore thought which makes the being of a man. In this case,\nthought would be his essence, as extent and solidity are the essence of\nmatter. Man would think essentially and always, as matter is always\nextended and solid. He would think in a profound sleep without dreams,\nin a fit, in a lethargy, in the womb of his mother. I well know that I\nnever thought in any of these states; I confess it often; and I doubt\nnot that others are like myself.\n\nIf thought was as essential to man as extent is to matter, it would\nfollow that God cannot deprive this animal of understanding, since he\ncannot deprive matter of extent--for then it would be no longer matter.\nNow, if understanding be essential to man, he is a thinking being by\nnature, as God is God by nature.\n\nIf desirous to define God, as such poor beings as ourselves can define\nHim, I should say, that thought is _His _being, _His _essence; but as to\nman--!\n\nWe have the faculties of thinking, walking, talking, eating, and\nsleeping, but we do not always use these faculties, it is not in our\nnature.\n\nThought, with us, is it not an attribute? and so much an attribute that\nit is sometimes weak, sometimes strong, sometimes reasonable, and\nsometimes extravagant? It hides itself, shows itself, flies, returns, is\nnothing, is reproduced. Essence is quite another thing; it never varies;\nit knows nothing of more or less.\n\nWhat, therefore, would be the animal supposed by Pascal? A being of\nreason. He might just as well have supposed a tree to which God might\nhave given thought, as it is said that the gods granted voices to the\ntrees of Dodona.\n\n\n_Operation Of God On Man._\n\nPeople who have founded systems on the communication of God with man\nhave said that God acts directly physically on man in certain cases\nonly, when God grants certain particular gifts; and they have called\nthis action \"physical premotion.\" Diocles and Erophiles, those two great\nenthusiasts, maintain this opinion, and have partisans.\n\nNow we recognize a God quite as well as these people, because we cannot\nconceive that any one of the beings which surround us could be produced\nof itself. By the fact alone that something exists, the necessary\nEternal Being must be necessarily the cause of all. With these\nreasoners, we admit the possibility of God making himself understood to\nsome favorites; but we go farther, we believe that He makes Himself\nunderstood by all men, in all places, and in all times, since to all he\ngives life, motion, digestion, thought, and instinct.\n\nIs there in the vilest of animals, and in the most sublime philosophers,\na being who can will motion, digestion, desire, love, instinct, or\nthought? No; but we act, we love, we have instincts; as for example, an\ninvincible liking to certain objects, an insupportable aversion to\nothers, a promptitude to execute the movements necessary to our\npreservation, as those of sucking the breasts of our nurses, swimming\nwhen we are strong and our bosoms large enough, biting our bread,\ndrinking, stooping to avoid a blow from a stone, collecting our force to\nclear a ditch, etc. We accomplish a thousand such actions without\nthinking of them, though they are all profoundly mathematical. In short,\nwe think and feel without knowing how.\n\nIn good earnest, is it more difficult for God to work all within us by\nmeans of which we are ignorant, than to stir us internally sometimes, by\nthe efficacious grace of Jupiter, of which these gentlemen talk to us\nunceasingly?\n\nWhere is the man who, when he looks into himself, perceives not that he\nis a puppet of Providence? I think--but can I give myself a thought?\nAlas! if I thought of myself, I should know what ideas I might entertain\nthe next moment--a thing which nobody knows.\n\nI acquire a knowledge, but I could not give it to myself. My\nintelligence cannot be the cause of it; for the cause must contain the\neffect: Now, my first acquired knowledge was not in my understanding;\nbeing the first, it was given to me by him who formed me, and who gives\nall, whatever it may be.\n\nI am astonished, when I am told that my first knowledge cannot alone\ngive me a second; that it must contain it.\n\nThe proof that we give ourselves no ideas is that we receive them in our\ndreams; and certainly, it is neither our will nor attention which makes\nus think in dreams. There are poets who make verses sleeping;\ngeometricians who measure triangles. All proves to us that there is a\npower which acts within us without consulting us.\n\nAll our sentiments, are they not involuntary? Hearing, taste, and sight\nare nothing by themselves. We feel, in spite of ourselves: we do nothing\nof ourselves: we are nothing without a Supreme Power which enacts all\nthings.\n\nThe most superstitious allow these truths, but they apply them only to\npeople of their own class. They affirm that God acts physically on\ncertain privileged persons. We are more religious than they; we believe\nthat the Great Being acts on all living things, as on all matter. Is it\ntherefore more difficult for Him to stir all men than to stir some of\nthem? Will God be God for your little sect alone? He is equally so for\nme, who do not belong to it.\n\nA new philosopher goes further than you; it seemed to him that God alone\nexists. He pretends that we are all in Him; and we say that it is God\nwho sees and acts in all that has life. \"_Jupiter est quodcumque vides;\nquodcumque moveris._\"\n\nTo proceed. Your physical premotion introduces God acting in you. What\nneed have you then of a soul? Of what good is this little unknown and\nincomprehensible being? Do you give a soul to the sun, which enlightens\nso many globes? And if this star so great, so astonishing, and so\nnecessary, has no soul, why should man have one? God who made us, does\nHe not suffice for us? What, therefore, is become of the axiom? Effect\nnot that by many, which can be accomplished by one.\n\nThis soul, which you have imagined to be a substance, is therefore\nreally only a faculty, granted by the Great Being, and not by a person.\nIt is a property given to our organs, and not a substance. Man, his\nreason uncorrupted by metaphysics, could never imagine that he was\ndouble; that he was composed of two beings, the one mortal, visible, and\npalpable--the other immortal, invisible, and impalpable. Would it not\nrequire ages of controversy to arrive at this expedient of joining\ntogether two substances so dissimilar; tangible and intangible, simple\nand compound, invulnerable and suffering, eternal and fleeting?\n\nMen have only supposed a soul by the same error which made them suppose\nin us a being called memory, which being they afterwards made a\ndivinity.\n\nThey made this memory the mother of the Muses; they embodied the various\ntalents of nature in so many goddesses, the daughters of memory. They\nalso made a god of the secret power by which nature forms the blood of\nanimals, and called it the god of sanguification. The Roman people\nindeed had similar gods for the faculties of eating and drinking, for\nthe act of marriage, for the act of voiding excrements. They were so\nmany particular souls, which produced in us all these actions. It was\nthe metaphysics of the populace. This shameful and ridiculous\nsuperstition was evidently derived from that which imagined in man a\nsmall divine substance, different from man himself.\n\nThis substance is still admitted in all the schools; and with\ncondescension we grant to the Great Being, to the Eternal Maker, to God,\nthe permission of joining His concurrence to the soul. Thus we suppose,\nthat for will and deed, both God and our souls are necessary.\n\nBut to concur signifies to aid, to participate. God therefore is only\nsecond with us; it is degrading Him; it is putting Him on a level with\nus, or making Him play the most inferior part. Take not from Him His\nrank and pre-eminence: make not of the Sovereign of Nature the mere\nservant of mankind.\n\nTwo species of reasoners, well credited in the world--atheists and\ntheologians--will oppose our doubts.\n\nThe atheists will say, that in admitting reason in man and instinct in\nbrutes, as properties, it is very useless to admit a God into this\nsystem; that God is still more incomprehensible than a soul; that it is\nunworthy a sage to believe that which he conceives not. They let fly\nagainst us all the arguments of Straton and Lucretius. We will answer\nthem by one word only: \"You exist; therefore there is a God.\"\n\nTheologians will give us more trouble. They will first tell us: \"We\nagree with you that God is the first cause of all; but He is not the\nonly one.\" A high priest of Minerva says expressly: \"The second agent\noperates by virtue of the first; the first induces a second; the second\ninvolves a third; all are acting by virtue of God, and He is the cause\nof all actions acting.\"\n\nWe will answer, with all the respect we owe to this high priest: \"There\nis, and there can only exist, one true cause. All the others, which are\nsubsequent, are but instruments. I discover a spring--I make use of it\nto move a machine; I discovered the spring and made the machine. I am\nthe sole cause. That is undoubted.\"\n\nThe high priest will reply: \"You take liberty away from men.\" I reply:\n\"No; liberty consists in the faculty of willing, and in that of doing\nwhat you will, when nothing prevents you. God has made man upon these\nconditions, and he must be contented with them.\"\n\nMy priest will persist, and say, that we make God the author of sin.\nThen we shall answer him: \"I am sorry for it; but God is made the author\nof sin in all systems, except in that of the atheists. For if He concurs\nwith the actions of perverse men, as with those of the just, it is\nevident that to concur is to do, since He who concurs is also the\ncreator of all.\"\n\nIf God alone permits sin, it is He who commits it; since to permit and\nto do is the same thing to the absolute master of all. If He foresees\nthat men will do evil, he should not form men. We have never eluded the\nforce of these ancient arguments; we have never weakened them. Whoever\nhas produced all, has certainly produced good and evil. The system of\nabsolute predestination, the doctrine of concurrence, equally plunge us\ninto this labyrinth, from which we cannot extricate ourselves.\n\nAll that we can say is, that evil is for us, and not for God. Nero\nassassinates his preceptor and his mother; another murders his relations\nand neighbors; a high priest poisons, strangles, and beheads twenty\nRoman lords, on rising from the bed of his daughter. This is of no more\nimportance to the Being, the Universal Soul of the World, than sheep\neaten by the wolves or by us, or than flies devoured by spiders. There\nis no evil for the Great Being; to Him it is only the play of the great\nmachine which incessantly moves by eternal laws. If the wicked\nbecome--whether during their lives or subsequently--more unhappy than\nthose whom they have sacrificed to their passions; if they suffer as\nthey have made others suffer, it is still an inevitable consequence of\nthe immutable laws by which the Great Being necessarily acts. We know\nbut a very small part of these laws; we have but a very weak portion of\nunderstanding; we have only resignation in our power. Of all systems, is\nnot that which makes us acquainted with our insignificance the most\nreasonable? Men--as all philosophers of antiquity have said--made God in\ntheir own image; which is the reason why the first Anaxagoras, as\nancient as Orpheus, expresses himself thus in his verses: \"If the birds\nfigured to themselves a God, he would have wings; that of horses would\nrun with four legs.\"\n\nThe vulgar imagine God to be a king, who holds his seat of justice in\nhis court. Tender hearts represent him as a father who takes care of his\nchildren. The sage attributes to Him no human affection. He acknowledges\na necessary eternal power which animates all nature, and resigns himself\nto it.\n\n\n_General Reflection On Man._\n\nIt requires twenty years to raise man from the state of a plant, in\nwhich he abides in his mother's womb, and from the pure animal state,\nwhich is the lot of his earliest infancy, to that in which the maturity\nof reason begins to dawn. He has required thirty ages to become a little\nacquainted with his own bodily structure. He would require eternity to\nbecome acquainted with his soul. He requires but an instant to kill\nhimself.\n\n\n\n\nMARRIAGE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nI once met with a reasoner who said: \"Induce your subjects to marry as\nearly as possible. Let them be exempt from taxes the first year; and let\ntheir portion be assessed on those who at the same age are in a state of\ncelibacy.\n\n\"The more married men you have, the fewer crimes there will be. Examine\nthe frightful columns of your criminal calendars; you will there find a\nhundred youths executed for one father of a family.\n\n\"Marriage renders men more virtuous and more wise. The father of a\nfamily is not willing to blush before his children; he is afraid to make\nshame their inheritance.\n\n\"Let your soldiers marry, and they will no longer desert. Bound to their\nfamilies, they will be bound to their country. An unmarried soldier is\nfrequently nothing but a vagabond, to whom it matters not whether he\nserves the king of Naples or the king of Morocco.\"\n\nThe Roman warriors were married: they fought for their wives and their\nchildren; and they made slaves of the wives and the children of other\nnations.\n\nA great Italian politician, who was, besides, learned in the Eastern\ntongues, a thing rare among our politicians, said to me in my youth:\n\"_Caro figlio,_\" remember that the Jews never had but one good\ninstitution--that of abhorring virginity. If that little nation of\nsuperstitious jobbers had not regarded marriage as the first of the\nhuman obligations--if there had been among them convents of nuns--they\nwould have been inevitably lost.\n\n\n_The Marriage Contract._\n\nMarriage is a contract in the law of nations, of which the Roman\nCatholics have made a sacrament.\n\nBut the sacrament and the contract are two very different things; with\nthe one are connected the civil effects, with the other the graces of\nthe church.\n\nSo when the contract is conformable to the law of nations, it must\nproduce every civil effect. The absence of the sacrament can operate\nonly in the privation of spiritual graces.\n\nSuch has been the jurisprudence of all ages, and of all nations,\nexcepting the French. Such was the opinion of the most accredited\nfathers of the Church. Go through the Theodosian and Justinian codes,\nand you will find no law proscribing the marriages of persons of another\ncreed, not even when contracted between them and Catholics.\n\nIt is true, that Constantius--that son of Constantine as cruel as his\nfather--forbade the Jews, on pain of death, to marry Christian women;\nand that Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius made the same\nprohibition, under the like penalty, to the Jewish women. But under the\nemperor Marcian these laws had ceased to be observed; and Justinian\nrejected them from his code. Besides, they were made against the Jews\nonly; no one ever thought of applying them to the marriage of pagans or\nheretics with the followers of the prevailing religion.\n\nConsult St. Augustine, and he will tell you that in his time the\nmarriages of believers with unbelievers were not considered illicit,\nbecause no gospel text had condemned them: \"_Qu\u00e6 matrimonia cum in\nfidelibus, nostris temporibus, jam non putantur esse peccata; quoniam in\nNovo Testamento nihil inde preceptum est, et ideo aut licere creditum\nest, aut velut dubium derelictum._\"\n\nAugustine says, moreover, that these marriages often work the conversion\nof the unbelieving party. He cites the example of his own father, who\nembraced the Christian religion because his wife, Manica, professed\nChristianity. Clotilda, by the conversion of Clovis, and Theolinda, by\nthat of Agilulf, king of the Lombards, rendered greater service to the\nChurch than if they had married orthodox princes.\n\nConsult the declaration of Pope Benedict XIV. of Nov. 4, 1741. You will\nfind in it these words: \"_Quod vero spectat ad ea conjugia qu\u00e6, absque\nforma a Tridentino statuta, contrahuntur a catholicis cum h\u00e6reticis,\nsive catholicus vir h\u00e6riticam feminam ducat, sive catholica f\u00e6mina\nheretico viro nubat; si hujusmodi matrimonium sit contractum aut in\nposterum contracti contingat, Tridentini forma non servata, declarat\nSanctitas sua, alio non concurrente impedimento, validum habendum esse,\nsciat conjux catholicus se istius matrimonii vinculo perpetuo\nligatum._\"--With respect to such marriages as, transgressing the\nenactment of the Council of Trent, are contracted by Catholics with\nheretics; whether by a Catholic man with a heretical woman, or by a\nCatholic woman with a heretical man; if such matrimony already is, or\nhereafter shall be contracted, the rules of the council not being\nobserved, his holiness declares, that if there be no other impediment,\nit shall be held valid, the Catholic man or woman understanding that he\nor she is by such matrimony bound until death.\n\nBy what astonishing contradiction is it, that the French laws in this\nmatter are more severe than those of the Church? The first law by which\nthis severity was established in France was the edict of Louis XIV., of\nNovember, 1680, which deserves to be repeated.\n\n\"Louis,... The canons of the councils having forbidden marriages of\nCatholics with heretics, as a public scandal and a profanation of the\nsacrament, we have deemed it the more necessary to prevent them for the\nfuture, as we have found that the toleration of such marriages exposes\nCatholics to the continual temptation of perverting it, etc. For these\ncauses,... it is our will and pleasure, that in future our subjects of\nthe Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion may not, under any pretext\nwhatsoever, contract marriage with those of the pretended reformed\nreligion, declaring such marriages to be invalid, and the issue of them\nillegitimate.\"\n\nIt is singular enough, that the laws of the Church should have been made\nthe foundation for annulling marriages which the Church never annulled.\nIn this edict we find the sacrament confounded with the civil contract;\nand from this confusion have proceeded the strange laws in France\nconcerning marriage.\n\nSt. Augustine approved marriages of the orthodox with heretics, for he\nhoped that the faithful spouse would convert the other; and Louis XIV.\ncondemns them, lest the heterodox should pervert the believer.\n\nIn Franche-Comt\u00e9 there exists a yet more cruel law. This is an edict of\nthe archduke Albert and his wife Isabella, of Dec. 20, 1599, which\nforbids Catholics to marry heretics, on pain of confiscation of body and\ngoods.\n\nThe same edict pronounces the same penalty on such as shall be convicted\nof eating mutton on Friday or Saturday. What laws! and what\nlaw-givers!--\"_A quels ma\u00eetres, grand Dieu, livrez-vous l'univers!_\"\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIf our laws reprove marriages of Catholics with persons of a different\nreligion, do they grant the civil effects at least to marriages of\nFrench Protestants with French persons of the same sect?\n\nThere are now in the kingdom a million of Protestants; yet the validity\nof their marriage is still a question in the tribunals.\n\nHere again is one of those cases in which our jurisprudence is\ncontradictory to the decisions of the Church, and also to itself.\n\nIn the papal declaration, quoted in the foregoing section, Benedict XIV.\ndecides that marriages of Protestants, contracted according to their\nrites, are no less valid than if they had been performed according to\nthe forms established by the Council of Trent; and that a husband who\nturns Catholic cannot break this tie and form a new one with a person of\nhis new religion.\n\nBarak Levi, by birth a Jew, and a native of Haguenan, had there married\nMendel Cerf, of the same town and the same religion.\n\nThis Jew came to Paris in 1752; and on May 13, 1754, he was baptized. He\nsent a summons to his wife at Haguenan to come and join him at Paris. In\na second summons he consented that this wife, when she had come to join\nhim, should continue to live in her own Jewish sect.\n\nTo these summonses Mendel Cerf replied that she would not return with\nhim, and that she required him to send her, according to the Jewish\nforms, a bill of divorce, in order that she might marry another Jew.