{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35629/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35629","id":"gutenberg_35629","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35629","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME IX\n\nBy\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\n\n\n\nEDITION DE LA PACIFICATION\n\nTHE WORKS OF VOLTAIRE\n\nA CONTEMPORARY VERSION\n\n\n  With Notes by Tobias Smollett, Revised and Modernized\n     New Translations by William F. Fleming, and an\n           Introduction by Oliver H.G. Leigh\n\n\nA CRITIQUE AND BIOGRAPHY\n\nBY\n\nTHE RT. HON. JOHN MORLEY\n\nFORTY-THREE VOLUMES\n\n\n  One hundred and sixty-eight designs, comprising reproductions\n      of rare old engravings, steel plates, photogravures,\n                    and curious fac-similes\n\n\nVOLUME XIII\n\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS : LONDON : NEW YORK : CHICAGO\n\n1901\n\n\n\n\n\n\n_The WORKS of VOLTAIRE_\n\n     _\"Between two servants of Humanity, who appeared eighteen hundred\n     years apart, there is a mysterious relation. * * * * Let us say it\n     with a sentiment of profound respect: JESUS WEPT: VOLTAIRE SMILED.\n     Of that divine tear and of that human smile is composed the\n     sweetness of the present civilization.\"_\n\n                                                  _VICTOR HUGO._\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES--VOL. IX\n\nTHE HOUDON BUST--_Frontispiece_\n\nGENIUS INSPIRING THE MUSES\n\nSAMSON DESTROYING THE TEMPLE\n\nJOHN LOCKE\n\n\n[Illustration: Voltaire.]\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL. IX.\n\nPROPERTY--STATES-GENERAL\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nPROPERTY.\n\n\n\"Liberty and property\" is the great national cry of the English. It is\ncertainly better than \"St. George and my right,\" or \"St. Denis and\nMontjoie\"; it is the cry of nature. From Switzerland to China the\npeasants are the real occupiers of the land. The right of conquest alone\nhas, in some countries, deprived men of a right so natural.\n\nThe general advantage or good of a nation is that of the sovereign, of\nthe magistrate, and of the people, both in peace and war. Is this\npossession of lands by the peasantry equally conducive to the prosperity\nof the throne and the people in all periods and circumstances? In order\nto its being the most beneficial system for the throne, it must be that\nwhich produces the most considerable revenue, and the most numerous and\npowerful army.\n\nWe must inquire, therefore, whether this principle or plan tends clearly\nto increase commerce and population. It is certain that the possessor of\nan estate will cultivate his own inheritance better than that of\nanother. The spirit of property doubles a man's strength. He labors for\nhimself and his family both with more vigor and pleasure than he would\nfor a master. The slave, who is in the power of another, has but little\ninclination for marriage; he often shudders even at the thought of\nproducing slaves like himself. His industry is damped; his soul is\nbrutalized; and his strength is never exercised in its full energy and\nelasticity. The possessor of property, on the contrary, desires a wife\nto share his happiness, and children to assist in his labors. His wife\nand children constitute his wealth. The estate of such a cultivator,\nunder the hands of an active and willing family, may become ten times\nmore productive than it was before. The general commerce will be\nincreased. The treasure of the prince will accumulate. The country will\nsupply more soldiers. It is clear, therefore, that the system is\nbeneficial to the prince. Poland would be thrice as populous and wealthy\nas it is at present if the peasants were not slaves.\n\nNor is the system less beneficial to the great landlords. If we suppose\none of these to possess ten thousand acres of land cultivated by serfs,\nthese ten thousand acres will produce him but a very scanty revenue,\nwhich will be frequently absorbed in repairs, and reduced to nothing by\nthe irregularity and severity of the seasons. What will he in fact be,\nalthough his estates may be vastly more extensive than we have\nmentioned, if at the same time they are unproductive? He will be merely\nthe possessor of an immense solitude. He will never be really rich but\nin proportion as his vassals are so; his prosperity depends on theirs.\nIf this prosperity advances so far as to render the land too populous;\nif land is wanting to employ the labor of so many industrious hands--as\nhands in the first instance were wanting to cultivate the land--then the\nsuperfluity of necessary laborers will flow off into cities and\nseaports, into manufactories and armies. Population will have produced\nthis decided benefit, and the possession of the lands by the real\ncultivators, under payment of a rent which enriches the landlords, will\nhave been the cause of this increase of population.\n\nThere is another species of property not less beneficial; it is that\nwhich is freed from payment of rent altogether, and which is liable only\nto those general imposts which are levied by the sovereign for the\nsupport and benefit of the state. It is this property which has\ncontributed in a particular manner to the wealth of England, of France,\nand the free cities of Germany. The sovereigns who thus enfranchised the\nlands which constituted their domains, derived, in the first instance,\nvast advantage from so doing by the franchises which they disposed of\nbeing eagerly purchased at high prices; and they derive from it, even at\nthe present day, a greater advantage still, especially in France and\nEngland, by the progress of industry and commerce.\n\nEngland furnished a grand example to the sixteenth century by\nenfranchising the lands possessed by the church and the monks. Nothing\ncould be more odious and nothing more pernicious than the before\nprevailing practice of men, who had voluntarily bound themselves, by the\nrules of their order, to a life of humility and poverty, becoming\ncomplete masters of the very finest estates in the kingdom, and treating\ntheir brethren of mankind as mere useful animals, as no better than\nbeasts to bear their burdens. The state and opulence of this small\nnumber of priests degraded human nature; their appropriated and\naccumulated wealth impoverished the rest of the kingdom. The abuse was\ndestroyed, and England became rich.\n\nIn all the rest of Europe commerce has never flourished; the arts have\nnever attained estimation and honor, and cities have never advanced both\nin extent and embellishment, except when the serfs of the Crown and the\nChurch held their lands in property. And it is deserving of attentive\nremark that if the Church thus lost rights, which in fact never truly\nbelonged to it, the Crown gained an extension of its legitimate rights;\nfor the Church, whose first obligation and professed principle it is to\nimitate its great legislator in humility and poverty, was not originally\ninstituted to fatten and aggrandize itself upon the fruit of the labors\nof mankind; and the sovereign, who is the representative of the State,\nis bound to manage with economy, the produce of that same labor for the\ngood of the State itself, and for the splendor of the throne. In every\ncountry where the people labor for the Church, the State is poor; but\nwherever they labor for themselves and the sovereign, the State is rich.\n\nIt is in these circumstances that commerce everywhere extends its\nbranches. The mercantile navy becomes a school for the warlike navy.\nGreat commercial companies are formed. The sovereign finds in periods of\ndifficulty and danger resources before unknown. Accordingly, in the\nAustrian states, in England, and in France, we see the prince easily\nborrowing from his subjects a hundred times more than he could obtain by\nforce while the people were bent down to the earth in slavery.\n\nAll the peasants will not be rich, nor is it necessary that they should\nbe so. The State requires men who possess nothing but strength and good\nwill. Even such, however, who appear to many as the very outcasts of\nfortune, will participate in the prosperity of the rest. They will be\nfree to dispose of their labor at the best market, and this freedom will\nbe an effective substitute for property. The assured hope of adequate\nwages will support their spirits, and they will bring up their families\nin their own laborious and serviceable occupations with success, and\neven with gayety. It is this class, so despised by the great and\nopulent, that constitutes, be it remembered, the nursery for soldiers.\nThus, from kings to shepherds, from the sceptre to the scythe, all is\nanimation and prosperity, and the principle in question gives new force\nto every exertion.\n\nAfter having ascertained whether it is beneficial to a State that the\ncultivators should be proprietors, it remains to be shown how far this\nprinciple may be properly carried. It has happened, in more kingdoms\nthan one, that the emancipated serf has attained such wealth by his\nskill and industry as has enabled him to occupy the station of his\nformer masters, who have become reduced and impoverished by their\nluxury. He has purchased their lands and assumed their titles; the old\nnoblesse have been degraded, and the new have been only envied and\ndespised. Everything has been thrown into confusion. Those nations which\nhave permitted such usurpations, have been the sport and scorn of such\nas have secured themselves against an evil so baneful. The errors of one\ngovernment may become a lesson for others. They profit by its wise and\nsalutary institutions; they may avoid the evil it has incurred through\nthose of an opposite tendency.\n\nIt is so easy to oppose the restrictions of law to the cupidity and\narrogance of upstart proprietors, to fix the extent of lands which\nwealthy plebeians may be allowed to purchase, to prevent their\nacquisition of large seigniorial property and privileges, that a firm\nand wise government can never have cause to repent of having\nenfranchised servitude and enriched indigence. A good is never\nproductive of evil but when it is carried to a culpable excess, in which\ncase it completely ceases to be a good. The examples of other nations\nsupply a warning; and on this principle it is easy to explain why those\ncommunities, which have most recently attained civilization and regular\ngovernment, frequently surpass the masters from whom they drew their\nlessons.\n\n\n\n\nPROPHECIES.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThis word, in its ordinary acceptation, signifies prediction of the\nfuture. It is in this sense that Jesus declared to His disciples: \"All\nthings must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in\nthe Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning Me. Then opened He their\nunderstanding that they might understand the Scriptures.\"\n\nWe shall feel the indispensable necessity of having our minds opened to\ncomprehend the prophecies, if we reflect that the Jews, who were the\ndepositories of them, could never recognize Jesus for the Messiah, and\nthat for eighteen centuries our theologians have disputed with them to\nfix the sense of some which they endeavor to apply to Jesus. Such is\nthat of Jacob--\"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver\nfrom between his feet, until Shiloh come.\" That of Moses--\"The Lord thy\nGod will raise up unto thee a prophet like unto me from the nations and\nfrom thy brethren; unto Him shall ye hearken.\" That of Isaiah--\"Behold a\nvirgin shall conceive and bring forth a son, and shall call his name\nImmanuel.\" That of Daniel--\"Seventy weeks have been determined in favor\nof thy people,\" etc. But our object here is not to enter into\ntheological detail.\n\nLet us merely observe what is said in the Acts of the Apostles, that in\ngiving a successor to Judas, and on other occasions, they acted\nexpressly to accomplish prophecies; but the apostles themselves\nsometimes quote such as are not found in the Jewish writings; such is\nthat alleged by St. Matthew: \"And He came and dwelt in a city called\nNazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets,\nHe shall be called a Nazarene.\"\n\nSt. Jude, in his epistle, also quotes a prophecy from the book of\n\"Enoch,\" which is apocryphal; and the author of the imperfect work on\nSt. Matthew, speaking of the star seen in the East by the Magi,\nexpresses himself in these terms: \"It is related to me on the evidence\nof I know not what writing, which is not authentic, but which far from\ndestroying faith encourages it, that there was a nation on the borders\nof the eastern ocean which possessed a book that bears the name of Seth,\nin which the star that appeared to the Magi is spoken of, and the\npresents which these Magi offered to the Son of God. This nation,\ninstructed by the book in question, chose twelve of the most religious\npersons amongst them, and charged them with the care of observing\nwhenever this star should appear. When any of them died, they\nsubstituted one of their sons or relations. They were called magi in\ntheir tongue, because they served God in silence and with a low voice.\n\n\"These Magi went every year, after the corn harvest, to a mountain in\ntheir country, which they called the Mount of Victory, and which is very\nagreeable on account of the fountains that water and the trees which\ncover it. There is also a cistern dug in the rock, and after having\nthere washed and purified themselves, they offered sacrifices and prayed\nto God in silence for three days.\n\n\"They had not continued this pious practice for many generations, when\nthe happy star descended on their mountain. They saw in it the figure of\na little child, on which there appeared that of the cross. It spoke to\nthem and told them to go to Jud\u00e6a. They immediately departed, the star\nalways going before them, and were two days on the road.\"\n\nThis prophecy of the book of Seth resembles that of Zorodascht or\nZoroaster, except that the figure seen in his star was that of a young\nvirgin, and Zoroaster says not that there was a cross on her. This\nprophecy, quoted in the \"Gospel of the Infancy,\" is thus related by\nAbulpharagius: \"Zoroaster, the master of the Magi, instructed the\nPersians of the future manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and\ncommanded them to offer Him presents when He was born. He warned them\nthat in future times a virgin should conceive without the operation of\nany man, and that when she brought her Son into the world, a star should\nappear which would shine at noonday, in the midst of which they would\nsee the figure of a young virgin. 'You, my children,' adds Zoroaster,\n'will see it before all nations. When, therefore, you see this star\nappear, go where it will conduct you. Adore this dawning child; offer it\npresents, for it is the _word_ which created heaven.'\"\n\nThe accomplishment of this prophecy is related in Pliny's \"Natural\nHistory\"; but besides that the appearance of the star should have\npreceded the birth of Jesus by about forty years, this passage seems\nvery suspicious to scholars, and is not the first nor only one which\nmight have been interpolated in favor of Christianity. This is the exact\naccount of it: \"There appeared at Rome for seven days a comet so\nbrilliant that the sight of it could scarcely be supported; in the\nmiddle of it a god was perceived under the human form; they took it for\nthe soul of Julius C\u00e6sar, who had just died, and adored it in a\nparticular temple.\"\n\nM. Assermany, in his \"Eastern Library,\" also speaks of a book of\nSolomon, archbishop of Bassora, entitled \"The Bee,\" in which there is a\nchapter on this prediction of Zoroaster. Hornius, who doubted not its\nauthenticity, has pretended that Zoroaster was Balaam, and that was very\nlikely, because Origen, in his first book against Celsus, says that the\nMagi had no doubt of the prophecies of Balaam, of which these words are\nfound in Numbers: \"There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a sceptre\nshall rise out of Israel.\" But Balaam was no more a Jew than Zoroaster,\nsince he said himself that he came from Aram--from the mountains of the\nEast.\n\nBesides, St. Paul speaks expressly to Titus of a Cretan prophet, and St.\nClement of Alexandria acknowledged that God, wishing to save the Jews,\ngave them prophets; with the same motive, He ever created the most\nexcellent men of Greece; those who were the most proper to receive His\ngrace, He separated from the vulgar, to be prophets of the Greeks, in\norder to instruct them in their own tongue. \"Has not Plato,\" he further\nsays, \"in some manner predicted the plan of salvation, when in the\nsecond book of his 'Republic,' he has imitated this expression of\nScripture: 'Let us separate ourselves from the Just, for he incommodes\nus'; and he expresses himself in these terms: 'The Just shall be beaten\nwith rods, His eyes shall be put out, and after suffering all sorts of\nevils, He shall at last be crucified.'\"\n\nSt. Clement might have added, that if Jesus Christ's eyes were not put\nout, notwithstanding the prophecy, neither were His bones broken, though\nit is said in a psalm: \"While they break My bones, My enemies who\npersecute Me overwhelm Me with their reproaches.\" On the contrary, St.\nJohn says positively that the soldiers broke the legs of two others who\nwere crucified with Him, but they broke not those of Jesus, that the\nScripture might be fulfilled: \"A bone of Him shall not be broken.\"\n\nThis Scripture, quoted by St. John, extended to the letter of the\npaschal lamb, which ought to be eaten by the Israelites; but John the\nBaptist having called Jesus the Lamb of God, not only was the\napplication of it given to Him, but it is even pretended that His death\nwas predicted by Confucius. Spizeli quotes the history of China by\nMaitinus, in which it is related that in the thirty-ninth year of the\nreign of King-hi, some hunters outside the gates of the town killed a\nrare animal which the Chinese called kilin, that is to say, the Lamb of\nGod. At this news, Confucius struck his breast, sighed profoundly, and\nexclaimed more than once: \"Kilin, who has said that thou art come?\" He\nadded: \"My doctrine draws to an end; it will no longer be of use, since\nyou will appear.\"\n\nAnother prophecy of the same Confucius is also found in his second book,\nwhich is applied equally to Jesus, though He is not designated under the\nname of the Lamb of God. This is it: We need not fear but that when the\nexpected Holy One shall come, all the honor will be rendered to His\nvirtue which is due to it. His works will be conformable to the laws of\nheaven and earth.\n\nThese contradictory prophecies found in the Jewish books seem to excuse\ntheir obstinacy, and give good reason for the embarrassment of our\ntheologians in their controversy with them. Further, those which we are\nabout to relate of other people, prove that the author of Numbers, the\napostles and fathers, recognized prophets in all nations. The Arabs\nalso pretend this, who reckon a hundred and eighty thousand prophets\nfrom the creation of the world to Mahomet, and believe that each of them\nwas sent to a particular nation. We shall speak of prophetesses in the\narticle on \"Sibyls.\"\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nProphets still exist: we had two at the Bic\u00eatre in 1723, both calling\nthemselves Elias. They were whipped; which put it out of all doubt.\nBefore the prophets of C\u00e9vennes, who fired off their guns from behind\nhedges in the name of the Lord in 1704, Holland had the famous Peter\nJurieu, who published the \"Accomplishment of the Prophecies.\" But that\nHolland may not be too proud, he was born in France, in a little town\ncalled Mer, near Orleans. However, it must be confessed that it was at\nRotterdam alone that God called him to prophesy.\n\nThis Jurieu, like many others, saw clearly that the pope was the beast\nin the \"Apocalypse,\" that he held \"_poculum aureum plenum\nabominationum_,\" the golden cup full of abominations; that the four\nfirst letters of these four Latin words formed the word papa; that\nconsequently his reign was about to finish; that the Jews would re-enter\nJerusalem; that they would reign over the whole world during a thousand\nyears; after which would come the Antichrist; finally, Jesus seated on a\ncloud would judge the quick and the dead.\n\nJurieu prophesies expressly that the time of the great revolution and\nthe entire fall of papistry \"will fall justly in the year 1689, which I\nhold,\" says he, \"to be the time of the apocalyptic vintage, for the two\nwitnesses will revive at this time; after which, France will break with\nthe pope before the end of this century, or at the commencement of the\nnext, and the rest of the anti-Christian empire will be everywhere\nabolished.\"\n\nThe disjunctive particle \"or,\" that sign of doubt, is not in the manner\nof an adroit man. A prophet should not hesitate; he may be obscure, but\nhe ought to be sure of his fact.\n\nThe revolution in papistry not happening in 1689, as Peter Jurieu\npredicted, he quickly published a new edition, in which he assured the\npublic that it would be in 1690; and, what is more astonishing, this\nedition was immediately followed by another. It would have been very\nbeneficial if Bayle's \"Dictionary\" had had such a run in the first\ninstance; the works of the latter have, however, remained, while those\nof Peter Jurieu are not even to be found by the side of Nostradamus.\n\nAll was not left to a single prophet. An English Presbyterian, who\nstudied at Utrecht, combated all which Jurieu said on the seven vials\nand seven trumpets of the Apocalypse, on the reign of a thousand years,\nthe conversion of the Jews, and even on Antichrist. Each supported\nhimself by the authority of Cocceius, Coterus, Drabicius, and Commenius,\ngreat preceding prophets, and by the prophetess Christina. The two\nchampions confined themselves to writing; we hoped they would give each\nother blows, as Zedekiah smacked the face of Micaiah, saying: \"Which way\nwent the spirit of the Lord from my hand to thy cheek?\" or literally:\n\"How has the spirit passed from thee to me?\" The public had not this\nsatisfaction, which is a great pity.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nIt belongs to the infallible church alone to fix the true sense of\nprophecies, for the Jews have always maintained, with their usual\nobstinacy, that no prophecy could regard Jesus Christ; and the Fathers\nof the Church could not dispute with them with advantage, since, except\nSt. Ephrem, the great Origen, and St. Jerome, there was never any Father\nof the Church who knew a word of Hebrew.\n\nIt is not until the ninth century that Raban the Moor, afterwards bishop\nof Mayence, learned the Jewish language. His example was followed by\nsome others, and then they began disputing with the rabbi on the sense\nof the prophecies.\n\nRaban was astonished at the blasphemies which they uttered against our\nSaviour; calling Him a bastard, impious son of Panther, and saying that\nit is not permitted them to pray to God without cursing Jesus: \"_Quod\nnulla oratio posset apud Deum accepta esse nisi in ea Dominum nostrum\nJesum Christum maledicant. Confitentes eum esse impium et filium impii,\nid est, nescio cujus \u00e6thnici quern nominant Panthera, a quo dicunt\nmatrem Domini adulteratam._\"\n\nThese horrible profanations are found in several places in the \"Talmud,\"\nin the books of Nizachon, in the dispute of Rittangel, in those of\nJechiel and Nachmanides, entitled the \"Bulwark of Faith,\" and above all\nin the abominable work of the Toldos Jeschut. It is particularly in the\n\"Bulwark of Faith\" of the Rabbin Isaac, that they interpret all the\nprophecies which announce Jesus Christ by applying them to other\npersons.\n\nWe are there assured that the Trinity is not alluded to in any Hebrew\nbook, and that there is not found in them the slightest trace of our\nholy religion. On the contrary, they point out a hundred passages,\nwhich, according to them, assert that the Mosaic law should eternally\nremain.\n\nThe famous passage which should confound the Jews, and make the\nChristian religion triumph in the opinion of all our great theologians,\nis that of Isaiah: \"Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and\nshall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may\nknow how to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child\nshall know how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that\nthou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. And it shall come to\npass in that day, that the Lord shall whistle for the flies that are in\nthe brooks of Egypt, and for the bees that are in the land of Assyria.\nIn the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired,\nnamely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head and\nthe hair of the genitals, and he will also consume the beard.\n\n\"Moreover, the Lord said unto me, take thee a great roll, and write\nin it with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz. And I took\nunto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zachariah\nthe son of Jeberechiah. And I went in unto the prophetess; and\nshe conceived and bare a son; then said the Lord to me, call his name\nMaher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to\ncry my father and my mother, the riches of Damascus, and the spoil of\nSamaria, shall be taken away before the king of Assyria.\"\n\nThe Rabbin Isaac affirms, with all the other doctors of his law, that\nthe Hebrew word \"alma\" sometimes signifies a virgin and sometimes a\nmarried woman; that Ruth is called \"alma\" when she was a mother; that\neven an adulteress is sometimes called \"alma\"; that nobody is meant here\nbut the wife of the prophet Isaiah; that her son was not called\nImmanuel, but Maher-shalal-hash-baz; that when this son should eat honey\nand butter, the two kings who besieged Jerusalem would be driven from\nthe country, etc.\n\nThus these blind interpreters of their own religion, and their own\nlanguage, combated with the Church, and obstinately maintained, that\nthis prophecy cannot in any manner regard Jesus Christ. We have a\nthousand times refuted their explication in our modern languages. We\nhave employed force, gibbets, racks, and flames; yet they will not give\nup.\n\n\"He has borne our ills, he has sustained our griefs, and we have beheld\nhim afflicted with sores, stricken by God, and afflicted.\" However\nstriking this prediction may appear to us, these obstinate Jews say that\nit has no relationship to Jesus Christ, and that it can only regard the\nprophets who were persecuted for the sins of the people.\n\n\"And behold my servant shall prosper, shall be honored, and raised very\nhigh.\" They say, further, that the foregoing passage regards not Jesus\nChrist but David; that this king really did prosper, but that Jesus,\nwhom they deny, did not prosper. \"Behold I will make a new pact with the\nhouse of Israel, and with the house of Judah.\" They say that this\npassage signifies not, according to the letter and the sense, anything\nmore than--I will renew my covenant with Judah and with Israel. However,\nthis pact has not been renewed; and they cannot make a worse bargain\nthan they have made. No matter, they are obstinate.\n\n\"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands\nof Judah, yet out of thee shall come forth a ruler in Israel; whose\ngoings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.\"\n\nThey dare to deny that this prophecy applies to Jesus Christ. They say\nthat it is evident that Micah speaks of some native captain of\nBethlehem, who shall gain some advantage in the war against the\nBabylonians: for the moment after he speaks of the history of Babylon,\nand of the seven captains who elected Darius. And if we demonstrate that\nhe treated of the Messiah, they still will not agree.\n\nThe Jews are grossly deceived in Judah, who should be a lion, and who\nhas only been an ass under the Persians, Alexander, the Seleucides,\nPtolemys, Romans, Arabs, and Turks.\n\nThey know not what is understood by the Shiloh, and by the rod, and the\nthigh of Judah. The rod has been in Jud\u00e6a but a very short time. They\nsay miserable things; but the Abb\u00e9 Houteville says not much more with\nhis phrases, his neologism, and oratorical eloquence; a writer who\nalways puts words in the place of things, and who proposes very\ndifficult objections merely to reply to them by frothy discourse, or\nidle words!\n\nAll this is, therefore, labor in vain; and when the French abb\u00e9 would\nmake a still larger book, when he would add to the five or six thousand\nvolumes which we have on the subject, we shall only be more fatigued,\nwithout advancing a single step.\n\nWe are, therefore, plunged in a chaos which it is impossible for the\nweakness of the human mind to set in order. Once more, we have need of a\nchurch which judges without appeal. For in fact, if a Chinese, a Tartar,\nor an African, reduced to the misfortune of having only good sense, read\nall these prophecies, it would be impossible for him to apply them to\nJesus Christ, the Jews, or to anyone else. He would be in astonishment\nand uncertainty, would conceive nothing, and would not have a single\ndistinct idea. He could not take a step in this abyss without a guide.\nWith this guide, he arrives not only at the sanctuary of virtue, but at\ngood canon-ships, at large commanderies, opulent abbeys, the crosiered\nand mitred abbots of which are called monseigneur by his monks and\npeasants, and to bishoprics which give the title of prince. In a word,\nhe enjoys earth, and is sure of possessing heaven.\n\n\n\n\nPROPHETS.\n\n\nThe prophet Jurieu was hissed; the prophets of the C\u00e9vennes were hanged\nor racked; the prophets who went from Languedoc and Dauphiny to London\nwere put in the pillory; the Anabaptist prophets were condemned to\nvarious modes and degrees of punishment; and the prophet Savonarola was\nbaked at Florence. If, in connection with these, we may advert to the\ncase of the genuine Jewish prophets, we shall perceive their destiny to\nhave been no less unfortunate; the greatest prophet among the Jews, St.\nJohn the Baptist, was beheaded.\n\nZachariah is stated to have been assassinated; but, happily, this is not\nabsolutely proved. The prophet Jeddo, or Addo, who was sent to Bethel\nunder the injunction neither to eat nor drink, having unfortunately\ntasted a morsel of bread, was devoured in his turn by a lion; and his\nbones were found on the highway between the lion and his ass. Jonah was\nswallowed by a fish. He did not, it is true, remain in the fish's\nstomach more than three days and three nights; even this, however, was\npassing threescore and twelve hours very uncomfortably.\n\nHabakkuk was transported through the air, suspended by the hair of his\nhead, to Babylon; this was not a fatal or permanent calamity, certainly;\nbut it must have been an exceedingly uncomfortable method of travelling.\nA man could not help suffering a great deal by being suspended by his\nhair during a journey of three hundred miles. I certainly should have\npreferred a pair of wings, or the mare Borak, or the Hippogriffe.\n\nMicaiah, the son of Imla, saw the Lord seated on His throne, surrounded\nby His army of celestial spirits; and the Lord having inquired who could\nbe found to go and deceive King Ahab, a demon volunteered for that\npurpose, and was accordingly charged with the commission; and Micaiah,\non the part of the Lord, gave King Ahab an account of this celestial\nadventure. He was rewarded for this communication by a tremendous blow\non his face from the hand of the prophet Zedekiah, and by being shut up\nfor some days in a dungeon. His punishment might undoubtedly have been\nmore severe; but still, it is unpleasant and painful enough for a man\nwho knows and feels himself divinely inspired to be knocked about in so\ncoarse and vulgar a manner, and confined in a damp and dirty hole of a\nprison.