\n\nLevi was not satisfied with this answer; he sent no bill of divorce; but\nhe caused his wife to appear before the official of Strasburg, who, by a\nsentence of Sept. 7, 1754, declared that, in the sight of the Church, he\nwas at liberty to marry a Catholic woman.\n\nFurnished with this sentence, the Christianized Jew came into the\ndiocese of Soissons, and there made promise of marriage to a young woman\nof Villeneuve. The clergyman refused to publish the banns. Levi\ncommunicated to him the summonses he had sent to his wife, the sentence\nof the official of Strasburg, and a certificate from the secretary of\nthe bishopric of that place, attesting, that in that diocese baptized\nJews had at all times been permitted to contract new marriages with\nCatholics, and that this usage had constantly been recognized by the\nSupreme Council of Colmar. But these documents appeared to the parson of\nVilleneuve to be insufficient. Levi was obliged to summon him before the\nofficial of Soissons.\n\nThis official did not think, like him of Strasburg, that the marriage of\nLevi with Mendel Cerf was null or dissoluble. By his sentence of Feb. 5,\n1756, he declared the Jew's claim to be inadmissible. The latter\nappealed from this sentence to the Parliament of Paris, where he was not\nonly opposed by the public ministry, but, by a decree of Jan. 2, 1758,\nthe sentence was confirmed, and Levi was again forbidden to contract any\nmarriage during the life of Mendel Cerf.\n\nHere, then, a marriage contracted between French Jews, according to the\nJewish rites, was declared valid by the first court in the kingdom.\n\nBut, some years afterwards, the same question was decided differently in\nanother parliament, on the subject of a marriage contracted between two\nFrench Protestants, who had been married in the presence of their\nparents by a minister of their own communion. The Protestant spouse had,\nlike the Jew, changed his religion; and after he had concluded a second\nmarriage with a Catholic, the Parliament of Grenoble confirmed this\nsecond marriage, and declared the first to be null.\n\nIf we pass from jurisprudence to legislation, we shall find it as\nobscure on this important matter as on so many others.\n\nA decree of the council, of Sept. 15, 1685, says: \"Protestants may\nmarry, provided, however, that it be in the presence of the principal\nofficer of justice, and that the publication preceding such marriages\nshall be made at the royal see nearest the place of abode of each of the\nProtestants desirous of marrying, and at the audience only.\"\n\nThis decree was not revoked by the edict which, three weeks after,\nsuppressed the Edict of Nantes. But after the declaration of May 14,\n1724, drawn up by Cardinal Fleury, the judges would no longer preside\nover the marriages of Protestants, nor permit their banns to be\npublished in their audiences.\n\nBy Article XV. of this law, the forms prescribed by the canons are to be\nobserved in marriages, as well of new converts as of all the rest of the\nking's subjects.\n\nThis general expression, \"all the rest of the king's subjects,\" has been\nthought to comprehend the Protestants, as well as the Catholics, and on\nthis interpretation, such marriages of Protestants as were not\nsolemnized according to the canonical forms have been annulled.\n\nNevertheless, it seems that the marriages of Protestants having been\nauthorized by an express law, they cannot now be admitted but by another\nexpress law carrying with it this penalty. Besides, the term \"new\nconverts\", mentioned in the declaration, appears to indicate that the\nterm that follows relates to the Catholics only. In short, when the\ncivil law is obscure or ambiguous, ought not the judges to decide\naccording to the natural and the moral law?\n\nDoes it not result from all this that laws often have need of\nreformation, and princes of consulting better informed counsellors,\nrejecting priestly ministers, and distrusting courtiers in the garb of\nconfessors?\n\n\n\n\nMARY MAGDALEN.\n\n\nI must own that I know not where the author of the \"Critical History of\nJesus Christ\" found that St. Mary Magdalen had a criminal intimacy (_des\ncomplaisances criminelles_) with the \"Saviour of the world.\" He says\n(page 130, line 11 of the note) that this is an assertion of the\nAlbigenses. I have never read this horrible blasphemy either in the\nhistory of the Albigenses, or in their profession of faith. It is one of\nthe great many things of which I am ignorant. I know that the Albigenses\nhad the dire misfortune of not being Roman Catholics; but, otherwise, it\nseems to me, they had the most profound reverence for the person of\nJesus.\n\nThis author of the \"Critical History of Jesus Christ\" refers us to the\n\"_Christiade,_\" a sort of poem in prose--granting that there are such\nthings as poems in prose. I have, therefore, been obliged to consult the\npassage of the \"_Christiade_\" in which this accusation is made. It is in\nthe fourth book or canto, page 335, note 1; the poet of the\n\"_Christiade_\" cites no authority. In an epic poem, indeed, citations\nmay be spared; but great authorities are requisite in prose, when so\ngrave an assertion is made--one which makes every Christian's hair stand\nerect.\n\nWhether the Albigenses advanced this impiety or not, the only result is\nthat the author of the \"_Christiade_\" sports on the brink of\ncriminality. He somewhat imitates the famous sermon of Menot. He\nintroduces us to Mary Magdalen, the sister of Martha and Lazarus,\nbrilliant with all the charms of youth and beauty, burning with every\ndesire, and immersed in every voluptuousness. According to him, she is a\nlady at court, exalted in birth and in riches; her brother Lazarus was\ncount of Bethany, and herself marchioness of Magdalet. Martha had a\nsplendid portion, but he does not tell us where her estates lay. \"She\nhad,\" says the man of the \"_Christiade,_\" \"a hundred servants, and a\ncrowd of lovers; she might have threatened the liberty of the whole\nworld. But riches, dignities, ambitions, grandeur, never were so dear to\nMagdalen as the seductive error which caused her to be named the sinner.\nSuch was the sovereign beauty of the capital when the young and divine\nhero arrived there from the extremities of Galilee. Her other passions\nyielded to the ambition of subduing the hero of whom she had heard.\"\n\nThe author of the \"_Christiade_\" then imitates Virgil. The marchioness\nof Magdalet conjures her portioned sister to furnish her coquettish\ndesigns upon her young hero, as Dido employed her sister Anna to gain\nthe pious \u00c6neas.\n\nShe goes to hear Christ's sermon in the temple, although he never\npreached there. \"Her heart flies before her to the hero she adores; she\nawaits but one favorable look to triumph over him, to subdue this master\nof hearts and make him her captive.\"\n\nShe then goes to him at the house of Simon the Leper, a very rich man,\nwho was giving him a grand supper, although the women were never\nadmitted at these feastings, especially among the Pharisees. She pours a\nlarge pot of perfumes upon his legs, wipes them with her beautiful fair\nhair, and kisses them.\n\nI shall not inquire whether the picture which the author draws of\nMagdalen's holy transports is not more worldly than devout; whether the\nkisses given are not expressed rather too warmly; nor whether this fine\nhair with which she wipes her hero's legs, does not remind one too\nstrongly of Trimalcion, who, at dinner, wiped his hands with the hair of\na young and beautiful slave. He must himself have felt that his pictures\nmight be fancied too glowing; for he anticipates criticism by giving\nsome pieces from a sermon of Massillon's on Magdalen. One passage is as\nfollows:\n\n\"Magdalen had sacrificed her reputation to the world. Her bashfulness\nand her birth at first defended her against the emotions of her passion;\nand it is most likely, that to the first shaft which assailed her, she\nopposed the barrier of her modesty and her pride; but when she had lent\nher ear to the serpent, and consulted her own wisdom, her heart was open\nto all assaults of passion. Magdalen loved the world, and thenceforward\nall was sacrificed to this love; neither the pride that springs from\nbirth, nor the modesty which is the ornament of her sex, is spared in\nthis sacrifice; nothing can withhold her; neither the railleries of\nworldlings, nor the infidelities of her infatuated lovers, whom she fain\nwould please, but by whom she cannot make herself esteemed--for virtue\nonly is estimable; nothing can make her ashamed; and like the prostitute\nin the \"Apocalypse,\" she bears on her forehead the name of mystery; that\nis, she was veiled, and was no longer known but in the character of the\nfoolish passion.\"\n\nI have sought this passage in Massillon's sermons, but it certainly is\nnot in the edition which I possess. I will venture to say more--it is\nnot in his style.\n\nThe author of the \"_Christiade_\" should have informed us where he picked\nup this rhapsody of Massillon's, as he should have told us where he read\nthat the Albigenses dared to impute to Jesus Christ an unworthy\nintercourse with Mary Magdalen.\n\nAs for the marchioness, she is not again mentioned in the work. The\nauthor spares us her voyage to Marseilles with Lazarus, and the rest of\nher adventures.\n\nWhat could induce a man of learning, and sometimes of eloquence, as the\nauthor of the \"_Christiade_\" appears to be, to compose this pretended\npoem? It was, as he tells us in his preface, the example of Milton; but\nwe well know how deceitful are examples. Milton, who--be it\nobserved--did not hazard that weakly monstrosity, a poem in\nprose--Milton, who in his Paradise Lost, has, amid the multitude of\nharsh and obscure lines of which it is full, scattered some very fine\nblank verse--could not please any but fanatical Whigs, as the Abb\u00e9\nGr\u00e9court says:\n\n     _En chantant l'univers perdu pour une pomme,_\n     _Et Dieu pour le damner cr\u00e9ant le premier homme._\n\n     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By singing\n     How God made man on purpose for hell-fire,\n     And how a stolen apple damned us all.\n\nHe might delight the Presbyterians by making Sin cohabit with Death; by\nfiring off twenty-four pounders in heaven; by making dryness fight with\ndamp, and heat with cold; by cleaving angels in two, whose halves\nimmediately joined again; by building a bridge over chaos; by\nrepresenting the Messiah taking from a chest in heaven a great pair of\ncompasses to describe the circuit of the earth, etc. Virgil and Horace\nwould, perhaps, have thought these ideas rather strange. But if they\nsucceeded in England by the aid of some very happy lines, the author of\nthe \"_Christiade_\" was mistaken in expecting his romance to succeed\nwithout the assistance of fine verses, which are indeed very difficult\nto make.\n\nBut, says our author, one Jerome Vida, bishop of Alba, once wrote a very\npowerful \"_Christiade_\" in Latin verse, in which he transcribes many\nlines from Virgil. Well, my friend, why did you write yours in French\nprose? Why did not you, too, imitate Virgil?\n\nBut the late M. d'Escorbiac, of Toulouse, also wrote a \"_Christiade._\"\nAlas! why were you so unfortunate as to become the ape of M.\nd'Escorbiac?\n\nBut Milton, too, wrote his romance of the New Testament, his \"Paradise\nRegained,\" in blank verse, frequently resembling the worst prose. Leave\nit, then, to Milton to set Satan and Jesus constantly at war. Let it be\nhis to cause a drove of swine to be driven along by a legion of devils;\nthat is, by six thousand seven hundred, who take possession of these\nswine--there being three devils and seven-twentieths per pig--and drown\nthem in a lake. It well becomes Milton to make the devil propose to God\nthat they shall take a good supper together. In Milton, the devil may at\nhis ease cover the table with ortolans, partridges, soles, sturgeons,\nand make Hebe and Ganymede hand wine to Jesus Christ. In Milton, the\ndevil may take God up a little hill, from the top of which he shows him\nthe capital, the Molucca Islands, and the Indian city; the birthplace of\nthe beauteous Angelica, who turned Orlando's brain; after which he may\noffer to God all this, provided that God will adore him. But even Milton\nlabored in vain; people have laughed at him. They have laughed at poor\nbrother Berruyer, the Jesuit. They have laughed at you. Bear it with\npatience!\n\n\n\n\nMARTYRS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nMartyr, \"witness\"; martyrdom, testimony. The early Christian community\nat first gave the name of \"martyrs\" to those who announced new truths to\nmankind, who gave testimony to Jesus; who confessed Jesus; in the same\nmanner as they gave the name of \"saints\" to the presbyters, to the\nsupervisors of the community, and to their female benefactors; this is\nthe reason why St. Jerome, in his letters, often calls his initiated\nPaul, St. Paul. All the first bishops were called saints.\n\nSubsequently, the name of martyrs was given only to deceased Christians,\nor to those who had been tortured for punishment; and the little chapels\nthat were erected to them received afterwards the name of \"martyrion.\"\n\nIt is a great question, why the Roman Empire always tolerated in its\nbosom the Jewish sect, even after the two horrible wars of Titus and\nAdrian; why it tolerated the worship of Isis at several times; and why\nit frequently persecuted Christianity. It is evident that the Jews, who\npaid dearly for their synagogues, denounced the Christians as mortal\nfoes, and excited the people against them. It is moreover evident that\nthe Jews, occupied with the trade of brokers and usurers, did not preach\nagainst the ancient religion of the empire, and that the Christians, who\nwere all busy in controversy, preached against the public worship,\nsought to destroy it, often burned the temples, and broke the\nconsecrated statues, as St. Theodosius did at Amasia, and St. Polyeuctus\nin Mitylene.\n\nThe orthodox Christians, sure that their religion was the only true one,\ndid not tolerate any other. In consequence, they themselves were hardly\ntolerated. Some of them were punished and died for the faith--and these\nwere the martyrs.\n\nThis name is so respectable that it should not be prodigally bestowed;\nit is not right to assume the name and arms of a family to which one\ndoes not belong. Very heavy penalties have been established against\nthose who have the audacity to decorate themselves with the cross of\nMalta or of St. Louis, without being chevaliers of those orders.\n\nThe learned Dodwell, the dexterous Middleton, the judicious Blondel, the\nexact Tillemont, the scrutinizing Launoy, and many others, all zealous\nfor the glory of the true martyrs, have excluded from their catalogue an\nobscure multitude on whom this great title had been lavished. We have\nremarked that these learned men were sanctioned by the direct\nacknowledgment of Origen, who, in his \"Refutation of Celsus,\" confesses\nthat there are very few martyrs, and those at a great distance of time,\nand that it is easy to reckon them.\n\nNevertheless, the Benedictine Ruinart--who calls himself Don Ruinart,\nalthough he was no Spaniard--has contradicted all these learned persons!\nHe has candidly given us many stories of martyrs which have appeared to\nthe critics very suspicious. Many sensible persons have doubted various\nanecdotes relating to the legends recounted by Don Ruinart, from\nbeginning to end.\n\n\n_1. Of Saint Symphorosia And Her Seven Children._\n\nTheir scruples commence with St. Symphorosia and her seven children who\nsuffered martyrdom with her; which appears, at first sight, too much\nimitated from the seven Maccabees. It is not known whence this legend\ncomes; and that is at once a great cause of skepticism.\n\nIt is therein related that the emperor Adrian himself wished to\ninterrogate the unknown Symphorosia, to ascertain if she was a\nChristian. This would have been more extraordinary than if Louis XIV.\nhad subjected a Huguenot to an interrogatory. You will further observe\nthat Adrian, far from being a persecutor of the Christians, was their\ngreatest protector.\n\nHe had then a long conversation with Symphorosia, and putting himself in\na passion, he said to her: \"I will sacrifice you to the gods\"; as if the\nRoman emperors sacrificed women in their devotions. In the sequel, he\ncaused her to be thrown into the Anio--which was not a usual mode of\nimmolation. He afterwards had one of her sons cloven in two from the top\nof his head to his middle; a second from side to side; a third was\nbroken on the wheel; a fourth was only stabbed in the stomach; a fifth\nright to the heart; a sixth had his throat cut; the seventh died of a\nparcel of needles thrust into his breast. The emperor Adrian was fond of\nvariety. He commanded that they should be buried near the temple of\nHercules--although no one is ever buried in Rome, much less near the\ntemples, which would have been a horrible profanation. The legend adds\nthat the chief priest of the temple named the place of their interment\n\"the Seven Biotanates\".\n\nIf it was extraordinary that a monument should be erected at Rome to\npersons thus treated, it was no less so that a high priest should\nconcern himself with the inscription; and further, that this Roman\npriest should make a Greek epitaph for them. But what is still more\nstrange is that it is pretended that this word biotanates signifies the\nseven tortured. Biotanates is a fabricated word, which one does not meet\nwith in any author; and this signification can only be given to it by a\nplay upon words, falsely using the word \"thenon.\" There is scarcely any\nfable worse constructed. The writers of legends knew how to lie, but\nnone of them knew how to lie skilfully.\n\nThe learned Lacroze, librarian to Frederick the Great, king of Prussia,\nobserved: \"I know not whether Ruinart is sincere, but I am afraid he is\nsilly.\"\n\n\n_2. Of St. Felicita And Seven More Children._\n\nIt is from Surius that this legend is taken. This Surius is rather\nnotorious for his absurdities. He was a monk of the sixteenth century,\nwho writes about the martyrs of the second as if he had been present.\n\nHe pretends that that wicked man, that tyrant, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus\nPius, ordered the prefect of Rome to institute a process against St.\nFelicita, to have her and her seven children put to death, because there\nwas a rumor that she was a Christian.\n\nThe prefect held his tribunal in the Campus Martius, which, however, was\nat that time used only for the reviewing of troops; and the first thing\nthe prefect did was to cause a blow to be given her in full assembly.\n\nThe long discourses of the magistrates and the accused are worthy of the\nhistorian. He finishes by putting the seven brothers to death by\ndifferent punishments, like the seven children of St. Symphorosia. This\nis only a duplicate affair. But as for St. Felicita, he leaves her\nthere, and does not say another word about her.\n\n\n_3. Of Saint Polycarp._\n\nEusebius relates that St. Polycarp, being informed in a dream that he\nshould be burned in three days, made it known to his friends. The\nlegend-maker adds that the lieutenant of police at Smyrna, whose name\nwas Herodius, had him seized by his archers; that he was abandoned to\nthe wild beasts in the amphitheatre; that the sky opened, and a heavenly\nvoice cried to him: \"Be of good courage, Polycarp\"; that the hour of\nletting loose the lions in the amphitheatre having passed, the people\nwent about collecting wood from all the houses to burn him with; that\nthe saint addressed himself to the God of the \"archangels\"--although the\nword archangel was not then known--that the flames formed themselves\nround him into a triumphal arch without touching him; that his body had\nthe smell of baked bread; but that, having resisted the fire, he could\nnot preserve himself against a sabre-cut; that his blood put out the\nburning pile, and that there sprung from it a dove which flew straight\nto heaven. To which planet is not precisely known.\n\n\n_4. Of Saint Ptolomais._\n\nWe follow the order of Don Ruinart; but we have no wish to call in\nquestion the martyrdom of St. Ptolomais, which is extracted from \"St.\nJustin's Apology.\"\n\nWe could make some difficulties with regard to the woman who was accused\nby her husband of being a Christian, and who baffled him by giving him a\nbill of divorce. We might ask why, in this history, there is no further\nmention of this woman? We might make it manifest that in the time of\nMarcus Aurelius, women were not permitted to demand divorces of their\nhusbands; that this permission was only granted them under the emperor\nJulian; and that this so much repeated story of the Christian woman who\nrepudiated her husband--while no pagan would have dared to imagine such\na thing--cannot well be other than a fable. But we do not desire to\nraise unpleasant disputes. As for the little probability there is in the\ncompilation of Don Ruinart, we have too much respect for the subject he\ntreats of to start objections.\n\nWe have not made any to the \"Letter of the Churches of Vienna and\nLyons,\" because there is still a great deal of obscurity connected with\nit; but we shall be pardoned for defending the memory of the great\nMarcus Aurelius, thus outraged in the life of \"St. Symphorian of Autun,\"\nwho was probably a relation of St. Symphorosia.\n\n\n_5. Of St. Symphorian Of Autun._\n\nThis legend, the author of which is unknown, begins thus: \"The emperor\nMarcus Aurelius had just raised a frightful tempest against the Church,\nand his fulminating edicts assailed on all sides the religion of Jesus\nChrist, at the time when St. Symphorian lived at Autun in all the\nsplendor that high birth and uncommon virtue can confer. He was of a\nChristian family, one of the most considerable of the city,\" etc.\n\nMarcus Aurelius issued no sanguinary edicts against the Christians. It\nis a very criminal calumny. Tillemont himself admits that \"he was the\nbest prince the Romans ever had; that his reign was a golden age; and\nthat he verified what he often quoted from Plato, that nations would\nonly be happy when kings were philosophers.\"\n\nOf all the emperors, this was the one who promulgated the best laws; he\nprotected the wise, but persecuted no Christians, of whom he had a great\nmany in his service.\n\nThe writer of the legend relates that St. Symphorian having refused to\nadore Cybele, the city judge inquired: \"Who is this man?\" Now it is\nimpossible that the judge of Autun should not have known the most\nconsiderable person in Autun.\n\nHe was declared by the sentence to be guilty of treason, \"divine and\nhuman.\" The Romans never employed this formula; and that alone should\ndeprive the pretended martyr of Autun of all credit.\n\nIn order the better to refute this calumny against the sacred memory of\nMarcus Aurelius, let us bring under view the discourse of Meliton,\nbishop of Sardis, to this best of emperors, reported verbatim by\nEusebius:\n\n\"The continual succession of good fortune which has attended the empire,\nwithout its happiness being disturbed by a single disgrace, since our\nreligion, which was born with it, has grown in its bosom, is an evident\nproof that it contributes eminently to its greatness and glory. Among\nall the emperors, Nero and Domitian alone, deceived by certain\nimpostors, have spread calumnies against us, which, as usual, have found\nsome partial credence among the people. But your pious ancestors have\ncorrected the people's ignorance, and by public edicts have repressed\nthe audacity of those who attempted to treat us ill. Your grandfather\nAdrian wrote in our favor to Fundanus, governor of Asia, and to many\nother persons. The emperor, your father, during the period when you\ndivided with him the cares of government, wrote to the inhabitants of\nLarissa, of Thessalonica, of Athens, and in short to all the people of\nGreece, to repress the seditions and tumults which have been excited\nagainst us.\"\n\nThis declaration by a most pious, learned, and veracious bishop is\nsufficient to confound forever all the lies and legends which may be\nregarded as the Arabian tales of Christianity.\n\n\n_6. Of Another Saint Felicita, And Of Saint Perpetua._\n\nIf it were an object to dispute the legend of Felicita and Perpetua, it\nwould not be difficult to show how suspicious it is. These Carthaginian\nmartyrs are only known by a writing, without date, of the church of\nSalzburg. Now, it is a great way from this part of Bavaria to Goletta.\nWe are not informed under what emperor this Felicita and this Perpetua\nreceived the crown of martyrdom. The astounding sights with which this\nhistory is filled do not discover a very profound historian. A ladder\nentirely of gold, bordered with lances and swords; a dragon at the top\nof the ladder; a large garden near the dragon; sheep from which an old\nman drew milk; a reservoir full of water; a bottle of water whence they\ndrank without diminishing the liquid; St. Perpetua fighting entirely\nnaked against a wicked Egyptian; some handsome young men, all naked, who\ntook her part; herself at last become a man and a vigorous wrestler;\nthese are, it appears to me, conceits which should not have place in a\nrespectable book.\n\nThere is one other reflection very important to make. It is that the\nstyle of all these stories of martyrdom, which took place at such\ndifferent periods, is everywhere alike, everywhere equally puerile and\nbombastic. You find the same turns of expression, the same phrases, in\nthe history of a martyr under Domitian and of another under Galerius.\nThere are the same epithets, the same exaggerations. By the little we\nunderstand of style, we perceive that the same hand has compiled them\nall.\n\nI do not here pretend to make a book against Don Ruinart; and while I\nalways respect, admire, and invoke the true martyrs with the Holy\nChurch, I confine myself to making it perceived, by one or two striking\nexamples, how dangerous it is to mix what is purely ridiculous with what\nought to be venerated.\n\n\n_7. Of Saint Theodotus Of The City Of Ancyra, And Of The Seven Virgins;\nWritten By Nisus, An Eye-Witness, And Extracted From Bollandus._\n\nMany critics, as eminent for wisdom as for true piety, have already\ngiven us to understand that the legend of St. Theodotus the Publican is\na profanation and a species of impiety which ought to have been\nsuppressed. The following is the story of Theodotus. We shall often\nemploy the exact words of the \"Genuine Acts,\" compiled by Don Ruinart.\n\n\"His trade of publican supplied him with the means of exercising his\nepiscopal functions. Illustrious tavern! consecrated to piety instead of\ndebauchery.... Sometimes Theodotus was a physician, sometimes he\nfurnished tit-bits to the faithful. A tavern was seen to be to the\nChristians what Noah's ark was to those whom God wished to save from the\ndeluge.\"\n\nThis publican Theodotus, walking by the river Halis with his companions\ntowards a town adjacent to the city of Ancyra, \"a fresh and soft plot of\nturf offered them a delicious couch; a spring which issued a few steps\noff, from the foot of the rock, and which by a channel crowned with\nflowers came running past them in order to quench their thirst, offered\nthem clear and pure water. Trees bearing fruit, mixed with wild ones,\nfurnished them with shade and fruits; and an assemblage of skilful\nnightingales, whom the grasshoppers relieved every now and then, formed\na charming concert,\" etc.\n\nThe clergyman of the place, named Fronton, having arrived, and the\npublican having drunk with him on the grass, \"the fresh green of which\nwas relieved by the various gradations of color in the flowers, he said\nto the clergyman: 'Ah, father! what a pleasure it would be to build a\nchapel here.' 'Yes,' said Fronton, 'but it would be necessary to have\nsome relics to begin with.' 'Well, well,' replied St. Theodotus, 'you\nshall have some soon, I give you my word; here is my ring, which I give\nyou as a pledge; build your chapel quickly.'\"\n\nThe publican had the gift of prophecy, and knew well what he was saying.\nHe went away to the city of Ancyra, while the clergyman Fronton set\nhimself about building. He found there the most horrible persecution,\nwhich lasted very long. Seven Christian virgins, of whom the youngest\nwas seventy years old, had just been condemned, according to custom, to\nlose their virginity, through the agency of all the young men of the\ncity. The youth of Ancyra, who had probably more urgent affairs, were in\nno hurry to execute the sentence. One only could be found obedient to\njustice. He applied himself to St. Thecusa, and carried her into a\ncloset with surprising courage. Thecusa threw herself on her knees, and\nsaid to him, \"For God's sake, my son, a little shame! Behold these\nlacklustre eyes, this half-dead flesh, these greasy wrinkles, which\nseventy years have ploughed in my forehead, this face of the color of\nthe earth; abandon thoughts so unworthy of a young man like you--Jesus\nChrist entreats you by my mouth. He asks it of you as a favor, and if\nyou grant it Him, you may expect His entire gratitude.\" The discourse of\nthe old woman, and her countenance made the executioner recollect\nhimself. The seven virgins were not deflowered.\n\nThe irritated governor sought for another punishment; he caused them to\nbe initiated forthwith in the mysteries of Diana and Minerva. It is true\nthat great feasts had been instituted in honor of those divinities, but\nthe mysteries of Diana and Minerva were not known to antiquity. St. Nil,\nan intimate friend of the publican Theodotus, and the author of this\nmarvellous story, was not quite correct.\n\nAccording to him, these seven pretty lasses were placed quite naked on\nthe car which carried the great Diana and the wise Minerva to the banks\nof a neighboring lake. The Thucydides St. Nil still appears to be very\nill-informed here. The priestesses were always covered with veils; and\nthe Roman magistrates never caused the goddesses of chastity and wisdom\nto be attended by girls who showed themselves both before and behind to\nthe people.\n\nSt. Nil adds that the car was preceded by two choirs of priestesses of\nBacchus, who carried the thyrses in their hands. St. Nil has here\nmistaken the priestesses of Minerva for those of Bacchus. He was not\nversed in the liturgy of Ancyra.\n\nEntering the city, the publican saw this sad spectacle--the governor,\nthe priestesses, the car, Minerva, and the seven maidens. He runs to\nthrow himself on his knees in a hut, along with a nephew of St. Thecusa.\nHe beseeches heaven that the seven ladies should be dead rather than\nnaked. His prayer is heard; he learns that the seven damsels, instead of\nbeing deflowered, have been thrown into the lake with stones round their\nnecks, by order of the governor. Their virginity is in safe-keeping. At\nthis news the saint, raising himself from the ground and placing himself\nupon his knees, turned his eyes towards heaven; and in the midst of the\nvarious emotions he experienced of love, joy, and gratitude, he said, \"I\ngive Thee thanks, O Lord! that Thou has not rejected the prayer of Thy\nservant.\"\n\nHe slept; and during his sleep, St. Thecusa, the youngest of the drowned\nwomen, appeared to him. \"How now, son Theodotus!\" she said, \"you are\nsleeping without thinking of us: have you forgotten so soon the care I\ntook of your youth? Do not, dear Theodotus, suffer our bodies to be\ndevoured by the fishes. Go to the lake, but beware of a traitor.\" This\ntraitor was, in fact, the nephew of St. Thecusa.\n\nI omit here a multitude of miraculous adventures that happened to the\npublican, in order to come to the most important. A celestial cavalier,\narmed _cap-a-pie, _preceded by a celestial flambeau, descends from the\nheight of the empyrean, conducts the publican to the lake in the midst\nof storms, drives away all the soldiers who guard the shore, and gives\nTheodotus time to fish up the seven old women and to bury them.\n\nThe nephew of St. Thecusa unfortunately went and told all. Theodotus was\nseized, and for three days all sorts of punishments were tried in vain\nto kill him. They could only attain their object by cleaving his skull;\nan operation which saints are never proof against.\n\nHe was still to be buried. His friend the minister Fronton--to whom\nTheodotus, in his capacity of publican, had given two leathern bottles\nfilled with wine--made the guards drunk, and carried off the body.\nTheodotus then appeared in body and spirit to the minister: \"Well, my\nfriend,\" he said to him, \"did I not say well, that you should have\nrelics for your chapel?\"\n\nSuch is what is narrated by St. Nil, an eye-witness, who could neither\nbe deceived nor deceive; such is what Don Ruinart has quoted as a\ngenuine act. Now every man of sense, every intelligent Christian, will\nask himself, whether a better mode could be adopted of dishonoring the\nmost holy and venerated religion in the world, and of turning it into\nridicule?\n\nI shall not speak of the Eleven Thousand Virgins; I shall not discuss\nthe fable of the Theban legion, composed--says the author--of six\nthousand six hundred men, all Christians coming from the East by Mount\nSt. Bernard, suffering martyrdom in the year 286, the period of the most\nprofound peace as regarded the Church, and in the gorge of a mountain\nwhere it is impossible to place 300 men abreast; a fable written more\nthan 550 years after the event; a fable in which a king of Burgundy is\nspoken of who never existed; a fable, in short, acknowledged to be\nabsurd by all the learned who have not lost their reason.\n\nBehold what Don Ruinart narrates seriously! Let us pray to God for the\ngood sense of Don Ruinart!\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nHow does it happen that, in the enlightened age in which we live,\nlearned and useful writers are still found who nevertheless follow the\nstream of old errors, and who corrupt many truths by admitted fables?\nThey reckon the era of the martyrs from the first year of the empire of\nDiocletian, who was then far enough from inflicting martyrdom on\nanybody. They forget that his wife Prisca was a Christian, that the\nprincipal officers of his household were Christians; that he protected\nthem constantly during eighteen years; that they built at Nicomedia a\nchurch more sumptuous than his palace; and that they would never have\nbeen persecuted if they had not outraged the C\u00e6sar Valerius.\n\nIs it possible that any one should still dare to assert \"that Diocletian\ndied of age, despair, and misery;\" he who was seen to quit life like a\nphilosopher, as he had quitted the empire; he who, solicited to resume\nthe supreme power loved better to cultivate his fine gardens at\nSalonica, than to reign again over the whole of the then known world?\n\nOh, ye compilers! will you never cease to compile? You have usefully\nemployed your three fingers; employ still more usefully your reason.\n\nWhat! you repeat to me that St. Peter reigned over the faithful at Rome\nfor twenty-five years, and that Nero had him put to death together with\nSt. Paul, in order to avenge the death of Simon the Magician, whose legs\nthey had broken by their prayers?\n\nTo report such fables, though with the best motive, is to insult\nChristianity.\n\nThe poor creatures who still repeat these absurdities are copyists who\nrenew in octavo and duodecimo old stories that honest men no longer\nread, and who have never opened a book of wholesome criticism. They rake\nup the antiquated tales of the Church; they know nothing of either\nMiddleton, or Dodwell, or Bruker, or Dumoulin, or Fabricius, or Grabius,\nor even Dupin, or of any one of those who have lately carried light into\nthe darkness.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nWe are fooled with martyrdoms that make us break out into laughter. The\nTituses, the Trajans, the Marcus Aureliuses, are painted as monsters of\ncruelty. Fleury, abb\u00e9 of Loc Dieu, has disgraced his ecclesiastical\nhistory by tales which a sensible old woman would not tell to little\nchildren.\n\nCan it be seriously repeated, that the Romans condemned seven virgins,\neach seventy years old, to pass through the hands of all the young men\nof the city of Ancyra--those Romans who punished the Vestals with death\nfor the least gallantry?\n\nA hundred tales of this sort are found in the martyrologies. The\nnarrators have hoped to render the ancient Romans odious, and they have\nrendered themselves ridiculous. Do you want good, well-authenticated\nbarbarities--good and well-attested massacres, rivers of blood which\nhave actually flowed--fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, infants at the\nbreast, who have in reality had their throats cut, and been heaped on\none another? Persecuting monsters! seek these truths only in your own\nannals: you will find them in the crusades against the Albigenses, in\nthe massacres of Merindol and Cabri\u00e8re, in the frightful day of St.\nBartholomew, in the massacres of Ireland, in the valleys of the Pays de\nVaud. It becomes you well, barbarians as you are, to impute extravagant\ncruelties to the best of emperors; you who have deluged Europe with\nblood, and covered it with corpses, in order to prove that the same body\ncan be in a thousand places at once, and that the pope can sell\nindulgences! Cease to calumniate the Romans, your law-givers, and ask\npardon of God for the abominations of your forefathers!\n\nIt is not the torture, you say, which makes martyrdom; it is the cause.\nWell! I agree with you that your victims ought not to be designated by\nthe name of martyr, which signifies witness; but what name shall we give\nto your executioners? Phalaris and Busiris were the gentlest of men in\ncomparison with you. Does not your Inquisition, which still remains,\nmake reason, nature, and religion boil with indignation! Great God! if\nmankind should reduce to ashes that infernal tribunal, would they be\nunacceptable in thy avenging eyes?\n\n\n\n\nMASS.\n\n\nThe mass, in ordinary language, is the greatest and most august of the\nceremonies of the Church. Different names are given to it, according to\nthe rites practised in the various countries where it is celebrated; as\nthe Mozarabian or Gothic mass, the Greek mass, the Latin mass. Durandus\nand Eckius call those masses dry, in which no consecration is made, as\nthat which is appointed to be said in particular by aspirants to the\npriesthood; and Cardinal Bona relates, on the authority of William of\nNangis, that St. Louis, in his voyage abroad, had it said in this\nmanner, lest the motion of the vessel should spill the consecrated wine.\nHe also quoted G\u00e9n\u00e9brard, who says that he assisted at Turin, in 1587,\nat a similar mass, celebrated in a church, but after dinner and very\nlate, for the funeral of a person of rank.\n\nPierre le Chantre also speaks of the two-fold, three-fold, and even\nfour-fold mass, in which the priest celebrated the mass of the day or\nthe feast, as far as the offertory, then began a second, third, and\nsometimes a fourth, as far as the same place; after which he said as\nmany secretas as he had begun masses; he recited the canon only once for\nthe whole; and at the end he added as many collects as he had joined\ntogether masses.\n\nIt was not until about the close of the fourth century that the word\n\"mass\" began to signify the celebration of the eucharist. The learned\nBeatus Rhenanus, in his notes on Tertullian, observes, that St. Ambrose\nconsecrated this popular expression, \"_missa,_\" taken from the sending\nout of the catechumens, after the reading of the gospel.\n\nIn the \"Apostolical Constitutions,\" we find a liturgy in the name of St.\nJames, by which it appears, that instead of invoking the saints in the\ncanon of the mass, the primitive Church prayed for them. \"We also offer\nto Thee, O Lord,\" said the celebrator, \"this bread and this chalice for\nall the saints that have been pleasing in Thy sight from the beginning\nof ages: for the patriarchs, the prophets, the just, the apostles, the\nmartyrs, the confessors, bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, readers,\nchanters, virgins, widows, laymen, and all whose names are known unto\nThee.\" But St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century,\nsubstituted this explanation: \"After which,\" says he, \"we commemorate\nthose who die before us, and first the patriarchs, apostles, and\nmartyrs, that God may receive our prayers through their intercession.\"\nThis proves--as will be said in the article on \"Relics\"--that the\nworship of the saints was then beginning to be introduced into the\nChurch.\n\n[Illustration: Ancient Rome.]\n\nNoel Alexander cites acts of St. Andrew, in which that apostle is made\nto say: \"I offer up every day, on the altar of the only true God, not\nthe flesh of bulls, nor the blood of goats, but the unspotted lamb,\nwhich still remains living and entire after it is sacrificed, and all\nthe faithful eat of its flesh\"; but this learned Dominican acknowledges\nthat this piece was unknown until the eighth century. The first who\ncited it was \u00c6therius, bishop of Osma in Spain, who wrote against\n\u00c6lipard in 788.\n\nAbdias relates that St. John, being warned by the Lord of the\ntermination of his career, prepared for death and recommended his Church\nto God. He then had bread brought to him, which he took, and lifting up\nhis hands to heaven, blessed it, broke it, and distributed it among\nthose who were present, saying: \"Let my portion be yours, and let yours\nbe mine.