\n\nIt is believed that King Amaziah had the teeth of the prophet Amos\npulled out to prevent him from speaking; not that a person without teeth\nis absolutely incapable of speaking, as we see many toothless old ladies\nas loquacious and chattering as ever; but a prophecy should be uttered\nwith great distinctness; and a toothless prophet is never listened to\nwith the respect due to his character.\n\nBaruch experienced various persecutions. Ezekiel was stoned by the\ncompanions of his slavery. It is not ascertained whether Jeremiah was\nstoned or sawed asunder. Isaiah is considered as having been\nincontestably sawed to death by order of Manasseh, king of Judah.\n\nIt cannot be denied, that the occupation of a prophet is exceedingly\nirksome and dangerous. For one who, like Elijah, sets off on his tour\namong the planets in a chariot of light, drawn by four white horses,\nthere are a hundred who travel on foot, and are obliged to beg their\nsubsistence from door to door. They may be compared to Homer, who, we\nare told, was reduced to be a mendicant in the same seven cities which\nafterwards sharply disputed with each other the honor of having given\nhim birth. His commentators have attributed to him an infinity of\nallegories which he never even thought of; and prophets have frequently\nhad the like honor conferred upon them. I by no means deny that there\nmay have existed elsewhere persons possessed of a knowledge of the\nfuture. It is only requisite for a man to work up his soul to a high\nstate of excitation, according to the doctrine of one of our doughty\nmodern philosophers, who speculates upon boring the earth through to the\nAntipodes, and curing the sick by covering them all over with\npitch-plaster.\n\nThe Jews possessed this faculty of exalting and exciting the soul to\nsuch a degree that they saw every future event as clearly as possible;\nonly unfortunately, it is difficult to decide whether by Jerusalem they\nalways mean eternal life; whether Babylon means London or Paris;\nwhether, when they speak of a grand dinner, they really mean a fast, and\nwhether red wine means blood, and a red mantle faith, and a white mantle\ncharity. Indeed, the correct and complete understanding of the prophets\nis the most arduous attainment of the human mind.\n\nThere is likewise a further difficulty with respect to the Jewish\nprophets, which is, that many among them were Samaritan heretics. Hosea\nwas of the tribe of Issachar, which dwelt in the Samaritan territory,\nand Elisha and Elijah were of the same tribe. But the objection is very\neasily answered. We well know that \"the wind bloweth where it listeth,\"\nand that grace lights on the most dry and barren, as well as on the most\nfertile soil.\n\n\n\n\nPROVIDENCE.\n\n\nI was at the grate of the convent when Sister Fessue said to Sister\nConfite: \"Providence takes a visible care of me; you know how I love my\nsparrow; he would have been dead if I had not said nine ave-marias to\nobtain his cure. God has restored my sparrow to life; thanks to the Holy\nVirgin.\"\n\nA metaphysician said to her: \"Sister, there is nothing so good as\nave-marias, especially when a girl pronounces them in Latin in the\nsuburbs of Paris; but I cannot believe that God has occupied Himself so\nmuch with your sparrow, pretty as he is; I pray you to believe that He\nhas other matters to attend to. It is necessary for Him constantly to\nsuperintend the course of sixteen planets and the rising of Saturn, in\nthe centre of which He has placed the sun, which is as large as a\nmillion of our globes. He has also thousands and thousands of millions\nof other suns, planets, and comets to govern. His immutable laws, and\nHis eternal arrangement, produce motion throughout nature; all is bound\nto His throne by an infinite chain, of which no link can ever be put out\nof place!\" If certain ave-marias had caused the sparrow of Sister Fessue\nto live an instant longer than it would naturally have lived, it would\nhave violated all the laws imposed from eternity by the Great Being; it\nwould have deranged the universe; a new world, a new God, and a new\norder of existence would have been rendered unavoidable.\n\nSISTER FESSUE.--What! do you think that God pays so little attention to\nSister Fessue?\n\nMETAPHYSICIAN.--I am sorry to inform you, that like myself you are but\nan imperceptible link in the great chain; that your organs, those of\nyour sparrow, and my own, are destined to subsist a determinate number\nof minutes in the suburbs of Paris.\n\nSISTER FESSUE.--If so, I was predestined to say a certain number of\nave-marias.\n\nMETAPHYSICIAN.--Yes; but they have not obliged the Deity to prolong the\nlife of your sparrow beyond his term. It has been so ordered, that in\nthis convent at a certain hour you should pronounce, like a parrot,\ncertain words in a certain language which you do not understand; that\nthis bird, produced like yourself by the irresistible action of general\nlaws, having been sick, should get better; that you should imagine that\nyou had cured it, and that we should hold together this conversation.\n\nSISTER FESSUE.--Sir, this discourse savors of heresy. My confessor, the\nreverend Father de Menou, will infer that you do not believe in\nProvidence.\n\nMETAPHYSICIAN.--I believe in a general Providence, dear sister, which\nhas laid down from all eternity the law which governs all things, like\nlight from the sun; but I believe not that a particular Providence\nchanges the economy of the world for your sparrow or your cat.\n\nSISTER FESSUE.--But suppose my confessor tells you, as he has told me,\nthat God changes His intentions every day in favor of the devout?\n\nMETAPHYSICIAN.--He would assert the greatest absurdity that a confessor\nof girls could possibly utter to a being who thinks.\n\nSISTER FESSUE.--My confessor absurd! Holy Virgin Mary!\n\nMETAPHYSICIAN.--I do not go so far as that. I only observe that he\ncannot, by an enormously absurd assertion, justify the false principles\nwhich he has instilled into you--possibly very adroitly--in order to\ngovern you.\n\nSISTER FESSUE.--That observation merits reflection. I will think of it.\n\n\n\n\nPURGATORY.\n\n\nIt is very singular that the Protestant churches agree in exclaiming\nthat purgatory was invented by the monks. It is true that they invented\nthe art of drawing money from the living by praying to God for the dead;\nbut purgatory existed before the monks.\n\nIt was Pope John XIV., say they, who, towards the middle of the tenth\ncentury, instituted the feast of the dead. From that fact, however, I\nonly conclude that they were prayed for before; for if they then took\nmeasures to pray for all, it is reasonable to believe that they had\npreviously prayed for some of them; in the same way as the feast of All\nSaints was instituted, because the feast of many of them had been\npreviously celebrated. The difference between the feast of All Saints\nand that of the dead, is, that in the first we invoke, and that in the\nsecond we are invoked; in the former we commend ourselves to the\nblessed, and in the second the unblessed commend themselves to us.\n\nThe most ignorant writers know, that this feast was first instituted at\nCluny, which was then a territory belonging to the German Empire. Is it\nnecessary to repeat, \"that St. Odilon, abbot of Cluny, was accustomed to\ndeliver many souls from purgatory by his masses and his prayers; and\nthat one day a knight or a monk, returning from the holy land, was cast\nby a tempest, on a small island, where he met with a hermit, who said to\nhim, that in that island existed enormous caverns of fire and flames, in\nwhich the wicked were tormented; and that he often heard the devils\ncomplain of the Abbot Odilon and his monks, who every day delivered some\nsoul or other; for which reason it was necessary to request Odilon to\ncontinue his exertions, at once to increase the joy of the saints in\nheaven and the grief of the demons in hell?\"\n\nIt is thus that Father Gerard, the Jesuit, relates the affair in his\n\"Flower of the Saints,\" after Father Ribadeneira. Fleury differs a\nlittle from this legend, but has substantively preserved it. This\nrevelation induced St. Odilon to institute in Cluny the feast of the\ndead, which was then adopted by the Church.\n\nSince this time, purgatory has brought much money to those who possess\nthe power of opening the gates. It was by virtue of this power that\nEnglish John, that great landlord, surnamed Lackland, by declaring\nhimself the liegeman of Pope Innocent III., and placing his kingdom\nunder submission, delivered the souls of his parents, who had been\nexcommunicated: \"_Pro mortuo excommunico, pro quo supplicant\nconsanguinei._\"\n\nThe Roman chancery had even its regular scale for the absolution of the\ndead; there were many privileged altars in the fifteenth century, at\nwhich every mass performed for six liards delivered a soul from\npurgatory. Heretics could not ascend beyond the truth, that the apostles\nhad the right of unbinding all who were bound on earth, but not _under_\nthe earth; and many of them, like impious persons, doubted the power of\nthe keys. It is however to be remarked, that when the pope is inclined\nto remit five or six hundred years of purgatory, he accords the grace\nwith full power: \"_Pro potestate a Deo accepta concedit_.\"\n\n_Of the Antiquity of Purgatory._\n\nIt is pretended that purgatory was, from time immemorial, known to the\nfamous Jewish people, and it is founded on the second book of the\nMaccabees, which says expressly, \"that there being found concealed in\nthe vestments of the Jews (at the battle of Adullam), things consecrated\nto the idols of Jamma, it was manifest that on that account they had\nperished; and having made a gathering of twelve thousand drachms of\nsilver, Judas, who thought religiously of the resurrection, sent them to\nJerusalem for the sins of the dead.\"\n\nHaving taken upon ourselves the task of relating the objections of the\nheretics and infidels, for the purpose of confounding them by their own\nopinions, we will detail here these objections to the twelve thousand\ndrachms transmitted by Judas; and to purgatory. They say: 1. That twelve\nthousand drachms of silver was too much for Judas Maccabeus, who only\nmaintained a petty war of insurgency against a great king.\n\n2. That they might send a present to Jerusalem for the sins of the dead,\nin order to bring down the blessing of God on the survivors.\n\n3. That the idea of a resurrection was not entertained among the Jews at\nthis time, it being ascertained that this doctrine was not discussed\namong them until the time of Gamaliel, a little before the ministry of\nJesus Christ.\n\n4. As the laws of the Jews included in the \"Decalogue,\" Leviticus and\nDeuteronomy, have not spoken of the immortality of the soul, nor of the\ntorments of hell, it was impossible that they should contain the\ndoctrine of purgatory.\n\n5. Heretics and infidels make the greatest efforts to demonstrate in\ntheir manner, that the books of the Maccabees are evidently apocryphal.\nThe following are their pretended proofs:\n\nThe Jews have never acknowledged the books of the Maccabees to be\ncanonical, why then should we acknowledge them? Origen declares formally\nthat the books of the Maccabees are to be rejected, and St. Jerome\nregards them as unworthy of credit. The Council of Laodicea, held in\n567, admits them not among the canonical books. The Athanasiuses, the\nCyrils, and the Hilarys, have also rejected them. The reasons for\ntreating the foregoing books as romances, and as very bad romances, are\nas follows:\n\nThe ignorant author commences by a falsehood, known to be such by all\nthe world. He says: \"Alexander called the young nobles, who had been\neducated with him from their infancy, and parted his kingdom among them\nwhile he still lived.\" So gross and absurd a lie could not issue from\nthe pen of a sacred and inspired writer.\n\nThe author of the Maccabees, in speaking of Antiochus Epiphanes, says:\n\"Antiochus marched towards Elymais, and wished to pillage it, but was\nnot able, because his intention was known to the inhabitants, who\nassembled in order to give him battle, on which he departed with great\nsadness, and returned to Babylon. Whilst he was still in Persia, he\nlearned that his army in Jud\u00e6a had fled ... and he took to his bed and\ndied.\"\n\nThe same writer himself, in another place, says quite the contrary; for\nhe relates that Antiochus Epiphanes was about to pillage Persepolis, and\nnot Elymais; that he fell from his chariot; that he was stricken with an\nincurable wound; that he was devoured by worms; that he demanded pardon\nof the god of the Jews; that he wished himself to be a Jew: it is there\nwhere we find the celebrated versicle, which fanatics have applied so\nfrequently to their enemies; \"_Orabet scelestus ille veniam quam non\nerat consecuturus_.\" The wicked man demandeth a pardon, which he cannot\nobtain. This passage is very Jewish; but it is not permitted to an\ninspired writer to contradict himself so flagrantly.\n\nThis is not all: behold another contradiction, and another oversight.\nThe author makes Antiochus die in a third manner, so that there is quite\na choice. He remarks that this prince was stoned in the temple of\nNanneus; and those who would excuse the stupidity pretend that he here\nspeaks of Antiochus Eupator; but neither Epiphanes nor Eupator was\nstoned.\n\nMoreover, this author says, that another Antiochus (the Great) was taken\nby the Romans, and that they gave to Eumenes the Indies and Media. This\nis about equal to saying that Francis I. made a prisoner of Henry VIII.,\nand that he gave Turkey to the duke of Savoy. It is insulting the Holy\nGhost to imagine it capable of dictating so many disgusting absurdities.\n\nThe same author says, that the Romans conquered the Galatians; but they\ndid not conquer Galatia for more than a hundred years after. Thus the\nunhappy story-teller did not write for more than a hundred years after\nthe time in which it was supposed that he wrote: and it is thus,\naccording to the infidels, with almost all the Jewish books.\n\nThe same author observes, that the Romans every year nominated a chief\nof the senate. Behold a well-informed man, who did not even know that\nRome had two consuls! What reliance, say infidels, can be placed in\nthese rhapsodies and puerile tales, strung together without choice or\norder by the most imbecile of men? How shameful to believe in them! and\nthe barbarity of persecuting sensible men, in order to force a belief of\nmiserable absurdities, for which they could not but entertain the most\nsovereign contempt, is equal to that of cannibals.\n\nOur answer is, that some mistakes which probably arose from the copyists\nmay not affect the fundamental truths of the remainder; that the Holy\nGhost inspired the author only, and not the copyists; that if the\nCouncil of Laodicea rejected the Maccabees, they have been admitted by\nthe Council of Trent; that they are admitted by the Roman Church; and\nconsequently that we ought to receive them with due submission.\n\n_Of the Origin of Purgatory._\n\nIt is certain that those who admitted of purgatory in the primitive\nchurch were treated as heretics. The Simonians were condemned who\nadmitted the purgation of souls--_Psuken Kadaron._\n\nSt. Augustine has since condemned the followers of Origen who maintained\nthis doctrine. But the Simonians and the Origenists had taken their\npurgatory from Virgil, Plato and the Egyptians. You will find it clearly\nindicated in the sixth book of the \"\u00c6neid,\" as we have already remarked.\nWhat is still more singular, Virgil describes souls suspended in air,\nothers burned, and others drowned:\n\n                     _Ali\u00e6 panduntur inanes_\n     _Suspens\u00e6 ad ventos: aliis sub gurgite vasto_\n     _Infectum eluitur scelus, aut exuritur igni._\n                               --\u00c6neid, Book vi, 740-742.\n\n     For this are various penances enjoined,\n     And some are hung to bleach upon the wind;\n     Some plunged in waters, others purged in fires,\n     Till all the dregs are drained, and all the rust expires.\n                                                     --DRYDEN.\n\nAnd what is more singular still, Pope Gregory, surnamed the great, not\nonly adopts this doctrine from Virgil, but in his theology introduces\nmany souls who arrive from purgatory after having been hanged or\ndrowned.\n\nPlato has spoken of purgatory in his \"Ph\u00e6don,\" and it is easy to\ndiscover, by a perusal of \"Hermes Trismegistus\" that Plato borrowed from\nthe Egyptians all which he had not borrowed from Tim\u00e6us of Locris.\n\nAll this is very recent, and of yesterday, in comparison with the\nancient Brahmins. The latter, it must be confessed, invented purgatory\nin the same manner as they invented the revolt and fall of the genii or\ncelestial intelligences.\n\nIt is in their Shasta, or Shastabad, written three thousand years before\nthe vulgar era, that you, my dear reader, will discover the doctrine of\npurgatory. The rebel angels, of whom the history was copied among the\nJews in the time of the rabbin Gamaliel, were condemned by the Eternal\nand His Son, to a thousand years of purgatory, after which God pardoned\nand made them men. This we have already said, dear reader, as also that\nthe Brahmins found eternal punishment too severe, as eternity never\nconcludes. The Brahmins thought like the Abb\u00e9 Chaulieu, and called upon\nthe Lord to pardon them, if, impressed with His bounties, they could not\nbe brought to conceive that they would be punished so rigorously for\nvain pleasures, which passed away like a dream:\n\n     Pardonne alors, Seigneur, si, plein de tes bont\u00e9s,\n     Je n'ai pu concevoir que mes fragilit\u00e9s,\n     Ni tous ces vains plaisirs que passent comme un songe,\n     Pussent \u00eatre l'objet de tes s\u00e9v\u00e9rit\u00e9s;\n     Et si j'ai pu penser que tant des cruaut\u00e9s.\n     Puniraient un peu trop la douceur d'un mensonge.\n             --EPITRE SUR LA MORT, au Marquis de la Fare.\n\n\n\n\nQUACK (OR CHARLATAN).\n\n\nThe abode of physicians is in large towns; there are scarcely any in\ncountry places. Great towns contain rich patients; debauchery, excess at\nthe tables, and the passions, cause their maladies. Dumoulin, the\nphysician, who was in as much practice as any of his profession, said\nwhen dying that he left two great physicians behind him--simple diet and\nsoft water.\n\nIn 1728, in the time of Law, the most famous of quacks of the first\nclass, another named Villars, confided to some friends, that his uncle,\nwho had lived to the age of nearly a hundred, and who was then killed by\nan accident, had left him the secret of a water which could easily\nprolong life to the age of one hundred and fifty, provided sobriety was\nattended to. When a funeral passed, he affected to shrug up his\nshoulders in pity: \"Had the deceased,\" he exclaimed, \"but drank my\nwater, he would not be where he is.\" His friends, to whom he generously\nimparted it, and who attended a little to the regimen prescribed, found\nthemselves well, and cried it up. He then sold it for six francs the\nbottle, and the sale was prodigious. It was the water of the Seine,\nimpregnated with a small quantity of nitre, and those who took it and\nconfined themselves a little to the regimen, but above all those who\nwere born with a good constitution, in a short time recovered perfect\nhealth. He said to others: \"It is your own fault if you are not\nperfectly cured. You have been intemperate and incontinent, correct\nyourself of these two vices, and you will live a hundred and fifty years\nat least.\" Several did so, and the fortune of this good quack augmented\nwith his reputation. The enthusiastic Abb\u00e9 de Pons ranked him much above\nhis namesake, Marshal Villars. \"He caused the death of men,\" he\nobserved to him, \"whereas you make men live.\"\n\nIt being at last discovered that the water of Villars was only river\nwater, people took no more of it, and resorted to other quacks in lieu\nof him. It is certain that he did much good, and he can only be accused\nof selling the Seine water too dear. He advised men to temperance, and\nso far was superior to the apothecary Arnault, who amused Europe with\nthe farce of his specific against apoplexy, without recommending any\nvirtue.\n\nI knew a physician of London named Brown, who had practised at\nBarbadoes. He had a sugar-house and negroes, and the latter stole from\nhim a considerable sum. He accordingly assembled his negroes together,\nand thus addressed them: \"My friends,\" said he to them, \"the great\nserpent has appeared to me during the night, and has informed me that\nthe thief has at this moment a paroquet's feather at the end of his\nnose.\" The criminal instantly applied his hand to his nose. \"It is thou\nwho hast robbed me,\" exclaimed the master; \"the great serpent has just\ninformed me so;\" and he recovered his money. This quackery is scarcely\ncondemnable, but then it is applicable only to negroes.\n\nThe first Scipio Africanus, a very different person from the physician\nBrown, made his soldiers believe that he was inspired by the gods. This\ngrand charlatanism was in use for a long time. Was Scipio to be blamed\nfor assisting himself by the means of this pretension? He was possibly\nthe man who did most honor to the Roman republic; but why the gods\nshould inspire him has never been explained.\n\nNuma did better: he civilized robbers, and swayed a senate composed of a\nportion of them which was the most difficult to govern. If he had\nproposed his laws to the assembled tribes, the assassins of his\npredecessor would have started a thousand difficulties. He addressed\nhimself to the goddess Egeria, who favored him with pandects from\nJupiter; he was obeyed without a murmur, and reigned happily. His\ninstructions were sound, his charlatanism did good; but if some secret\nenemy had discovered his knavery, and had said, \"Let us exterminate an\nimpostor who prostitutes the names of the gods in order to deceive men,\"\nhe would have run the risk of being sent to heaven like Romulus. It is\nprobable that Numa took his measures ably, and that he deceived the\nRomans for their own benefit, by a policy adapted to the time, the\nplace, and the early manners of the people.\n\nMahomet was twenty times on the point of failure, but at length\nsucceeded with the Arabs of Medina, who believed him the intimate friend\nof the angel Gabriel. If any one at present was to announce in\nConstantinople that he was favored by the angel Raphael, who is superior\nto Gabriel in dignity, and that he alone was to be believed, he would\nbe publicly empaled. Quacks should know their time.\n\nWas there not a little quackery in Socrates with his familiar d\u00e6mon, and\nthe express declaration of Apollo, that he was the wisest of all men?\nHow can Rollin in his history reason from this oracle? Why not inform\nyouth that it was a pure imposition? Socrates chose his time ill: about\na hundred years before he might have governed Athens.\n\nEvery chief of a sect in philosophy has been a little of a quack; but\nthe greatest of all have been those who have aspired to govern. Cromwell\nwas the most terrible of all quacks, and appeared precisely at a time in\nwhich he could succeed. Under Elizabeth he would have been hanged; under\nCharles II., laughed at. Fortunately for himself he came at a time when\npeople were disgusted with kings: his son followed, when they were weary\nof protectors.\n\n_Of the Quackery of Sciences and of Literature._\n\nThe followers of science have never been able to dispense with quackery.\nEach would have his opinions prevail; the subtle doctor would eclipse\nthe angelic doctor, and the profound doctor would reign alone. Everyone\nerects his own system of physics, metaphysics, and scholastic theology;\nand the question is, who will value his merchandise? You have dependants\nwho cry it up, fools who believe you, and protectors on whom to lean.\nCan there be greater quackery than the substitution of words for things,\nor than a wish to make others believe what we do not believe ourselves?\n\nOne establishes vortices of subtile matter, branched, globular, and\ntubular; another, elements of matter which are not matter, and a\npre-established harmony which makes the clock of the body sound the\nhour, when the needle of the clock of the soul is duly pointed. These\nchimeras found partisans for many years, and when these ideas went out\nof fashion, new pretenders to inspiration mounted upon the ambulatory\nstage. They banished the germs of the world, asserted that the sea\nproduced mountains, and that men were formerly fishes.\n\nHow much quackery has always pervaded history: either by astonishing the\nreader with prodigies, tickling the malignity of human nature with\nsatire, or by flattering the families of tyrants with infamous eulogies!\n\nThe unhappy class who write in order to live, are quacks of another\nkind. A poor man who has no trade, and has had the misfortune to have\nbeen at college, thinks that he knows how to write, and repairing to a\nneighboring bookseller, demands employment. The bookseller knows that\nmost persons keeping houses are desirous of small libraries, and require\nabridgments and new tables, orders an abridgment of the history of Rapin\nThoyras, or of the church; a collection of _bon mots_ from the\nMenagiana, or a dictionary of great men, in which some obscure pedant\nis placed by the side of Cicero, and a sonneteer of Italy as near as\npossible to Virgil.\n\nAnother bookseller will order romances or the translation of romances.\nIf you have no invention, he will say to his workman: You can collect\nadventures from the grand Cyrus, from Gusman d'Alfarache, from the\n\"Secret Memoirs of a Man of Quality\" or of a \"Woman of Quality\"; and\nfrom the total you will make a volume of four hundred pages.\n\nAnother bookseller gives ten years' newspapers and almanacs to a man of\ngenius, and says: You will make an abstract from all that, and in three\nmonths bring it me under the name of a faithful \"History of the Times,\"\nby M. le Chevalier ----, Lieutenant de Vaisseau, employed in the office\nfor foreign affairs.\n\nOf this sort of books there are about fifty thousand in Europe, and the\nlabor still goes on like the secret for whitening the skin, blackening\nthe hair, and mixing up the universal remedy.\n\n\n\n\nRAVAILLAC.\n\n\nI knew in my infancy a canon of P\u00e9ronne of the age of ninety-two years,\nwho had been educated by one of the most furious burghers of the\nLeague--he always used to say, the late M. de Ravaillac. This canon had\npreserved many curious manuscripts of the apostolic times, although they\ndid little honor to his party. The following is one of them, which he\nbequeathed to my uncle:\n\n_Dialogue of a Page of the Duke of Sully, and of Master Filesac, Doctor\nof the Sorbonne, one of the two Confessors of Ravaillac._\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--God be thanked, my dear page, Ravaillac has died like a\nsaint. I heard his confession; he repented of his sin, and determined no\nmore to fall into it. He wished to receive the holy sacrament, but it is\nnot the custom here as at Rome; his penitence will serve in lieu of it,\nand it is certain that he is in paradise.\n\nPAGE.--He in paradise, in the Garden of Eden, the monster!\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--Yes, my fine lad, in that garden, or heaven, it is the\nsame thing.\n\nPAGE.--I believe so; but he has taken a bad road to arrive there.\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--You talk like a young Huguenot. Learn that what I say\nto you partakes of faith. He possessed attrition, and attrition, joined\nto the sacrament of confession, infallibly works out the salvation which\nconducts straightway to paradise, where he is now praying to God for\nyou.\n\nPAGE.--I have no wish that he should address God on my account. Let him\ngo to the devil with his prayers and his attrition.\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--At the bottom, he was a good soul; his zeal led him to\ncommit evil, but it was not with a bad intention. In all his\ninterrogatories, he replied that he assassinated the king only because\nhe was about to make war on the pope, and that he did so to serve God.\nHis sentiments were very Christian-like. He is saved, I tell you; he was\nbound, and I have unbound him.\n\nPAGE.--In good faith, the more I listen to you the more I regard you as\na man bound yourself. You excite horror in me.\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--It is because that you are not yet in the right way;\nbut you will be one day. I have always said that you were not far from\nthe kingdom of heaven; but your time is not yet come.\n\nPAGE.--And the time will never come in which I shall be made to believe\nthat you have sent Ravaillac to the kingdom of heaven.\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--As soon as you shall be converted, which I hope will be\nthe case, you will believe as I do; but in the meantime, be assured that\nyou and the duke of Sully, your master, will be damned to all eternity\nwith Judas Iscariot and the wicked rich man Dives, while Ravaillac will\nrepose in the bosom of Abraham.\n\nPAGE.--How, scoundrel!\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--No abuse, my little son. It is forbidden to call our\nbrother \"_raca_,\" under the penalty of the _gehenna_ or hell fire.\nPermit me to instruct without enraging you.\n\nPAGE.--Go on; thou appearest to me so \"_raca_,\" that I will be angry no\nmore.\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--I therefore say to you, that agreeably to faith you\nwill be damned, as unhappily our dear Henry IV. is already, as the\nSorbonne always foresaw.\n\nPAGE.--My dear master damned! Listen to the wicked wretch! A cane! a\ncane!\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--Be patient, good young man; you promised to listen to\nme quietly. Is it not true that the great Henry died without confession?\nIs it not true that he died in the commission of mortal sin, being still\namorous of the princess of Cond\u00e9, and that he had not time to receive\nthe sacrament of repentance, God having allowed him to be stabbed in the\nleft ventricle of the heart, in consequence of which he was instantly\nsuffocated with his own blood? You will absolutely find no good Catholic\nwho will not say the same as I do.\n\nPAGE.--Hold thy tongue, master madman; if I thought that thy doctors\ntaught a doctrine so abominable, I would burn them in their lodgings.\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--Once again, be calm; you have promised to be so. His\nlordship the marquis of Cochini, who is a good Catholic, will know how\nto prevent you from being guilty of the sacrilege of injuring my\ncolleagues.\n\nPAGE.--But conscientiously, Master Filesac, does thy party really think\nin this manner?\n\nMASTER FILESAC.--Be assured of it; it is our catechism.\n\nPAGE.--Listen; for I must confess to thee, that one of thy Sorbonnists\nalmost seduced me last year. He induced me to hope for a pension or a\nbenefice. Since the king, he observed, has heard mass in Latin, you who\nare only a petty gentleman may also attend it without derogation. God\ntakes care of His elect, giving them mitres, crosses, and prodigious\nsums of money, while you of the reformed doctrine go on foot, and can do\nnothing but write. I own I was staggered; but after what thou hast just\nsaid to me, I would rather a thousand times be a Mahometan than of thy\ncreed.\n\nThe page was wrong. We are not to become Mahometans because we are\nincensed; but we must pardon a feeling young man who loved Henry IV.\nMaster Filesac spoke according to his theology; the page attended to his\nheart.\n\n\n\n\nREASONABLE, OR RIGHT.