\" This manner of celebrating the eucharist--which means\nthanksgiving--is more conformable to the institution of that ceremony.\n\nSt. Luke indeed informs us, that Jesus, after distributing bread and\nwine among his apostles, who were supping with him, said to them: \"Do\nthis in memory of me.\" St. Matthew and St. Mark say, moreover, that\nJesus sang a hymn. St. John, who in his gospel mentions neither the\ndistribution of the bread and wine, nor the hymn, speaks of the latter\nat great length in his Acts, of which we give the text, as quoted by the\nSecond Council of Nice:\n\n\"Before our Lord was taken by the Jews,\" says this well-beloved apostle\nof Jesus, \"He assembled us all together, and said to us: 'Let us sing a\nhymn in honor of the Father, after which we will execute the design we\nhave conceived.' He ordered us therefore to form a circle, holding one\nanother by the hand; then, having placed Himself in the middle of the\ncircle, He said to us: 'Amen; follow me.' Then He began the canticle,\nand said: 'Glory be to Thee, O Father!' We all answered, 'Amen.' Jesus\ncontinued, saying, 'Glory to the Word,' etc. 'Glory to the Spirit,' etc.\n'Glory to Grace,' etc., and the apostles constantly answered, 'Amen.'\"\n\nAfter some other doxologies, Jesus said, \"I will save, and I will be\nsaved, Amen. I will unbind, and I will be unbound, Amen. I will be\nwounded, and I will wound, Amen. I will be born, and I will beget, Amen.\nI will eat, and I will be consumed, Amen. I will be hearkened to, and I\nwill hearken, Amen. I will be comprehended by the spirit, being all\nspirit, all understanding, Amen. I will be washed, and I will wash,\nAmen. Grace brings dancing; I will play on the flute; all of you dance,\nAmen. I will sing sorrowful airs; now all of you lament, Amen.\"\n\nSt. Augustine, who begins a part of this hymn in his \"Epistle to\nCeretius\", gives also the following: \"I will deck, and I will be decked.\nI am a lamp to those who see me and know me. I am the door for all who\nwill knock at it. Do you, who see what I do, be careful not to speak of\nit.\"\n\nThis dance of Jesus and the apostles is evidently imitated from that of\nthe Egyptian Therapeut\u00e6, who danced after supper in their assemblies, at\nfirst divided into two choirs, then united the men and the women\ntogether, as at the feast of Bacchus, after swallowing plenty of\ncelestial wine as Philo says.\n\nBesides we know, that according to the Jewish tradition, after their\ncoming out of Egypt, and passing the Red Sea, whence the solemnity of\nthe Passover took its name, Moses and his sister assembled two musical\nchoirs, one composed of men, the other of women, who, while dancing,\nsang a canticle of thanksgiving. These instruments instantaneously\nassembled, these choirs arranged with so much promptitude, the facility\nwith which the songs and dances are executed, suppose a training in\nthese two exercises much anterior to the moment of execution.\n\nThe usage was afterwards perpetrated among the Jews. The daughters of\nShiloh were dancing according to custom, at the solemn feast of the\nLord, when the young men of the tribe of Benjamin, to whom they had been\nrefused for wives, carried them off by the counsel of the old men of\nIsrael. And at this day, in Palestine, the women, assembled near the\ntombs of their relatives, dance in a mournful manner, and utter cries of\nlamentation.\n\nWe also know that the first Christians held among themselves _agap\u00e6, _or\nfeasts of charity, in memory of the last supper which Jesus celebrated\nwith his apostles, from which the Pagans took occasion to bring against\nthem the most odious charges; on which, to banish every shadow of\nlicentiousness, the pastors forbade the kiss of peace, that concluded\nthe ceremony to be given between persons of different sexes. But various\nabuses, which were even then complained of by St. Paul, and which the\nCouncil of Gangres, in the year 324, vainly undertook to reform, at\nlength caused the _agap\u00e6_ to be abolished in 397, by the Third Council\nof Carthage, of which the forty-first canon ordained, that the holy\nmysteries should be celebrated fasting.\n\nIt will not be doubted that these feastings were accompanied by dances,\nwhen it is recollected that, according to Scaliger, the bishops were\ncalled in the Latin Church \"_pr\u00e6sules,_\" (from \"_pr\u00e6siliendo_\") only\nbecause they led off the dance. Heliot, in his \"History of the Monastic\nOrders,\" says also, that during the persecutions which disturbed the\npeace of the first Christians, congregations were formed of men and\nwomen, who, after the manner of the Therapeut\u00e6, retired into the\ndeserts, where they assembled in the hamlets on Sundays and feast days,\nand danced piously, singing the prayers of the Church.\n\nIn Portugal, in Spain, and in Roussillon, solemn dances are still\nperformed in honor of the mysteries of Christianity. On every vigil of a\nfeast of the Virgin, the young women assemble before the doors of the\nchurches dedicated to her, and pass the night in dancing round, and\nsinging hymns and canticles in honor of her. Cardinal Ximenes restored\nin his time, in the cathedral of Toledo, the ancient usage of the\nMozarabian mass, during which dances are performed in the choir and the\nnave, with equal order and devotion. In France too, about the middle of\nthe last century, the priests and all the people of the Limoges might be\nseen dancing round in the collegiate church, singing: \"_Sant Marcian\npregas pernous et nous epingaren per bous_\"--that is, \"St. Martian, pray\nfor us, and we will dance for you.\"\n\nAnd lastly, the Jesuit Menestrier, in the preface to his \"Treatise on\nBallets\", published in 1682, says, that he had himself seen the canons\nof some churches take the singing boys by the hand on Easter day, and\ndance in the choir, singing hymns of rejoicing. What has been said in\nthe article on \"Calends,\" of the extravagant dances of the feast of\nfools, exhibits a part of the abuses which have caused dancing to be\ndiscontinued in the ceremonies of the mass, which, the greater their\ngravity, are the better calculated to impose on the simple.\n\n\n\n\nMASSACRES.\n\n\nIt is perhaps as difficult as it is useless to ascertain whether\n\"_mazzacrium,_\" a word of the low Latin, is the root of \"massacre,\" or\nwhether \"massacre\" is the root of \"_mazzacrium._\"\n\nA massacre signifies a number of men killed. There was yesterday a great\nmassacre near Warsaw--near Cracow. We never say: \"There has been a\nmassacre of a man; yet we do say\": \"A man has been massacred\": in that\ncase it is understood that he has been killed barbarously by many blows.\n\nPoetry makes use of the word massacred for killed, assassinated: \"_Que\npar ses propres mains son p\u00e8re massacr\u00e9._\"--Cinna.\n\nAn Englishman has made a compilation of all the massacres perpetrated on\naccount of religion since the first centuries of our vulgar era. I have\nbeen very much tempted to write against the English author; but his\nmemoir not appearing to be exaggerated, I have restrained myself. For\nthe future I hope there will be no more such calculations to make. But\nto whom shall we be indebted for that?\n\n\n\n\nMASTER.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n\"How unfortunate am I to have been born!\" said Ardassan Ougli, a young\n_icoglan_ of the grand sultan of the Turks. Yet if I depended only on the\nsultan--but I am also subject to the chief of my _oda,_ to the _cassigi\nbachi_; and when I receive my pay, I must prostrate myself before a\nclerk of the _teftardar,_ who keeps back half of it. I was not seven\nyears old, when, in spite of myself, I was circumcised with great\nceremony, and was ill for a fortnight after it. The dervish who prays to\nus is also my master; an _iman_ is still more my master, and the\n_mullah_ still more so than the _iman._ The _cadi_ is another master,\nthe _kadeslesker_ a greater; the _mufti_ a greater than all these\ntogether. The _kiaia_ of the grand vizier with one word could cause me\nto be thrown into the canal; and finally, the grand vizier could have me\nbeheaded, and the skin of my head stripped off, without any person\ncaring about the matter.\n\n\"Great God, how many masters! If I had as many souls and bodies as I\nhave duties to fulfil, I could not bear it. Oh Allah! why hast thou not\nmade me an owl? I should live free in my hole and eat mice at my ease,\nwithout masters or servants. This is assuredly the true destiny of man;\nthere were no masters until it was perverted; no man was made to serve\nanother continually. If things were in order, each should charitably\nhelp his neighbor. The quick-sighted would conduct the blind, the active\nwould be crutches to the lame. This would be the paradise of Mahomet,\ninstead of the hell which is formed precisely under the inconceivably\nnarrow bridge.\"\n\nThus spoke Ardassan Ougli, after being bastinadoed by one of his\nmasters.\n\nSome years afterwards, Ardassan Ougli became a pasha with three tails.\nHe made a prodigious fortune, and firmly believed that all men except\nthe grand Turk and the grand vizier were born to serve him, and all\nwomen to give him pleasure according to his wishes.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nHow can one man become the master of another? And by what kind of\nincomprehensible magic has he been able to become the master of several\nother men? A great number of good volumes have been written on this\nsubject, but I give the preference to an Indian fable, because it is\nshort, and fables explain everything.\n\nAdimo, the father of all the Indians, had two sons and two daughters by\nhis wife Pocriti. The eldest was a vigorous giant, the youngest was a\nlittle hunchback, the two girls were pretty. As soon as the giant was\nstrong enough, he lay with his two sisters, and caused the little\nhunchback to serve him. Of his two sisters, the one was his cook, the\nother his gardener. When the giant would sleep, he began by chaining his\nlittle brother to a tree; and when the latter fled from him, he caught\nhim in four strides, and gave him twenty blows with the strength of an\nox.\n\nThe dwarf submitted and became the best subject in the world. The giant,\nsatisfied with seeing him fulfil the duties of a subject, permitted him\nto sleep with one of his sisters, with whom he was disgusted. The\nchildren who sprang from this marriage were not quite hunchbacks, but\nthey were sufficiently deformed. They were brought up in the fear of God\nand of the giant. They received an excellent education; they were taught\nthat their uncle was a giant by divine right, who could do what he\npleased with all his family; that if he had some pretty niece or\ngrand-niece, he should have her without difficulty, and not one should\nmarry her unless he permitted it.\n\nThe giant dying, his son, who was neither so strong or so great as he\nwas, believed himself to be like his father, a giant by divine right. He\npretended to make all the men work for him, and slept with all the\ngirls. The family lagued against him: he was killed, and they became a\nrepublic.\n\nThe Siamese pretend, that on the contrary the family commenced by being\nrepublican; and that the giant existed not until after a great many\nyears and dissensions: but all the authors of Benares and Siam agree\nthat men lived an infinity of ages before they had the wit to make laws,\nand they prove it by an unanswerable argument, which is that even at\npresent, when all the world piques itself upon having wit, we have not\nyet found the means of making a score of laws passably good.\n\nIt is still, for example, an insoluble question in India, whether\nrepublics were established before or after monarchies; if confusion has\nappeared more horrible to men than despotism! I am ignorant how it\nhappened in order of time, but in that of nature we must agree that men\nare all born equal: violence and ability made the first masters; laws\nhave made the present.\n\n\n\n\nMATTER.\n\n\nSECTION I. A Polite Dialogue Between A Demoniac And A Philosopher.\n\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nYes, thou enemy of God and man, who believest that God is all-powerful,\nand is at liberty to confer the gift of thought on every being whom He\nshall vouchsafe to choose, I will go and denounce thee to the\ninquisitor; I will have thee burned. Beware, I warn thee for the last\ntime.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nAre these your arguments? Is it thus you teach mankind? I admire your\nmildness.\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nCome, I will be patient for a moment while the fagots are preparing.\nAnswer me: What is spirit?\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nI know not.\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nWhat is matter?\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nI scarcely know. I believe it to have extent, solidity, resistance,\ngravity, divisibility, mobility. God may have given it a thousand other\nqualities of which I am ignorant.\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nA thousand other qualities, traitor! I see what thou wouldst be at; thou\nwouldst tell me that God can animate matter, that He has given instinct\nto animals, that He is the Master of all.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nBut it may very well be, that He has granted to this matter many\nproperties which you cannot comprehend.\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nWhich I cannot comprehend, villain!\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nYes. His power goes much further than your understanding.\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nHis power! His power! thou talkest like a true atheist.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nHowever, I have the testimony of many holy fathers on my side.\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nGo to, go to: neither God nor they shall prevent us from burning thee\nalive--the death inflicted on parricides and on philosophers who are not\nof our opinion.\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nWas it the devil or yourself that invented this method of arguing?\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nVile wretch! darest thou to couple my name with the devil's?\n\n(Here the demoniac strikes the philosopher, who returns him the blow\nwith interest.)\n\nPHILOSOPHER.\n\nHelp! philosophers!\n\nDEMONIAC.\n\nHoly brotherhood! help!\n\n(Here half a dozen philosophers arrive on one side, and on the other\nrush in a hundred Dominicans, with a hundred Familiars of the\nInquisition, and a hundred alguazils. The contest is too unequal.)\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nWhen wise men are asked what is the soul they answer that they know not.\nIf they are asked what matter is, they make the same reply. It is true\nthat there are professors, and particularly scholars, who know all this\nperfectly; and when they have repeated that matter has extent and\ndivisibility, they think they have said all; being pressed, however, to\nsay what this thing is which is extended, they find themselves\nconsiderably embarrassed. It is composed of parts, say they. And of what\nare these parts composed? Are the elements of the parts divisible? Then\nthey are mute, or they talk a great deal; which are equally suspicious.\nIs this almost unknown being called matter, eternal? Such was the belief\nof all antiquity. Has it of itself force? Many philosophers have thought\nso. Have those who deny it a right to deny it? You conceive not that\nmatter can have anything of itself; but how can you be assured that it\nhas not of itself the properties necessary to it? You are ignorant of\nits nature, and you refuse it the modes which nevertheless are in its\nnature: for it can no sooner have been, than it has been in a certain\nfashion--it has had figure, and having necessarily figure, is it\nimpossible that it should not have had other modes attached to its\nconfiguration? Matter exists, but you know it only by your sensations.\nAlas! of what avail have been all the subtleties of the mind since man\nfirst reasoned? Geometry has taught us many truths, metaphysics very\nfew. We weigh matter, we measure it, we decompose it; and if we seek to\nadvance one step beyond these gross operations, we find ourselves\npowerless, and before us an immeasurable abyss.\n\nPray forgive all mankind who were deceived in thinking that matter\nexisted by itself. Could they do otherwise? How are we to imagine that\nwhat is without succession has not always been? If it were not necessary\nfor matter to exist, why should it exist? And if it were necessary that\nit should be, why should it not have been forever? No axiom has ever\nbeen more universally received than this: Of nothing, nothing comes.\nIndeed the contrary is incomprehensible. With every nation, chaos\npreceded the arrangement which a divine hand made of the whole world.\nThe eternity of matter has with no people been injurious to the worship\nof the Divinity. Religion was never startled at the recognition of an\neternal God as the master of an eternal matter. We of the present day\nare so happy as to know by faith that God brought matter out of nothing;\nbut no nation has ever been instructed in this dogma; even the Jews were\nignorant of it. The first verse of Genesis says, that the Gods--_Elo\u00efm,_\nnot _Eloi_--made heaven and earth. It does not say, that heaven and\nearth were created out of nothing.\n\nPhilo, who lived at the only time when the Jews had any erudition, says,\nin his \"Chapter on the Creation\", \"God, being good by nature, bore no\nenvy against substance, matter; which of itself had nothing good, having\nby nature only inertness, confusion, and disorder; it was bad, and He\nvouchsafed to make it good.\"\n\nThe idea of chaos put into order by a God, is to be found in all ancient\ntheogonies. Hesiod repeated the opinion of the Orientals, when he said\nin his \"Theogony,\" \"Chaos was that which first existed.\" The whole Roman\nEmpire spoke in these words of Ovid: \"_Sic ubi dispositam quisquis fuit\nille Deorum Congeriem secuit._\"\n\nMatter then, in the hands of God, was considered like clay under the\npotter's wheel, if these feeble images may be used to express His divine\npower.\n\nMatter, being eternal, must have had eternal properties--as\nconfiguration, the _vis inerti\u00e6,_ motion, and divisibility. But this\ndivisibility is only a consequence of motion; for without motion nothing\nis divided, nor separated, nor arranged. Motion therefore was regarded\nas essential to matter. Chaos had been a confused motion, and the\narrangement of the universe was a regular motion, communicated to all\nbodies by the Master of the world. But how can matter have motion by\nitself, as it has, according to all the ancients, extent and\ndivisibility?\n\nBut it cannot be conceived to be without extent, and it may be conceived\nto be without motion. To this it was answered: It is impossible that\nmatter should not be permeable; and being permeable, something must be\ncontinually passing through its pores. Why should there be passages, if\nnothing passes?\n\nReply and rejoinder might thus be continued forever. The system of the\neternity of matter, like all other systems, has very great difficulties.\nThat of the formation of matter out of nothing is no less\nincomprehensible. We must admit it, and not flatter ourselves with\naccounting for it; philosophy does not account for everything. How many\nincomprehensible things are we not obliged to admit, even in geometry!\nCan any one conceive two lines constantly approaching each other, yet\nnever meeting?\n\nGeometricians indeed will tell you, the properties of asymptotes are\ndemonstrated; you cannot help admitting them--but creation is not; why\nthen admit it? Why is it hard for you to believe, like all the ancients,\nin the eternity of matter? The theologian will press you on the other\nside, and say: If you believe in the eternity of matter then you\nacknowledge two principles--God and matter; you fall into the error of\nZoroaster and of Manes.\n\nNo answer can be given to the geometricians, for those folks know of\nnothing but their lines, their superficies, and their solids; but you\nmay say to the theologians: \"Wherein am I a Manich\u00e6an? Here are stones\nwhich an architect has not made, but of which he has erected an immense\nbuilding. I do not admit two architects; the rough stones have obeyed\npower and genius.\"\n\nHappily, whatever system a man embraces, it is in no way hurtful to\nmorality; for what imports it whether matter is made or arranged? God is\nstill an absolute master. Whether chaos was created out of nothing, or\nonly reduced to order, it is still our duty to be virtuous; scarcely any\nof these metaphysical questions affect the conduct of life. It is with\ndisputes as with table talk; each one forgets after dinner what he has\nsaid, and goes whithersoever his interest or his inclination calls him.\n\n\n\n\nMEETINGS (PUBLIC).\n\n\nMeeting, \"_assembl\u00e9e,_\" is a general term applicable to any collection\nof people for secular, sacred, political, conversational, festive, or\ncorporate purposes; in short, to all occasions on which numbers meet\ntogether.\n\nIt is a term which prevents all verbal disputes, and all abusive and\ninjurious implications by which men are in the habit of stigmatizing\nsocieties to which they do not themselves belong.\n\nThe legal meeting or assembly of the Athenians was called the \"church\".\nThis word \"church\", being peculiarly appropriated among us to express a\nconvocation of Catholics in one place, we did not in the first instance\napply it to the public assembly of Protestants; but used indeed the\nexpression--\"a flock of Huguenots.\" Politeness however, which in time\nexplodes all noxious terms, at length employed for the purpose the term\n\"assembly\" or \"meeting\", which offends no one. In England the dominant\nChurch applies the name of \"meeting\" to the churches of all the\nnon-conformists.\n\nThe word \"assembly\" is particularly suitable to a collection of persons\ninvited to go and pass their evening at a house where the host receives\nthem with courtesy and kindness, and where play, conversation, supper,\nand dancing, constitute their amusements. If the number invited be\nsmall, it is not called an \"assembly\", but a \"rendezvous of friends\";\nand friends are never very numerous.\n\nAssemblies are called, in Italian, \"_conversazione,_\" \"_ridotto_\". The\nword \"_ridotto_\" is properly what we once signified by the word\n\"_reduit,_\" intrenchment; but \"_reduit_\" having sunk into a term of\ncontempt among us, our editors translated \"_ridout_\" by \"_redoubt._\" The\npapers informed us, among the important intelligence contained in them\nrelating to Europe, that many noblemen of the highest consideration went\nto take chocolate at the house of the princess Borghese; and that there\nwas a \"_redoubt_\" there. It was announced to Europe, in another\nparagraph, that there would be a \"_redoubt_\" on the following Tuesday at\nthe house of her excellency the marchioness of Santafior.\n\nIt was found, however, that in relating the events of war, it was\nnecessary to speak of real redoubts, which in fact implied things\nactually redoubtable and formidable, from which cannon were discharged.\nThe word was, therefore, in such circumstances, obviously unsuitable to\nthe _\"ridotti pacifici,\"_ the pacific redoubts of mere amusement; and\nthe old term \"assembly\" was restored, which is indeed the only proper\none. \"Rendezvous\" is occasionally used, but it is more adapted to a\nsmall company, and most of all for two individuals.\n\n\n\n\nMESSIAH.\n\nAdvertisement.\n\n\nThis article is by M. Polier de Bottens, of an old French family,\nsettled for two hundred years in Switzerland. He is first pastor of\nLausanne, and his knowledge is equal to his piety. He composed this\narticle for the great Encyclop\u00e6dia, in which it was inserted. Only those\npassages were suppressed which the examiners thought might be abused by\nthe Catholics, less learned and less pious than the author. It was\nreceived with applause by all the wise.\n\nIt was printed at the same time in another small dictionary, and was\nattributed in France to a man whom there was no reluctance to molest.\nThe article was supposed to be impious, because it was supposed to be by\na layman; and the work and its pretended author were violently attacked.\nThe man thus accused contented himself with laughing at the mistake. He\nbeheld with compassion this instance of the errors and injustices which\nmen are every day committing in their judgments; for he had the wise and\nlearned priest's manuscript, written by his own hand. It is still in his\npossession, and will be shown to whoever may choose to examine it. In it\nwill be found the very erasures made by this layman himself, to prevent\nmalignant interpretations.\n\nNow we reprint this article in all the integrity of the original. We\nhave contracted it only to prevent repeating what we have printed\nelsewhere; but we have not added a single word.\n\nThe best of this affair is, that one of the venerable author's brethren\nwrote the most ridiculous things in the world against this article of\nhis reverend brother's, thinking that he was writing against a common\nenemy. This is like fighting in the dark, when one is attacked by one's\nown party.\n\nIt has a thousand times happened that controversialists have condemned\npassages in St. Augustine and St. Jerome, not knowing that they were by\nthose fathers. They would anathematize a part of the New Testament if\nthey had not heard by whom it was written. Thus it is that men too often\njudge.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nMessiah, \"_Messias._\" This word comes from the Hebrew, and is synonymous\nwith the Greek word \"Christ.\" Both are terms consecrated in religion,\nwhich are now no longer given to any but the anointed by eminence--the\nSovereign Deliverer whom the ancient Jewish people expected, for whose\ncoming they still sigh, and whom the Christians find in the person of\nJesus the Son of Mary, whom they consider as the anointed of the Lord,\nthe Messiah promised to humanity. The Greeks also use the word\n\"_Elcimmeros_\", meaning the same thing as \"_Christos._\"\n\nIn the Old Testament we see that the word \"Messiah,\" far from being\npeculiar to the Deliverer, for whose coming the people of Israel sighed,\nwas not even so to the true and faithful servants of God, but that this\nname was often given to idolatrous kings and princes, who were, in the\nhands of the Eternal, the ministers of His vengeance, or instruments for\nexecuting the counsels of His wisdom. So the author of \"Ecclesiasticus\"\nsays of Elisha: \"_Qui ungis reges ad penitentiam;_\" or, as it is\nrendered by the \"Septuagint,\" \"_ad vindictam_\"--\"You anoint kings to\nexecute the vengeance of the Lord\". Therefore He sent a prophet to\nanoint Jehu, king of Israel, and announced sacred unction to Hazael,\nking of Damascus and Syria; those two princes being the Messiahs of the\nMost High, to revenge the crimes and abominations of the house of Ahab.\n\nBut in Isaiah, xlv., 1, the name of Messiah is expressly given to Cyrus:\n\"Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus, His anointed, His Messiah, whose right\nhand I have holden to subdue nations before him.\" etc.\n\nEzekiel, in his Revelations, xxviii., 14, gives the name of Messiah to\nthe king of Tyre, whom he also calls Cherubin, and speaks of him and his\nglory in terms full of an emphasis of which it is easier to feel the\nbeauties than to catch the sense. \"Son of man,\" says the Eternal to the\nprophet, \"take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyre, and say unto him,\nThus saith the Lord God; thou sealest up the sun, full of wisdom, and\nperfect in beauty. Thou hast been the Lord's Garden of Eden\"--or,\naccording to other versions, \"Thou wast all the Lord's delight\"--\"every\nprecious stone was thy covering; the sardius, topaz, and the diamond;\nthe beryl, the onyx, and the jasper; the sapphire, the emerald, and the\ncarbuncle and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and thy pipes was\nprepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou wast a\nCherubin, a Messiah, for protection, and I set thee up; thou hast been\nupon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst\nof the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that\nthou was created till iniquity was found in thee.\"\n\nAnd the name of Messiah, in Greek, Christ, was given to the king,\nprophets, and high priests of the Hebrews. We read, in I. Kings, xii.,\n5: \"The Lord is witness against you, and his Messiah is witness\"; that\nis, the king whom he has set up. And elsewhere: \"Touch not my Anointed;\ndo no evil to my prophets....\" David, animated by the Spirit of God,\nrepeatedly gives to his father-in-law Saul, whom he had no cause to\nlove--he gives, I say, to this reprobate king, from whom the Spirit of\nthe Eternal was withdrawn, the name and title of Anointed, or Messiah of\nthe Lord. \"God preserve me,\" says he frequently, \"from laying my hand\nupon the Lord's Anointed, upon God's Messiah.\"\n\nIf the fine title of Messiah, or Anointed of the Eternal, was given to\nidolatrous kings, to cruel and tyrannical princes, it very often indeed,\nin our ancient oracles, designated the real Anointed of the Lord, the\nMessiah by eminence; the object of the desire and expectation of all the\nfaithful of Israel. Thus Hannah, the mother of Samuel, concluded her\ncanticle with these remarkable words, which cannot apply to any king,\nfor we know that at that time the Jews had not one: \"The Lord shall\njudge the ends of the earth; and He shall give strength unto His king,\nand exalt the horn of His Messiah.\" We find the same word in the\nfollowing oracles: Psalm ii, 2; Jeremiah, Lamentations, iv, 20; Daniel,\nix, 25; Habakkuk, iii, 13.\n\nIf we compare all these different oracles, and in general all those\nordinarily applied to the Messiah, there will result contradictions,\nalmost irreconcilable, justifying to a certain point the obstinacy of\nthe people to whom these oracles were given.\n\nHow indeed could these be conceived, before the event had so well\njustified it in the person of Jesus, Son of Mary? How, I say, could\nthere be conceived an intelligence in some sort divine and human\ntogether; a being both great and lovely, triumphing over the devil, yet\ntempted and carried away by that infernal spirit, that prince of the\npowers of the air, and made to travel in spite of himself; at once\nmaster and servant, king and subject, sacrificer and victim, mortal and\nimmortal, rich and poor, a glorious conqueror, whose reign shall have no\nend, who is to subdue all nature by prodigies, and yet a man of sorrows,\nwithout the conveniences, often without the absolute necessaries of this\nlife, of which he calls himself king; and that he comes, covered with\nglory and honor, terminating a life of innocence and wretchedness, of\nincessant crosses and contradictions, by a death alike shameful and\ncruel, finding in this very humiliation, this extraordinary abasement,\nthe source of an unparalleled elevation, which raises him to the summit\nof glory, power, and felicity; that is, to the rank of the first of\ncreatures?\n\nAll Christians agree in finding these characteristics, apparently so\nincompatible, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they call the\n\"Christ\"; His followers gave Him this title by eminence, not that He had\nbeen anointed in a sensible and material manner, as some kings,\nprophets, and sacrificers anciently were, but because the Divine Spirit\nhad designated Him for those great offices, and He had received the\nspiritual unction necessary thereunto.\n\nWe had proceeded thus far on so competent an article, when a Dutch\npreacher, more celebrated for this discovery than for the indifferent\nproductions of a genius otherwise feeble and ill-formed, showed to us\nthat our Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah of God, was anointed at the\nthree grand periods of His life, as our King, our Prophet, and our\nSacrificer.\n\nAt the time of His baptism, the voice of the Sovereign Master of nature\ndeclared Him to be His Son, His only, His well-beloved Son, and for that\nvery reason His representative.\n\nWhen on Mount Tabor He was transfigured and associated with Moses and\nElias, the same supernatural voice announces Him to humanity as the Son\nof Him who loves and who sends the prophets; as He who is to be\nhearkened to in preference to all others.\n\nIn Gethsemane, an angel comes down from heaven to support Him in the\nextreme anguish occasioned by the approach of His torments, and\nstrengthen Him against the terrible apprehensions of a death which He\ncannot avoid, and enable Him to become a sacrificer the more excellent,\nas Himself is the pure and innocent victim that He is about to offer.\n\nThe judicious Dutch preacher, a disciple of the illustrious Cocceius,\nfinds the sacramental oil of these different celestial unctions in the\nvisible signs which the power of God caused to appear on His anointed;\nin His baptism, \"the shadow of the dove,\" representing the Holy Ghost\ncoming down from Him; on Tabor, the \"miraculous cloud,\" which enveloped\nHim; in Gethsemane, the \"bloody sweat,\" which covered His whole body.\n\nAfter this, it would indeed be the height of incredulity not to\nrecognize by these marks the Lord's Anointed by eminence--the promised\nMessiah; nor doubtless could we sufficiently deplore the inconceivable\nblindness of the Jewish people, but that it was part of the plan of\nGod's infinite wisdom, and was, in His merciful views, essential to the\naccomplishment of His work and the salvation of humanity.\n\nBut it must also be acknowledged, that in the state of oppression in\nwhich the Jewish people were groaning, and after all the glorious\npromises which the Eternal had so often made them, they must have longed\nfor the coming of a Messiah, and looked towards it as the period of\ntheir happy deliverance; and that they are therefore to an extent\nexcusable for not having recognized a deliverer in the person of the\nLord Jesus, since it is in man's nature to care more for the body than\nfor the spirit, and to be more sensible to present wants than flattered\nby advantages \"to come,\" and for that very reason, always uncertain.\n\nIt must indeed be believed that Abraham, and after him a very small\nnumber of patriarchs and prophets, were capable of forming an idea of\nthe nature of the spiritual reign of the Messiah; but these ideas would\nnecessarily be limited to the narrow circle of the inspired, and it is\nnot astonishing that, being unknown to the multitude, these notions were\nso far altered that, when the Saviour appeared in Jud\u00e6a, the people,\ntheir doctors, and even their princes, expected a monarch--a\nconqueror--who, by the rapidity of his conquests was to subdue the whole\nworld. And how could these flattering ideas be reconciled with the\nabject and apparently miserable condition of Jesus Christ? So, feeling\nscandalized by His announcing Himself as the Messiah, they persecuted\nHim, rejected Him, and put Him to the most ignominious death. Having\nsince then found nothing tending to the fulfilment of their oracles, and\nbeing unwilling to renounce them, they indulge in all sorts of ideas,\neach one more chimerical than the one preceding.\n\nThus, when they beheld the triumphs of the Christian religion, and found\nthat most of their ancient oracles might be explained spiritually, and\napplied to Jesus Christ, they thought proper, against the opinion of\ntheir fathers, to deny that the passages which we allege against them\nare to be understood of the Messiah, thus torturing our Holy Scriptures\nto their own loss.\n\nSome of them maintain that their oracles have been misunderstood; that\nit is in vain to long for the coming of a Messiah, since He has already\ncome in the person of Ezechias. Such was the opinion of the famous\nHillel. Others more lax, or politely yielding to times and\ncircumstances, assert that the belief in the coming of a Messiah is not\na fundamental article of faith, and that the denying of this dogma\neither does not injure the integrity of the law, or injures it but\nslightly. Thus the Jew Albo said to the pope, that \"to deny the coming\nof the Messiah was only to cut off a branch of the tree without touching\nthe root.\"\n\nThe celebrated rabbi, Solomon Jarchi or Raschi, who lived at the\ncommencement of the twelfth century, says, in his \"_Talmudes,_\" that the\nancient Hebrews believed the Messiah to have been born on the day of the\nlast destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies. This is indeed\ncalling in the physician when the man is dead.\n\nThe rabbi Kimchi, who also lived in the twelfth century, announced that\nthe Messiah, whose coming he believed to be very near, would drive the\nChristians out of Jud\u00e6a, which was then in their possession; and it is\ntrue that the Christians lost the Holy Land; but it was Saladin who\nvanquished them. Had that conqueror but protected the Jews, and declared\nfor them, it is not unlikely that in their enthusiasm they would have\nmade him their Messiah.\n\nSacred writers, and our Lord Jesus Himself, often compare the reign of\nthe Messiah and eternal beatitude to a nuptial festival or a banquet;\nbut the Talmudists have strangely abused these parables; according to\nthem, the Messiah will give to his people, assembled in the land of\nCanaan, a repast in which the wine will be that which was made by Adam\nhimself in the terrestrial paradise, and which is kept dry, in vast\ncellars, by the angels at the centre of the earth.\n\nAt the first course will be served up the famous fish called the great\nLeviathan, which swallows up at once a smaller fish, which smaller fish\nis nevertheless three hundred leagues long; the whole mass of the waters\nis laid upon Leviathan. In the beginning God created a male and a female\nof this fish; but lest they should overturn the land, and fill the world\nwith their kind, God killed the female, and salted her for the Messiah's\nfeast.\n\nThe rabbis add, that there will also be killed for this repast the bull\nBehemoth, which is so large that he eats each day the hay from a\nthousand mountains. The female of this bull was killed in the beginning\nof the world, that so prodigious a species might not multiply, since\nthis could only have injured the other creatures; but they assure us\nthat the Eternal did not salt her, because dried cow is not so good as\nshe-Leviathan. The Jews still put such faith in these rabbinical\nreveries that they often swear by their share of the bull Behemoth, as\nsome impious Christians swear by their share of paradise.\n\nAfter such gross ideas of the coming of the Messiah, and of His reign,\nis it astonishing that the Jews, ancient as well as modern, and also\nsome of the primitive Christians unhappily tinctured with all these\nreveries, could not elevate themselves to the idea of the divine nature\nof the Lord's Anointed, and did not consider the Messiah as God? Observe\nhow the Jews express themselves on this point in the work entitled\n\"_Jud\u00e6i Lusitani Qu\u00e6stiones ad Christianos._\" \"To acknowledge a\nGod-man,\" say they, \"is to abuse your own reason, to make to yourself a\nmonster--a centaur--the strange compound of two natures which cannot\ncoalesce.\" They add, that the prophets do not teach that the Messiah is\nGod-man; that they expressly distinguish between God and David,\ndeclaring the former to be Master, the latter servant.\n\nWhen the Saviour appeared, the prophecies, though clear, were\nunfortunately obscured by the prejudices imbibed even at the mother's\nbreast. Jesus Christ Himself, either from deference towards or for fear\nof shocking, the public opinion, seems to have been very reserved\nconcerning His divinity. \"He wished,\" says St. Chrysostom, \"insensibly\nto accustom His auditors to the belief of a mystery so far above their\nreason. If He takes upon Him the authority of a God, by pardoning sin,\nthis action raises up against Him all who are witnesses of it. His most\nevident miracles cannot even convince of His divinity those in whose\nfavor they are worked. When, before the tribunal of the Sovereign\nSacrificer, He acknowledges, by a modest intimation, that He is the Son\nof God, the high priest tears his robe and cries, 'Blasphemy!' Before\nthe sending of the Holy Ghost, the apostles did not even suspect the\ndivinity of their dear Master. He asks them what the people think of\nHim; and they answer, that some take Him for Elias, other for Jeremiah,\nor some other prophet. A particular revelation is necessary to make\nknown to St. Peter, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living\nGod.\"\n\nThe Jews, revolting against the divinity of Christ, have resorted to all\nsorts of expedients to destroy this great mystery; they distort the\nmeaning of their own oracles, or do not apply them to the Messiah; they\nassert that the name of God, \"_Elo\u00ef,_\" is not peculiar to the Divinity,\nbut is given, even by sacred writers, to judges, to magistrates, and in\ngeneral to such as are high in authority; they do, indeed, cite a great\nmany passages of the Holy Scriptures that justify this observation, but\nwhich do not in the least affect the express terms of the ancient\noracles concerning the Messiah.