\n\n\nAt the time that all France was carried away by the system of Law, and\nwhen he was comptroller-general, a man who was always in the right came\nto him one day and said:\n\n\"Sir, you are the greatest madman, the greatest fool, or the greatest\nrogue, who has yet appeared among us. It is saying a great deal; but\nbehold how I prove it. You have imagined that we may increase the riches\nof a state ten-fold by means of paper. But this paper only represents\nmoney, which is itself only a representative of genuine riches, the\nproduction of the earth and manufacture. It follows, therefore, that you\nshould have commenced by giving us ten times as much corn, wine, cloth,\nlinen, etc.; this is not enough, they must be certain of sale. Now you\nmake ten times as many notes as we have money and commodities; ergo, you\nare ten times more insane, stupid, or roguish, than all the comptrollers\nor superintendents who have preceded you. Behold how rapidly I will\nprove my major.\"\n\nScarcely had he commenced his major than he was conducted to St.\nLazarus. When he came out of St. Lazarus, where he studied much and\nstrengthened his reason, he went to Rome. He demanded a public audience,\nand that he should not be interrupted in his harangue. He addressed his\nholiness as follows:\n\n\"Holy father, you are Antichrist, and behold how I will prove it to your\nholiness. I call him ante-Christ or antichrist, according to the meaning\nof the word, who does everything contrary to that which Christ\ncommanded. Now Christ was poor, and you are very rich. He paid tribute,\nand you exact it. He submitted himself to the powers that be, and you\nhave become one of them. He wandered on foot, and you visit Castle\nGandolfo in a sumptuous carriage. He ate of all that which people were\nwilling to give him, and you would have us eat fish on Fridays and\nSaturdays, even when we reside at a distance from the seas and rivers.\nHe forbade Simon Barjonas using the sword, and you have many swords in\nyour service, etc. In this sense, therefore, your holiness is\nAntichrist. In every other sense I exceedingly revere you, and request\nan indulgence '_in articulo mortis_.'\"\n\nMy free speaker was immediately confined in the castle of St. Angelo.\nWhen he came out of the castle of St. Angelo, he proceeded to Venice,\nand demanded an audience of the doge. \"Your serenity,\" he exclaimed,\n\"commits a great extravagance every year in marrying the sea; for, in\nthe first place, people marry only once with the same person; secondly,\nyour marriage resembles that of Harlequin, which was only half\nperformed, as wanting the consent of one of the parties; thirdly, who\nhas told you that, some day or other, the other maritime powers will not\ndeclare you incapable of consummating your marriage?\"\n\nHaving thus delivered his mind, he was shut up in the tower of St. Mark.\nWhen he came out of the tower of St. Mark, he proceeded to\nConstantinople, where he obtained an interview with the mufti, and thus\naddressed him: \"Your religion contains some good points, such as the\nadoration of the Supreme Being, and the necessity of being just and\ncharitable; nevertheless, it is a mere hash composed out of Judaism and\na wearisome heap of stories from Mother Goose. If the archangel Gabriel\nhad brought from some planet the leaves of the Koran to Mahomet, all\nArabia would have beheld his descent. Nobody saw him, therefore Mahomet\nwas a bold impostor, who deceived weak and ignorant people.\"\n\nHe had scarcely pronounced these words before he was empaled;\nnevertheless, he had been all along in the right.\n\n\n\n\nRELICS.\n\n\nBy this name are designated the remains or remaining parts of the body,\nor clothes, of a person placed after his death by the Church in the\nnumber of the blessed.\n\nIt is clear that Jesus condemned only the hypocrisy of the Jews, in\nsaying: \"Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye\nbuild the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the\nrighteous.\" Thus orthodox Christians have an equal veneration for the\nrelics and images of saints, and I know not what. Doctor Henry ventures\nto say that when bones or other relics are changed into worms, we must\nnot adore these worms; the Jesuit Vasquez decided that the opinion of\nHenry is absurd and vain, for it signifies not in what manner corruption\ntakes place; \"consequently,\" says he, \"we can adore relics as much under\nthe form of worms as under that of ashes.\"\n\nHowever this may be, St. Cyril of Alexandria avows that the origin of\nrelics is Pagan; and this is the description given of their worship by\nTheodoret, who lived in the commencement of the Christian era: \"They\nrun to the temples of martyrs,\" says this learned bishop, \"some to\ndemand the preservation of their health, others the cure of their\nmaladies; and barren women for fruitfulness. After obtaining children,\nthese women ask the preservation of them. Those who undertake voyages,\npray the martyrs to accompany and conduct them; and on their return they\ntestify to them their gratitude. They adore them not as gods, but they\nhonor them as divine men; and conjure them to become their intercessors.\n\n\"The offerings which are displayed in their temples are public proofs\nthat those who have demanded with faith, have obtained the\naccomplishment of their vows and the cure of their disorders. Some hang\nup artificial eyes, others feet, and others hands of gold and silver.\nThese monuments publish the virtue of those who are buried in these\ntombs, as their influence publishes that the god for whom they suffered\nis the true God. Thus Christians take care to give their children the\nnames of martyrs, that they may be insured their protection.\"\n\nFinally, Theodoret adds, that the temples of the gods were demolished,\nand that the materials served for the construction of the temples of\nmartyrs: \"For the Lord,\" said he to the Pagans, \"has substituted his\ndead for your gods; He has shown the vanity of the latter, and\ntransferred to others the honors paid to them.\" It is of this that the\nfamous sophist of Sardis complains bitterly in deploring the ruin of\nthe temple of Serapis at Canopus, which was demolished by order of the\nemperor Theodosius I. in the year 389.\n\n\"People,\" says Eunapius, \"who had never heard of war, were, however,\nvery valiant against the stones of this temple; and principally against\nthe rich offerings with which it was filled. These holy places were\ngiven to monks, an infamous and useless class of people, who provided\nthey wear a black and slovenly dress, hold a tyrannical authority over\nthe minds of the people; and instead of the gods whom we acknowledge\nthrough the lights of reason, these monks give us heads of criminals,\npunished for their crimes, to adore, which they have salted in order to\npreserve them.\"\n\nThe people are superstitious, and it is superstition which enchains\nthem. The miracles forged on the subject of relics became a loadstone\nwhich attracted from all parts riches to the churches. Stupidity and\ncredulity were carried so far that, in the year 386, the same Theodosius\nwas obliged to make a law by which he forbade buried corpses to be\ntransported from one place to another, or the relics of any martyr to be\nseparated and sold.\n\nDuring the first three ages of Christianity they were contented with\ncelebrating the day of the death of martyrs, which they called their\nnatal day, by assembling in the cemeteries where their bodies lay, to\npray for them, as we have remarked in the article on \"Mass.\" They\ndreamed not then of a time in which Christians would raise temples to\nthem, transport their ashes and bones from one place to another, show\nthem in shrines, and finally make a traffic of them; which excited\navarice to fill the world with false relics.\n\nBut the Third Council of Carthage, held in the year 397, having inserted\nin the Scriptures the Apocalypse of St. John, the authenticity of which\nwas till then contested, this passage of chapter vi., \"I saw under the\naltar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God\"--authorized\nthe custom of having relics of martyrs under the altars; and this\npractice was soon regarded so essential that St. Ambrose,\nnotwithstanding the wishes of the people, would not consecrate a church\nwhere there were none; and in 692, the Council of Constantinople, in\nTrullo, even ordered all the altars to be demolished under which it\nfound no relics.\n\nAnother Council of Carthage, on the contrary, in the year 401, ordered\nbishops to build altars which might be seen everywhere, in fields and on\nhigh roads, in honor of martyrs; from which were here and there dug\npretended relics, on dreams and vain revelations of all sorts of people.\n\nSt. Augustine relates that towards the year 415, Lucian, the priest of a\ntown called Caphargamata, some miles distant from Jerusalem, three times\nsaw in a dream the learned Gamaliel, who declared to him that his body,\nthat of Abibas his son, of St. Stephen, and Nicodemus, were buried in a\npart of his parish which he pointed out to him. He commanded him, on\ntheir part and his own, to leave them no longer neglected in the tomb in\nwhich they had been for some ages, but to go and tell John, bishop of\nJerusalem, to come and dig them up immediately, if he would prevent the\nills with which the world was threatened. Gamaliel added that this\ntranslation must be made in the episcopacy of John, who died about a\nyear after. The order of heaven was that the body of St. Stephen should\nbe transported to Jerusalem.\n\nEither Lucian did not clearly understand, or he was unfortunate--he dug\nand found nothing; which obliged the learned Jew to appear to a very\nsimple and innocent monk, and indicate to him more precisely the place\nwhere the sacred relics lay. Lucian there found the treasure which he\nsought, according as God had revealed it unto him. In this tomb there\nwas a stone on which was engraved the word \"_cheliel_,\" which signifies\n\"crown\" in Hebrew, as \"_stephanos_\" does in Greek. On the opening of\nStephen's coffin the earth trembled, a delightful odor issued, and a\ngreat number of sick were cured. The body of the saint was reduced to\nashes, except the bones, which were transported to Jerusalem, and placed\nin the church of Sion. At the same hour there fell a great rain, until\nwhich they had had a great drouth.\n\nAvitus, a Spanish priest who was then in the East, translated into Latin\nthis story, which Lucian wrote in Greek. As the Spaniard was the friend\nof Lucian, he obtained a small portion of the ashes of the saint, some\nbones full of an oil which was a visible proof of their holiness,\nsurpassing newly-made perfumes, and the most agreeable odors. These\nrelics, brought by Orosius into the island of Minorca, in eight days\nconverted five hundred and forty Jews.\n\nThey were afterwards informed by divers visions that some monks of Egypt\nhad relics of St. Stephen which strangers had brought there. As the\nmonks, not then being priests, had no churches of their own, they took\nthis treasure to transport it to a church which was near Usala. Above\nthe church some persons soon saw a star which seemed to come before the\nholy martyr. These relics did not remain long in this church; the bishop\nof Usala, finding it convenient to enrich his own, transported them,\nseated on a car, accompanied by a crowd of people, who sang the praises\nof God, attended by a great number of lights and tapers.\n\nIn this manner the relics were borne to an elevated place in the church\nand placed on a throne ornamented with hangings. They were afterwards\nput on a little bed in a place which was locked up, but to which a\nlittle window was left, that cloths might be touched, which cured\nseveral disorders. A little dust collected on the shrine suddenly cured\none that was paralytic. Flowers which had been presented to the saint,\napplied to the eyes of a blind man, gave him sight. There were even\nseven or eight corpses restored to life.\n\nSt. Augustine, who endeavors to justify this worship by distinguishing\nit from that of adoration, which is due to God alone, is obliged to\nagree that he himself knew several Christians who adored sepulchres and\nimages. \"I know several who drink to great excess on the tombs, and who,\nin giving entertainments to the dead, fell themselves on those who were\nburied.\"\n\nIndeed, turning fresh from Paganism, and charmed to find deified men in\nthe Christian church, though under other names, the people honored them\nas much as they had honored their false gods; and it would be grossly\ndeceiving ourselves to judge of the ideas and practices of the populace\nby those of enlightened and philosophic bishops. We know that the sages\namong the Pagans made the same distinctions as our holy bishops. \"We\nmust,\" said Hierocles, \"acknowledge and serve the gods so as to take\ngreat care to distinguish them from the supreme God, who is their author\nand father. We must not too greatly exalt their dignity. And finally the\nworship which we give them should relate to their sole creator, whom you\nmay properly call the God of gods, because He is the Master of all, and\nthe most excellent of all.\" Porphyrius, who, like St. Paul, terms the\nsupreme God, the God who is above all things, adds that we must not\nsacrifice to Him anything that is sensible or material, because, being\na pure Spirit, everything material is impure to Him. He can only be\nworthily honored by the thoughts and sentiments of a soul which is not\ntainted with any sinful passion.\n\nIn a word, St. Augustine, in declaring with _na\u00efvet\u00e9_ that he dared not\nspeak freely on several similar abuses on account of giving opportunity\nfor scandal to pious persons or to pedants, shows that the bishops made\nuse of the artifice to convert the Pagans, as St. Gregory recommended\ntwo centuries after to convert England. This pope, being consulted by\nthe monk Augustine on some remains of ceremonies, half civil and half\nPagan, which the newly converted English would not renounce, answered,\n\"We cannot divest hard minds of all their habits at once; we reach not\nto the top of a steep rock by leaping, but by climbing step by step.\"\n\nThe reply of the same pope to Constantina, the daughter of the emperor\nTiberius Constantine, and the wife of Maurice, who demanded of him the\nhead of St. Paul, to place in a temple which she had built in honor of\nthis apostle, is no less remarkable. St. Gregory sent word to the\nprincess that the bodies of saints shone with so many miracles that they\ndared not even approach their tombs to pray without being seized with\nfear. That his predecessor (Pelagius II.) wishing to remove some silver\nfrom the tomb of St. Peter to another place four feet distant, he\nappeared to him with frightful signs. That he (Gregory) wishing to make\nsome repairs in the monument of St. Paul, as it had sunk a little in\nfront, and he who had the care of the place having had the boldness to\nraise some bones which touched not the tomb of the apostle, to transport\nthem elsewhere, he appeared to him also in a terrible manner, and he\ndied immediately. That his predecessor also wishing to repair the tomb\nof St. Lawrence, the shroud which encircled the body of the martyr was\nimprudently discovered; and although the laborers were monks and\nofficers of the church, they all died in the space of ten days because\nthey had seen the body of the saint. That when the Romans gave relics,\nthey never touched the sacred bodies, but contented themselves with\nputting some cloths, with which they approached them, in a box. That\nthese cloths have the same virtue as relics, and perform as many\nmiracles. That certain Greeks, doubting of this fact, Pope Leo took a\npair of scissors, and in their presence cutting some of the cloth which\nhad approached the holy bodies, blood came from it. That in the west of\nRome it is a sacrilege to touch the bodies of saints; and that if any\none attempts, he may be assured that his crime will not go unpunished.\nFor which reason the Greeks cannot be persuaded to adopt the custom of\ntransporting relics. That some Greeks daring to disinter some bodies in\nthe night near the church of St. Paul, intending to transport them into\ntheir own country, were discovered, which persuaded them that the relics\nwere false. That the easterns, pretending that the bodies of St. Peter\nand St. Paul belonged to them, came to Rome to take them to their own\ncountry; but arriving at the catacombs where these bodies repose, when\nthey would have taken them, sudden lightning and terrible thunder\ndispersed the alarmed multitude and forced them to renounce their\nundertaking. That those who suggested to Constantina the demand of the\nhead of St. Paul from him, had no other design than that of making him\nlose his favor. St. Gregory concludes with these words: \"I have that\nconfidence in God, that you will not be deprived of the fruit of your\ngood will, nor of the virtue of the holy apostles, whom you love with\nall your heart and with all your mind; and that, if you have not their\ncorporeal presence, you will always enjoy their protection.\"\n\nYet the ecclesiastical history pretends that the translation of relics\nwas equally frequent in the East and West; and the author of the notes\nto this letter further observes that the same St. Gregory afterwards\ngave several holy bodies, and that other popes have given so many as six\nor seven to one individual.\n\nAfter this, can we be astonished at the favor which relics find in the\nminds of people and kings? The sermons most commonly preached among the\nancient French were composed on the relics of saints. It was thus that\nthe kings Gontran, Sigebert, and Chilperic divided the states of\nClotaire, and agreed to possess Paris in common. They made oath on the\nrelics of St. Polyeuctus, St. Hilary, and St. Martin. Yet Chilperic\npossessed himself of the place and merely took the precaution of having\na shrine, with a quantity of relics, which he had carried as a safeguard\nat the head of his troops, in hopes that the protection of these new\npatrons would shelter him from the punishment due to his perjury.\nFinally, the catechism of the Council of Trent approved of the custom of\nswearing by relics.\n\nIt is further observed that the kings of France of the first and second\nraces kept in their palaces a great number of relics; above all, the cap\nand mantle of St. Martin; and that they had them carried in their trains\nand in their armies. These relics were sent from the palaces to the\nprovinces when an oath of fidelity was made to the king, or any treaty\nwas concluded.\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe Epicureans, who had no religion, recommended retirement from public\naffairs, study, and concord. This sect was a society of friends, for\nfriendship was their principal dogma. Atticus, Lucretius, Memmius, and a\nfew other such men, might live very reputably together; this we see in\nall countries; philosophize as much as you please among yourselves. A\nset of amateurs may give a concert of refined and scientific music; but\nlet them beware of performing such a concert before the ignorant and\nbrutal vulgar, lest their instruments be broken over their heads. If you\nhave but a village to govern, it _must_ have a religion.\n\nI speak not here of an error; but of the only good, the only necessary,\nthe only proved, and the second revealed.\n\nHad it been possible for the human mind to have admitted a religion--I\nwill not say at all approaching ours--but not so bad as all the other\nreligions in the world--what would that religion have been?\n\nWould it not have been that which should propose to us the adoration of\nthe supreme, only, infinite, eternal Being, the former of the world, who\ngives it motion and life, \"_cui nec simile, nec secundum_\"? That which\nshould re-unite us to this Being of beings, as the reward of our\nvirtues, and separate us from Him, as the chastisement of our crimes?\n\nThat which should admit very few of the dogmas invented by unreasoning\npride; those eternal subjects of disputation; and should teach a pure\nmorality, about which there should never be any dispute?\n\nThat which should not make the essence of worship consist in vain\nceremonies, as that of spitting into your mouth, or that of taking from\nyou one end of your prepuce, or of depriving you of one of your\ntesticles--seeing that a man may fulfil all the social duties with two\ntesticles and an entire foreskin, and without another's spitting into\nhis mouth?\n\nThat of serving one's neighbor for the love of God, instead of\npersecuting and butchering him in God's name? That which should tolerate\nall others, and which, meriting thus the goodwill of all, should alone\nbe capable of making mankind a nation of brethren?\n\nThat which should have august ceremonies, to strike the vulgar, without\nhaving mysteries to disgust the wise and irritate the incredulous?\n\nThat which should offer men more encouragements to the social virtues\nthan expiations for social crimes?\n\nThat which should insure to its ministers a revenue large enough for\ntheir decent maintenance, but should never allow them to usurp dignities\nand power that might make them tyrants?\n\nThat which should establish commodious retreats for sickness and old\nage, but never for idleness?\n\nA great part of this religion is already in the hearts of several\nprinces; and it will prevail when the articles of perpetual peace,\nproposed by the abb\u00e9 de St. Pierre, shall be signed by all potentates.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nLast night I was meditating; I was absorbed in the contemplation of\nnature, admiring the immensity, the courses, the relations of those\ninfinite globes, which are above the admiration of the vulgar.\n\nI admired still more the intelligence that presides over this vast\nmachinery. I said to myself: A man must be blind not to be impressed by\nthis spectacle; he must be stupid not to recognize its author; he must\nbe mad not to adore him. What tribute of adoration ought I to render\nhim? Should not this tribute be the same throughout the extent of space,\nsince the same Supreme Power reigns equally in all that extent?\n\nDoes not a thinking being, inhabiting a star of the Milky Way, owe him\nthe same homage as the thinking being on this little globe where we are?\nLight is the same to the dog-star as to us; morality, too, must be the\nsame.\n\nIf a feeling and thinking being in the dog-star is born of a tender\nfather and mother, who have labored for his welfare, he owes them as\nmuch love and duty as we here owe to our parents. If any one in the\nMilky Way sees another lame and indigent, and does not relieve him,\nthough able to do it, he is guilty in the sight of every globe.\n\nThe heart has everywhere the same duties; on the steps of the throne of\nGod, if He has a throne, and at the bottom of the great abyss, if there\nbe an abyss.\n\nI was wrapt in these reflections, when one of those genii who fill the\nspaces between worlds, came down to me. I recognized the same aerial\ncreature that had formerly appeared to me, to inform me that the\njudgments of God are different from ours, and how much a good action is\npreferable to controversy.\n\nHe transported me into a desert covered all over with bones piled one\nupon another; and between these heaps of dead there were avenues of\nevergreen trees, and at the end of each avenue a tall man of august\naspect gazing with compassion on these sad remains.\n\n\"Alas! my archangel,\" said I, \"whither have you brought me?\" \"To\ndesolation,\" answered he. \"And who are those fine old patriarchs whom I\nsee motionless and melancholy at the end of those green avenues, and who\nseem to weep over this immense multitude of dead?\" \"Poor human creature!\nthou shalt know,\" replied the genius; \"but, first, thou must weep.\"\n\nHe began with the first heap. \"These,\" said he, \"are the twenty-three\nthousand Jews who danced before a calf, together with the twenty-four\nthousand who were slain while ravishing Midianitish women; the number of\nthe slaughtered for similar offences or mistakes amounts to nearly three\nhundred thousand.\n\n\"At the following avenues are the bones of Christians, butchered by one\nanother on account of metaphysical disputes. They are divided into\nseveral piles of four centuries each; it was necessary to separate them;\nfor had they been all together, they would have reached the sky.\"\n\n\"What!\" exclaimed I, \"have brethren thus treated their brethren; and\nhave I the misfortune to be one of this brotherhood?\"\n\n[Illustration: Genius inspiring the muses.]\n\n\"Here,\" said the spirit, \"are twelve millions of Americans slain in\ntheir own country for not having been baptized.\" \"Ah! My God! why were\nnot these frightful skeletons left to whiten in the hemisphere where the\nbodies were born, and where they were murdered in so many various ways?\nWhy are all these abominable monuments of barbarity and fanaticism\nassembled here?\" \"For thy instruction.\"\n\n\"Since thou art willing to instruct me,\" said I to the genius, \"tell me\nif there be any other people than the Christians and the Jews, whom zeal\nand religion, unhappily turned into fanaticism, have prompted to so many\nhorrible cruelties?\" \"Yes,\" said he; \"the Mahometans have been stained\nby the same inhuman acts, but rarely; and when their victims have cried\nout '_amman_!' (mercy!) and have offered them tribute, they have\npardoned them. As for other nations, not one of them, since the\nbeginning of the world, has ever made a purely religious war. Now,\nfollow me!\" I followed.\n\nA little beyond these heaps of dead we found other heaps; there were\nbags of gold and silver; and each pile had its label: \"Substance of the\nheretics massacred in the eighteenth century, in the seventeenth, in the\nsixteenth,\" and so on. \"Gold and silver of the slaughtered Americans,\"\netc.; and all these piles were surmounted by crosses, mitres, crosiers,\nand tiaras, enriched with jewels.\n\n\"What! my genius, was it then to possess these riches that these\ncarcasses were accumulated?\"\n\n\"Yes, my son.\"\n\nI shed tears; and when by my grief I had merited to be taken to the end\nof the green avenues, he conducted me thither.\n\n\"Contemplate,\" said he, \"the heroes of humanity who have been the\nbenefactors of the earth, and who united to banish from the world, as\nfar as they were able, violence and rapine. Question them.\"\n\nI went up to the first of this band; on his head was a crown, and in his\nhand a small censer. I humbly asked him his name. \"I,\" said he, \"am Numa\nPompilius; I succeeded a robber, and had robbers to govern; I taught\nthem virtue and the worship of God; after me they repeatedly forgot\nboth. I forbade any image to be placed in the temples, because the\ndivinity who animates nature cannot be represented. During my reign the\nRomans had neither wars nor seditions; and my religion did nothing but\ngood. Every neighboring people came to honor my funeral, which has\nhappened to me alone....\"\n\nI made my obeisance and passed on to the second. This was a fine old\nman, of about a hundred, clad in a white robe; his middle finger was\nplaced on his lip, and with the other hand he was scattering beans\nbehind him. In him I recognized Pythagoras. He assured me that he had\nnever had a golden thigh, and that he had never been a cock, but that he\nhad governed the Crotonians with as much justice as Numa had governed\nthe Romans about the same time, which justice was the most necessary and\nthe rarest thing in the world. I learned that the Pythagoreans examined\ntheir consciences twice a day. What good people! and how far are we\nbehind them! Yet we, who for thirteen hundred years have been nothing\nbut assassins, assert that these wise men were proud.\n\nTo please Pythagoras I said not a word to him, but went on to Zoroaster,\nwho was engaged in concentrating the celestial fire in the focus of a\nconcave mirror, in the centre of a vestibule with a hundred gates, each\none leading to wisdom. On the principal of these gates I read these\nwords, which are the abstract of all morality, and cut short all the\ndisputes of the casuists: \"When thou art in doubt whether an action is\ngood or bad, abstain from it.\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" said I to my genius, \"the barbarians who immolated all the\nvictims whose bones I have seen had not read these fine words.\"\n\nThen we saw Zaleucus, Thales, Anaximander, and all the other sages who\nhad sought truth and practised virtue.\n\nWhen we came to Socrates I quickly recognized him by his broken nose.\n\"Well,\" said I, \"you then are among the confidants of the Most High! All\nthe inhabitants of Europe, excepting the Turks and the Crim Tartars, who\nknow nothing, pronounce your name with reverence. So much is that great\nname venerated, so much is it loved, that it has been sought to\ndiscover those of your persecutors. Melitus and Anitus are known because\nof you, as Ravaillac is known because of Henry IV.; but of Anitus I know\nonly the name. I know not precisely who that villain was by whom you\nwere calumniated, and who succeeded in procuring your condemnation to\nthe hemlock.\"\n\n\"I have never thought of that man since my adventure,\" answered\nSocrates; \"but now that you put me in mind of him, I pity him much. He\nwas a wicked priest, who secretly carried on a trade in leather, a\ntraffic reputed shameful amongst us. He sent his two children to my\nschool; the other disciples reproached them with their father's being a\ncurrier, and they were obliged to quit. The incensed father was\nunceasing in his endeavors until he had stirred up against me all the\npriests and all the sophists. They persuaded the council of the five\nhundred that I was an impious man, who did not believe that the moon,\nMercury, and Mars were deities. I thought indeed, as I do now, that\nthere is but one God, the master of all nature. The judges gave me up to\nthe republic's poisoner, and he shortened my life a few days. I died\nwith tranquillity at the age of seventy years, and since then I have led\na happy life with all these great men whom you see, and of whom I am the\nleast....\"\n\nAfter enjoying the conversation of Socrates for some time, I advanced\nwith my guide into a bower, situated above the groves, where all these\nsages of antiquity seemed to be tasting the sweets of repose.\n\nHere I beheld a man of mild and simple mien, who appeared to me to be\nabout thirty-five years old. He was looking with compassion upon the\ndistant heaps of whitened skeletons through which I had been led to the\nabode of the sages. I was astonished to find his feet swelled and\nbloody, his hands in the same state, his side pierced, and his ribs laid\nbare by flogging. \"Good God!\" said I, \"is it possible that one of the\njust and wise should be in this state? I have just seen one who was\ntreated in a very odious manner; but there is no comparison between his\npunishment and yours. Bad priests and bad judges poisoned him. Was it\nalso by priests and judges that you were so cruelly assassinated?\"\n\nWith great affability he answered--\"Yes.\"\n\n\"And who were those monsters?\"\n\n\"They were hypocrites.\"\n\n\"Ah! you have said all! by that one word I understand that they would\ncondemn you to the worst of punishments. You then had proved to them,\nlike Socrates, that the moon was not a goddess, and that Mercury was not\na god?\"\n\n\"No; those planets were quite out of the question. My countrymen did not\neven know what a planet was; they were all arrant ignoramuses. Their\nsuperstitions were quite different from those of the Greeks.\"\n\n\"Then you wished to teach them a new religion?\"\n\n\"Not at all; I simply said to them--'Love God with all your hearts, and\nyour neighbor as yourselves; for that is all.' Judge whether this\nprecept is not as old as the universe; judge whether I brought them a\nnew worship. I constantly told them that I was come, not to abolish\ntheir law, but to fulfil it; I had observed all their rites; I was\ncircumcised as they all were; I was baptized like the most zealous of\nthem; like them I paid the corban; like them I kept the Passover; and\nate, standing, lamb cooked with lettuce. I and my friends went to pray\nin their temple; my friends, too, frequented the temple after my death.