\n\nLastly, they assert, that if the Saviour, and after Him the evangelists,\nthe apostles, and the first Christians, call Jesus the Son of God, this\naugust term did not in the evangelical times signify anything but the\nopposite of son of Belial--that is, a good man, a servant of God, in\nopposition to a wicked man, one without the fear of God.\n\nIf the Jews have disputed with Jesus Christ His quality of Messiah and\nHis divinity, they have also used every endeavor to bring Him into\ncontempt, by casting on His birth, His life, and His death, all the\nridicule and opprobrium that their criminal malevolence could imagine.\n\nOf all the works which the blindness of the Jews has produced, there is\nnone more odious and more extravagant than the ancient book entitled\n\"_Sepher Toldos Jeschu,_\" brought to light by Wagenseil, in the second\nvolume of his work entitled \"_Tela Ignea,_\" etc.\n\nIn this \"_Sepher Toldos Jeschu,_\" we find a monstrous history of the\nlife of our Saviour, forged with the utmost passion and\ndisingenuousness. For instance, they have dared to write that one\nPanther, or Pandera, an inhabitant of Bethlehem, fell in love with a\nyoung woman married to Jokanam. By this impure commerce he had a son\ncalled Jesua or Jesu. The father of this child was obliged to fly, and\nretired to Babylon. As for young Jesu, he was not sent to the schools;\nbut--adds our author--he had the insolence to raise his head and uncover\nhimself before the sacrificers, instead of appearing before them with\nhis head bent down and his face covered, as was the custom--a piece of\neffrontery which was warmly rebuked; this caused his birth to be\ninquired into, which was found to be impure, and soon exposed him to\nignominy.\n\nThis detestable book, \"_Sepher Toldos Jeschu,_\" was known in the second\ncentury: Celsus confidently cites it and Origen refutes it in his ninth\nchapter.\n\nThere is another book also entitled \"_Toldos Jeschu,_\" published by\nHuldric in 1703, which more closely follows the \"Gospel of the Infancy,\"\nbut which is full of the grossest anachronisms. It places both the birth\nand death of Jesus Christ in the reign of Herod the Great, stating that\ncomplaints were made of the adultery of Panther and Mary, the mother of\nJesus, to that prince.\n\nThe author, who takes the name of Jonathan, and calls himself a\ncontemporary of Jesus Christ, living at Jerusalem, pretends that Herod\nconsulted, in the affair of Jesus Christ, the senators of a city in the\nland of C\u00e6sarea. We will not follow so absurd an author through all his\ncontradictions.\n\nYet it is under cover of all these calumnies that the Jews keep up their\nimplacable hatred against the Christians and the gospel. They have done\ntheir utmost to alter the chronology of the Old Testament, and to raise\ndoubts and difficulties respecting the time of our Saviour's coming.\n\nAhmed-ben-Cassum-la-Andacousy, a Moor of Granada, who lived about the\nclose of the sixteenth century, cites an ancient Arabian manuscript,\nwhich was found, together with sixteen plates of lead engraved with\nArabian characters, in a grotto near Granada. Don Pedro y Quinones,\narchbishop of Granada, has himself borne testimony to this fact. These\nleaden plates, called those of Granada, were afterwards carried to Rome,\nwhere, after several years' investigation, they were at last condemned\nas apocryphal, in the pontificate of Alexander VII.; they contain only\nfabulous stories relating to the lives of Mary and her Son.\n\nThe time of Messiah, coupled with the epithet \"false\", is still given to\nthose impostors who, at various times, have sought to abuse the\ncredulity of the Jewish nation. There were some of these false Messiahs\neven before the coming of the true Anointed of God. The wise Gamaliel\nmentions one Theodas, whose history we read in Josephus' \"Jewish\nAntiquities,\" book xx. chap. 2. He boasted of crossing the Jordan\nwithout wetting his feet; he drew many people after him; but the Romans,\nhaving fallen upon his little troop, dispersed them, cut off the head of\ntheir unfortunate chief, and exposed it in Jerusalem.\n\nGamaliel also speaks of Judas the Galilean, who is doubtless the same of\nwhom Josephus makes mention in the second chapter of the second book of\nthe \"Jewish War\". He says that this false prophet had gathered together\nnearly thirty thousand men; but hyperbole is the Jewish historian's\ncharacteristic.\n\nIn the apostolic times, there was Simon, surnamed the Magician, who\ncontrived to bewitch the people of Samaria, so that they considered him\nas \"the great power of God.\"\n\nIn the following century, in the years 178 and 179 of the Christian era,\nin the reign of Adrian, appeared the false Messiah, Barcochebas, at the\nhead of an army. The emperor sent against them Julius Severus, who,\nafter several encounters, enclosed them in the town of Bither; after an\nobstinate defence it was carried, and Barcochebas taken and put to\ndeath. Adrian thought he could not better prevent the continual revolt\nof the Jews than by issuing an edict, forbidding them to go to\nJerusalem; he also had guards stationed at the gates of the city, to\nprevent the rest of the people of Israel from entering it.\n\nWe read in Socrates, an ecclesiastical historian, that in the year 434,\nthere appeared in the island of Candia a false Messiah calling himself\nMoses. He said he was the ancient deliverer of the Hebrews, raised from\nthe dead to deliver them again.\n\nA century afterwards, in 530, there was in Palestine a false Messiah\nnamed Julian; he announced himself as a great conqueror, who, at the\nhead of his nation, should destroy by arms the whole Christian people.\nSeduced by his promises, the armed Jews butchered many of the\nChristians. The emperor Justinian sent troops against him; battle was\ngiven to the false Christ; he was taken, and condemned to the most\nignominious death.\n\nAt the beginning of the eighth century, Serenus, a Spanish Jew, gave\nhimself out as a Messiah, preached, had some disciples, and, like them,\ndied in misery.\n\nSeveral false Messiahs arose in the twelfth century. One appeared in\nFrance in the reign of Louis the Young; he and all his adherents were\nhanged, without its ever being known what was the name of the master or\nof the disciples.\n\nThe thirteenth century was fruitful in false Messiahs; there appeared\nseven or eight in Arabia, Persia, Spain, and Moravia; one of them,\ncalling himself David el Roy, passed for a very great magician; he\nreduced the Jews, and was at the head of a considerable party; but this\nMessiah was assassinated.\n\nJames Zeigler, of Moravia, who lived in the middle of the sixteenth\ncentury, announced the approaching manifestation of the Messiah, born,\nas he declared, fourteen years before; he had seen him, he said, at\nStrasburg, and he kept by him with great care a sword and a sceptre, to\nplace them in his hands as soon as he should be old enough to teach. In\nthe year 1624, another Zeigler confirmed the prediction of the former.\n\nIn the year 1666, Sabatei Sevi, born at Aleppo, called himself the\nMessiah foretold by the Zeiglers. He began with preaching on the\nhighways and in the fields, the Turks laughing at him, while his\ndisciples admired him. It appears that he did not gain over the mass of\nthe Jewish nation at first; for the chiefs of the synagogue of Smyrna\npassed sentence of death against him; but he escaped with the fear only,\nand with banishment.\n\nHe contracted three marriages, of which it is asserted he did not\nconsummate one, saying that it was beneath him so to do. He took into\npartnership one Nathan Levi; the latter personated the prophet Elias,\nwho was to go before the Messiah. They repaired to Jerusalem, and Nathan\nthere announced Sabatei Sevi as the deliverer of nations. The Jewish\npopulace declared for them, but such as had anything to lose\nanathematized them.\n\nTo avoid the storm, Sevi fled to Constantinople, and thence to Smyrna,\nwhither Nathan Levi sent to him four ambassadors, who acknowledged and\npublicly saluted him as the Messiah. This embassy imposed on the people,\nand also on some of the doctors, who declared Sabatei Sevi to be the\nMessiah, and king of the Hebrews. But the synagogue of Smyrna condemned\nits king to be impaled.\n\nSabatei put himself under the protection of the cadi of Smyrna, and soon\nhad the whole Jewish people on his side; he had two thrones prepared,\none for himself, the other for his favorite wife; he took the title of\nking of kings, and gave to his brother, Joseph Sevi, that of king of\nJudah. He promised the Jews the certain conquest of the Ottoman Empire;\nand even carried his insolence so far as to have the emperor's name\nstruck out of the Jewish liturgy, and his own substituted.\n\nHe was thrown into prison at the Dardanelles; and the Jews gave out that\nhis life was spared only because the Turks well knew he was immortal.\nThe governor of the Dardanelles grew rich by the presents which the Jews\nlavished, in order to visit their king, their imprisoned Messiah, who,\nthough in irons, retained all his dignity, and made them kiss his feet.\n\nMeanwhile the sultan, who was holding his court at Adrianople, resolved\nto put an end to this farce: he sent for Sevi, and told him that if he\nwas the Messiah he must be invulnerable; to which Sevi assented. The\ngrand signor then had him placed as a mark for the arrows of his\n_icoglans. _The Messiah confessed that he was not invulnerable, and\nprotested that God sent him only to bear testimony to the holy Mussulman\nreligion. Being beaten by the ministers of the law, he turned Mahometan;\nhe lived and died equally despised by the Jews and Mussulmans; which\ncast such discredit on the profession of false Messiah, that Sevi was\nthe last that appeared.\n\n\n\n\nMETAMORPHOSIS.\n\n\nIt may very naturally be supposed that the metamorphoses with which our\nearth abounds suggested the imagination to the Orientals--who have\nimagined everything--that the souls of men passed from one body to\nanother. An almost imperceptible point becomes a grub, and that grub\nbecomes a butterfly; an acorn is transformed into an oak; an egg into a\nbird; water becomes cloud and thunder; wood is changed into fire and\nashes; everything, in short, in nature, appears to be metamorphosed.\nWhat was thus obviously and distinctly perceptible in grosser bodies was\nsoon conceived to take place with respect to souls, which were\nconsidered slight, shadowy, and scarcely material figures. The idea of\nmetempsychosis is perhaps the most ancient dogma of the known world, and\nprevails still in a great part of India and of China.\n\nIt is highly probable, again, that the various metamorphoses which we\nwitness in nature produced those ancient fables which Ovid has collected\nand embellished in his admirable work. Even the Jews had their\nmetamorphoses. If Niobe was changed into a stone, Edith, the wife of\nLot, was changed into a statue of salt. If Eurydice remained in hell for\nhaving looked behind her, it was for precisely the same indiscretion\nthat this wife of Lot was deprived of her human nature. The village in\nwhich Baucis and Philemon resided in Phrygia is changed into a lake; the\nsame event occurs to Sodom. The daughters of Anius converted water into\noil; we have in Scripture a metamorphosis very similar, but more true\nand more sacred. Cadmus was changed into a serpent; the rod of Aaron\nbecomes a serpent also.\n\nThe gods frequently change themselves into men; the Jews never saw\nangels but in the form of men; angels ate with Abraham. Paul, in his\nSecond Epistle to the Corinthians, says that an angel of Satan has\nbuffeted him: \"_Angelus Satan\u00e6 me colaphizet._\"\n\n\n\n\nMETAPHYSICS.\n\n\n\"_Trans naturam,_\"--beyond nature. But what is that which is beyond\nnature? By nature, it is to be presumed, is meant matter, and\nmetaphysics relates to that which is not matter.\n\nFor example: to your reasoning, which is neither long, nor wide, nor\nhigh, nor solid, nor pointed; your soul, to yourself unknown, which\nproduces your reasoning.\n\nSpirits, which the world has always talked of, and to which mankind\nappropriated, for a long period, a body so attenuated and shadowy, that\nit could scarcely be called body; but from which, at length, they have\nremoved every shadow of body, without knowing what it was that was left.\n\nThe manner in which these spirits perceive, without any embarrassment,\nfrom the five senses; in which they think, without a head; and in which\nthey communicate their thoughts, without words and signs.\n\nFinally, God, whom we know by His works, but whom our pride impels us to\ndefine; God, whose power we feel to be immense; God, between whom and\nourselves exists the abyss of infinity, and yet whose nature we dare to\nattempt to fathom.\n\nThese are the objects of metaphysics. We might further add to these the\nprinciples of pure mathematics, points without extension, lines without\nwidth, superficies without thickness, units infinitely divisible, etc.\n\nBayle himself considered these objects as those which were denominated\n\"_entia rationis,_\" beings of reason; they are, however, in fact, only\nmaterial things considered in their masses, their superficies, their\nsimple lengths and breadths, and the extremities of these simple lengths\nand breadths. All measures are precise and demonstrated. Metaphysics has\nnothing to do with geometry.\n\nThus a man may be a metaphysician without being a geometrician.\nMetaphysics is more entertaining; it constitutes often the romance of\nthe mind. In geometry, on the contrary, we must calculate and measure;\nthis is a perpetual trouble, and most minds had rather dream pleasantly\nthan fatigue themselves with hard work.\n\n\n\n\nMIND (LIMITS OF THE HUMAN).\n\n\nNewton was one day asked why he stepped forward when he was so inclined;\nand from what cause his arm and his hand obeyed his will? He honestly\nreplied, that he knew nothing about the matter. But at least, said they\nto him, you who are so well acquainted with the gravitation of planets,\nwill tell us why they turn one way sooner than another? Newton still\navowed his ignorance.\n\nThose who teach that the ocean was salted for fear it should corrupt,\nand that the tides were created to conduct our ships into port, were a\nlittle ashamed when told that the Mediterranean has ports and no tide.\nMuschembrock himself has fallen into this error.\n\nWho has ever been able to determine precisely how a billet of wood is\nchanged into red-hot charcoal, and by what mechanism lime is heated by\ncold water?\n\nThe first motion of the heart in animals--is that accounted for? Has it\nbeen exactly discovered how the business of generation is arranged? Has\nany one divined the cause of sensation, ideas, and memory? We know no\nmore of the essence of matter than the children who touch its\nsuperficies.\n\nWho will instruct us in the mechanism by which the grain of corn, which\nwe cast into the earth, disposes itself to produce a stalk surmounted\nwith an ear; or why the sun produces an apple on one tree and a chestnut\non the next to it? Many doctors have said: \"What know I not?\" Montaigne\nsaid: \"What know I?\"\n\nUnbending decider! pedagogue in phrases! furred reasoner! thou inquirest\nafter the limits of the human mind--they are at the end of thy nose.\n\n\n\n\nMIRACLES.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nA miracle, according to the true meaning of the word, is something\nadmirable; and agreeable to this, all is miracle. The stupendous order\nof nature, the revolution of a hundred millions of worlds around a\nmillion of suns, the activity of light, the life of animals, all are\ngrand and perpetual miracles.\n\nAccording to common acceptation, we call a miracle the violation of\nthese divine and eternal laws. A solar eclipse at the time of the full\nmoon, or a dead man walking two leagues and carrying his head in his\narms, we denominate a miracle.\n\nMany natural philosophers maintain, that in this sense there are no\nmiracles; and advance the following arguments:\n\nA miracle is the violation of mathematical, divine, immutable, eternal\nlaws. By the very exposition itself, a miracle is a contradiction in\nterms: a law cannot at the same time be immutable and violated. But they\nare asked, cannot a law, established by God Himself, be suspended by its\nauthor?\n\nThey have the hardihood to reply that it cannot; and that it is\nimpossible a being infinitely wise can have made laws to violate them.\nHe could not, they say, derange the machine but with a view of making it\nwork better; but it is evident that God, all-wise and omnipotent,\noriginally made this immense machine, the universe, as good and perfect\nas He was able; if He saw that some imperfections would arise from the\nnature of matter, He provided for that in the beginning; and,\naccordingly, He will never change anything in it. Moreover, God can do\nnothing without reason; but what reason could induce him to disfigure\nfor a time His own work?\n\nIt is done, they are told, in favor of mankind. They reply: We must\npresume, then, that it is in favor of all mankind; for it is impossible\nto conceive that the divine nature should occupy itself only about a few\nmen in particular, and not for the whole human race; and even the whole\nhuman race itself is a very small concern; it is less than a small\nant-hill, in comparison with all the beings inhabiting immensity. But is\nit not the most absurd of all extravagances to imagine that the Infinite\nSupreme should, in favor of three or four hundred emmets on this little\nheap of earth, derange the operation of the vast machinery that moves\nthe universe?\n\nBut, admitting that God chose to distinguish a small number of men by\nparticular favors, is there any necessity that, in order to accomplish\nthis object, He should change what He established for all periods and\nfor all places? He certainly can have no need of this inconstancy in\norder to bestow favors on any of His creatures: His favors consist in\nHis laws themselves: he has foreseen all and arranged all, with a view\nto them. All invariably obey the force which He has impressed forever on\nnature.\n\nFor what purpose would God perform a miracle? To accomplish some\nparticular design upon living beings? He would then, in reality, be\nsupposed to say: \"I have not been able to effect by my construction of\nthe universe, by my divine decrees, by my eternal laws, a particular\nobject; I am now going to change my eternal ideas and immutable laws, to\nendeavor to accomplish what I have not been able to do by means of\nthem.\" This would be an avowal of His weakness, not of His power; it\nwould appear in such a being an inconceivable contradiction.\nAccordingly, therefore, to dare to ascribe miracles to God is, if man\ncan in reality insult God, actually offering Him that insult. It is\nsaying to Him: \"You are a weak and inconsistent Being.\" It is,\ntherefore, absurd to believe in miracles; it is, in fact, dishonoring\nthe divinity.\n\nThese philosophers, however, are not suffered thus to declaim without\nopposition. You may extol, it is replied, as much as you please, the\nimmutability of the Supreme Being, the eternity of His laws, and the\nregularity of His infinitude of worlds; but our little heap of earth\nhas, notwithstanding all that you have advanced, been completely covered\nover with miracles in every part and time. Histories relate as many\nprodigies as natural events. The daughters of the high priest Anius\nchanged whatever they pleased to corn, wine, and oil; Athalide, the\ndaughter of Mercury, revived again several times; \u00c6sculapius\nresuscitated Hippolytus; Hercules rescued Alcestes from the hand of\ndeath; and Heres returned to the world after having passed fifteen days\nin hell. Romulus and Remus were the offspring of a god and a vestal. The\nPalladium descended from heaven on the city of Troy; the hair of\nBerenice was changed into a constellation; the cot of Baucis and\nPhilemon was converted into a superb temple; the head of Orpheus\ndelivered oracles after his death; the walls of Thebes spontaneously\nconstructed themselves to the sound of a flute, in the presence of the\nGreeks; the cures effected in the temple of \u00c6sculapius were absolutely\ninnumerable, and we have monuments still existing containing the very\nnames of persons who were eye-witnesses of his miracles.\n\nMention to me a single nation in which the most incredible prodigies\nhave not been performed, and especially in those periods in which the\npeople scarcely knew how to write or read.\n\nThe philosophers make no answer to these objections, but by slightly\nraising their shoulders and by a smile; but the Christian philosophers\nsay: We are believers in the miracles of our holy religion; we believe\nthem by faith and not by our reason, which we are very cautious how we\nlisten to; for when faith speaks, it is well known that reason ought to\nbe silent. We have a firm and entire faith in the miracles of Jesus\nChrist and the apostles, but permit us to entertain some doubt about\nmany others: permit us, for example, to suspend our judgment on what is\nrelated by a very simple man, although he has obtained the title of\ngreat. He assures us, that a certain monk was so much in the habit of\nperforming miracles, that the prior at length forbade him to exercise\nhis talent in that line. The monk obeyed; but seeing a poor tiler fall\nfrom the top of a house, he hesitated for a moment between the desire to\nsave the unfortunate man's life, and the sacred duty of obedience to his\nsuperior. He merely ordered the tiler to stay in the air till he should\nreceive further instructions, and ran as fast as his legs would carry\nhim to communicate the urgency of the circumstances to the prior. The\nprior absolved him from the sin he had committed in beginning the\nmiracle without permission, and gave him leave to finish it, provided he\nstopped with the same, and never again repeated his fault. The\nphilosophers may certainly be excused for entertaining a little doubt of\nthis legend.\n\nBut how can you deny, they are asked, that St. Gervais and St. Protais\nappeared in a dream to St. Ambrose, and informed him of the spot in\nwhich were deposited their relics? that St. Ambrose had them\ndisinterred? and that they restored sight to a man that was blind? St.\nAugustine was at Milan at the very time, and it is he who relates the\nmiracle, using the expression, in the twenty-second book of his work\ncalled the \"City of God,\" \"_immenso populo teste_\"--in the presence of\nan immense number of people. Here is one of the very best attested and\nestablished miracles. The philosophers, however, say that they do not\nbelieve one word about Gervais and Protais appearing to any person\nwhatever; that it is a matter of very little consequence to mankind\nwhere the remains of their carcasses lie; that they have no more faith\nin this blind man than in Vespasian's; that it is a useless miracle, and\nthat God does nothing that is useless; and they adhere to the principles\nthey began with. My respect for St. Gervais and St. Protais prevents me\nfrom being of the same opinion as these philosophers: I merely state\ntheir incredulity. They lay great stress on the well-known passage of\nLucian, to be found in the death of Peregrinus: \"When an expert juggler\nturns Christian, he is sure to make his fortune.\" But as Lucian is a\nprofane author, we ought surely to set him aside as of no authority.\n\nThese philosophers cannot even make up their minds to believe the\nmiracles performed in the second century. Even eye-witnesses to the\nfacts may write and attest till the day of doom, that after the bishop\nof Smyrna, St. Polycarp, was condemned to be burned, and actually in the\nmidst of the flames, they heard a voice from heaven exclaiming:\n\"Courage, Polycarp! be strong, and show yourself a man\"; that, at the\nvery instant, the flames quitted his body, and formed a pavilion of fire\nabove his head, and from the midst of the pile there flew out a dove;\nwhen, at length, Polycarp's enemies ended his life by cutting off his\nhead. All these facts and attestations are in vain. For what good, say\nthese unimpressible and incredulous men, for what good was this miracle?\nWhy did the flames lose their nature, and the axe of the executioner\nretain all its power of destruction? Whence comes it that so many\nmartyrs escaped unhurt out of boiling oil, but were unable to resist the\nedge of the sword? It is answered, such was the will of God. But the\nphilosophers would wish to see and hear all this themselves, before they\nbelieve it.\n\nThose who strengthen their reasonings by learning will tell you that the\nfathers of the Church have frequently declared that miracles were in\ntheir days performed no longer. St. Chrysostom says expressly: \"The\nextraordinary gifts of the spirit were bestowed even on the unworthy,\nbecause the Church at that time had need of miracles; but now, they are\nnot bestowed even on the worthy, because the Church has need of them no\nlonger.\" He afterwards declares, that there is no one now who raises the\ndead, or even who heals the sick.\n\nSt. Augustine himself, notwithstanding the miracles of Gervais and\nProtais, says, in his \"City of God\": \"Why are not such miracles as were\nwrought formerly wrought now?\" and he assigns the same reason as St.\nChrysostom for it.\n\n\"_Cur inquiunt, nunc illa miracula qu\u00e6 pr\u00e6dicatis facta esse non fiunt?\nPossem quidem dicere necessaria prius fuisse, quam crederet mundus, ad\nhoc ut crederet mundus._\"\n\nIt is objected to the philosophers, that St. Augustine, notwithstanding\nthis avowal, mentions nevertheless an old cobbler of Hippo, who, having\nlost his garment, went to pray in the chapel of the twenty martyrs, and\non his return found a fish, in the body of which was a gold ring; and\nthat the cook who dressed the fish said to the cobbler: \"See what a\npresent the twenty martyrs have made you!\"\n\nTo this the philosophers reply, that there is nothing in the event here\nrelated in opposition to the laws of nature; that natural philosophy is\nnot contradicted or shocked by a fish's swallowing a gold ring, or a\ncook's delivering such ring to a cobbler; that, in short, there is no\nmiracle at all in the case.\n\nIf these philosophers are reminded that, according to St. Jerome, in his\n\"Life of Paul the Hermit,\" that hermit had many conversations with\nsatyrs and fauns; that a raven carried to him every day, for thirty\nyears together, half of a loaf for his dinner, and a whole one on the\nday that St. Anthony went to visit him, they might reply again, that all\nthis is not absolutely inconsistent with natural philosophy; that satyrs\nand fauns may have existed; and that, at all events, whether the\nnarrative be a recital of facts, or only a story fit for children, it\nhas nothing at all to do with the miracles of our Lord and His apostles.\nMany good Christians have contested the \"History of St. Simeon\nStylites,\" written by Theodoret; many miracles considered authentic by\nthe Greek Church have been called in question by many Latins, just as\nthe Latin miracles have been suspected by the Greek Church. Afterwards,\nthe Protestants appeared on the stage, and treated the miracles of both\nchurches certainly with very little respect or ceremony.\n\nA learned Jesuit, who was long a preacher in the Indies, deplores that\nneither his colleagues nor himself could ever perform a miracle. Xavier\nlaments, in many of his letters, that he has not the gift of languages.\nHe says, that among the Japanese he is merely like a dumb statue: yet\nthe Jesuits have written that he resuscitated eight persons. That was\ncertainly no trifling matter; but it must be recollected that he\nresuscitated them six thousand leagues distant. Persons have since been\nfound, who have pretended that the abolition of the Jesuits in France is\na much greater miracle than any performed by Xavier and Ignatius.\n\nHowever that may be, all Christians agree that the miracles of Jesus\nChrist and the apostles are incontestably true; but that we may\ncertainly be permitted to doubt some stated to have been performed in\nour own times, and which have not been completely authenticated.\n\nIt would certainly, for example, be very desirable, in order to the firm\nand clear establishment of a miracle, that it should be performed in the\npresence of the Academy of Sciences of Paris, or the Royal Society of\nLondon, and the Faculty of Medicine, assisted by a detachment of guards\nto keep in due order and distance the populace, who might by their\nrudeness or indiscretion prevent the operation of the miracle.\n\nA philosopher was once asked what he should say if he saw the sun stand\nstill, that is, if the motion of the earth around that star were to\ncease; if all the dead were to rise again; and if the mountains were to\ngo and throw themselves together into the sea, all in order to prove\nsome important truth, like that, for instance, of versatile grace? \"What\nshould I say?\" answered the philosopher; \"I should become a Manich\u00e6an; I\nshould say that one principle counteracted the performance of another.\"\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nDefine your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never\nunderstand one another. \"_Miraculum res miranda, prodigium, portentum,\nmonstrum._\"--Miracle, something admirable; prodigy, implying something\nastonishing; portentous, bearing with it novelty; monster, something to\nshow (\"_\u00e0 montrer_\") on account of its variety. Such are the first ideas\nthat men formed of miracles.\n\nAs everything is refined and improved upon, such also would be the case\nwith this definition. A miracle is said to be that which is impossible\nto nature. But it was not considered that this was in fact saying all\nmiracle is absolutely impossible. For what is nature? You understand by\nit the eternal order of things. A miracle would therefore be impossible\nin such an order. In this sense God could not work a miracle.\n\nIf you mean by miracle an effect of which you cannot perceive the cause,\nin that sense all is miracle. The attraction and direction of the magnet\nare continual miracles. A snail whose head is renewed is a miracle. The\nbirth of every animal, the production of every vegetable, are miracles\nof every day.\n\nBut we are so accustomed to these prodigies, that they have lost their\nname of admirable--of miraculous. The Indians are no longer astonished\nby cannon.\n\nWe have therefore formed for ourselves another idea of a miracle. It is,\naccording to the common opinion, what never has happened and never will\nhappen. Such is the idea formed of Samson's jawbone of an ass; of the\nconversation between the ass and Balaam, and that between a serpent and\nEve; of the chariot with four horses that conveyed away Elijah; of the\nfish that kept Jonah in its belly seventy-two hours; of the ten plagues\nof Egypt; of the walls of Jericho, and of the sun and moon standing\nstill at mid-day, etc.\n\nIn order to believe a miracle, it is not enough merely to have seen it;\nfor a man may be deceived. A fool is often called a dealer in wonders;\nand not merely do many excellent persons think that they have seen what\nthey have not seen, and heard what was never said to them; not only do\nthey thus become witnesses of miracles, but they become also subjects of\nmiracles. They have been sometimes diseased, and sometimes cured by\nsupernatural power; they have been changed into wolves; they have\ntravelled through the air on broomsticks; they have become both _incubi\n_and _succubi. _\n\nIt is necessary that the miracle should have been seen by a great number\nof very sensible people, in sound health, and perfectly disinterested in\nthe affair. It is above all necessary, that it should have been solemnly\nattested by them; for if solemn forms of authentication are deemed\nnecessary with respect to transactions of very simple character, such as\nthe purchase of a house, a marriage contract, or a will, what particular\nand minute cautionary formalities must not be deemed requisite in order\nto verify things naturally impossible, on which the destiny of the world\nis to depend?\n\nEven when an authentic miracle is performed, it in fact proves nothing;\nfor Scripture tells you, in a great variety of places, that impostors\nmay perform miracles, and that if any man, after having performed them,\nshould proclaim another God than that of the Jews, he ought to be stoned\nto death. It is requisite, therefore, that the doctrine should be\nconfirmed by the miracles, and the miracles by the doctrine.\n\nEven this, however, is not sufficient. As impostors may preach a very\ncorrect and pure morality, the better to deceive, and it is admitted\nthat impostors, like the magicians of Pharaoh, may perform miracles; it\nis in addition necessary, that these miracles should have been announced\nby prophecies.\n\nIn order to be convinced of the truth of these prophecies, it is\nnecessary that they should have been heard clearly announced, and seen\nreally accomplished. It is necessary to possess perfectly the language\nin which they are preserved.\n\nIt is not sufficient, even, that you are a witness of their miraculous\nfulfilment; for you may be deceived by false appearances. It is\nnecessary that the miracle and prophecy should be verified on oath by\nthe heads of the nation; and even after all this there will be some\ndoubters. For it is possible for a nation to be interested in the\nforgery of a prophecy or a miracle; and when interest mixes with the\ntransaction, you may consider the whole affair as worth nothing. If a\npredicted miracle be not as public and as well verified as an eclipse\nthat is announced in the almanac, be assured that it is nothing better\nthan a juggler's trick or an old woman's tale.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nA theocracy can be founded only upon miracles. Everything in it must be\ndivine. The Great Sovereign speaks to men only in prodigies. These are\nhis ministers and letters patent. His orders are intimated by the\nocean's covering the earth to drown nations, or opening a way through\nits depths, that they may pass upon dry land.\n\nAccordingly you perceive, that in the Jewish history all is miracle;\nfrom the creation of Adam, and the formation of Eve, who was made of one\nof the ribs of Adam, to the time of the insignificant kingling Saul.\n\nEven in the time of this same Saul, theocracy participates in power with\nroyalty. There are still, consequently, miracles performed from time to\ntime; but there is no longer that splendid train of prodigies which\ncontinually astonishes and interrupts nature. The ten plagues of Egypt\nare not renewed; the sun and moon do not stand still at mid-day, in\norder to give a commander time to exterminate a few runaways, already\nnearly destroyed by a shower of stones from the clouds. No Samson again\nextirpates a thousand Philistines by the jaw-bone of an ass. Asses no\nlonger talk rationally with men; walls no longer fall prostrate at the\nmere sound of trumpets; cities are not swallowed up in a lake by the\nfire of heaven; the race of man is not a second time destroyed by a\ndeluge. But the finger of God is still manifested; the shade of Saul is\npermitted to appear at the invocation of the sorceress, and God Himself\npromises David that he will defeat the Philistines at Baal-perazim.\n\n\"God gathers together His celestial army in the reign of Ahab, and asks\nthe spirits: Who will go and deceive Ahab, and persuade him to go up to\nwar against Ramoth Gilead? And there came forth a lying spirit and stood\nbefore the Lord and said, I will persuade him.\" But the prophet Micaiah\nalone heard this conversation, and he received a blow on the cheek from\nanother prophet, called Zedekiah, for having announced the ill-omened\nprodigy.\n\nOf miracles performed in the sight of the whole nation, and changing the\nlaws of all nature, we see no more until the time of Elijah, for whom\nthe Lord despatched a chariot of fire and horses of fire, which conveyed\nhim rapidly from the banks of the Jordan to heaven, although no one knew\nwhere heaven was.\n\nFrom the commencement of historical times, that is, from the time of the\nconquests of Alexander, we see no more miracles among the Jews.\n\nWhen Pompey comes to make himself master of Jerusalem--when Crassus\nplunders the temple--when Pompey puts to death the king of the Jews by\nthe hands of the executioner--when Anthony confers the kingdom of Jud\u00e6a\non the Arabian Herod--when Titus takes Jerusalem by assault, and when it\nis razed to the ground by Arian--not a single miracle is ever performed.\nThus it is with every nation upon earth. They begin with theocracy; they\nend in a manner simply and naturally human. The greater the progress\nmade in society and knowledge, the fewer there are of prodigies.\n\nWe well know that the theocracy of the Jews was the only true one, and\nthat those of other nations were false; but in all other respects, the\ncase was precisely the same with them as with the Jews.\n\nIn Egypt, in the time of Vulcan, and in that of Isis and Osiris,\neverything was out of the laws of nature; under the Ptolemies everything\nresumed its natural course.\n\nIn the remote periods of Phos, Chrysos, and Ephestes, gods and mortals\nconversed in Chaldee with the most interesting familiarity. A god warned\nKing Xissuter that there would be a deluge in Armenia, and that it was\nnecessary he should, as soon as possible, build a vessel five stadii in\nlength and two in width. Such things do not happen to the Dariuses and\nthe Alexanders.\n\nThe fish Oannes, in former times, came every day out of the Euphrates to\npreach upon its banks; but there is no preaching fish now. It is true\nthat St. Anthony of Padua went and preached to the fishes; however, such\nthings happen so very rarely that they are scarcely to be taken any\naccount of.\n\nNuma held long conversations with the nymph Egeria; but we never read\nthat C\u00e6sar had any with Venus, although he was descended from her in the\ndirect line. The world, we see, is constantly advancing a little, and\nrefining gradually.\n\nBut after being extricated out of one slough for a time, mankind are\nsoon plunged into another. To ages of civilization succeed ages of\nbarbarism; that barbarism is again expelled, and again reappears: it is\nthe regular alternation of day and night.\n\nOf Those Who Have Been So Impiously Rash As To Deny The Miracles Of\nJesus Christ.\n\nAmong the moderns, Thomas Woolston, a learned member of the University\nof Cambridge, appears to me to have been the first who ventured to\ninterpret the Gospels merely in a typical, allegorical, and spiritual\nsense, and boldly maintained that not one of the miracles of Jesus was\nactually performed. He wrote without method or art, and in a style\nconfused and coarse, but not destitute of vigor. His six discourses\nagainst the miracles of Jesus Christ were publicly sold at London, in\nhis own house. In the course of two years, from 1737 to 1739, he had\nthree editions of them printed, of twenty thousand copies each, and yet\nit is now very difficult to procure one from the booksellers.\n\nNever was Christianity so daringly assailed by any Christian. Few\nwriters entertain less awe or respect for the public, and no priest ever\ndeclared himself more openly the enemy of priests. He even dared to\njustify this hatred by that of Jesus Christ against the Pharisees and\nScribes; and he said that he should not, like Jesus Christ, become their\nvictim, because he had come into the world in a more enlightened age.\n\nHe certainly hoped to justify his rashness by his adoption of the\nmystical sense; but he employs expressions so contemptuous and abusive\nthat every Christian ear is shocked at them.\n\nIf we may believe him, when Jesus sent the devil into the herd of two\nthousand swine, He did neither more nor less than commit a robbery on\ntheir owners. If the story had been told of Mahomet, he would have been\nconsidered as \"an abominable wizard, and a sworn slave to the devil.\"\nAnd if the proprietor of the swine, and the merchants who in the outer\ncourt of the temple sold beasts for sacrifices, and whom Jesus drove out\nwith a scourge, came to demand justice when he was apprehended, it is\nclear that he was deservedly condemned, as there never was a jury in\nEngland that would not have found him guilty.\n\nHe tells her fortune to the woman of Samaria, just like a wandering\nBohemian or Gypsy. This alone was sufficient to cause His banishment,\nwhich was the punishment inflicted upon fortune-tellers, or diviners, by\nTiberius. \"I am astonished,\" says he, \"that the gypsies do not proclaim\nthemselves the genuine disciples of Jesus, as their vocation is the\nsame. However, I am glad to see that He did not extort money from the\nSamaritan woman, differing in this respect from our clergy, who take\ncare to be well paid for their divinations.\"\n\nI follow the order of the pages in his book. The author goes on to the\nentrance of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem. It is not clear, he says,\nwhether He was mounted on a male or female ass, or upon the foal of an\nass, or upon all three together.