\nIn short, I fulfilled all their laws without one exception.\"\n\n\"What! could not these wretches even reproach you with having departed\nfrom their laws?\"\n\n\"Certainly not.\"\n\n\"Why, then, did they put you in the state in which I now see you?\"\n\n\"Must I tell you?--They were proud and selfish; they saw that I knew\nthem; they saw that I was making them known to the citizens; they were\nthe strongest; they took away my life; and such as they will always do\nthe same, if they can, to whoever shall have done them too much\njustice.\"\n\n\"But did you say nothing; did you do nothing, that could serve them as a\npretext?\"\n\n\"The wicked find a pretext in everything.\"\n\n\"Did you not once tell them that you were come to bring, not peace, but\nthe sword?\"\n\n\"This was an error of some scribe. I told them that I brought, not the\nsword, but peace. I never wrote anything; what I said might be miscopied\nwithout any ill intent.\"\n\n\"You did not then contribute in anything, by your discourses, either\nbadly rendered or badly interpreted, to those frightful masses of bones\nwhich I passed on my way to consult you?\"\n\n\"I looked with horror on those who were guilty of all these murders.\"\n\n\"And those monuments of power and wealth--of pride and avarice--those\ntreasures, those ornaments, those ensigns of greatness, which, when\nseeking wisdom, I saw accumulated on the way--do they proceed from you?\"\n\n\"It is impossible; I and mine lived in poverty and lowliness; my\ngreatness was only in virtue.\"\n\nI was on the point of begging of him to have the goodness just to tell\nme who he was; but my guide warned me to refrain. He told me that I was\nnot formed for comprehending these sublime mysteries. I conjured him to\ntell me only in what true religion consisted.\n\n\"Have I not told you already?--Love God and your neighbor as yourself.\"\n\n\"What! Can we love God and yet eat meat on a Friday?\"\n\n\"I always ate what was given me; for I was too poor to give a dinner to\nany one.\"\n\n\"Might we love God and be just, and still be prudent enough not to\nintrust all the adventures of one's life to a person one does not know?\"\n\n\"Such was always my custom.\"\n\n\"Might not I, while doing good, be excused from making a pilgrimage to\nSt. James of Compostello?\"\n\n\"I never was in that country.\"\n\n\"Should I confine myself in a place of retirement With blockheads?\"\n\n\"For my part, I always made little journeys from town to town.\"\n\n\"Must I take part with the Greek or with the Latin Church?\"\n\n\"When I was in the world, I never made any difference between the Jew\nand the Samaritan.\"\n\n\"Well, if it be so, I take you for my only master.\"\n\nThen he gave me a nod, which filled me with consolation. The vision\ndisappeared, and I was left with a good conscience.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Questions on Religion._\n\n\nFIRST QUESTION.\n\nWarburton, bishop of Gloucester, author of one of the most learned works\never written, thus expresses himself (\"Divine Legation of Moses,\" i.,\n8): \"A religion, a society, which is not founded on the belief of a\nfuture state, must be supported by an extraordinary Providence. Judaism\nis not founded on the belief of a future state; therefore, Judaism was\nsupported by an extraordinary Providence.\"\n\nMany theologians rose up against him; and, as all arguments are\nretorted, so was his retorted upon himself; he was told:\n\n\"Every religion which is not founded on the dogma of the immortality of\nthe soul, and on everlasting rewards and punishments, is necessarily\nfalse. Now these dogmas were unknown to the Jews; therefore Judaism, far\nfrom being supported by Providence, was, on your own principles, a false\nand barbarous religion by which Providence was attacked.\"\n\nThis bishop had some other adversaries, who maintained against him that\nthe immortality of the soul was known to the Jews even in the time of\nMoses; but he proved to them very clearly that neither the Decalogue,\nnor Leviticus, nor Deuteronomy, had said one word of such a belief; and\nthat it is ridiculous to strive to distort and corrupt some passages of\nother books, in order to draw from them a truth which is not announced\nin the book of the law.\n\nThe bishop, having written four volumes to demonstrate that the Jewish\nlaw proposed neither pains nor rewards after death, has never been able\nto answer his adversaries in a very satisfactory manner. They said to\nhim: \"Either Moses knew this dogma, and so deceived the Jews by not\ncommunicating it, or he did not know it, in which case he did not know\nenough to found a good religion. Indeed, if the religion had been good\nwhy should it have been abolished? A true religion must be for all times\nand all places; it must be as the light of the sun, enlightening all\nnations and generations.\"\n\nThis prelate, enlightened as he is, has found it no easy task to\nextricate himself from so many difficulties. But what system is free\nfrom them?\n\n\nSECOND QUESTION.\n\nAnother man of learning, and a much greater philosopher, who is one of\nthe profoundest metaphysicians of the day, advances very strong\narguments to prove that polytheism was the primitive religion of\nmankind, and that men began with believing in several gods before their\nreason was sufficiently enlightened to acknowledge one only Supreme\nBeing.\n\nOn the contrary, I venture to believe that in the beginning they\nacknowledged one only God, and that afterwards human weakness adopted\nseveral. My conception of the matter is this:\n\nIt is indubitable that there were villages before large towns were\nbuilt, and that all men have been divided into petty commonwealths\nbefore they were united in great empires. It is very natural that the\npeople of a village, being terrified by thunder, afflicted at the loss\nof its harvests, ill-used by the inhabitants of a neighboring village,\nfeeling every day its own weakness, feeling everywhere an invisible\npower, should soon have said: There is some Being above us who does us\ngood and harm.\n\nIt seems to me to be impossible that it should have said: There are two\npowers; for why more than one? In all things we begin with the simple;\nthen comes the compound; and after, by superior light, we go back to the\nsimple again. Such is the march of the human mind!\n\nBut what is this being who is thus invoked at first? Is it the sun? Is\nit the moon? I do not think so. Let us examine what passes in the minds\nof children; they are nearly like those of uninformed men. They are\nstruck, neither by the beauty nor by the utility of the luminary which\nanimates nature, nor by the assistance lent us by the moon, nor by the\nregular variations of her course; they think not of these things; they\nare too much accustomed to them. We adore, we invoke, we seek to\nappease, only that which we fear. All children look upon the sky with\nindifference; but when the thunder growls they tremble and run to hide\nthemselves. The first men undoubtedly did likewise. It could only be a\nsect of philosophers who first observed the courses of the planets, made\nthem admired, and caused them to be adored; mere tillers of the ground,\nwithout any information, did not know enough of them to embrace so noble\nan error.\n\nA village then would confine itself to saying: There is a power which\nthunders and hails upon us, which makes our children die; let us appease\nit. But how shall we appease it? We see that by small presents we have\ncalmed the anger of irritated men; let us then make small presents to\nthis power. It must also receive a name. The first that presents itself\nis that of \"chief,\" \"master,\" \"lord.\" This power then is styled \"My\nLord.\" For this reason perhaps it was that the first Egyptians called\ntheir god \"knef\"; the Syrians, \"Adonai\"; the neighboring nations,\n\"Baal,\" or \"Bel,\" or \"Melch,\" or \"Moloch\"; the Scythians, \"Pap\u00e6us\"; all\nthese names signifying \"lord,\" \"master.\"\n\nThus was nearly all America found to be divided into a multitude of\npetty tribes, each having its protecting god. The Mexicans, too, and the\nPeruvians, forming great nations, had only one god--the one adoring\nManco Capak, the other the god of war. The Mexicans called their warlike\ndivinity \"_Huitzilipochtli_,\" as the Hebrews had called their Lord\n\"_Sabaoth_.\"\n\nIt was not from a superior and cultivated reason that every people thus\nbegan with acknowledging one only Divinity; had they been philosophers,\nthey would have adored the God of all nature, and not the god of a\nvillage; they would have examined those infinite relations among all\nthings which prove a Being creating and preserving; but they examined\nnothing--they felt. Such is the progress of our feeble understanding.\nEach village would feel its weakness and its need of a protector; it\nwould imagine that tutelary and terrible being residing in the\nneighboring forest, or on a mountain, or in a cloud. It would imagine\nonly one, because the clan had but one chief in war; it would imagine\nthat one corporeal, because it was impossible to represent it otherwise.\nIt could not believe that the neighboring tribe had not also its god.\nTherefore it was that Jephthah said to the inhabitants of Moab: \"You\npossess lawfully what your god Chemoth has made you conquer; you should,\nthen, let us enjoy what our god has given us by his victories.\"\n\nThis language, used by one stranger to other strangers, is very\nremarkable. The Jews and the Moabites had dispossessed the natives of\nthe country; neither had any right but that of force; and the one says\nto the other: \"Your god has protected you in your usurpation; suffer our\ngod to protect us in ours.\"\n\nJeremiah and Amos both ask what right the god Melchem had to seize the\ncountry of Gad? From these passages it is evident that the ancients\nattributed to each country a protecting god. We find other traces of\nthis theology in Homer.\n\nIt is very natural that, men's imaginations being heated, and their\nminds having acquired some confused knowledge, they should soon multiply\ntheir gods, and speedily assign protectors to the elements, the seas,\nthe forests, the fountains, and the fields. The more they observed the\nstars, the more they would be struck with admiration. How, indeed,\nshould they have adored the divinity of a brook, and not have adored the\nsun? The first step being taken, the earth would soon be covered with\ngods; and from the stars men would at last come down to cats and\nonions.\n\nReason, however, will advance towards perfection; time at length found\nphilosophers who saw that neither onions, nor cats, nor even the stars,\nhad arranged the order of nature. All those philosophers--Babylonians,\nPersians, Egyptians, Scythians, Greeks, and Romans--admitted a supreme,\nrewarding, and avenging God.\n\nThey did not at first tell it to the people; for whosoever should have\nspoken ill of onions and cats before priests and old women, would have\nbeen stoned; whosoever should have reproached certain of the Egyptians\nwith eating their gods would himself have been eaten--as Juvenal relates\nthat an Egyptian was in reality killed and eaten quite raw in a\ncontroversial dispute.\n\nWhat then did they do? Orpheus and others established mysteries, which\nthe initiated swore by oaths of execration not to reveal--of which\nmysteries the principal was the adoration of a supreme God. This great\ntruth made its way through half the world, and the number of the\ninitiated became immense. It is true that the ancient religion still\nexisted; but as it was not contrary to the dogma of the unity of God, it\nwas allowed to exist. And why should it have been abolished? The Romans\nacknowledged the \"_Deus optimus maximus_\" and the Greeks had their\nZeus--their supreme god. All the other divinities were only intermediate\nbeings; heroes and emperors were ranked with the gods, i.e., with the\nblessed; but it is certain that Claudius, Octavius, Tiberius, and\nCaligula, were not regarded as the creators of heaven and earth.\n\nIn short, it seems proved that, in the time of Augustus, all who had a\nreligion acknowledged a superior, eternal God, with several orders of\nsecondary gods, whose worship was called idolatry.\n\nThe laws of the Jews never favored idolatry; for, although they admitted\nthe Malachim, angels and celestial beings of an inferior order, their\nlaw did not ordain that they should worship these secondary divinities.\nThey adored the angels, it is true; that is, they prostrated themselves\nwhen they saw them; but as this did not often happen, there was no\nceremonial nor legal worship established for them. The cherubim of the\nark received no homage. It is beyond a doubt that the Jews, from\nAlexander's time at least, openly adored one only God, as the\ninnumerable multitude of the initiated secretly adored Him in their\nmysteries.\n\n\nTHIRD QUESTION.\n\nIt was at the time when the worship of a Supreme God was universally\nestablished among all the wise in Asia, in Europe, and in Africa, that\nthe Christian religion took its birth.\n\nPlatonism assisted materially the understanding of its dogmas. The\n\"_Logos_,\" which with Plato meant the \"wisdom,\" the reason of the\nSupreme Being, became with us the \"word,\" and a second person of God.\nProfound metaphysics, above human intelligence, were an inaccessible\nsanctuary in which religion was enveloped.\n\nIt is not necessary here to repeat how Mary was afterwards declared to\nbe the mother of God; how the consubstantiality of the Father and the\n\"word\" was established; as also the proceeding of the \"_pneuma_,\" the\ndivine organ of the divine _Logos_; as also the two natures and two\nwills resulting from the hypostasis; and lastly, the superior\nmanducation--the soul nourished as well as the body, with the flesh and\nblood of the God-man, adored and eaten in the form of bread, present to\nthe eyes, sensible to the taste, and yet annihilated. All mysteries have\nbeen sublime.\n\nIn the second century devils began to be cast out in the name of Jesus;\nbefore they were cast out in the name of Jehovah or Ihaho; for St.\nMatthew relates that the enemies of Jesus having said that He cast out\ndevils in the name of the prince of devils, He answered, \"If I cast out\ndevils by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out?\"\n\nIt is not known at what time the Jews recognized Beelzebub, who was a\nstrange god, as the prince of devils; but it is known, for Josephus\ntells us, that there were at Jerusalem exorcists appointed to cast out\ndevils from the bodies of the possessed; that is, of such as were\nattacked by singular maladies, which were then in a great part of the\nworld attributed to the malific genii.\n\nThese demons were then cast out by the true pronunciation of Jehovah,\nwhich is now lost, and by other ceremonies now forgotten.\n\nThis exorcism by Jehovah or by the other names of God, was still in use\nin the first ages of the church. Origen, disputing against Celsus, says\nto him: \"If, when invoking God, or swearing by Him, you call Him 'the\nGod of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,' you will by those words do things,\nthe nature and force of which are such that the evil spirits submit to\nthose who pronounce them; but if you call him by another name, as 'God\nof the roaring sea,' etc., no effect will be produced. The name of\n'Israel,' rendered in Greek, will work nothing; but pronounce it in\nHebrew with the other words required, and you will effect the\nconjuration.\"\n\nThe same Origen has these remarkable words: \"There are names which are\npowerful from their own nature. Such are those used by the sages of\nEgypt, the Magi of Persia, and the Brahmins of India. What is called\n'magic,' is not a vain and chimerical art, as the Stoics and Epicureans\npretend. The names '_Sabaoth_' and '_Adonai_' were not made for created\nbeings, but belong to a mysterious theology which has reference to the\nCreator; hence the virtue of these names when they are arranged and\npronounced according to rule.\"\n\nOrigen, when speaking thus, is not giving his private opinion; he is but\nrepeating the universal opinion.\n\nAll the religions then known admitted a sort of magic, which was\ndistinguished into celestial magic, and infernal magic, necromancy and\ntheurgy--all was prodigy, divination, oracle. The Persians did not deny\nthe miracles of the Egyptians, nor the Egyptians those of the Persians.\nGod permitted the primitive Christians to be persuaded of the truth of\nthe oracles attributed to the Sibyls, and left them a few other\nunimportant errors, which were no essential detriment to their religion.\nAnother very remarkable thing is, that the Christians of the primitive\nages held temples, altars, and images in abhorrence. Origen acknowledges\nthis (No. 347). Everything was afterwards changed, with the discipline,\nwhen the Church assumed a permanent form.\n\n\nFOURTH QUESTION.\n\nWhen once a religion is established in a state, the tribunals are all\nemployed in perverting the continuance or renewal of most of the things\nthat were done in that religion before it was publicly received. The\nfounders used to assemble in private, in spite of magistrates; but now\nno assemblies are permitted but public ones under the eyes of the law,\nand all concealed associations are forbidden. The maxim formerly was,\nthat \"it is better to obey God than man\"; the opposite maxim is now\nadopted, that \"to follow the laws of the state is to obey God.\" Nothing\nwas heard of but obsessions and possessions; the devil was then let\nloose upon the world, but now the devil stays at home. Prodigies and\npredictions were necessary; now they are no longer admitted: a man who\nin the places should foretell calamities, would be sent to a madhouse.\nThe founders secretly received the money of the faithful; but now, a man\nwho should gather money for his own disposal, without being authorized\nby the law, would be brought before a court of justice to answer for so\ndoing. Thus the scaffoldings that have served to build the edifice are\nno longer made use of.\n\n\nFIFTH QUESTION.\n\nAfter our own holy religion, which indubitably is the only good one,\nwhat religion would be the least objectionable?\n\nWould it not be that which should be the simplest; that which should\nteach much morality and very few dogmas; that which should tend to make\nmen just, without making them absurd; that which should not ordain the\nbelief of things impossible, contradictory, injurious to the Divinity,\nand pernicious to mankind; nor dare to threaten with eternal pains\nwhosoever should possess common sense? Would it not be that which should\nnot uphold its belief by the hand of the executioner, nor inundate the\nearth with blood to support unintelligible sophisms; that in which an\nambiguous expression, a play upon words, and two or three supported\ncharters, should not suffice to make a sovereign and a god of a priest\nwho is often incestuous, a murderer, and a poisoner; which should not\nmake kings subject to this priest; that which should teach only the\nadoration of one God, justice, tolerance, and humanity.\n\n\nSIXTH QUESTION.\n\nIt has been said, that the religion of the Gentiles was absurd in many\npoints, contradictory, and pernicious; but have there not been imputed\nto it more harm than it ever did, and more absurdities than it ever\npreached?\n\nShow me in all antiquity a temple dedicated to Leda lying with a swan,\nor Europa with a bull. Was there ever a sermon preached at Athens or at\nRome, to persuade the young women to cohabit with their poultry? Are the\nfables collected and adorned by Ovid religious? Are they not like our\nGolden Legend, our Flower of the Saints? If some Brahmin or dervish were\nto come and object to our story of St. Mary the Egyptian, who not having\nwherewith to pay the sailors who conveyed her to Egypt, gave to each of\nthem instead of money what are called \"favors,\" we should say to the\nBrahmin: Reverend father, you are mistaken; our religion is not the\nGolden Legend.\n\nWe reproach the ancients with their oracles, and prodigies; if they\ncould return to this world, and the miracles of our Lady of Loretto and\nour Lady of Ephesus could be counted, in whose favor would be the\nbalance?\n\nHuman sacrifices were established among almost every people, but very\nrarely put in practice. Among the Jews, only Jephthah's daughter and\nKing Agag were immolated; for Isaac and Jonathan were not. Among the\nGreeks, the story of \"Iphigenia\" is not well authenticated; and human\nsacrifices were very rare among the ancient Romans. In short, the\nreligion of the Pagans caused very little blood to be shed, while ours\nhas deluged the earth. Ours is doubtless the only good, the only true\none; but we have done so much harm by its means that when we speak of\nothers we should be modest.\n\n\nSEVENTH QUESTION.\n\nIf a man would persuade foreigners, or his own countrymen, of the truth\nof his religion, should he not go about it with the most insinuating\nmildness and the most engaging moderation? If he begins with telling\nthem that what he announces is demonstrated, he will find a multitude of\npersons incredulous; if he ventures to tell them that they reject his\ndoctrine only inasmuch as it condemns their passions; that their hearts\nhave corrupted their minds; that their reasoning is only false and\nproud, he disgusts them; he incenses them against himself; he himself\nruins what he would fain establish.\n\nIf the religion he announces be true, will violence and insolence render\nit more so? Do you put yourself in a rage, when you say that it is\nnecessary to be mild, patient, beneficent, just, and to fulfil all the\nduties of society? No; because everyone is of your own opinion. Why,\nthen, do you abuse your brother when preaching to him a mysterious\nsystem of metaphysics? Because his opinion irritates your self-love. You\nare so proud as to require your brother to submit his intelligence to\nyours; humbled pride produces the wrath; it has no other source. A man\nwho has received twenty wounds in a battle does not fly into a passion;\nbut a divine, wounded by the refusal of your assent, at once becomes\nfurious and implacable.\n\n\nEIGHTH QUESTION.\n\nMust we not carefully distinguish the religion of the state from\ntheological religion? The religion of the state requires that the imans\nkeep registers of the circumcised, the vicars or pastors registers of\nthe baptized; that there be mosques, churches, temples, days consecrated\nto rest and worship, rites established by law; that the ministers of\nthose rites enjoy consideration without power; that they teach good\nmorals to the people, and that the ministers of the law watch over the\nmorals of the ministers of the temples. This religion of the state\ncannot at any time cause any disturbance.\n\nIt is otherwise with theological religion: this is the source of all\nimaginable follies and disturbances; it is the parent of fanaticism and\ncivil discord; it is the enemy of mankind. A bonze asserts that _Fo_ is\na God,-that he was foretold by fakirs, that he was born of a white\nelephant, and that every bonze can by certain grimaces make a _Fo_. A\n_talapoin_ says, that _Fo_ was a holy man, whose doctrine the bonzes\nhave corrupted, and that _Sammonocodom_ is the true God. After a\nthousand arguments and contradictions, the two factions agree to refer\nthe question to the _dalai-lama_, who resides three hundred leagues off,\nand who is not only immortal, but also infallible. The two factions send\nto him a solemn deputation; and the _dalai-lama_ begins, according to\nhis divine custom, by distributing among them the contents of his\nclose-stool.\n\nThe two rival sects at first receive them with equal reverence; have\nthem dried in the sun, and encase them in little chaplets which they\nkiss devoutly; but no sooner have the _dalai-lama_ and his council\npronounced in the name of _Fo_, than the condemned party throw their\nchaplets in the vice-god's face, and would fain give him a sound\nthrashing. The other party defend their _lama_, from whom they have\nreceived good lands; both fight a long time; and when at last they are\ntired of mutual extermination, assassination, and poisoning, they\ngrossly abuse each other, while the _dalai-lama_ laughs, and still\ndistributes his excrement to whosoever is desirous of receiving the good\nfather lama's precious favors.\n\n\n\n\nRHYME.\n\n\nRhyme was probably invented to assist the memory, and to regulate at the\nsame time the song and the dance. The return of the same sounds served\nto bring easily and readily to the recollection the intermediate words\nbetween the two rhymes. Those rhymes were a guide at once to the singer\nand the dancer; they indicated the measure. Accordingly, in every\ncountry, verse was the language of the gods.\n\nWe may therefore class it among the list of probable, that is, of\nuncertain, opinions, that rhyme was at first a religious appendage or\nceremony; for after all, it is possible that verses and songs might be\naddressed by a man to his mistress before they were addressed by him to\nhis deities; and highly impassioned lovers indeed will say that the\ncases are precisely the same.\n\nA rabbi who gave a general view of the Hebrew language, which I never\nwas able to learn, once recited to me a number of rhymed psalms, which\nhe said we had most wretchedly translated. I remember two verses, which\nare as follows:\n\n     _Hibbitu clare vena haru_\n     _Ulph nehem al jeck pharu._\n\n\"They looked upon him and were lightened, and their faces were not\nashamed.\"\n\nNo rhyme can be richer than that of those two verses; and this being\nadmitted, I reason in the following manner:\n\nThe Jews, who spoke a jargon half Ph\u0153nician and half Syriac, rhymed;\ntherefore the great and powerful nations, under whom they were in\nslavery, rhymed also. We cannot help believing, that the Jews--who, as\nwe have frequently observed, adopted almost everything from their\nneighbors--adopted from them also rhyme.\n\nAll the Orientals rhyme; they are steady and constant in their usages.\nThey dress now as they have dressed for the long series of five or six\nthousand years. We may, therefore, well believe that they have rhymed\nfor a period of equal duration.\n\nSome of the learned contend that the Greeks began with rhyming, whether\nin honor of their gods, their heroes, or their mistresses; but, that\nafterwards becoming more sensible of the harmony of their language,\nhaving acquired a more accurate knowledge of prosody, and refined upon\nmelody, they made those requisite verses without rhyme which have been\ntransmitted down to us, and which the Latins imitated and very often\nsurpassed.\n\nAs for us, the miserable descendants of Goths, Vandals, Gauls, Franks,\nand Burgundians--barbarians who are incapable of attaining either the\nGreek or Latin melody--we are compelled to rhyme. Blank verse, among all\nmodern nations, is nothing but prose without any measure; it is\ndistinguished from ordinary prose only by a certain number of equal and\nmonotonous syllables, which it has been agreed to denominate \"verse.\"\n\nWe have remarked elsewhere that those who have written in blank verse\nhave done so only because they were incapable of rhyming. Blank verse\noriginated in an incapacity to overcome difficulty, and in a desire to\ncome to an end sooner.\n\nWe have remarked that Ariosto has made a series of forty-eight thousand\nrhymes without producing either disgust or weariness in a single reader.\nWe have observed how French poetry, in rhyme, sweeps all obstacles\nbefore it, and that pleasure arose even from the very obstacles\nthemselves. We have been always convinced that rhyme was necessary for\nthe ears, not for the eyes; and we have explained our opinions, if not\nwith judgment and success, at least without dictation and arrogance.\n\nBut we acknowledge that on the receipt at Mount Krapak of the late\ndreadful literary intelligence from Paris, our former moderation\ncompletely abandons us. We understand that there exists a rising sect of\nbarbarians, whose doctrine is that no tragedy should henceforward be\never written but in prose. This last blow alone was wanting, in addition\nto all our previous afflictions. It is the abomination of desolation in\nthe temple of the muses. We can very easily conceive that, after\nCorneille had turned into verse the \"Imitation of Jesus Christ,\" some\nsarcastic wag might menace the public with the acting of a tragedy in\nprose, by Floridor and Mondori; but this project having been seriously\nexecuted by the abb\u00e9 d'Aubignac, we well know with what success it was\nattended. We well know the ridicule and disgrace that were attached to\nthe prose \"\u0152dipus\" of De la Motte Houdart, which were nearly as great\nas those which were incurred by his \"\u0152dipus\" in verse. What miserable\nVisigoth can dare, after \"Cinna\" and \"Andromache,\" to banish verse from\nthe theatre? After the grand and brilliant age of our literature, can we\nbe really sunk into such degradation and opprobrium! Contemptible\nbarbarians! Go, then, and see this your prose tragedy performed by\nactors in their riding-coats at Vauxhall, and afterwards go and feast\nupon shoulder of mutton and strong beer.\n\nWhat would Racine and Boileau have said had this terrible intelligence\nbeen announced to them? \"_Bon Dieu_\"! Good God! from what a height have\nwe fallen, and into what a slough are we plunged!\n\nIt is certain that rhyme gives a most overwhelming and oppressive\ninfluence to verses possessing mere mediocrity of merit. The poet in\nthis case is just like a bad machinist, who cannot prevent the harsh and\ngrating sounds of his wires and pulleys from annoying the ear. His\nreaders experience the same fatigue that he underwent while forming his\nown rhymes; his verses are nothing but an empty jingling of wearisome\nsyllables. But if he is happy in his thoughts and happy also in his\nrhyme, he then experiences and imparts a pleasure truly exquisite--a\npleasure that can be fully enjoyed only by minds endowed with\nsensibility, and by ears attuned to harmony.\n\n\n\n\nRESURRECTION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWe are told that the Egyptians built their pyramids for no other purpose\nthan to make tombs of them, and that their bodies, embalmed within and\nwithout, waited there for their souls to come and reanimate them at the\nend of a thousand years. But if these bodies were to come to life again,\nwhy did the embalmers begin the operation by piercing the skull with a\ngimlet, and drawing out the brain? The idea of coming to life again\nwithout brains would make one suspect that--if the expression may be\nused--the Egyptians had not many while alive; but let us bear in mind\nthat most of the ancients believed the soul to be in the breast. And why\nshould the soul be in the breast rather than elsewhere? Because, when\nour feelings are at all violent, we do in reality feel, about the region\nof the heart, a dilatation or compression, which caused it to be thought\nthat the soul was lodged there. This soul was something aerial; it was a\nslight figure that went about at random until it found its body again.\n\nThe belief in resurrection is much more ancient than historical times.\nAthalides, son of Mercury, could die and come to life again at will;\n\u00c6sculapius restored Hippolytus to life, and Hercules, Alceste. Pelops,\nafter being cut in pieces by his father, was resuscitated by the gods.\nPlato relates that Heres came to life again for fifteen days only.\n\nAmong the Jews, the Pharisees did not adopt the dogma of the\nresurrection until long after Plato's time.\n\nIn the Acts of the Apostles there is a very singular fact, and one well\nworthy of attention. St. James and several of his companions advise St.\nPaul to go into the temple of Jerusalem, and, Christian as he was, to\nobserve all the ceremonies of the Old Law, in order--say they--\"that all\nmay know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee\nare nothing, but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the\nlaw.\" This is clearly saying: \"Go and lie; go and perjure yourself; go\nand publicly deny the religion which you teach.\"\n\nSt. Paul then went seven days into the temple; but on the seventh he was\ndiscovered. He was accused of having come into it with strangers, and of\nhaving profaned it. Let us see how he extricated himself.\n\nBut when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other\nPharisees, he cried out in the council--\"Men and brethren, I am a\nPharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the\ndead I am called in question.\" The resurrection of the dead formed no\npart of the question; Paul said this only to incense the Pharisees and\nSadducees against each other.\n\n\"And when he had so said there arose a dissension between the Pharisees\nand the Sadducees; and the multitude was divided.\n\n\"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor\nspirit; but the Pharisees confess both.\"\n\nIt has been asserted that Job, who is very ancient, was acquainted with\nthe doctrine of resurrection; and these words are cited: \"I know that\nmy Redeemer liveth, and that one day His redemption shall rise upon me;\nor that I shall rise again from the dust, that my skin shall return, and\nthat in my flesh I shall again see God.\"\n\nBut many commentators understand by these words that Job hopes soon to\nrecover from his malady, and that he shall not always remain lying on\nthe ground, as he then was. The sequel sufficiently proves this\nexplanation to be the true one; for he cries out the next moment to his\nfalse and hardhearted friends: \"Why then do you say let us persecute\nHim?\" Or: \"For you shall say, because we persecuted Him.\" Does not this\nevidently mean--you will repent of having ill used me, when you shall\nsee me again in my future state of health and opulence. When a sick man\nsays: I shall rise again, he does not say: I shall come to life again.\nTo give forced meanings to clear passages is the sure way never to\nunderstand one another; or rather, to be regarded by honest men as\nwanting sincerity.\n\nSt. Jerome dates the birth of the sect of the Pharisees but a very short\ntime before Jesus Christ. The rabbin Hillel is considered as having been\nthe founder of the Pharisa\u00efc sect; and this Hillel was contemporary with\nSt. Paul's master, Gamaliel.\n\nMany of these Pharisees believed that only the Jews were brought to life\nagain, the rest of mankind not being worth the trouble. Others\nmaintained that there would be no rising again but in Palestine; and\nthat the bodies of such as were buried elsewhere would be secretly\nconveyed into the neighborhood of Jerusalem, there to rejoin their\nsouls. But St. Paul, writing to the people of Thessalonica, says:\n\n\"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are\nalive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them\nwhich are asleep.\n\n\"For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the\nvoice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in\nChrist shall rise first.\n\n\"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up with them in the\nclouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the\nLord.\"\n\nDoes not this important passage clearly prove that the first Christians\ncalculated on seeing the end of the world? as, indeed, it was foretold\nby St. Luke to take place while he himself was alive? But if they did\nnot see this end of the world, if no one rose again in their day, that\nwhich is deferred is not lost.\n\nSt. Augustine believed that children, and even still-born infants, would\nrise again in a state of maturity. Origen, Jerome, Athanasius, Basil,\nand others, did not believe that women would rise again with the marks\nof their sex.\n\nIn short, there have ever been disputes about what we have been, about\nwhat we are, and about what we shall be.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nFather Malebranche proves resurrection by the caterpillars becoming\nbutterflies. This proof, as every one may perceive, is not more weighty\nthan the wings of the insects from which he borrows it. Calculating\nthinkers bring forth arithmetical objections against this truth which he\nhas so well proved. They say that men and other animals are really fed\nand derive their growth from the substance of their predecessors. The\nbody of a man, reduced to ashes, scattered in the air, and falling on\nthe surface of the earth, becomes corn or vegetable. So Cain ate a part\nof Adam; Enoch fed on Cain; Irad on Enoch; Mahalaleel on Irad;\nMethuselah on Mahalaleel; and thus we find that there is not one among\nus who has not swallowed some portion of our first parent. Hence it has\nbeen said that we have all been cannibals. Nothing can be clearer than\nthat such is the case after a battle; not only do we kill our brethren,\nbut at the end of two or three years, when the harvests have been\ngathered from the field of battle, we have eaten them all; and we, in\nturn, shall be eaten with the greatest facility imaginable. Now, when we\nare to rise again, how shall we restore to each one the body that\nbelongs to him, without losing something of our own?\n\nSo say those who trust not in resurrection; but the resurrectionists\nhave answered them very pertinently.\n\nA rabbin named Sama\u00ef demonstrates resurrection by this passage of\nExodus: \"I appeared unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and swore\nto give unto them the land of Canaan.\" Now--says this great\nrabbin--notwithstanding this oath, God did not give them that land;\ntherefore, they will rise again to enjoy it, in order that the oath be\nfulfilled.\n\nThe profound philosopher Calmet finds a much more conclusive proof in\nvampires. He saw vampires issuing from churchyards to go and suck the\nblood of good people in their sleep; it is clear that they could not\nsuck the blood of the living if they themselves were still dead;\ntherefore they had risen again; this is peremptory.\n\nIt is also certain that at the day of judgment all the dead will walk\nunder ground, like moles--so says the \"Talmud\"--that they may appear in\nthe valley of Jehoshaphat, which lies between the city of Jerusalem and\nthe Mount of Olives. There will be a good deal of squeezing in this\nvalley; but it will only be necessary to reduce the bodies\nproportionately, like Milton's devils in the hall of Pandemonium.\n\nThis resurrection will take place to the sound of the trumpet, according\nto St. Paul. There must, of course, be more trumpets than one; for the\nthunder itself is not heard more than three or four leagues round. It is\nasked: How many trumpets will there be? The divines have not yet made\nthe calculation; it will nevertheless be made.\n\nThe Jews say that Queen Cleopatra, who no doubt believed in the\nresurrection like all the ladies of that day, asked a Pharisee if we\nwere to rise again quite naked? The doctor answered that we shall be\nvery well dressed, for the same reason that the corn that has been sown\nand perished under ground rises again in ear with a robe and a beard.\nThis rabbin was an excellent theologian; he reasoned like Dom Calmet.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Resurrection of the Ancients._\n\nIt has been asserted that the dogma of resurrection was much in vogue\nwith the Egyptians, and was the origin of their embalmings and their\npyramids. This I myself formerly believed. Some said that the\nresurrection was to take place at the end of a thousand years; others at\nthe end of three thousand. This difference in their theological opinions\nseems to prove that they were not very sure about the matter.\n\nBesides, in the history of Egypt, we find no man raised again; but among\nthe Greeks we find several. Among the latter, then, we must look for\nthis invention of rising again.\n\nBut the Greeks often burned their bodies, and the Egyptians embalmed\nthem, that when the soul, which was a small, aerial figure, returned to\nits habitation, it might find it quite ready. This had been good if its\norgans had also been ready; but the embalmer began by taking out the\nbrain and clearing the entrails. How were men to rise again without\nintestines, and without the medullary part by means of which they think?\nWhere were they to find again the blood, the lymph, and other humors?\n\nYou will tell me that it was still more difficult to rise again among\nthe Greeks, where there was not left of you more than a pound of ashes\nat the utmost--mingled, too, with the ashes of wood, stuffs and spices.\n\nYour objection is forcible, and I hold with you, that resurrection is a\nvery extraordinary thing; but the son of Mercury did not the less die\nand rise again several times. The gods restored Pelops to life, although\nhe had been served up as a ragout, and Ceres had eaten one of his\nshoulders. You know that \u00c6sculapius brought Hippolytus to life again;\nthis was a verified fact, of which even the most incredulous had no\ndoubt; the name of \"_Virbius_,\" given to Hippolytus, was a convincing\nproof. Hercules had resuscitated Alceste and Pirithous. Heres did, it is\ntrue--according to Plato--come to life again for fifteen days only;\nstill it was a resurrection; the time does not alter the fact.\n\nMany grave schoolmen clearly see purgatory and resurrection in Virgil.\nAs for purgatory, I am obliged to acknowledge that it is expressly in\nthe sixth book. This may displease the Protestants, but I have no\nalternative:\n\n     _Non tamen omne malum miseris, nec funditus omnes_\n     _Corporea excedunt pestes,..._\n\n     Not death itself can wholly wash their stains;\n     But long contracted filth even in the soul remains.\n     The relics of inveterate vice they wear,\n     And spots of sin obscene in every face appear,...\n\nBut we have already quoted this passage in the article on \"Purgatory,\"\nwhich doctrine is here expressed clearly enough; nor could the kinsfolks\nof that day obtain from the pagan priests an indulgence to abridge their\nsufferings for ready money. The ancients were much more severe and less\nsimoniacal than we are notwithstanding that they imputed so many foolish\nactions to their gods. What would you have? Their theology was made up\nof contradictions, as the malignant say is the case with our own.\n\nWhen their purgation was finished, these souls went and drank of the\nwaters of Lethe, and instantly asked that they might enter fresh bodies\nand again see daylight. But is this a resurrection? Not at all; it is\ntaking an entirely new body, not resuming the old one; it is a\nmetempsychosis, without any relation to the manner in which we of the\ntrue faith are to rise again.\n\nThe souls of the ancients did, I must acknowledge, make a very bad\nbargain in coming back to this world, for seventy years at most, to\nundergo once more all that we know is undergone in a life of seventy\nyears, and then suffer another thousand years' discipline. In my humble\nopinion there is no soul that would not be tired of this everlasting\nvicissitude of so short a life and so long a penance.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_Resurrection of the Moderns._\n\nOur resurrection is quite different. Every man will appear with\nprecisely the same body which he had before; and all these bodies will\nbe burned for all eternity, excepting only, at most, one in a hundred\nthousand. This is much worse than a purgatory of ten centuries, in order\nto live here again a few years.\n\nWhen will the great day of this general resurrection arrive? This is not\npositively known; and the learned are much divided. Nor do they any more\nknow how each one is to find his own members again. Hereupon they start\nmany difficulties.\n\n1. Our body, say they, is, during life, undergoing a continual change;\nat fifty years of age we have nothing of the body in which our soul was\nlodged at twenty.\n\n2. A soldier from Brittany goes into Canada; there, by a very common\nchance, he finds himself short of food, and is forced to eat an Iroquois\nwhom he killed the day before. This Iroquois had fed on Jesuits for two\nor three months; a great part of his body had become Jesuit. Here, then,\nthe body of a soldier is composed of Iroquois, of Jesuits, and of all\nthat he had eaten before. How is each to take again precisely what\nbelongs to him? and which part belongs to each?\n\n3. A child dies in its mother's womb, just at the moment that it has\nreceived a soul. Will it rise again f\u0153tus, or boy, or man?\n\n4. To rise again--to be the same person as you were--you must have your\nmemory perfectly fresh and present; it is memory that makes your\nidentity. If your memory be lost, how will you be the same man?\n\n5. There are only a certain number of earthly particles that can\nconstitute an animal. Sand, stone, minerals, metals, contribute nothing.\nAll earth is not adapted thereto; it is only the soils favorable to\nvegetation that are favorable to the animal species. When, after the\nlapse of many ages, every one is to rise again, where shall be found the\nearth adapted to the formation of all these bodies?\n\n6. Suppose an island, the vegetative part of which will suffice for a\nthousand men, and for five or six thousand animals to feed and labor for\nthat thousand men; at the end of a hundred thousand generations we shall\nhave to raise again a thousand millions of men. It is clear that matter\nwill be wanting: \"_Materies opus est, ut crescunt post era saecla_.\"\n\n7. And lastly, when it is proved, or thought to be proved, that a\nmiracle as great as the universal deluge, or the ten plagues of Egypt,\nwill be necessary to work the resurrection of all mankind in the valley\nof Jehoshaphat, it is asked: What becomes of the souls of all these\nbodies while awaiting the moment of returning into their cases?\n\nFifty rather knotty questions might easily be put; but the divines would\nlikewise easily find answers to them all.\n\n\n\n\nRIGHTS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_National Rights--Natural Rights--Public Rights._\n\nI know no better way of commencing this subject than with the verses of\nAriosto, in the second stanza of the 44th canto of the \"_Orlando\nFurioso_,\" which observes that kings, emperors, and popes, sign fine\ntreaties one day which they break the next, and that, whatever piety\nthey may affect, the only god to whom they really appeal, is their\ninterest:\n\n     _Fan lega oggi re, papi et imperatori_\n     _Doman saran nimici capitali:_\n     _Perche, qual Papparenze esteriori,_\n     _Non hanno i cor, non han gli animi tali,_\n     _Che non mirando al torto piu che al dritto._\n     _Attendon solamente al lor profitto._\n\nIf there were only two men on earth, how would they live together? They\nwould assist each other; they would annoy each other; they would court\neach other; they would speak ill of each other; fight with each other;\nbe reconciled to each other; and be neither able to live with nor\nwithout each other. In short, they would do as people at present do,\nwho possess the gift of reason certainly, but the gift of instinct also;\nand will feel, reason, and act forever as nature has destined.\n\nNo god has descended upon our globe, assembled the human race, and said\nto them, \"I ordain that the negroes and Kaffirs go stark naked and feed\nupon insects.\n\n\"I order the Samoyeds to clothe, themselves with the skins of reindeer,\nand to feed upon their flesh, insipid as it is, and eat dry and half\nputrescent fish without salt. It is my will that the Tartars of Thibet\nall believe what their _dalai-lama_ shall say; and that the Japanese pay\nthe same attention to their _dairo_.\n\n\"The Arabs are not to eat swine, and the Westphalians nothing else but\nswine.\n\n\"I have drawn a line from Mount Caucasus to Egypt, and from Egypt to\nMount Atlas. All who inhabit the east of that line may espouse as many\nwomen as they please; those to the west of it must be satisfied with\none.\n\n\"If, towards the Adriatic Gulf, or the marshes of the Rhine and the\nMeuse, or in the neighborhood of Mount Jura, or the Isle of Albion, any\none shall wish to make another despotic, or aspire to be so himself, let\nhis head be cut off, on a full conviction that destiny and myself are\nopposed to his intentions.\n\n\"Should any one be so insolent as to attempt to establish an assembly\nof free men on the banks of the Manzanares, or on the shores of the\nPropontis, let him be empaled alive or drawn asunder by four horses.\n\n\"Whoever shall make up his accounts according to a certain rule of\narithmetic at Constantinople, at Grand Cairo, at Tafilet, at Delhi, or\nat Adrianople, let him be empaled alive on the spot, without form of\nlaw; and whoever shall dare to account by any other rule at Lisbon,\nMadrid, in Champagne, in Picardy, and towards the Danube, from Ulm unto\nBelgrade, let him be devoutly burned amidst chantings of the\n'_Miserere_.'\n\n\"That which is just along the shores of the Loire is otherwise on the\nbanks of the Thames; for my laws are universal,\" etc.\n\nIt must be confessed that we have no very clear proof, even in the\n\"_Journal Chr\u00e9tien_,\" nor in \"The Key to the Cabinet of Princes,\" that a\ngod has descended in order to promulgate such a public law. It exists,\nnotwithstanding, and is literally practised according to the preceding\nannouncement; and there have been compiled, compiled, and compiled, upon\nthese national rights, very admirable commentaries, which have never\nproduced a sou to the great numbers who have been ruined by war, by\nedicts, and by tax-gatherers.\n\nThese compilations closely resemble the case of conscience of Pontas. It\nis forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished who kill not\nin large companies, and to the sound of trumpets; it is the rule.\n\nAt the time when Anthropophagi still existed in the forest of Ardennes,\nan old villager met with a man-eater, who had carried away an infant to\ndevour it. Moved with pity, the villager killed the devourer of children\nand released the little boy, who quickly fled away. Two passengers, who\nwitnessed the transaction at a distance, accused the good man with\nhaving committed a murder on the king's highway. The person of the\noffender being produced before the judge, the two witnesses--after they\nhad paid the latter a hundred crowns for the exercise of his\nfunctions--deposed to the particulars, and the law being precise, the\nvillager was hanged upon the spot for doing that which had so much\nexalted Hercules, Theseus, Orlando, and Amadis the Gaul. Ought the judge\nto be hanged himself, who executed this law to the letter? How ought the\npoint to be decided upon a general principle? To resolve a thousand\nquestions of this kind, a thousand volumes have been written.\n\nPuffendorff first established moral existences: \"There are,\" said he,\n\"certain modes which intelligent beings attach to things natural, or to\nphysical operations, with the view of directing or restraining the\nvoluntary actions of mankind, in order to infuse order, convenience, and\nfelicity into human existence.\"\n\nThus, to give correct ideas to the Swedes and the Germans of the just\nand the unjust, he remarks that \"there are two kinds of place, in regard\nto one of which, it is said, that things are for example, here or there;\nand in respect to the other, that they have existed, do, or will exist\nat a certain time, as for example, yesterday, to-day, or to-morrow. In\nthe same manner we conceive two sorts of moral existence, the one of\nwhich denotes a moral state, that has some conformity with place, simply\nconsidered; the other a certain time, when a moral effect will be\nproduced,\" etc.\n\nThis is not all; Puffendorff curiously distinguishes the simple moral\nfrom the modes of opinion, and the formal from the operative qualities.\nThe formal qualities are simple attributes, but the operative are to be\ncarefully divided into original and derivated.\n\nIn the meantime, Barbeyrac has commented on these fine things, and they\nare taught in the universities, and opinion is divided between Grotius\nand Puffendorff in regard to questions of similar importance. Take my\nrecommendation; read Tully's \"Offices.\"\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nNothing possibly can tend more to render a mind false, obscure, and\nuncertain than the perusal of Grotius, Puffendorff, and almost all the\nwriters on the \"_jus gentium_.\"\n\nWe must not do evil that good may come of it, says the writer to whom\nnobody hearkens. It is permitted to make war on a power, lest it should\nbecome too strong, says the \"Spirit of Laws.\"\n\nWhen rights are to be established by prescription, the publicists call\nto their aid divine right and human right; and the theologians take\ntheir part in the dispute. \"Abraham and his seed,\" say they, \"had a\nright to the land of Canaan, because he had travelled there; and God had\ngiven it to him in a vision.\" But according to the vulgate sage\nteachers, five hundred and forty-seven years elapsed between the time\nwhen Abraham purchased a sepulchre in the country and Joshua took\npossession of a small part of it. No matter, his right was clear and\ncorrect. And then prescription? Away with prescription! Ought that which\nonce took place in Palestine to serve as a rule for Germany and Italy?\nYes, for He said so. Be it so, gentlemen; God preserve me from disputing\nwith you!\n\nThe descendants of Attila, it is said, established themselves in\nHungary. Till what time must the ancient inhabitants hold themselves\nbound in conscience to remain serfs to the descendants of Attila?\n\nOur doctors, who have written on peace and war, are very profound; if we\nattend to them, everything belongs of right to the sovereign for whom\nthey write; he, in fact, has never been able to alienate his domains.\nThe emperor of right ought to possess Rome, Italy, and France; such was\nthe opinion of Bartholus; first, because the emperor was entitled king\nof the Romans; and, secondly, because the archbishop of Cologne is\nchancellor of Italy, and the archbishop of Trier chancellor of Gaul.\nMoreover, the emperor of Germany carries a gilded ball at his\ncoronation, which of course proves that he is the rightful master of the\nwhole globe.\n\nAt Rome there is not a single priest who has not learned, in his course\nof theology, that the pope ought to be master of this earth, seeing it\nis written that it was said to Simon, the son of Jonas: \"Thou art Peter,\nand upon this rock I will build my church.\" It was well said to Gregory\nVII. that this treated only of souls, and of the celestial kingdom.\nDamnable observation! he replied; and would have hanged the observer had\nhe been able.\n\nSpirits, still more profound, establish this reasoning by an argument to\nwhich there is no reply. He to whom the bishop of Rome calls himself\nvicar has declared that his dominion is not of this world; can this\nworld then belong to the vicar, when his master has renounced it? Which\nought to prevail, human nature or the decretals? The decretals,\nindisputably.\n\nIf it be asked whether the massacre of ten or twelve millions of unarmed\nmen in America was defensible, it is replied that nothing can be more\njust and holy, since they were not Catholic, apostolic and Roman.\n\nThere is not an age in which the declarations of war of Christian\nprinces have not authorized the attack and pillage of all the subjects\nof the prince, to whom war has been announced by a herald, in a coat of\nmail and hanging sleeves. Thus, when this signification has been made,\nshould a native of Auvergne meet a German, he is bound to kill, and\nentitled to rob him either before or after the murder.\n\nThe following has been a very thorny question for the schools: The ban,\nand the arri\u00e8re-ban, having been ordered out in order to kill and be\nkilled on the frontiers, ought the Suabians, being satisfied that the\nwar is atrociously unjust, to march? Some doctors say yes; others, more\njust, pronounce no. What say the politicians?\n\nWhen we have fully discussed these great preliminary questions, with\nwhich no sovereign embarrasses himself, or is embarrassed, we must\nproceed to discuss the right of fifty or sixty families upon the county\nof Alost; the town of Orchies; the duchy of Berg and of Juliers; upon\nthe countries of Tournay and Nice; and, above all, on the frontiers of\nall the provinces, where the weakest always loses his cause.\n\nIt was disputed for a hundred years whether the dukes of Orleans, Louis\nXII., and Francis I., had a claim on the duchy of Milan, by virtue of a\ncontract of marriage with Valentina de Milan, granddaughter of the\nbastard of a brave peasant, named Jacob Muzio. Judgment was given in\nthis process at the battle of Pavia.\n\nThe dukes of Savoy, of Lorraine, and of Tuscany still pretend to the\nMilanese; but it is believed that a family of poor gentlemen exist in\nFriuli, the posterity in a right line from Albion, king of the Lombards,\nwho possess an anterior claim.\n\nThe publicists have written great books upon the rights of the kingdom\nof Jerusalem. The Turks have written none, and Jerusalem belongs to\nthem; at least at this present writing; nor is Jerusalem a kingdom.\n\n\nCANONICAL RIGHTS--OR LAW.\n\n_General Idea of the Rights of the Church or Canon Law, by M. Bertrand,\nHeretofore First Pastor of the Church of Berne._\n\nWe assume neither to adopt nor contradict the principles of M. Bertrand;\nit is for the public to judge of them.\n\nCanon law, or the canon, according to the vulgar opinion, is\necclesiastical jurisprudence. It is the collection of canons, rules of\nthe council, decrees of the popes, and maxims of the fathers.\n\nAccording to reason, and to the rights of kings and of the people,\necclesiastical jurisprudence is only an exposition of the privileges\naccorded to ecclesiastics by sovereigns representing the nation.\n\nIf two supreme authorities, two administrations, having separate rights,\nexist, and the one will make war without ceasing upon the other, the\nunavoidable result will be perpetual convulsions, civil wars, anarchy,\ntyranny, and all the misfortunes of which history presents so miserable\na picture.\n\nIf a priest is made sovereign; if the dairo of Japan remained emperor\nuntil the sixteenth century; if the _dalai-lama_ is still sovereign at\nThibet; if Numa was at once king and pontiff; if the caliphs were heads\nof the state as well as of religion; and if the popes reign at\nRome--these are only so many proofs of the truth of what we advance; the\nauthority is not divided; there is but one power. The sovereigns of\nRussia and of England preside over religion; the essential unity of\npower is there preserved.\n\nEvery religion is within the State; every priest forms a part of civil\nsociety, and all ecclesiastics are among the number of the subjects of\nthe sovereign under whom they exercise their ministry. If a religion\nexists which establishes ecclesiastical independence, and supports them\nin a sovereign and legitimate authority, that religion cannot spring\nfrom God, the author of society.\n\nIt is even to be proved, from all evidence, that in a religion of which\nGod is represented as the author, the functions of ministers, their\npersons, property, pretensions, and manner of inculcating morality,\nteaching doctrines, celebrating ceremonies, the adjustment of spiritual\npenalties; in a word, all that relates to civil order, ought to be\nsubmitted to the authority of the prince and the inspection of the\nmagistracy.\n\nIf this jurisprudence constitutes a science, here will be found the\nelements.\n\nIt is for the magistracy, solely, to authorize the books admissible into\nthe schools, according to the nature and form of the government. It is\nthus that M. Paul Joseph Rieger, counsellor of the court, judiciously\nteaches canon law in the University of Vienna; and, in the like manner,\nthe republic of Venice examined and reformed all the rules in the states\nwhich have ceased to belong to it. It is desirable that examples so wise\nshould generally prevail.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n_Of the Ecclesiastical Ministry._\n\nReligion is instituted only to preserve order among mankind, and to\nrender them worthy of the bounty of the Deity by virtue. Everything in a\nreligion which does not tend to this object ought to be regarded as\nforeign or dangerous.\n\nInstruction, exhortation, the fear of punishment to come, the promises\nof a blessed hereafter, prayer, advice, and spiritual consolation are\nthe only means which churchmen can properly employ to render men\nvirtuous on earth and happy to all eternity.\n\nEvery other means is repugnant to the freedom of reason; to the nature\nof the soul; to the unalterable rights of conscience; to the essence of\nreligion; to that of the clerical ministry; and to the just rights of\nthe sovereign.\n\nVirtue infers liberty, as the transport of a burden implies active\nforce. With constraint there is no virtue, and without virtue no\nreligion. Make me a slave and I shall be the worse for it.\n\nEven the sovereign has no right to employ force to lead men to religion,\nwhich essentially presumes choice and liberty. My opinions are no more\ndependent on authority than my sickness or my health.\n\nIn a word, to unravel all the contradictions in which books on the canon\nlaw abound, and to adjust our ideas in respect to the ecclesiastical\nministry, let us endeavor, in the midst of a thousand ambiguities, to\ndetermine what is the Church.\n\nThe Church, then, is all believers, collectively, who are called\ntogether on certain days to pray in common, and at all times to perform\ngood actions.\n\nPriests are persons appointed, under the authority of the State, to\ndirect these prayers, and superintend public worship generally.\n\nA numerous Church cannot exist without ecclesiastics; but these\necclesiastics are not the Church.\n\nIt is not less evident that if the ecclesiastics, who compose a part of\ncivil society, have acquired rights which tend to trouble or destroy\nsuch society, such rights ought to be suppressed.\n\nIt is still more obvious that if God has attached prerogatives or rights\nto the Church, these prerogatives and these rights belong exclusively\nneither to the head of the Church nor to the ecclesiastics; because\nthese are not the Church itself, any more than the magistrates are the\nsovereign, either in a republic or a monarchy.\n\nLastly; it is very evident that it is our souls only which are submitted\nto the care of the clergy, and that for spiritual objects alone.\n\nThe soul acts inwardly; its inward acts are thought, will, inclination,\nand an acquiescence in certain truths, all which are above restraint;\nand it is for the ecclesiastical ministry to instruct, but not to\ncommand them.\n\nThe soul acts also outwardly. Its exterior acts are submission to the\ncivil law; and here constraint may take place, and temporal or corporeal\npenalties may punish the violations of the law.\n\nObedience to the ecclesiastical order ought, consequently, to be always\nfree and voluntary; it ought to exact no other. On the contrary,\nsubmission to the civil law may be enforced.\n\nFor the same reason ecclesiastical penalties, always being spiritual,\nattach in this world to those only who are inwardly convinced of their\nerror. Civil penalties, on the contrary, accompanied by physical evil\nproduce physical effects, whether the offender acknowledge the justice\nof them or not.\n\nHence it manifestly results that the authority of the clergy can only be\nspiritual--that it is unacquainted with temporal power, and that any\nco-operative force belongs not to the administration of the Church,\nwhich is essentially destroyed by it.\n\nIt moreover follows that a prince, intent not to suffer any division of\nhis authority, ought not to permit any enterprise which places the\nmembers of the community in an outward or civil dependence on the\necclesiastical corporation.