\n\nHe compares Jesus, when tempted by the devil, to St. Dunstan, who seized\nthe devil by the nose; and he gives the preference to St. Dunstan.\n\nAt the article of the fig-tree, which was cursed with barrenness for not\nproducing figs out of season for them, he describes Jesus as a mere\nvagabond, a mendicant friar, who before He turned field-preacher was \"no\nbetter than a journeyman carpenter.\" It is surprising, he says, that the\ncourt of Rome has not among all its relics some little fancy-box or\njoint-stool of His workmanship. In a word, it is difficult to carry\nblasphemy further.\n\nAfter diverting himself with the probationary fish-pool of Bethesda, the\nwaters of which were troubled or stirred once in every year by an angel,\nhe inquires how it could well be, that neither Flavius Josephus, nor\nPhilo should ever mention this angel; why St. John should be the sole\nhistorian of this miracle; and by what other miracle it happened that no\nRoman ever saw this angel, or ever even heard his name mentioned?\n\nThe water changed into wine at the marriage of Cana, according to him,\nexcites the laughter and contempt of all who are not imbruted by\nsuperstition.\n\n\"What!\" says he, \"John expressly says that the guests were already\nintoxicated, '_methus tosi_'; and God comes down to earth and performs\nHis first miracle to enable them to drink still more!\"\n\nGod, made man, commences His mission by assisting at a village wedding.\n\"Whether Jesus and His mother were drunk, as were others of the company,\nis not certain. The familiarity of the lady with a soldier leads to the\npresumption that she was fond of her bottle; that her Son, however, was\nsomewhat affected by the wine, appears from His answering His mother so\n'waspishly and snappishly' as He did, when He said, 'Woman, what have I\nto do with thee?' It may be inferred from these words that Mary was not\na virgin, and that Jesus was not her son; had it been otherwise, He\nwould not have thus insulted His father and mother in violation of one\nof the most sacred commandments of the law. However, He complied with\nHis mother's request; He fills eighteen jars with water, and makes punch\nof it.\" These are the very words of Thomas Woolston, and must fill every\nChristian soul with indignation.\n\nIt is with regret, and even with trembling, that I quote these passages;\nbut there have been sixty thousand copies of this work printed, all\nbearing the name of the author, and all publicly sold at his house. It\ncan never be said that I calumniate him.\n\nIt is to the dead raised again by Jesus Christ that he principally\ndirects his attention. He contends that a dead man restored to life\nwould have been an object of attention and astonishment to the universe;\nthat all the Jewish magistracy, and more especially Pilate, would have\nmade the most minute investigations and obtained the most authentic\ndepositions; that Tiberius enjoined all proconsuls, pr\u00e6tors, and\ngovernors of provinces to inform him with exactness of every event that\ntook place; that Lazarus, who had been dead four whole days, would have\nbeen most strictly interrogated; and that no little curiosity would have\nbeen excited to know what had become, during that time, of his soul.\n\nWith what eager interest would Tiberius and the whole Roman senate have\nquestioned him, and not indeed only him, but the daughter of Jairus and\nthe son of the widow of Nain? Three dead persons restored to life would\nhave been three attestations to the divinity of Jesus, which almost in a\nsingle moment would have made the whole world Christian. But instead of\nall this, the whole world, for more than two hundred years, knew nothing\nabout these resplendent and decisive evidences. It is not till a hundred\nyears have rolled away from the date of the events that some obscure\nindividuals show one another the writings that contain the relation of\nthose miracles. Eighty-nine emperors reckoning those who had only the\nname of \"tyrants,\" never hear the slightest mention of these\nresurrections, although they must inevitably have held all nature in\namazement. Neither the Jewish historian Josephus, nor the learned Philo,\nnor any Greek or Roman historian at all notices these prodigies. In\nshort, Woolston has the imprudence to say that the history of Lazarus is\nso brimful of absurdities that St. John, when he wrote it, had outlived\nhis senses.\n\nSupposing, says Woolston, that God should in our own times send an\nambassador to London to convert the hireling clergy, and that ambassador\nshould raise the dead, what would the clergy say?\n\nHe blasphemes the incarnation, the resurrection, and the ascension of\nJesus Christ, just upon the same system; and he calls these miracles:\n\"The most manifest and the most barefaced imposture that ever was put\nupon the world!\"\n\nWhat is perhaps more singular still is that each of his discourses is\ndedicated to a bishop. His dedications are certainly not exactly in the\nFrench style. He bestows no flattery nor compliments. He upbraids them\nwith their pride and avarice, their ambition and faction, and smiles\nwith triumph at the thought of their being now, like every other class\nof citizens, in complete subjection to the laws of the state.\n\nAt last these bishops, tired of being insulted by an undignified member\nof the University of Cambridge, determined upon a formal appeal to the\nlaws. They instituted a prosecution against Woolston in the King's\nBench, and he was tried before Chief-Justice Raymond, in 1729, when he\nwas imprisoned, condemned to pay a fine, and obliged to give security to\nthe amount of a hundred and fifty pounds sterling. His friends furnished\nhim with the security, and he did not in fact die in prison, as in some\nof our careless and ill-compiled dictionaries he is stated to have done.\nHe died at his own house in London, after having uttered these words:\n\"This is a pass that every man must come to.\" Some time before his\ndeath, a female zealot meeting him in the street was gross enough to\nspit in his face; he calmly wiped his face and bowed to her. His manners\nwere mild and pleasing. He was obstinately infatuated with the mystical\nmeaning, and blasphemed the literal one; but let us hope that he\nrepented on his death-bed, and that God has showed him mercy.\n\nAbout the same period there appeared in France the will of John Meslier,\nclergyman (\"_cur\u00e9_\") of But and Entrepigni, in Champagne, of whom we\nhave already spoken, under the article on \"Contradictions\".\n\nIt was both a wonderful and a melancholy spectacle to see two priests at\nthe same time writing against the Christian religion. Meslier is still\nmore violent than Woolston. He ventures to treat the devil's carrying\noff our Lord to the top of a mountain, the marriage of Cana, and the\nloaves and fishes, as absurd tales, injurious to the Supreme Being,\nwhich for three hundred years were unknown to the whole Roman Empire,\nand at last advanced from the dregs of the community to the throne of\nthe emperors, when policy compelled them to adopt the nonsense of the\npeople, in order to keep them the better in subjection. The declamations\nof the English priest do not approach in vehemence those of the priest\nof Champagne. Woolston occasionally showed discretion. Meslier never has\nany; he is a man so sensitively sore to the crimes to which he has been\nwitness that he renders the Christian religion responsible for them,\nforgetting that it condemns them. There is not a single miracle which is\nnot with him an object of scorn or horror; no prophecy which he does not\ncompare with the prophecies of Nostradamus. He even goes so far as to\ncompare Jesus Christ to Don Quixote, and St. Peter to Sancho Panza; and\nwhat is most of all to be deplored is, that he wrote these blasphemies\nagainst Jesus Christ, when he might be said to be in the very arms of\ndeath--at a moment when the most deceitful are sincere, and the most\nintrepid tremble. Too strongly impressed by some injuries that had been\ndone him by his superiors in authority; too deeply affected by the great\ndifficulties which he met with in the Scripture, he became exasperated\nagainst it more than Acosta and all the Jews; more than Porphyry,\nCelsus, Iamblichus, Julian, Libanius, Maximus, Simmachus, or any other\nwhatever of the partisans of human reason against the divine\nincomprehensibilities of our religion. Many abridgments of his work have\nbeen printed; but happily the persons in authority suppressed them as\nfast as they appeared.\n\nA priest of Bonne-Nouvelle, near Paris, wrote also on the same subject;\nand it thus happened that at the very time the abb\u00e9 Becheran and the\nrest of the Convulsionaries were performing miracles, three priests were\nwriting against the genuine Gospel miracles.\n\nThe most clever work that has been written against the miracles and\nprophecies is that of my Lord Bolingbroke. But happily it is so\nvoluminous, so destitute of method, so verbose, and so abounding in long\nand sometimes complicated sentences, that it requires a great deal of\npatience to read him.\n\nThere have been some minds so constituted that they have been enchanted\nby the miracles of Moses and Joshua, but have not entertained for those\nof Jesus Christ the respect to which they are entitled. Their\nimagination--raised by the grand spectacle of the sea opening a passage\nthrough its depths, and suspending its waves that a horde of Hebrews\nmight safely go through; by the ten plagues of Egypt, and by the stars\nthat stopped in their course over Gibeon and Ajalon, etc.--could not\nwith ease and satisfaction be let down again, so as to admire the\ncomparatively petty miracles of the water changed into wine, the\nwithered fig-tree, and the swine drowned in the little lake of Gadara.\nVaghenseil said that it was like hearing a rustic ditty after attending\na grand concert.\n\nThe Talmud pretends that there have been many Christians who, after\ncomparing the miracles of the Old Testament with those of the New\nTestament, embraced Judaism; they consider it impossible that the\nSovereign Lord of Nature should have wrought such stupendous prodigies\nfor a religion He intended to annihilate. What! they exclaim, can it\npossibly be, that for a series of ages He should have exhibited a train\nof astonishing and tremendous miracles in favor of a true religion that\nwas to become a false one? What! can it be that God Himself has recorded\nthat this religion shall never perish, and that those who attempt to\ndestroy it shall be stoned to death, and yet that He has nevertheless\nsent His own Son, Who is no other than Himself, to annihilate what He\nwas employed so many ages in erecting?\n\nThere is much more to be added to these remarks; this Son, they\ncontinue, this Eternal God, having made Himself a Jew, adheres to the\nJewish religion during the whole of His life; He performs all the\nfunctions of it, He frequents the Jewish temple, He announces nothing\ncontrary to the Jewish law, and all His disciples are Jews and observe\nthe Jewish ceremonies. It most certainly is not He who established the\nChristian religion. It was established by the dissident Jews who united\nwith the Platonists. There is not a single dogma of Christianity that\nwas preached by Jesus Christ.\n\nSuch is the reasoning of these rash men, who, with minds at once\nhypocritical and audacious, dare to criticise the works of God, and\nadmit the miracles of the Old Testament for the sole purpose of\nrejecting those of the New Testament.\n\nOf this number was the unfortunate priest of Pont-\u00e0-Mousson in Lorraine,\ncalled Nicholas Anthony; he was known by no other name. After he had\nreceived what is called \"the four minors\" in Lorraine, the Calvinistic\npreacher Ferri, happening to go to Pont-\u00e0-Mousson, raised in his mind\nvery serious scruples, and persuaded him that the four minors were the\nmark of the beast. Anthony, driven almost to distraction by the thought\nof carrying about him the mark of the beast, had it immediately effaced\nby Ferri, embraced the Protestant religion, and became a minister at\nGeneva about the year 1630.\n\nWith a head full of rabbinical learning, he thought that if the\nProtestants were right in reference to the Papists, the Jews were much\nmore so in reference to all the different sects of Christianity\nwhatever. From the village of Divonne, where he was pastor, he went to\nbe received as a Jew at Venice, together with a young apprentice in\ntheology whom he had persuaded to adopt his own principles, but who\nafterwards abandoned him, not experiencing any call to martyrdom.\n\nAt first the minister, Nicholas Anthony, abstained from uttering the\nname of Jesus Christ in his sermons and prayers; in a short time,\nhowever, becoming animated and emboldened by the example of the Jewish\nsaints, who confidently professed Judaism before the princes of Tyre and\nBabylon, he travelled barefooted to Geneva, to confess before the judges\nand magistrates that there is only one religion upon earth, because\nthere is only one God; that that religion is the Jewish; that it is\nabsolutely necessary to become circumcised; and that it is a horrible\ncrime to eat bacon and blood pudding. He pathetically exhorted all the\npeople of Geneva, who crowded to hear him, no longer to continue\nchildren of Belial, but to become good Jews, in order to deserve the\nkingdom of heaven. He was apprehended, and put in chains.\n\nThe little Council of Geneva, which at that period did nothing without\nconsulting the council of preachers, asked their advice in this\nemergency. The most sensible of them recommended that poor Anthony\nshould be bled in the cephalic vein, use the bath, and be kept upon\ngruel and broths; after which he might perhaps gradually be induced to\npronounce the name of Jesus Christ, or at least to hear it pronounced,\nwithout grinding his teeth, as had hitherto been his practice. They\nadded, that the laws bore with Jews; that there were eight thousand of\nthem even in Rome itself; that many merchants are true Jews, and\ntherefore that as Rome admitted within its walls eight thousand children\nof the synagogue, Geneva might well tolerate one. At the sound of\n\"toleration\" the rest of the pastors, who were the majority, gnashing\ntheir teeth still more than Anthony did at the name of Jesus Christ, and\nalso eager to find an opportunity to burn a man, which could not be done\nevery day, called peremptorily for the burning. They resolved that\nnothing could serve more to establish genuine Christianity; that the\nSpaniards had obtained so much reputation in the world only by burning\nthe Jews every year, and that after all, if the Old Testament must\nprevail over the New Testament, God would not fail to come and\nextinguish the flames of the pile, as he did at Babylon for Shadrach,\nMeshac, and Abednego; in which case all must go back again to the Old\nTestament; but that, in the meantime, it was indispensable to burn\nNicholas Anthony. On the breaking up of the meeting, they concluded with\nthe observation: \"We must put the wicked out of the way\"--the very words\nthey used.\n\nThe long-headed syndics, Sarasin and Godefroi, agreed that the reasoning\nof the Calvinistic sanhedrim was admirable, and by the right of the\nstrongest party, condemned Nicholas Anthony, the weakest of men, to die\nthe same death as Calanus and the counsellor Dubourg. This sentence was\ncarried into execution on April 20, 1632, in a very beautiful lawn or\nmeadow, called Plain-Palais, in the presence of twenty thousand persons,\nwho blessed the new law, and the wonderful sense of the syndics Sarasin\nand Godefroi.\n\nThe God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not renew the miracle of the\nfurnace of Babylon in favor of poor Anthony.\n\nAbauzit, an author of great veracity, relates in his notes, that he died\nin the greatest constancy, and persisted in his opinions even at the\nstake on the pile; he broke out into no passionate invective against his\njudges when the executioner was tying him to the stake; he displayed\nneither pride nor pusillanimity; he neither wept nor sighed; he was\nresigned. Never did martyr consummate his sacrifice with a more lively\nfaith; never did philosopher contemplate a death of horror with greater\nfirmness. This clearly proves that his folly or madness was at all\nevents attended with sincere conviction.\n\nLet us implore of the God of both the Old and the New Testaments that he\nwill grant him mercy.\n\nI would say as much for the Jesuit Malagrida, who was still more\ninfatuated and mad than Nicholas Anthony; as I would also for the\nex-Jesuits Patouillet and Paulian, should they ever be brought to the\nstake.\n\nA great number of writers, whose misfortune it was to be philosophers\nrather than Christians, have been bold enough to deny the miracles of\nour Lord; but after the four priests already noticed, there is no\nnecessity to enumerate other instances. Let us lament over these four\nunfortunate men, led astray by their own deceitful reason, and\nprecipitated by the gloom of their feelings into an abyss so dreadful\nand so fatal.\n\n\n\n\nMISSION.\n\n\nIt is far from our object in this article to reflect upon the zeal of\nour missionaries, or the truth of our religion; these are sufficiently\nknown in Christian Europe, and duly respected.\n\nMy object is merely to make some remarks on the very curious and\nedifying letters of the reverend fathers, the Jesuits, who are not\nequally respectable. Scarcely do they arrive in India before they\ncommence preaching, convert millions of Indians, and perform millions of\nmiracles. Far be it from me to contradict their assertions. We all know\nhow easy it must be for a Biscayan, a Bergamask, or a Norman to learn\nthe Indian language in a few days, and preach like an Indian.\n\nWith regard to miracles, nothing is more easy than to perform them at a\ndistance of six thousand leagues, since so many have been performed at\nParis, in the parish of St. M\u00e9dard. The sufficing grace of the Molinists\ncould undoubtedly operate on the banks of the Ganges, as well as the\nefficacious grace of the Jansenists on those of the river of the\nGobelins. We have, however, said so much already about miracles that we\nshall pursue the subject no further.\n\nA reverend father Jesuit arrived in the course of the past year at\nDelhi, at the court of the great Mogul. He was not a man profoundly\nskilled in mathematics, or highly gifted in mind, who had come to\ncorrect the calendar, or to establish his fortune, but one of those\npoor, honest, zealous Jesuits, one of those soldiers who are despatched\non particular duty by their general, and who obey orders without\nreasoning about them.\n\nM. Andrais, my factor, asked him what his business might be at Delhi. He\nreplied that he had orders from the reverend father Ricci to deliver the\nGreat Mogul from the paws of the devil, and convert his whole court.\n\nTHE JESUIT.\n\nI have already baptized twenty infants in the street, without their\nknowing anything at all about the matter, by throwing a few drops of\nwater upon their heads. They are now just so many angels, provided they\nare happy enough to die directly. I cured a poor old woman of the\nmegrims by making the sign of the cross behind her. I hope in a short\ntime to convert the Mahometans of the court and the Gentoos among the\npeople. You will see in Delhi, Agra, and Benares, as many good\nCatholics, adorers of the Virgin Mary, as you now do idolaters, adoring\nthe devil.\n\nM. ANDRAIS.\n\nYou think then, my worthy father, that the inhabitants of these\ncountries adore idols and the devil?\n\nTHE JESUIT.\n\nUndoubtedly, as they are not of my religion.\n\nM. ANDRAIS.\n\nVery well. But when there are as many Catholics in India as idolaters,\nare you not afraid that they will fight against one another; that blood\nwill flow for a long period, and the whole country be a scene of pillage\nand devastation? This has happened in every country in which you have\nobtained a footing hitherto.\n\nTHE JESUIT.\n\nYou make one pause for a moment; but nothing could happen better than\nthat which you suggest as being so probable. The slaughtered Catholics\nwould go to paradise--to the garden--and the Gentoos to the everlasting\nfire of hell created for them from all eternity, according to the great\nmercy of God, and for His great glory; for God is exceedingly glorious.\n\nM. ANDRAIS.\n\nBut suppose that you should be informed against, and punished at the\nwhipping post?\n\nTHE JESUIT.\n\nThat would also be for His glory. However, I conjure you to keep my\nsecret, and save me from the honor and happiness of martyrdom.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 07","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":72646}