\n\nSuch are the incontestable principles of genuine canonical right or law,\nthe rules and the decisions of which ought at all times to be submitted\nto the test of eternal and immutable truths, founded upon natural rights\nand the necessary order of society.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Of the Possessions of Ecclesiastics._\n\nLet us constantly ascend to the principles of society, which, in civil\nas in religious order, are the foundations of all right.\n\nSociety in general is the proprietor of the territory of a country, and\nthe source of national riches. A portion of this national revenue is\ndevoted to the sovereign to support the expenses of government. Every\nindividual is possessor of that part of the territory, and of the\nrevenue, which the laws insure him; and no possession or enjoyment can\nat any time be sustained, except under the protection of law.\n\nIn society we hold not any good, or any possession as a simple natural\nright, as we give up our natural rights and submit to the order of civil\nsociety, in return for assurance and protection. It is, therefore, by\nthe law that we hold our possessions.\n\nNo one can hold anything on earth through religion, neither lands nor\nchattels; since all its wealth is spiritual. The possessions of the\nfaithful, as veritable members of the Church, are in heaven; it is there\nwhere their treasures are laid up. The kingdom of Jesus Christ, which He\nalways announced as at hand, was not, nor could it be, of this world. No\nproperty, therefore, can be held by divine right.\n\nThe Levites under the Hebrew law had, it is true, their tithe by a\npositive law of God; but that was under a theocracy which exists no\nlonger--God Himself acting as the sovereign. All those laws have ceased,\nand cannot at present communicate any title to possession.\n\nIf any body at present, like that of the priesthood, pretend to possess\ntithes or any other wealth by positive right divine, it must produce an\nexpress and incontestable proof enregistered by divine revelation. This\nmiraculous title would be, I confess, an exception to the civil law,\nauthorized by God, who says: \"All persons ought to submit to the powers\nthat be, because they are ordained of God and established in His name.\"\n\nIn defect of such a title, no ecclesiastical body whatever can enjoy\naught on earth but by consent of the sovereignty and the authority of\nthe civil laws. These form their sole title to possession. If the clergy\nimprudently renounce this title, they will possess none at all, and\nmight be despoiled by any one who is strong enough to attempt it. Its\nessential interest is, therefore, to support civil society, to which it\nowes everything.\n\nFor the same reason, as all the wealth of a nation is liable without\nexception to public expenditure for the defence of the sovereign and the\nnation, no property can be exempt from it but by force of law, which law\nis always revocable as circumstances vary. Peter cannot be exempt\nwithout augmenting the tax of John. Equity, therefore, is eternally\nclaiming for equality against surcharges; and the State has a right, at\nall times, to examine into exemptions, in order to replace things in a\njust, natural, proportionate order, by abolishing previously granted\nimmunities, whether permitted or extorted.\n\nEvery law which ordains that the sovereign, at the expense of the\npublic, shall take care of the wealth or possessions of any individual\nor a body, without this body or individual contributing to the common\nexpenses, amounts to a subversion of law.\n\nI moreover assert that the quota, whether the contribution of a body or\nan individual, ought to be proportionately regulated, not by him or\nthem, but by the sovereign or magistracy, according to the general form\nand law. Thus the sovereign or state may demand an account of the wealth\nand of the possessions of everybody as of every individual.\n\nIt is, therefore, once more on these immutable principles that the rules\nof the canon law should be founded which relate to the possessions and\nrevenue of the clergy.\n\nEcclesiastics, without doubt, ought to be allowed sufficient to live\nhonorably, but not as members of or as representing the Church, for the\nChurch itself claims neither sovereignty nor possession in this world.\n\nBut if it be necessary for ministers to preside at t the altar, it is\nproper that society should support them in the same manner as the\nmagistracy and soldiers. It is, therefore, for the civil law to make a\nsuitable provision for the priesthood.\n\nEven when the possessions of the ecclesiastics have been bestowed on\nthem by wills, or in any other manner, the donors have not been able to\ndenationalize the property by abstracting it from public charges and the\nauthority of the laws. It is always under the guarantee of the laws,\nwithout which they would not possess the insured and legitimate\npossessions which they enjoy.\n\nIt is, therefore, still left to the sovereign, or the magistracy in his\nname, to examine at all times if the ecclesiastical revenues be\nsufficient; and if they are not, to augment the allotted provision; if,\non the contrary, they are excessive, it is for them to dispose of the\nsuperfluity for the general good of society.\n\nBut according to the right, commonly called canonical, which has sought\nto form a State within the State, \"_imperium in imperio_,\"\necclesiastical property is sacred and intangible, because it belongs to\nreligion and the Church; they have come of God, and not of man.\n\nIn the first place, it is impossible to appropriate this terrestrial\nwealth to religion, which has nothing temporal. They cannot belong to\nthe Church, which is the universal body of the believers, including the\nking, the magistracy, the soldiery, and all subjects; for we are never\nto forget that priests no more form the Church than magistrates the\nState.\n\nLastly, these goods come only from God in the same sense as all goods\ncome from Him, because all is submitted to His providence.\n\nTherefore, every ecclesiastical possessor of riches, or revenue, enjoys\nit only as a subject and citizen of the State, under the single\nprotection of the civil law.\n\nProperty, which is temporal and material, cannot be rendered sacred or\nholy in any sense, neither literally nor figuratively. If it be said\nthat a person or edifice is sacred, it only signifies that it has been\nconsecrated or set apart for spiritual purposes.\n\nThe abuse of a metaphor, to authorize rights and pretensions destructive\nto all society, is an enterprise of which history and religion furnish\nmore than one example, and even some very singular ones, which are not\nat present to my purpose.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Of Ecclesiastical or Religious Assemblies._\n\nIt is certain that nobody can call any public or regular assembly in a\nstate but under the sanction of civil authority.\n\nReligious assemblies for public worship must be authorized by the\nsovereign, or civil magistracy, before they can be legal.\n\nIn Holland, where the civil power grants the greatest liberty, and very\nnearly the same in Russia, in England, and in Prussia, those who wish to\nform a church have to obtain permission, after which the new church is\nin the states, although not of the religion of the states. In general,\nas soon as there is a sufficient number of persons, or of families, who\nwish to cultivate a particular mode of worship, and to assemble for that\npurpose, they can without hesitation apply to the magistrate, who makes\nhimself a judge of it; and once allowed, it cannot be disturbed without\na breach of public order. The facility with which the government of\nHolland has granted this permission has never produced any disorder; and\nit would be the same everywhere if the magistrate alone examined,\njudged, and protected the parties concerned.\n\nThe sovereign, or civil power, possesses the right at all times of\nknowing what passes within these assemblies, of regulating, them in\nconformity with public order, and of preventing such as produce\ndisorder. This perpetual inspection is an essential portion of\nsovereignty, which every religion ought to acknowledge.\n\nEverything in the worship, in respect to form of prayer, canticles, and\nceremonies, ought to be open to the inspection of the magistrate. The\nclergy may compose these prayers; but it is for the State to approve or\nreform them in case of necessity. Bloody wars have been undertaken for\nmere forms, which would never have been waged had sovereigns understood\ntheir rights.\n\nHolidays ought to be no more established without the consent and\napprobation of the State, who may at all times abridge and regulate\nthem. The multiplication of such days always produces a laxity of\nmanners and national impoverishment.\n\nA superintendence over oral instruction and books of devotion, belongs\nof right to the State. It is not the executive which teaches, but which\nattends to the manner in which the people are taught. Morality above all\nshould be attended to, which is always necessary; whereas disputes\nconcerning doctrines are often dangerous.\n\nIf disputes exist between ecclesiastics in reference to the manner of\nteaching, or on points of doctrine, the State may impose silence on both\nparties, and punish the disobedient.\n\nAs religious congregations are not permitted by the State in order to\ntreat of political matters, magistrates ought to repress seditious\npreachers, who heat the multitude by punishable declamation: these are\npests in every State.\n\nEvery mode of worship presumes a discipline to maintain order,\nuniformity, and decency. It is for the magistrate to protect this\ndiscipline, and to bring about such changes as times and circumstances\nmay render necessary.\n\nFor nearly eight centuries the emperors of the East assembled councils\nin order to appease religious disputes, which were only augmented by the\ntoo great attention paid to them. Contempt would have more certainly\nterminated the vain disputation, which interest and the passions had\nexcited. Since the division of the empire of the West into various\nkingdoms, princes have left to the pope the convocation of these\nassemblies. The rights of the Roman pontiff are in this respect purely\nconventional, and the sovereigns may agree in the course of time, that\nthey shall no longer exist; nor is any one of them obliged to submit to\nany canon without having examined and approved it. However, as the\nCouncil of Trent will most likely be the last, it is useless to agitate\nall the questions which might relate to a future general council.\n\nAs to assemblies, synods, or national councils, they indisputably cannot\nbe convoked except when the sovereign or State deems them necessary. The\ncommissioners of the latter ought therefore to preside, direct all their\ndeliberations, and give their sanction to the decrees.\n\nThere may exist periodical assemblies of the clergy, to maintain order,\nunder the authority of the State, but the civil power ought uniformly to\ndirect their views and guide their deliberations. The periodical\nassembly of the clergy of France is only an assembly of regulative\ncommissioners for all the clergy of the kingdom.\n\nThe vows by which certain ecclesiastics oblige themselves to live in a\nbody according to certain rules, under the name of monks, or of\nreligieux, so prodigiously multiplied in Europe, should always be\nsubmitted to the inspection and approval of the magistrate. These\nconvents, which shut up so many persons who are useless to society, and\nso many victims who regret the liberty which they have lost; these\norders, which bear so many strange denominations, ought not to be valid\nor obligatory, unless when examined and sanctioned by the sovereign or\nthe State.\n\nAt all times, therefore, the prince or State has a right to take\ncognizance of the rules and conduct of these religious houses, and to\nreform or abolish them if held to be incompatible with present\ncircumstances, and the positive welfare of society.\n\nThe revenue and property of these religious bodies are, in like manner,\nopen to the inspection of the magistracy, in order to judge of their\namount and of the manner in which they are employed. If the mass of the\nriches, which is thus prevented from circulation, be too great; if the\nrevenues greatly exceed the reasonable support of the regulars; if the\nemployment of these revenues be opposed to the general good; if this\naccumulation impoverish the rest of the community; in all these cases it\nbecomes the magistracy, as the common fathers of the country, to\ndiminish and divide these riches, in order to make them partake of the\ncirculation, which is the life of the body politic; or even to employ\nthem in any other way for the benefit of the public.\n\nAgreeably to the same principles, the sovereign authority ought to\nforbid any religious order from having a superior who is a native or\nresident of another country. It approaches to the crime of l\u00e8se-majest\u00e9.\n\nThe sovereign may prescribe rules for admission into these orders; he\nmay, according to ancient usage, fix an age, and hinder taking vows,\nexcept by the express consent of the magistracy in each instance. Every\ncitizen is born a subject of the State, and has no right to break his\nnatural engagements with society without the consent of those who\npreside over it.\n\nIf the sovereign abolishes a religious order, the vows cease to be\nbinding. The first vow is that to the State; it is a primary and tacit\noath authorized by God; a vow according to the decrees of Providence; a\nvow unalterable and imprescriptible, which unites man in society to his\ncountry and his sovereign. If we take a posterior vow, the primitive one\nstill exists; and when they clash, nothing can weaken or suspend the\nforce of the primary engagement. If, therefore, the sovereign declares\nthis last vow, which is only conditional and dependent on the first,\nincompatible with it, he does not dissolve a vow, but decrees it to be\nnecessarily void, and replaces the individual in his natural state.\n\nThe foregoing is quite sufficient to dissipate all the sophistry by\nwhich the canonists have sought to embarrass a question so simple in the\nestimation of all who are disposed to listen to reason.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_On Ecclesiastical Penalties._\n\nSince neither the Church, which is the body of believers collectively,\nnor the ecclesiastics, who are ministers in the Church in the name of\nthe sovereign and under his authority, possess any coactive strength,\nexecutive power, or terrestrial authority, it is evident that these\nministers can inflict only spiritual punishments. To threaten sinners\nwith the anger of heaven is the sole penalty that a pastor is entitled\nto inflict. If the name of punishment or penalty is not to be given to\nthose censures or declamations, ministers of religion have none at all\nto inflict.\n\nMay the Church eject from its bosom those who disgrace or who trouble\nit? This is a grand question, upon which the canonists have not\nhesitated to adopt the affirmative. Let us repeat, in the first place,\nthat ecclesiastics are not the Church. The assembled Church, which\nincludes the State or sovereign, doubtless possesses the right to\nexclude from the congregations a scandalous sinner, after repeated\ncharitable and sufficient warnings. The exclusion, even in this case,\ncannot inflict any civil penalty, any bodily evil, or any merely earthly\nprivation; but whatever right the Church may in this way possess, the\necclesiastics belonging to it can only exercise it as far as the\nsovereign and State allow.\n\nIt is therefore still more incumbent on the sovereign, in this case, to\nwatch over the manner in which this permitted right is exercised,\nvigilance being the more necessary in consequence of the abuse to which\nit is liable. It is, consequently, necessary for the supreme civil power\nto consult the rules for the regulation of assistance and charity, to\nprescribe suitable restrictions, without which every declaration of the\nclergy, and all excommunication, will be null and without effect, even\nwhen only applicable to the spiritual order. It is to confound different\neras and circumstances, to regulate the proceedings of present times\nfrom the practice of the apostles. The sovereign in those days was not\nof the religion of the apostles, nor was the Church included in the\nState, so that the ministers of worship could not have recourse to the\nmagistrates. Moreover, the apostles were ministers extraordinary, of\nwhich we now perceive no resemblance. If other examples of\nexcommunication, without the authority of the sovereign, be quoted, I\ncan only say that I cannot hear, without horror, of examples of\nexcommunication insolently fulminated against sovereigns and\nmagistrates; I boldly reply, that these denunciations amount to manifest\nrebellion, and to an open violation of the most sacred duties of\nreligion, charity, and natural right.\n\nLet us add, in order to afford a complete idea of excommunication, and\nof the true rules of canonical right or law in this respect, that\nexcommunication, legitimately pronounced by those to whom the sovereign,\nin the name of the Church, expressly leaves the power, includes\nprivation only of spiritual advantages on earth, and can extend to\nnothing else: all beyond this will be abuse, and more or less\ntyrannical. The ministers of the Church can do no more than declare that\nsuch and such a man is no more a member of the Church. He may still,\nhowever, enjoy notwithstanding the excommunication, all his natural,\ncivil, and temporal rights as a man and a citizen. If the magistrate\nsteps in and deprives such a man, in consequence, of an office or\nemployment in society, it then becomes a civil penalty for some fault\nagainst civil order.\n\nLet us suppose that which may very likely happen, as ecclesiastics are\nonly men, that the excommunication which they have been led to pronounce\nhas been prompted by some error or some passion; he who is exposed to a\ncensure so precipitate is clearly justified in his conscience before\nGod; the declaration issued against him can produce no effect upon the\nlife to come. Deprived of exterior communion with the true Church, he\nmay still enjoy the consolation of the interior communion. Justified by\nhis conscience, he has nothing to fear in a future existence from the\njudgment of God, his only true judge.\n\nIt is then a great question, as to canonical rights, whether the clergy,\ntheir head, or any ecclesiastical body whatever, can excommunicate the\nsovereign or the magistracy, under any pretext, or for any abuse of\ntheir power? This question is essentially scandalous, and the simple\ndoubt a direct rebellion. In fact, the first duty of man in society is\nto respect the magistrate, and to advance his respectability, and you\npretend to have a right to censure and set him aside. Who has given you\nthis absurd and pernicious right? Is it God, who governs the political\nworld by delegated sovereignty, and who ordains that society shall\nsubsist by subordination?\n\nThe first ecclesiastics at the rise of Christianity--did they conceive\nthemselves authorized to excommunicate Tiberius, Nero, Claudius, or even\nConstantine, who was a heretic? How then have pretensions thus\nmonstrous, ideas thus atrocious, wicked attempts equally condemned by\nreason and by natural and religious rights, been suffered to last so\nlong? If a religion exists which teaches like horrors, society ought to\nproscribe it, as directly subversive of the repose of mankind. The cry\nof whole nations is already lifted up against these pretended canonical\nlaws, dictated by ambition and by fanaticism. It is to be hoped that\nsovereigns, better instructed in their rights, and supported by the\nfidelity of their people, will terminate abuses so enormous, and which\nhave caused so many misfortunes. The author of the \"Essay on the Manners\nand Spirit of Nations\" has been the first to forcibly expose the\natrocity of enterprises of this nature.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\n_Of the Superintendence of Doctrine._\n\nThe sovereign is not the judge of the truth of doctrine; he may judge\nfor himself, like all other men; but he ought to take cognizance of it\nin respect to everything which relates to civil order, whether in regard\nto purport or delivery.\n\nThis is the general rule from which magistrates ought never to depart.\nNothing in a doctrine merits the attention of the police, except as it\ninterests public order: it is the influence of doctrine upon manners\nthat decides its importance. Doctrines which have a distant connection\nonly with good conduct can never be fundamental. Truths which conduce to\nrender mankind gentle, humane, obedient to the laws and to the\ngovernment, interest the State, and proceed evidently from God.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\n_Superintendence of the Magistracy Over the Administration of the\nSacraments._\n\nThe administration of the sacraments ought to be submitted to the\ncareful inspection of the magistrates in everything which concerns\npublic order.\n\nIt has already been observed that the magistrate ought to watch over the\nform of the public registry of marriages, baptisms, and deaths, without\nany regard to the creed of the different inhabitants of the State.\n\nSimilar reasons in relation to police and good government--do they not\nrequire an exact registry in the hands of the magistracy of all those\nwho make vows, and enter convents in those countries in which convents\nare permitted?\n\nIn the sacrament of repentance, the minister who refuses or grants\nabsolution is accountable for his judgment only to God; and in the same\nmanner, the penitent is accountable to God alone, whether he consummates\nit all, or does so well or ill.\n\nNo pastor, himself a sinner, ought to have the right of publicly\nrefusing, on his own private authority, the eucharist to another sinner.\nThe sinless Jesus Christ refused not the communion to Judas.\n\nExtreme unction and the viaticum, if demanded or requested by the sick,\nshould be governed by the same, rule. The simple right of the minister\nis to exhort the sick person, and it is the duty of the magistrate to\ntake care that the pastor abuse not circumstances, in order to persecute\nthe invalid.\n\nFormerly, it was the Church collectively which called the pastors, and\nconferred upon them the right of governing and instructing the flock. At\npresent, ecclesiastics alone consecrate others, and the magistracy ought\nto be watchful of this privilege.\n\nIt is doubtless a great, though ancient abuse, that of conferring orders\nwithout functions; it is depriving the State of members, without adding\nto the Church. The magistrate is called upon to reform this abuse.\n\nMarriage, in a civil sense, is the legitimate union of a man with a\nwoman for the procreation of children, to secure their due nurture and\neducation, and in order to assure unto them their rights and properties\nunder the protection of the laws. In order to confirm and establish this\nunion, it is accompanied by a religious ceremony, regarded by some as a\nsacrament, and by others as a portion of public worship; a genuine\nlogomachy, which changes nothing in the thing. Two points are therefore\nto be distinguished in marriage--the civil contract, or natural\nengagement, and the sacrament, or sacred ceremony. Marriage may\ntherefore exist, with all its natural and civil effects, independently\nof the religious ceremony. The ceremonies of the Church are only\nessential to civil order, because the State has adopted them. A long\ntime elapsed before the ministers of religion had anything to do with\nmarriage. In the time of Justinian, the agreement of the parties, in the\npresence of witnesses, without any ceremonies of the Church, legalized\nmarriages among Christians. It was that emperor who, towards the middle\nof the sixth century, made the first laws by which the presence of\npriests was required, as simple witnesses, without, however, prescribing\nany nuptial benediction. The emperor Leo, who died in 886, seems to have\nbeen the first who placed the religious ceremony in the number of\nnecessary conditions. The terms of the law itself indeed, which ordains\nit, prove it to have been a novelty.\n\nFrom the correct idea which we now form of marriage, it results in the\nfirst place, that good order, and even piety, render religious forms\nadopted in all Christian countries necessary. But the essence of\nmarriage cannot be denationalized, and this engagement, which is the\nprincipal one in society, ought uniformly, as a branch of civil and\npolitical order, to be placed under the authority of the magistracy.\n\nIt follows, therefore, that a married couple, even educated in the\nworship of infidels and heretics, are not obliged to marry again, if\nthey have been united agreeably to the established forms of their own\ncountry; and it is for the magistrate in all such instances to\ninvestigate the state of the case.\n\nThe priest is at present the magistrate freely nominated by the law, in\ncertain countries, to receive the pledged faith of persons wishing to\nmarry. It is very evident, that the law can modify or change as it\npleases the extent of this ecclesiastical authority.\n\nWills and funerals are incontestably under the authority of the civil\nmagistracy and the police. The clergy have never been allowed to usurp\nthe authority of the law in respect to these. In the age of Louis XIV.\nhowever, and even in that of Louis XV., striking examples have been\nwitnessed of the endeavors of certain fanatical ecclesiastics to\ninterfere in the regulation of funerals. Under the pretext of heresy,\nthey refused the sacraments, and interment; a barbarity which Pagans\nwould have held in horror.\n\n\nSECTION VII.\n\n_Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction._\n\nThe sovereign or State may, without doubt, give up to an ecclesiastical\nbody, or a single priest, a jurisdiction over certain objects and\ncertain persons, with a power suitable to the authority confided. I\nexamine not into the prudence of remitting a certain portion of civil\nauthority into the hands of any body or person who already enjoys an\nauthority in things spiritual. To deliver to those who ought to be\nsolely employed in conducting men to heaven, an authority upon earth, is\nto produce a union of two powers, the abuse of which is only too easy;\nbut at least it is evident that any man, as well as an ecclesiastic, may\nbe intrusted with the same jurisdiction. By whomsoever possessed, it has\neither been conceded by the sovereign power, or usurped; there is no\nmedium. The kingdom of Jesus Christ is not of this world; he refused to\nbe a judge upon earth, and ordered that men should give unto C\u00e6sar the\nthings which belonged unto C\u00e6sar: he forbade all dominations to his\napostles, and preached only humility, gentleness, and dependence. From\nhim ecclesiastics can derive neither power, authority, domination, nor\njurisdiction in this world. They can therefore possess no legitimate\nauthority, but by a concession from the sovereign or State, from which\nall authority in a society can properly emanate.\n\nThere was a time in the unhappy epoch of the feudal ages in which\necclesiastics were possessed in various countries with the principal\nfunctions of the magistracy: the authority of the lords of the lay\nfiefs, so formidable to the sovereign and oppressive to the people, has\nbeen since bounded; but a portion of the independence of the\necclesiastical jurisdictions still exists. When will sovereigns be\nsufficiently informed and courageous to take back from them the usurped\nauthority and numerous privileges which they have so often abused, to\nannoy the flock which they ought to protect?\n\nIt is by this inadvertence of princes that the audacious enterprises of\necclesiastics against sovereigns themselves have originated. The\nscandalous history of these attempts has been consigned to records which\ncannot be contested. The bull \"_In c\u0153na Domini_,\" in particular,\nstill remains to prove the continual enterprises of the clergy against\nroyal and civil authority.\n\n_Extract from the Tariff of the Rights Exacted in France by the Court of\nRome for Bulls, Dispensations, Absolutions, etc., which Tariff was\nDecreed in the King's Council, Sept. 4, 1691, and Which is Reported\nEntire in the Brief of James Lepelletier, Printed at Lyons in 1699, with\nthe Approbation and Permission of the King. Lyons: Printed for Anthony\nBoudet, Eighth Edition._\n\n1. For absolution for the crime of apostasy, payable to the pope,\ntwenty-four livres.\n\n2. A bastard wishing to take orders must pay twenty-five livres for a\ndispensation; if desirous to possess a benefice, he must pay in addition\none hundred and eighty livres; if anxious that his dispensation should\nnot allude to his illegitimacy, he will have to pay a thousand and fifty\nlivres.\n\n3. For dispensation and absolution of bigamy, one thousand and fifty\nlivres.\n\n4. For a dispensation for the error of a false judgment in the\nadministration of justice or the exercise of medicine, ninety livres.\n\n5. Absolution for heresy, twenty-four livres.\n\n6. Brief of forty hours, for seven years, twelve livres.\n\n7. Absolution for having committed homicide in self-defence, or\nundesignedly, ninety-five livres. All in company of the murderer also\nneed absolution, and are to pay for the same eighty-five livres each.\n\n8. Indulgences for seven years, twelve livres.\n\n9. Perpetual indulgences for a brotherhood, forty livres.\n\n10. Dispensation for irregularity and incapacity, twenty-five livres; if\nthe irregularity is great, fifty livres.\n\n11. For permission to read forbidden books, twenty-five livres.\n\n12. Dispensation for simony, forty livres; with an augmentation\naccording to circumstances.\n\n13. Brief to permit the eating of forbidden meats, sixty-five livres.\n\n14. Dispensation for simple vows of chastity or of religion, fifteen\nlivres. Brief declaratory of the nullity of the profession of a monk or\na nun, one hundred livres. If this brief be requested ten years after\nprofession, double the amount.\n\n_Dispensations in Relation to Marriage._\n\nDispensations for the fourth degree of relationship, with cause,\nsixty-five livres; without cause, ninety livres; with dispensation for\nfamiliarities that have passed between the future married persons, one\nhundred and eighty livres.\n\nFor relations of the third or fourth degree, both on the side of the\nfather and mother, without cause, eight hundred and eighty livres; with\ncause, one hundred and forty-five livres.\n\nFor relations of the second degree on one side, and the fourth on the\nother; nobles to pay one thousand four hundred and thirty livres;\nroturiers, one thousand one hundred and fifty livres.\n\nHe who would marry the sister of the girl to whom he has been affianced,\nto pay for a dispensation, one thousand four hundred and thirty livres.\n\nThose who are relations in the third degree, if they are nobles, or live\ncreditably, are to pay one thousand four hundred and thirty livres; if\nthe relationship is on the side of father as well as mother, two\nthousand four hundred and thirty livres.\n\nRelations in the second degree to pay four thousand five hundred and\nthirty livres; and if the female has accorded favors to the male, in\naddition for absolution, two thousand and thirty livres.\n\nFor those who have stood sponsors at the baptism of the children of each\nother, the dispensation will cost two thousand seven hundred and thirty\nlivres. If they would be absolved from premature familiarity, one\nthousand three hundred and thirty livres in addition.\n\nHe who has enjoyed the favors of a widow during the life of her deceased\nhusband, in order to legitimately espouse her, will have to pay one\nhundred and ninety livres.\n\nIn Spain and Portugal, the marriage dispensations are still dearer.\nCousins-german cannot obtain them for less than two thousand crowns.\n\nThe poor not being able to pay these taxes, abatements may be made. It\nis better to obtain half a right, than lose all by refusing the\ndispensation.\n\nNo reference is had here to the sums paid to the pope for the bulls of\nbishops, abbots, etc., which are to be found in the almanacs; but we\ncannot perceive by what authority the pope of Rome levies taxes upon\nlaymen who choose to marry their cousins.\n\n\n\n\nRIVERS.\n\n\nThe progress of rivers to the ocean is not so rapid as that of man to\nerror. It is not long since it was discovered that all rivers originate\nin those eternal masses of snow which cover the summits of lofty\nmountains, those snows in rain, that rain in the vapor exhaled from the\nland and sea; and that thus everything is a link in the great chain of\nnature.\n\nWhen a boy, I heard theses delivered which proved that all rivers and\nfountains came from the sea. This was the opinion of all antiquity.\nThese rivers flowed into immense caverns, and thence distributed their\nwaters to all parts of the world.\n\nWhen Aristeus goes to lament the loss of his bees to Cyrene his mother,\ngoddess of the little river Enipus in Thessaly, the river immediately\ndivides itself, forming as it were two mountains of water, right and\nleft, to receive him according to ancient and immemorial usage; after\nwhich he has a view of those vast and beautiful grottoes through which\nflow all the rivers of the earth; the Po, which descends from Mount Viso\nin Piedmont, and traverses Italy; the Teverone, which comes from the\nApennines; the Phasis, which issues from Mount Caucasus, and falls into\nthe Black Sea; and numberless others.\n\nVirgil, in this instance, adopted a strange system of natural\nphilosophy, in which certainly none but poets can be indulged.\n\nSuch, however, was the credit and prevalence of this system that,\nfifteen hundred years afterwards, Tasso completely imitated Virgil in\nhis fourteenth canto, while imitating at the same time with far greater\nfelicity Ariosto. An old Christian magician conducts underground the two\nknights who are to bring back Rinaldo from the arms of Armida, as\nMelissa had rescued Rogero from the caresses of Alcina. This venerable\nsage makes Rinaldo descend into his grotto, from which issue all the\nrivers which refresh and fertilize our earth. It is a pity that the\nrivers of America are not among the number. But as the Nile, the Danube,\nthe Seine, the Jordan, and the Volga have their source in this cavern,\nthat ought to be deemed sufficient. What is still more in conformity to\nthe physics of antiquity is the circumstance of this grotto or cavern\nbeing in the very centre of the earth. Of course, it is here that\nMaupertuis wanted to take a tour.\n\nAfter admitting that rivers spring from mountains, and that both of them\nare essential parts of this great machine, let us beware how we give in\nto varying and vanishing systems.\n\nWhen Maillet imagined that the sea had formed the mountains, he should\nhave dedicated his book to Cyrano de Bergerac. When it has been said,\nalso, that the great chains of mountains extend from east to west, and\nthat the greatest number of rivers also flow always to the west, the\nspirit of system has been more consulted than the truth of nature.\n\nWith respect to mountains, disembark at the Cape of Good Hope, you will\nperceive a chain of mountains from the south as far north as Monomotapa.\nOnly a few persons have visited that quarter of the world, and travelled\nunder the line in Africa. But Calpe and Abila are completely in the\ndirection of north and south. From Gibraltar to the river Guadiana, in a\ncourse directly northward, there is a continuous range of mountains. New\nand Old Castile are covered with them, and the direction of them all is\nfrom south to north, like that of all the mountains in America. With\nrespect to the rivers, they flow precisely according to the disposition\nor direction of the land.\n\nThe Guadalquivir runs straight to the south from Villanueva to San\nLucar; the Guadiana the same, as far as Badajos. All the rivers in the\nGulf of Venice, except the Po, fall into the sea towards the south. Such\nis the course of the Rhone from Lyons to its mouth. That of the Seine is\nfrom the north-northwest. The Rhine, from Basle, goes straight to the\nnorth. The Meuse does the same, from its source to the territory\noverflowed by its waters. The Scheldt also does the same.\n\nWhy, then, should men be so assiduous in deceiving themselves, just for\nthe pleasure of forming systems, and leading astray persons of weak and\nignorant minds? What good can possibly arise from inducing a number of\npeople--who must inevitably be soon undeceived--to believe that all\nrivers and all mountains are in a direction from east to west, or from\nwest to east; that all mountains are covered with oyster-shells--which\nis most certainly false--that anchors have been found on the summit of\nthe mountains of Switzerland; that these mountains have been formed by\nthe currents of the ocean; and that limestone is composed entirely of\nseashells? What! shall we, at the present day, treat philosophy as the\nancients formerly treated history?\n\nTo return to streams and rivers. The most important and valuable things\nthat can be done in relation to them is preventing their inundations,\nand making new rivers--that is, canals--out of those already existing,\nwherever the undertaking is practicable and beneficial. This is one of\nthe most useful services that can be conferred upon a nation. The canals\nof Egypt were as serviceable as its pyramids were useless.\n\nWith regard to the quantity of water conveyed along the beds of rivers,\nand everything relating to calculation on the subject, read the article\non \"River,\" by M. d'Alembert. It is, like everything else done by him,\nclear, exact, and true; and written in a style adapted to the subject;\nhe does not employ the style of Telemachus to discuss subjects of\nnatural philosophy.\n\n\n\n\nROADS.\n\n\nIt was not until lately that the modern nations of Europe began to\nrender roads practicable and convenient, and to bestow on them some\nbeauty. To superintend and keep in order the road is one of the most\nimportant cares of both the Mogul and Chinese emperors. But these\nprinces never attained such eminence in this department as the Romans.\nThe Appian, the Aurelian, the Flaminian, the \u00c6milian, and the Trajan\nways exist even at the present day. The Romans alone were capable of\nconstructing such roads, and they alone were capable of repairing them.\n\nBergier, who has written an otherwise valuable book, insists much on\nSolomon's employing thirty thousand Jews in cutting wood on Mount\nLebanon, eighty thousand in building the temple, seventy thousand on\ncarriages, and three thousand six hundred in superintending the labors\nof others. We will for a moment admit it all to be true; yet still there\nis nothing said about his making or repairing highways.\n\nPliny informs us that three hundred thousand men were employed for\ntwenty years in building one of the pyramids of Egypt; I am not disposed\nto doubt it; but surely three hundred thousand men might have been much\nbetter employed. Those who worked on the canals in Egypt; or on the\ngreat wall, the canals, or highways of China; or those who constructed\nthe celebrated ways of the Roman Empire were much more usefully occupied\nthan the three hundred thousand miserable slaves in building a pyramidal\nsepulchre for the corpse of a bigoted Egyptian.\n\nWe are well acquainted with the prodigious works accomplished by the\nRomans, their immense excavations for lakes of water, or the beds of\nlakes formed by nature, filled up, hills levelled, and a passage bored\nthrough a mountain by Vespasian, in the Flaminian way, for more than a\nthousand feet in length, the inscription on which remains at present.\nPausilippo is not to be compared with it.\n\nThe foundations of the greater part of our present houses are far from\nbeing so solid as were the highways in the neighborhood of Rome; and\nthese public ways were extended throughout the empire, although not upon\nthe same scale of duration and solidity. To effect that would have\nrequired more men and money than could possibly have been obtained.\n\nAlmost all the highways of Italy were erected on a foundation four feet\ndeep; when a space of marshy ground or bog was on the track of the road,\nit was filled up; and when any part of it was mountainous, its\npretipitousness was reduced to a gentle and trifling inclination from\nthe general line of the road. In many parts, the roads were supported by\nsolid walls.\n\nUpon the four feet of masonry, were placed large hewn stones of marble,\nnearly one foot in thickness, and frequently ten feet wide; they were\nindented by the chisel to prevent the slipping of the horses. It was\ndifficult to say which most attracted admiration--the utility or the\nmagnificence of these astonishing works.\n\nNearly all of these wonderful constructions were raised at the public\nexpense. C\u00e6sar repaired and extended the Appian way out of his own\nprivate funds; those funds, however, consisted of the money of the\nrepublic.\n\nWho were the persons employed upon these works? Slaves, captives taken\nin war, and provincials that were not admitted to the distinction of\nRoman citizens. They worked by \"_corv\u00e9e_,\" as they do in France and\nelsewhere; but some trifling remuneration was allowed them.\n\nAugustus was the first who joined the legions with the people in labors\nupon the highways of the Gauls, and in Spain and Asia. He penetrated the\nAlps by the valley which bore his name, and which the Piedmontese and\nthe French corruptly called the \"Valley of A\u00f6ste.\" It was previously\nnecessary to bring under subjection all the savage hordes by which these\ncantons were inhabited. There is still visible, between Great and Little\nSt. Bernard, the triumphal arch erected by the senate in honor of him\nafter this expedition. He again penetrated the Alps on another side\nleading to Lyons, and thence into the whole of Gaul. The conquered never\neffected for themselves so much as was effected for them by their\nconquerors.\n\nThe downfall of the Roman Empire was that of all the public works, as\nalso of all orderly police, art, and industry. The great roads\ndisappeared in the Gauls, except some causeways, \"_chauss\u00e9es_,\" which\nthe unfortunate Queen Brunehilde kept for a little time in repair. A man\ncould scarcely move on horseback with safety on the ancient celebrated\nways, which were now becoming dreadfully broken up, and impeded by\nmasses of stone and mud. It was found necessary to pass over the\ncultivated fields; the ploughs scarcely effected in a month what they\nnow easily accomplish in a week. The little commerce that remained was\nlimited to a few woollen and linen cloths, and some wretchedly wrought\nhardwares, which were carried on the backs of mules to the\nfortifications or prisons called \"_ch\u00e2teaux_\" situated in the midst of\nmarshes, or on the tops of mountains covered with snow.\n\nWhatever travelling was accomplished--and it could be but little--during\nthe severe seasons of the year, so long and so tedious in northern\nclimates, could be effected only by wading through mud or climbing over\nrocks. Such was the state of the whole of France and Germany down to the\nmiddle of the seventeenth century. Every individual wore boots; and in\nmany of the cities of Germany the inhabitants went into the streets on\nstilts.\n\nAt length, under Louis XIV., were begun those great roads which other\nnations have imitated. Their width was limited to sixty feet in the year\n1720. They are bordered by trees in many places to the extent of thirty\nleagues from the capital, which has a most interesting and delightful\neffect. The Roman military ways were only sixteen feet wide, but were\ninfinitely more solid. It was necessary to repair them every year, as is\nthe practice with us. They were embellished by monuments, by military\ncolumns, and even by magnificent tombs; for it was not permitted, either\nin Greece or Italy, to bury the dead within the walls of cities, and\nstill less within those of temples; to do so would have been no less an\noffence than sacrilege. It was not then as it is at present in our\nchurches, in which, for a sum of money, ostentatious and barbarous\nvanity is allowed to deposit the dead bodies of wealthy citizens,\ninfecting the very place where men assemble to adore their God in\npurity, and where incense seems to be burned solely to counteract the\nstench of carcasses; while the poorer classes are deposited in the\nadjoining cemetery; and both unite their fatal influence to spread\ncontagion among survivors.\n\nThe emperors were almost the only persons whose ashes were permitted to\nrepose in the monuments erected at Rome.\n\nHighways, sixty feet in width, occupy too much land; it is about forty\nfeet more than necessary. France measures two hundred leagues, or\nthereabouts, from the mouth of the Rhone to the extremity of Brittany,\nand about the same from Perpignan to Dunkirk; reckoning the league at\ntwo thousand five hundred toises. This calculation requires, merely for\ntwo great roads, a hundred and twenty millions of square feet of land,\nall which must of course be lost to agriculture. This loss is very\nconsiderable in a country where the harvests are by no means always\nabundant.\n\nAn attempt was made to pave the high road from Orleans, which was not of\nthe width above mentioned; but it was seen, in no long time, that\nnothing could be worse contrived for a road constantly covered with\nheavy carriages. Of these hewn paving stones laid on the ground, some\nwill be constantly sinking, and others rising above the correct level,\nand the road becomes rugged, broken, and impracticable; it was therefore\nfound necessary that the plan should be abandoned.\n\nRoads covered with gravel and sand require a renewal of labor every\nyear; this labor interferes with the cultivation of land, and is ruinous\nto agriculture.\n\nM. Turgot, son of the mayor of Paris--whose name is never mentioned in\nthat city but with blessings, and who was one of the most enlightened,\npatriotic, and zealous of magistrates--and the humane and beneficent M.\nde Fontette have done all in their power, in the provinces of Limousin\nand Normandy, to correct this most serious inconvenience.\n\nIt has been contended that we should follow the example of Augustus and\nTrajan, and employ our troops in the construction of highways. But in\nthat case the soldier must necessarily have an increase of pay; and a\nkingdom, which was nothing but a province of the Roman Empire, and which\nis often involved in debt, can rarely engage in such undertakings as the\nRoman Empire accomplished without difficulty.\n\nIt is a very commendable practice in the Low Countries, to require the\npayment of a moderate toll from all carriages, in order to keep the\npublic roads in proper repair. The burden is a very light one. The\npeasant is relieved from the old system of vexation and oppression, and\nthe roads are in such fine preservation as to form even an agreeable\ncontinued promenade.\n\nCanals are much more useful still. The Chinese surpass all other people\nin these works, which require continual attention and repair. Louis\nXIV., Colbert, and Riquet, have immortalized themselves by the canal\nwhich joins the two seas. They have never been as yet imitated. It is no\ndifficult matter to travel through a great part of France by canals.\nNothing could be more easy in Germany than to join the Rhine to the\nDanube; but men appear to prefer ruining one another's fortunes, and\ncutting each other's throats about a few paltry villages, to extending\nthe grand means of human happiness.\n\n\n\n\nROD.\n\n\nThe Theurgists and ancient sages had always a rod with which they\noperated.\n\nMercury passes for the first whose rod worked miracles. It is asserted\nthat Zoroaster also bore a great rod. The rod of the ancient Bacchus was\nhis Thyrsus, with which he separated the waters of the Orontes, the\nHydaspus, and the Red Sea. The rod of Hercules was his club. Pythagoras\nwas always represented with his rod. It is said it was of gold; and it\nis not surprising that, having a thigh of gold, he should possess a rod\nof the same metal.\n\nAbaris, priest of the hyperborean Apollo, who it is pretended was\ncontemporary with Pythagoras, was still more famous for his rod. It was\nindeed only of wood, but he traversed the air astride of it. Porphyry\nand Iamblichus pretend that these two grand Theurgists, Abaris and\nPythagoras, amicably exhibited their rods to each other.\n\nThe rod, with sages, was at all times a sign of their superiority. The\nsorcerers of the privy council of Pharaoh at first effected as many\nfeats with their rods as Moses with his own. The judicious Calmet\ninforms us, in his \"Dissertation on the Book of Exodus,\" that \"these\noperations of the Magi were not miracles, properly speaking, but\nmetamorphoses, viz.: singular and difficult indeed, but nevertheless\nneither contrary to nor above the laws of nature.\" The rod of Moses had\nthe superiority, which it ought to have, over those of the Chotins of\nEgypt.\n\nNot only did the rod of Aaron share in the honor of the prodigies of\nthat of his brother Moses, but he performed some admirable things with\nhis own. No one can be ignorant that, out of thirteen rods, Aaron's\nalone blossomed, and bore buds and flowers of almonds.\n\nThe devil, who, as is well known, is a wicked aper of the deeds of\nsaints, would also have his rod or wand, with which he gratified the\nsorcerers: Medea and Circe were always armed with this mysterious\ninstrument. Hence, a magician never appears at the opera without his\nrod, and on which account they call their parts, \"_r\u00f4les de baguette_.\"\nNo performer with cups and balls can manage his hey presto! without his\nrod or wand.\n\nSprings of water and hidden treasures are discovered by means of a rod\nmade of a hazel twig, which fails not to press the hand of a fool who\nholds it too fast, but which turns about easily in that of a knave. M.\nFormey, secretary of the academy of Berlin, explains this phenomenon by\nthat of the loadstone. All the conjurers of past times, it was thought,\nrepaired to a sabbath or assembly on a magic rod or on a broom-stick;\nand judges, who were no conjurers, burned them.\n\nBirchen rods are formed of a handful of twigs of that tree with which\nmalefactors are scourged on the back. It is indecent and shameful to\nscourge in this manner the posteriors of young boys and girls; a\npunishment which was formerly that of slaves. I have seen, in some\ncolleges, barbarians who have stripped children almost naked; a kind of\nexecutioner, often intoxicated, lacerate them with long rods, which\nfrequently covered them with blood, and produced extreme inflammation.\nOthers struck them more gently, which from natural causes has been known\nto produce consequences, especially in females, scarcely less\ndisgusting.\n\nBy an incomprehensible species of police, the Jesuits of Paraguay\nwhipped the fathers and mothers of families on their posteriors. Had\nthere been no other motive for driving out the Jesuits, that would have\nsufficed.\n\n\n\n\nROME (COURT OF).\n\n\nBefore the time of Constantine, the bishop of Rome was considered by the\nRoman magistrates, who were unacquainted with our holy religion, only as\nthe chief of a sect, frequently tolerated by the government, but\nfrequently experiencing from it capital punishment. The names of the\nfirst disciples, who were by birth Jews, and of their successors, who\ngoverned the little flock concealed in the immense city of Rome, were\nabsolutely unknown by all the Latin writers. We well know that\neverything was changed, and in what manner everything was changed under\nConstantine.\n\nThe bishop of Rome, protected and enriched as he was, was always in\nsubjection to the emperors, like the bishop of Constantinople, and of\nNicomedia, and every other, not making even the slightest pretension to\nthe shadow of sovereign authority. Fatality, which guides the affairs of\nthe universe, finally established the power of the ecclesiastical Roman\ncourt, by the hands of the barbarians who destroyed the empire.\n\nThe ancient religion, under which the Romans had been victorious for\nsuch a series of ages, existed still in the hearts of the population,\nnotwithstanding all the efforts of persecution, when, in the four\nhundred and eighth year of our era, Alaric invaded Italy and beseiged\nRome. Pope Innocent I. indeed did not think proper to forbid the\ninhabitants of that city sacrificing to the gods in the capitol, and in\nthe other temples, in order to obtain the assistance of heaven against\nthe Goths. But this same Pope Innocent, if we may credit Zosimus and\nOrosius, was one of the deputation sent to treat with Alaric, a\ncircumstance which shows that the pope was at that time regarded as a\nperson of considerable consequence.\n\nWhen Attila came to ravage Italy in 452, by the same right which the\nRomans themselves had exercised over so many and such powerful nations;\nby the right of Clovis, of the Goths, of the Vandals, and the Heruli,\nthe emperor sent Pope Leo I., assisted by two personages of consular\ndignity, to negotiate with that conqueror. I have no doubt, that\nagreeably to what we are positively told, St. Leo was accompanied by an\nangel, armed with a flaming sword, which made the king of the Huns\ntremble, although he had no faith in angels, and a single sword was not\nexceedingly likely to inspire him with fear. This miracle is very finely\npainted in the Vatican, and nothing can be clearer than that it never\nwould have been painted unless it had actually been true. What\nparticularly vexes and perplexes me is this angel's suffering Aquileia,\nand the whole of Illyria, to be sacked and ravaged, and also his not\npreventing Genseric, at a later period, from giving up Rome to his\nsoldiers for fourteen days of plunder. It was evidently not the angel of\nextermination.\n\nUnder the exarchs, the credit and influence of the popes augmented, but\neven then they had not the smallest degree of civil power. The Roman\nbishop, elected by the people, craved protection for the bishop, of the\nexarch of Ravenna, who had the power of confirming or of cancelling the\nelection.\n\nAfter the exarchate was destroyed by the Lombards, the Lombard kings\nwere desirous of becoming masters also of the city of Rome; nothing\ncould certainly be more natural.\n\nPepin, the usurper of France, would not suffer the Lombards to usurp\nthat capital, and so become too powerful against himself; nothing again\ncan be more natural than this.\n\nIt is pretended that Pepin and his son Charlemagne gave to the Roman\nbishops many lands of the exarchate, which was designated the Justices\nof St. Peter--\"_les Justices de St. Pierre_.\" Such is the real origin of\ntheir temporal power. From this period, these bishops appear to have\nassiduously exerted themselves to obtain something of rather more\nconsideration and of more consequence than these justices.\n\nWe are in possession of a letter from Pope Arian I. to Charlemagne, in\nwhich he says, \"The pious liberality of the emperor Constantine the\nGreat, of sacred memory, raised and exalted, in the time of the blessed\nRoman Pontiff, Sylvester, the holy Roman Church, and conferred upon it\nhis own power in this portion of Italy.\"\n\nFrom this time, we perceive, it was attempted to make the world believe\nin what is called the Donation of Constantine, which was, in the sequel,\nfor a period of five hundred years, not merely regarded as an article of\nfaith, but an incontestable truth. To entertain doubts on the subject of\nthis donation included at once the crime of treason and the guilt of\nmortal sin.\n\nAfter the death of Charlemagne, the bishop augmented his authority in\nRome from day to day; but centuries passed away before he came to be\nconsidered as a sovereign prince. Rome had for a long period a patrician\nmunicipal government.\n\nPope John XII., whom Otho I., emperor of Germany, procured to be deposed\nin a sort of council, in 963, as simoniacal, incestuous, sodomitical, an\natheist, in league with the devil, was the first man in Italy as\npatrician and consul, before he became bishop of Rome; and\nnotwithstanding all these titles and claims, notwithstanding the\ninfluence of the celebrated Marosia, his mother, his authority was\nalways questioned and contested.\n\nGregory VII., who from the rank of a monk became pope, and pretended to\ndepose kings and bestow empires, far from being in fact complete master\nof Rome, died under the protection, or rather as the prisoner of those\nNorman princes who conquered the two Sicilies, of which he considered\nhimself the paramount lord.\n\nIn the grand schism of the West, the popes who contended for the empire\nof the world frequently supported themselves on alms.\n\nIt is a fact not a little extraordinary that the popes did not become\nrich till after the period when they dared not to exhibit themselves at\nRome.\n\nAccording to Villani, Bertrand de Goth, Clement V. of Bordeaux, who\npassed his life in France, sold benefices publicly, and at his death\nleft behind him vast treasures.\n\nThe same Villani asserts that he died worth twenty-five millions of gold\nflorins. St. Peter's patrimony could not certainly have brought him such\na sum.\n\nIn a word, down to the time of Innocent VIII., who, made himself master\nof the castle of St. Angelo, the popes never possessed in Rome actual\nsovereignty.\n\nTheir spiritual authority was undoubtedly the foundation of their\ntemporal; but had they confined themselves to imitating the conduct of\nSt. Peter, whose place it was pretended they filled, they would never\nhave obtained any other kingdom than that of heaven. Their policy always\ncontrived to prevent the emperors from establishing themselves at Rome,\nnotwithstanding the fine and flattering title of \"king of the Romans.\"\nThe Guelph faction always prevailed in Italy over the Ghibelline. The\nRomans were more disposed to obey an Italian priest than a German king.\n\nIn the civil wars, which the quarrel between the empire and the\npriesthood excited and kept alive for a period of five hundred years,\nmany lords obtained sovereignties, sometimes in quality of vicars of the\nempire, and sometimes in that of vicars of the Holy See. Such were the\nprinces of Este at Ferrara, the Bentivoglios at Bologna, the Malatestas\nat Rimini, the Manfredis at Faenza, the Bagliones at Perouse, the Ursins\nin Anguillara and in Serveti, the Collonas in Ostia, the Riarios at\nForli, the Montefeltros in Urbino, the Varanos in Camerino, and the\nGravinas in Senigaglia.\n\nAll these lords had as much right to the territories they possessed as\nthe popes had to the patrimony of St. Peter; both were founded upon\ndonations.\n\nIt is known in what manner Pope Alexander VI. made use of his bastard to\ninvade and take possession of all these principalities. King Louis XII.\nobtained from that pope the cancelling of his marriage, after a\ncohabitation of eighteen years, on condition of his assisting the\nusurper.\n\nThe assassinations committed by Clovis to gain possession of the\nterritories of the petty kings who were his neighbors, bear no\ncomparison to the horrors exhibited on this occasion by Alexander and\nhis son.\n\nThe history of Nero himself is less abominable; the atrocity of whose\ncrimes was not increased by the pretext of religion; and it is worth\nobserving, that at the very time these diabolical excesses were\nperformed, the kings of Spain and Portugal were suing to that pope, one\nof them for America, and the other for Asia, which the monster\naccordingly granted them in the name of that God he pretended to\nrepresent. It is also worth observing that not fewer than a hundred\nthousand pilgrims flocked to his jubilee and prostrated themselves in\nadoration of his person.\n\nJulius II. completed what Alexander had begun. Louis XII., born to\nbecome the dupe of all his neighbors, assisted Julius in seizing upon\nBologna and Perouse. That unfortunate monarch, in return for his\nservices, was driven out of Italy, and excommunicated by the very pope\nwhom the archbishop of Auch, the king's ambassador at Rome, addressed\nwith the words \"your wickedness,\" instead of \"your holiness.\"\n\nTo complete his mortification, Anne of Brittany, his wife, a woman as\ndevout as she was imperious, told him in plain terms, that he would be\ndamned for going to war with the pope.\n\nIf Leo X. and Clement VII. lost so many states which withdrew from the\npapal communion, their power continued no less absolute than before over\nthe provinces which still adhered to the Catholic faith. The court of\nRome excommunicated the emperor Henry III., and declared Henry IV.\nunworthy to reign.\n\nIt still draws large sums from all the Catholic states of Germany, from\nHungary, Poland, Spain, and France. Its ambassadors take precedence of\nall others; it is no longer sufficiently powerful to carry on war; and\nits weakness is in fact its happiness. The ecclesiastical state is the\nonly one that has regularly enjoyed the advantages of peace since the\nsacking of Rome by the troops of Charles V. It appears, that the popes\nhave been often treated like the gods of the Japanese, who are sometimes\npresented with offerings of gold, and sometimes thrown into the river.\n\n\n\n\nSAMOTHRACE.\n\n\nWhether the celebrated isle of Samothrace be at the mouth of the river\nHebrus, as it is said to be in almost all the geographical dictionaries,\nor whether it be twenty miles distant from it, which is in fact the\ncase, is not what I am now investigating.\n\nThis isle was for a long time the most famous in the whole archipelago,\nand even in the whole world. Its deities called Cabiri, its hierophants,\nand its mysteries, conferred upon it as much reputation as was obtained\nnot long since by St. Patrick's cave in Ireland.\n\nThis Samothrace, the modern name of which is Samandrachi, is a rock\ncovered with a very thin and barren soil, and inhabited by poor\nfishermen. They would be extremely surprised at being told of the glory\nwhich was formerly connected with their island; and they would probably\nask, What is glory?\n\nI inquire, what were these hierophants, these holy free masons, who\ncelebrated their ancient mysteries in Samothrace, and whence did they\nand their gods Cabiri come?\n\nIt is not probable that these poor people came from Ph\u0153nicia, as\nBochart infers by a long train of Hebrew etymologies, and as the Abb\u00e9\nBarrier, after him, is of opinion also. It is not in this manner that\ngods gain establishments in the world. They are like conquerors who\nsubjugate nations, not all at once, but one after another. The distance\nfrom Ph\u0153nicia to this wretched island is too great to admit of the\nsupposition that the gods of the wealthy Sidon and the proud Tyre should\ncome to coop themselves up in this hermitage. Hierophants are not such\nfools.\n\nThe fact is, that there were gods of the Cabiri, priests of the Cabiri,\nand mysteries of the Cabiri, in this contemptible and miserable island.\nNot only does Herodotus mention them, but the Ph\u0153nician historian\nSanchoniathon, who lived long before Herodotus, speaks of them in those\nfragments which have been so fortunately preserved by Eusebius. What is\nworse still, this Sanchoniathon, who certainly lived before the period\nin which Moses flourished, cites the great Thaut, the first Hermes, the\nfirst Mercury of Egypt; and this same great Thaut lived eight hundred\nyears before Sanchoniathon, as that Ph\u0153nician acknowledges himself.\n\nThe Cabiri were therefore in estimation and honor two thousand and three\nor four hundred years before the Christian era.\n\nNow, if you are desirous of knowing whence those gods of the Cabiri,\nestablished in Samothrace, came, does it not seem probable that they\ncame from Thrace, the country nearest to that island, and that that\nsmall island was granted them as a theatre on which to act their farces,\nand pick up a little money? Orpheus might very possibly be the prime\nminstrel of these gods.\n\nBut who were these gods? They were what all the gods of antiquity were,\nphantoms invented by coarse and vulgar knaves, sculptured by artisans\ncoarser still, and adored by brutes having the name of men.\n\nThere were three sorts of Cabiri; for, as we have already observed,\neverything in antiquity was done by threes. Orpheus could not have made\nhis appearance in the world until long after the invention of these\nthree gods; for he admits only one in his mysteries. I am much disposed\nto consider Orpheus as having been a strict Socinian.\n\nI regard the ancient gods Cabiri as having been the first gods of\nThrace, whatever Greek names may have been afterwards given to them.\n\nThere is something, however, still more curious, respecting the history\nof Samothrace. We know that Greece and Thrace were formerly afflicted\nby many inundations. We have read of the deluges of Deucaleon and\nOgyges. The isle of Samothrace boasted of a yet more ancient deluge; and\nits deluge corresponds, in point of time, with the period in which it is\ncontended that the ancient king of Thrace, Xixuter, lived, whom we have\nspoken of under the article on \"Ararat.\"\n\nYou may probably recollect that the gods of Xixuter, or Xissuter, who\nwere in all probability the Cabiri, commanded him to build a vessel\nabout thirty thousand feet long, and a hundred and twelve wide; that\nthis vessel sailed for a long time over the mountains of Armenia during\nthe deluge; that, having taken on board with him some pigeons and many\nother domestic animals, he let loose his pigeons to ascertain whether\nthe waters had withdrawn; and that they returned covered with dirt and\nslime, which induced Xixuter to resolve on disembarking from his immense\nvessel.\n\nYou will say that it is a most extraordinary circumstance that\nSanchoniathon does not make any mention of this curious adventure. I\nreply, that it is impossible for us to decide whether it was mentioned\nin his history or not, as Eusebius, who has only transmitted to us some\nfragments of this very ancient historian, had no particular inducement\nto quote any passage that might have existed in his work respecting the\nship and pigeons. Berosus, however, relates the case, and he connects it\nwith the marvellous, according to the general practice of the ancients.\nThe inhabitants of Samothrace had erected monuments of this deluge.\n\nWhat is more extraordinary and astonishing still is, as indeed we have\nalready partly remarked, that neither Greece nor Thrace, nor the people\nof any other country, ever knew anything of the real and great deluge,\nthe deluge of Noah.\n\nHow could it be possible, we once more ask, that an event so awful and\nappalling as that of the submersion of the whole earth should be unknown\nby the survivors? How could the name of our common father, Noah, who\nre-peopled the world, be unknown to all those who were indebted to him\nfor life? It is the most prodigious of all progidies, that, of so many\ngrandchildren, not one should have ever spoken of his grandfather!\n\nI have applied to all the learned men that I have seen, and said, Have\nyou ever met with any old work in Greek, Tuscan, Arabian, Egyptian,\nChald\u00e6an, Indian, Persian, or Chinese, in which the name of Noah is to\nbe found? They have all replied in the negative. This is a fact that\nperpetually perplexes and confounds me.\n\nBut that the history of this universal inundation should be found in a\nsingle page of a book written in the wilderness by fugitives, and that\nthis page should have been unknown to all the rest of the world till\nabout nine hundred years after the foundation of Rome--this perfectly\npetrifies me. I cannot not recover from its impression. The effect\nis completely overpowering. My worthy reader, let us both together\nexclaim: \"_O altitudo ignorantiarum!_\"\n\n[Illustration: Samson Destroying the Temple.]\n\n\n\n\nSAMSON.\n\n\nIn quality of poor alphabetical compilers, collectors of anecdotes,\ngatherers of trifles, pickers of rags at the corners of the streets, we\nglorify ourselves with all the pride attached to our sublime science, on\nhaving discovered that \"Samson the Strong,\" a tragedy, was played at the\nclose of the sixteenth century, in the town of Rouen, and that it was\nprinted by Abraham Couturier. John Milton, for a long time a\nschoolmaster of London, afterwards Latin secretary to the protector,\nCromwell--Milton, the author of \"Paradise Lost\" and \"Paradise\nRegained\"--wrote the tragedy of \"Samson Agonistes\"; and it is very\nunfortunate that we cannot tell in what year.\n\nWe know, however, that it has been printed with a preface, in which much\nis boasted, by one of our brethren, the commentator named Par\u00e6us, who\nfirst perceived by the force of his genius, that the Apocalypse is a\ntragedy. On the strength of this discovery he divided the Apocalypse\ninto five acts, and inserted choruses worthy of the elegance and fine\nnature of the piece. The author of this preface speaks to us of the fine\ntragedies of St. Gregory of Nazianzen. He asserts, that a tragedy should\nnever have more than five acts, and to prove it, he gives us the\n\"Samson Agonistes\" of Milton, which has but one. Those who like\nelaborate declamation will be satisfied with this piece.\n\nA comedy of Samson was played for a long time in Italy. A translation of\nit was made in Paris in 1717, by one named Romagnesi; it was represented\non the French theatre of the pretended Italian comedy, formerly the\npalace of the dukes of Burgundy. It was published, and dedicated to the\nduke of Orleans, regent of France.\n\nIn this sublime piece, Arlequin, the servant of Samson, fights with a\nturkey-cock, whilst his master carries off the gates of Gaza on his\nshoulders.\n\nIn 1732, it was wished to represent, at the opera of Paris, a tragedy of\nSamson, set to music by the celebrated Rameau; but it was not permitted.\nThere was neither Arlequin nor turkey-cock; but the thing appeared too\nserious; besides, certain people were very glad to mortify Rameau, who\npossessed great talents. Yet at that time they performed the opera of\n\"Jephthah,\" extracted from the Old Testament, and the comedy of the\n\"Prodigal Son,\" from the New Testament.\n\nThere is an old edition of the \"Samson Agonistes\" of Milton, preceded by\nan abridgment of the history of the hero. The following is this\nabridgment:\n\nThe Jews, to whom God promised by oath all the country which is between\nthe river of Egypt and the Euphrates, and who through their sins never\nhad this country, were on the contrary reduced to servitude, which\nslavery lasted for forty years. Now there was a Jew of the tribe of Dan,\nnamed Manoah; and the wife of this Manoah was barren; and an angel\nappeared to this woman, and said to her, \"Behold, thou shalt conceive\nand bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any\nunclean thing; for the child shall be a Nazarite to God, from the womb\nto the day of his death.\"\n\nThe angel afterwards appeared to the husband and wife; they gave him a\nkid to eat; he would have none of it, and disappeared in the midst of\nthe smoke; and the woman said, We shall surely die, because we have seen\nGod; but they died not.\n\nThe slave Samson being born, was consecrated a Nazarite. As soon as he\nwas grown up, the first thing he did was to go to the Ph\u0153nician or\nPhilistine town of Timnath, to court a daughter of one of his masters,\nwhom he married.\n\nIn going to his mistress he met a lion, and tore him in pieces with his\nnaked hand, as he would have done a kid. Some days after, he found a\nswarm of bees in the throat of the dead lion, with some honey, though\nbees never rest on carrion.\n\nThen he proposed this enigma to his companions: Out of the eater came\nforth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness: if you guess, I\nwill give you thirty tunics and thirty gowns; if not, you shall give me\nthirty gowns and thirty tunics. The comrades, not being able to guess in\nwhat the solution of the enigma consisted, gained over the young wife\nof Samson; she drew the secret from her husband, and he was obliged to\ngive them thirty tunics and thirty gowns. \"Ah,\" said he to them, \"if ye\nhad not ploughed with my heifer, ye would not have found out my riddle.\"\n\nSoon after, the father-in-law of Samson gave another husband to his\ndaughter.\n\nSamson, enraged at having lost his wife, immediately caught three\nhundred foxes, tied them two together by the tails with lighted\nfirebrands, and they fired the corn of the Philistines.\n\nThe Jewish slaves, not being willing to be punished by their masters for\nthe exploits of Samson, surprised him in the cavern in which he dwelt,\ntied him with great ropes, and delivered him to the Philistines. As soon\nas he was in the midst of them, he broke his cords, and finding the\njawbone of an ass, with one effort he killed a thousand Philistines.\nSuch an effort making him very warm, he was dying of thirst, on which\nGod made a fountain spout from one of the teeth of the ass's jaw-bone.\nSamson, having drunk, went into Gaza, a Philistine town; he there\nimmediately became smitten with a courtesan. As he slept with her, the\nPhilistines shut the gates of the town, and surrounded the house, when\nhe arose, took the gates, and carried them away. The Philistines, in\ndespair at not being able to overcome this hero, addressed themselves to\nanother courtesan named Delilah, with whom he afterwards slept. She\nfinally drew from him the secret in which his strength consisted: it was\nonly necessary to shave him, to render him equal to other men. He was\nshaved, became weak, and his eyes being put out, he was made to turn a\nmill and to play on the violin. One day, while playing in a Philistine\ntemple, between two of its columns, he became indignant that the\nPhilistines should have columned temples, whilst the Jews had only a\ntabernacle supported on four poles. He also felt that his hair began to\ngrow; and being transported with a holy zeal, he pulled down the two\npillars; by which concussion the temple was overthrown, the Philistines\nwere crushed to death, and he with them.\n\nSuch is this preface, word for word.\n\nThis is the history which is the subject of the piece of Milton, and\nRomagnesi: it is adapted to Italian farce.\n\n\n\n\nSATURN'S RING.\n\n\nThis astonishing phenomenon, but not more astonishing than others, this\nsolid and luminous body, which surrounds the planet Saturn, which it\nenlightens, and by which it is enlightened, whether by the feeble\nreflection of the sun's rays, or by some unknown cause, was, according\nto a dreamer who calls himself a philosopher, formerly a sea. This sea,\naccording to him, has hardened and become earth or rock; once it\ngravitated towards two centres, whereas at present it gravitates only\ntowards one.\n\nHow pleasantly you proceed, my ingenious dreamer! how easily you\ntransform water into rock! Ovid was nothing in the comparison. What a\nmarvellous power you exercise over nature; imagination by no means\nconfounds you. Oh, greediness to utter novelties! Oh, fury for systems!\nOh, weakness of the human mind! If anyone has spoken of this reverie in\nthe \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" it is doubtless to ridicule it, without which other\nnations would have a right to say: Behold the use which the French make\nof the discovery of other people! Huyghens discovered the ring of\nSaturn, and calculated its appearances; Hook and Flamstead have done the\nsame thing. A Frenchman has discovered that this solid body was even a\ncircular ocean, and this Frenchman is not Cyrano de Bergerac!\n\n\n\n\nSCANDAL.\n\n\nWithout inquiring whether scandal originally meant a stone which might\noccasion people to stumble and fall, or a quarrel, or a seduction, we\nconsider it here merely in its present sense and acceptation. A scandal\nis a serious indecorum which is used generally in reference to the\nclergy. The tales of Fontaine are libertine or licentious; many passages\nof Sanchez, of Tambourin, and of Molina are scandalous.\n\nA man is scandalous by his writings or by his conduct. The siege which\nthe Augustins maintained against the patrol, at the time of the Fronde,\nwas scandalous. The bankruptcy of the brother La Valette, of the Society\nof Jesuits, was more than scandalous. The lawsuit carried on by the\nreverend fathers of the order of the Capuchins of Paris, in 1764, was a\nmost satisfactory and delightful scandal to thousands. For the\nedification of the reader, a word or two upon that subject in this place\nwill not be ill employed.\n\nThese reverend fathers had been fighting in their convent; some of them\nhad hidden their money, and others had stolen the concealed treasure. Up\nto this point the scandal was only particular, a stone against which\nonly Capuchins could trip and tumble; but when the affair was brought\nbefore the parliament, the scandal became public.\n\nIt is stated in the pleadings in the cause, that the convent of the St.\nHonor\u00e9 consumes twelve hundred pounds of bread a week, and meat and wood\nin proportion; and that there are four collecting friars, \"_qu\u00eateurs_,\"\nwhose office it is, conformably to the term, to raise contributions in\nthe city. What a frightful, dreadful scandal! Twelve hundred pounds of\nmeat and bread per week for a few Capuchins, while so many artisans\noverwhelmed with old age, and so many respectable widows, are exposed to\nlanguish in want, and die in misery!\n\nThat the reverend father Dorotheus should have accumulated an income of\nthree thousand livres a year at the expense of the convent, and\nconsequently of the public, is not only an enormous scandal, but an\nabsolute robbery, and a robbery committed upon the most needy class of\ncitizens in Paris; for the poor are the persons who pay the tax imposed\nby the mendicant monks. The ignorance and weakness of the people make\nthem imagine that they can never obtain heaven without parting with\ntheir absolute necessaries, from which these monks derive their\nsuperfluities.\n\nThis single brother, therefore, the chief of the convent, Dorotheus, to\nmake up his income of a thousand crowns a year, must have extorted from\nthe poor of Paris, no less a sum than twenty thousand crowns.\n\nConsider, my good reader, that such cases are by no means rare, even in\nthis eighteenth century of our era, which has produced useful books to\nexpose abuses and enlighten minds; but, as I have before observed, the\npeople never read. A single Capuchin, Recollet, or Carmelite is capable\nof doing more harm than the best books in the world will ever be able to\ndo good.\n\nI would venture to propose to those who are really humane and\nwell-disposed, to employ throughout the capital a certain number of\nanti-Capuchins and anti-Recollets, to go about from house to house\nexhorting fathers and mothers to virtue, and to keep their money for the\nmaintenance of their families, and the support of their old age; to love\nGod with all their hearts, but to give none of their money to monks.\nLet us return, however, to the real meaning of the word \"scandal.\"\n\nIn the above-mentioned process on the subject of the Capuchin convent,\nBrother Gregory is accused of being the father of a child by\nMademoiselle Bras-defer, and of having her afterwards married to\nMoutard, the shoe-maker. It is not stated whether Brother Gregory\nhimself bestowed the nuptial benediction on his mistress and poor\nMoutard, together with the required dispensation. If he did so, the\nscandal is rendered as complete as possible; it includes fornication,\nrobbery, adultery, and sacrilege. \"_Horresco referens_.\"\n\nI say in the first place \"fornication,\" as Brother Gregory committed\nthat offence with Magdalene Bras-defer, who was not at the time more\nthan fifteen years of age.\n\nI also say \"robbery,\" as he gave an apron and ribbons to Magdalene; and\nit is clear he must have robbed the convent in order to purchase them,\nand to pay for suppers, lodgings, and other expenses attending their\nintercourse.\n\nI say \"adultery,\" as this depraved man continued his connection with\nMagdalene after she became Madame Moutard.\n\nAnd I say \"sacrilege,\" as he was the confessor of Magdalene. And, if he\nhimself performed the marriage ceremony for his mistress, judge what\nsort of man Brother Gregory must really have been.\n\nOne of our colleagues in this little collection of philosophic and\nencyclop\u00e6dic questions is now engaged on a moral work, on the subject of\nscandal, against the opinion of Brother Patouillet. We hope it will not\nbe long before it sees the light.\n\n\n\n\nSCHISM.\n\n\nAll that we had written on the subject of the grand schism between the\nGreeks and Latins, in the essay on the manners and spirit of nations,\nhas been inserted in the great encyclop\u00e6dic dictionary. We will not here\nrepeat ourselves.\n\nBut when reflecting on the meaning of the word \"schism,\" which signifies\na dividing or rending asunder, and considering also the present state of\nPoland, divided and rent as it is in a manner the most pitiable, we\ncannot help anew deploring that a malady so destructive should be\npeculiar to Christians. This malady, which we have not described with\nsufficient particularity, is a species of madness which first affects\nthe eyes and the mouth; the patient looks with an impatient and\nresentful eye on the man who does not think exactly like himself, and\nsoon begins to pour out all the abuse and reviling that his command of\nlanguage will permit. The madness next seizes the hands; and the\nunfortunate maniac writes what exhibits, in the most decided manner, the\ninflamed and delirious state of the brain. He falls into demoniacal\nconvulsions, draws his sword, and fights with fury and desperation to\nthe last gasp. Medicine has never been able to find a remedy for this\ndreadful disease. Time and philosophy alone can effect a cure.\n\nThe Poles are now the only people among whom this contagion at present\nrages. We may almost believe that the disorder is born with them, like\ntheir frightful plica. They are both diseases of the head, and of a most\nnoxious character. Cleanliness will cure the plica; wisdom alone can\nextirpate schism.\n\nWe are told that both these diseases were unknown to the Samartians\nwhile they were Pagans. The plica affects only the common people at\npresent, but all the evils originating in schism are corroding and\ndestroying the higher classes of the republic.\n\nThe cause of the evil is the fertility of their land, which produces too\nmuch corn. It is a melancholy and deplorable case that even the blessing\nof heaven should in fact have involved them in such direful calamity.\nSome of the provinces have contended that it was absolutely necessary to\nput leaven in their bread, but the greater part of the nation entertain\nan obstinate and unalterable belief, that, on certain days of the year,\nfermented bread is absolutely mortal.\n\nSuch is one of the principal causes of the schism or the rending asunder\nof Poland; the dispute has infused acrimony into their blood. Other\ncauses have added to the effect.\n\nSome have imagined, in the paroxysms and convulsions of the malady under\nwhich they labor, that the Holy Spirit proceeded both from the Father\nand the Son: and the others have exclaimed, that it proceeded from the\nFather only. The two parties, one of which is called the Roman party,\nand the other the Dissident, look upon each other as if they were\nabsolutely infected by the plague; but, by a singular symptom peculiar\nto this complaint, the infected Dissidents have always shown an\ninclination to approach the Catholics, while the Catholics on the other\nhand have never manifested any to approach them.\n\nThere is no disease which does not vary in different circumstances and\nsituations. The diet, which is generally esteemed salutary, has been so\npernicious to this unhappy nation, that after the application of it in\n1768, the cities of Uman, Zablotin, Tetiou, Zilianki, and Zafran were\ndestroyed and inundated with blood; and more than two hundred thousand\npatients miserably perished.\n\nOn one side the empire of Russia, and on the other that of Turkey, have\nsent a hundred thousand surgeons provided with lancets, bistouries, and\nall sorts of instruments, adapted to cut off the morbid and gangrened\nparts; but the disease has only become more virulent. The delirium has\neven been so outrageous, that forty of the patients actually met\ntogether for the purpose of dissecting their king, who had never been\nattacked by the disease, and whose brain and all the vital and noble\nparts of his body were in a perfectly sound state, as we shall have to\nremark under the article on \"Superstition.\" It is thought that if the\ncontending parties would refer the case entirely to him, he might effect\na cure of the whole nation; but it is one of the symptoms of this cruel\nmalady to be afraid of being cured, as persons laboring under\nhydrophobia dread even the sight of water.\n\nThere are some learned men among us who contend that the disease was\nbrought, a long time ago, from Palestine, and that the inhabitants of\nJerusalem and Samaria were long harassed by it. Others think that the\noriginal seat of the disease was Egypt, and that the dogs and cats,\nwhich were there held in the highest consideration, having become mad,\ncommunicated the madness of schism, or tearing asunder, to the greater\npart of the Egyptians, whose weak heads were but too susceptible to the\ndisorder.\n\nIt is remarked also, that the Greeks who travelled to Egypt, as, for\nexample, Timeus of Locris and Plato, somewhat injured their brains by\nthe excursion. However, the injury by no means reached madness, or\nplague, properly so called; it was a sort of delirium which was not at\nall times easily to be perceived, and which was often concealed under a\nvery plausible appearance of reason. But the Greeks having, in the\ncourse of time, carried the complaint among the western and northern\nnations, the malformation or unfortunate excitability of the brain in\nour unhappy countries occasioned the slight fever of Timeus and Plato to\nbreak out among us into the most frightful and fatal contagion, which\nthe physicians sometimes called intolerance, and sometimes persecution;\nsometimes religious war, sometimes madness, and sometimes pestilence.\n\nWe have seen the fatal ravages committed by this infernal plague over\nthe face of the earth. Many physicians have offered their services to\ndestroy this frightful evil at its very root. But what will appear to\nmany scarcely credible is, that there are entire faculties of medicine,\nat Salamanca and Coimbra, in Italy and even in Paris, which maintain\nthat schism, division, or tearing asunder, is necessary for mankind;\nthat corrupt humors are drawn off from them through the wounds which it\noccasions; that enthusiasm, which is one of the first symptoms of the\ncomplaint, exalts the soul, and produces the most beneficial\nconsequences; that toleration is attended with innumerable\ninconveniences; that if the whole world were tolerant, great geniuses\nwould want that powerful and irresistible impulse which has produced so\nmany admirable works in theology; that peace is a great calamity to a\nstate, because it brings back the pleasures in its train; and pleasures,\nafter a course of time, soften down that noble ferocity which forms the\nhero; and that if the Greeks had made a treaty of commerce with the\nTrojans, instead of making war with them, there would never have been an\nAchilles, a Hector, or a Homer, and that the race of man would have\nstagnated in ignorance.\n\nThese reasons, I acknowledge, are not without force; and I request time\nfor giving them due consideration.\n\n\n\n\nSCROFULA.\n\n\nIt has been pretended that divine power is appealed to in regard to this\nmalady, because it is scarcely in human power to cure it.\n\nPossibly some monks began by supposing that kings, in their character of\nrepresentatives of the divinity, possessed the privilege of curing\nscrofula, by touching the patients with their anointed hands. But why\nnot bestow a similar power on emperors, whose dignity surpasses that of\nkings, or on popes, who call themselves the masters of emperors, and who\nare more than simple images of God, being His vicars on earth? It is\npossible, that some imaginary dreamer of Normandy, in order to render\nthe usurpation of William the Bastard the more respectable, conceded to\nhim, in quality of God's representative, the faculty of curing scrofula\nby the tip of his finger.\n\nIt was some time after William that this usage became established. We\nmust not gratify the kings of England with this gift, and refuse it to\nthose of France, their liege lords. This would be in defiance of the\nrespect due to the feudal system. In short, this power is traced up to\nEdward the Confessor in England, and to Clovis in France.\n\nThe only testimony, in the least degree credible, of the antiquity of\nthis usage, is to be found in the writings in favor of the house of\nLancaster, composed by the judge, Sir John Fortescue, under Henry VI.,\nwho was recognized king of France at Paris in his cradle, and then king\nof England, but who lost both kingdoms. Sir John Fortescue asserts, that\nfrom time immemorial, the kings of England were in possession of the\npower of curing scrofula by their touch. We cannot perceive, however,\nthat this pretension rendered their persons more sacred in the wars\nbetween the roses.\n\nQueens consort could not cure scrofula, because they were not anointed\nin the hands, like the kings: but Elizabeth, a queen regnant and\nanointed, cured it without difficulty.\n\nA sad thing happened to Mortorillo the Calabrian, whom we denominate St.\nFrancis de Paulo. King Louis XI. brought him to Plessis les Tours to\ncure him of his tendency to apoplexy, and the saint arrived afflicted by\nscrofula.\n\n\"_Ipse fuit detentus gravi, inflatura, quam in parte inferiori, gen\u00e6 su\u00e6\ndextrae circa guttur patiebatur. Chirugii dicebant, mortum esse\nscrofarum._\"\n\nThe saint cured not the king, and the king cured not the saint.\n\nWhen the king of England, James II., was conducted from Rochester to\nWhitehall, somebody proposed that he should exhibit a proof of genuine\nroyalty, as for instance, that of touching for the evil; but no one was\npresented to him. He departed to exercise his sovereignty in France at\nSt. Germain, where he touched some Hibernians. His daughter Mary, King\nWilliam, Queen Anne, and the kings of the house of Brunswick have cured\nnobody. This sacred gift departed when people began to reason.\n\n\n\n\nSECT.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nEvery sect, of whatever opinion it may be, is a rallying point for doubt\nand error. Scotists, Thomists, Realists, Nominalists, Papists,\nCalvinists, Molinists, and Jansenists, are only warlike appellations.\n\nThere is no sect in geometry; we never say: A Euclidian, an Archimedian.\nWhen truth is evident, it is impossible to divide people into parties\nand factions. Nobody disputes that it is broad day at noon.\n\nThat part of astronomy which determines the course of the stars, and the\nreturn of eclipses, being now known, there is no longer any dispute\namong astronomers.\n\nIt is similar with a small number of truths, which are similarly\nestablished; but if you are a Mahometan, as there are many men who are\nnot Mahometans, you may possibly be in error.\n\nWhat would be the true religion, if Christianity did not exist? That in\nwhich there would be no sects; that in which all minds necessarily\nagreed.\n\nNow, in what doctrine are all minds agreed? In the adoration of one God,\nand in probity. All the philosophers who have professed a religion have\nsaid at all times: \"There is a God, and He must be just.\" Behold then\nthe universal religion, established throughout all time and among all\nmen! The point then in which all agree is true; the systems in regard to\nwhich all differ are false.\n\nMy sect is the best, says a Brahmin. But, my good friend, if thy sect is\nthe best, it is necessary; for if not absolutely necessary, thou must\nconfess that it is useless. If, on the contrary, it is necessary, it\nmust be so to all men; how then is it that all men possess not what is\nabsolutely necessary to them? How is it that the rest of the world\nlaughs at thee and thy Brahma?\n\nWhen Zoroaster, Hermes, Orpheus, Minos, and all the great men say: Let\nus worship God, and be just, no one laughs; but all the world sneers at\nhim who pretends, that to please God it is proper to die holding a cow\nby the tail; at him who cuts off a particle of foreskin for the same\npurpose; at him who consecrates crocodiles and onions; at him who\nattaches eternal salvation to the bones of dead men carried underneath\nthe shirt, or to a plenary indulgence purchased at Rome for two sous and\na half.\n\nWhence this universal assemblage of laughing and hissing from one end of\nthe universe to the other? It must be that the things which all the\nworld derides are not evident truths. What shall we say to a secretary\nof Sejanus, who dedicates to Petronius a book, in a confused and\ninvolved style, entitled \"The Truth of the Sibylline Oracles, Proved\nfrom Facts.\"\n\nThis secretary at first proves to you, that God sent upon earth many\nSibyls, one after the other, having no other means of instructing men.\nIt is demonstrated, that God communicated with these Sibyls, because the\nword \"sibyl\" signifies \"Council of God.\" They ought to live a long time,\nfor this privilege at least belongs to persons with whom God\ncommunicates. They amounted to twelve, because this number is sacred.\nThey certainly predicted all the events in the world, because Tarquin\nthe Proud bought their book from an old woman for a hundred crowns. What\nunbeliever, exclaims the secretary, can deny all these evident facts,\nwhich took place in one corner of the earth, in the face of all the\nworld? Who can deny the accomplishment of their prophecies? Has not\nVirgil himself cited the predictions of the Sibyls? If we have not the\nfirst copies of the Sibylline books, written at a time when no one could\nread and write, we have authentic copies. Impiety must be silent before\nsuch proofs. Thus spoke Houteville to Sejanus, and hoped to obtain by it\nthe place of chief augur, with a revenue of fifty thousand livres; but\nhe obtained nothing.\n\nThat which my sect teaches me is obscure, I confess it, exclaims a\nfanatic; and it is in consequence of that obscurity that I must believe\nit; for it says itself that it abounds in obscurities. My sect is\nextravagant, therefore it is divine; for how, appearing so insane,\nwould it otherwise have been embraced by so many people. It is precisely\nlike the Koran, which the Sonnites say presents at once the face of an\nangel and that of a beast. Be not scandalized at the muzzle of the\nbeast, but revere the face of the angel. Thus spoke this madman; but a\nfanatic of another sect replied to the first fanatic: It is thou who art\nthe beast, and I who am the angel.\n\nNow who will judge this process, and decide between these two inspired\npersonages? The reasonable and impartial man who is learned in a science\nwhich is not that of words; the man divested of prejudice, and a lover\nof truth and of justice; the man, in fine, who is not a beast, and who\npretends not to be an angel.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nSect and error are synonymous terms. Thou art a peripatetic and I a\nPlatonist; we are therefore both in the wrong; for thou opposest Plato,\nbecause his chimeras repel thee; and I fly from Aristotle, because it\nappears to me that he knew not what he said. If the one or the other had\ndemonstrated the truth, there would have been an end of sect. To declare\nfor the opinion of one in opposition to that of another, is to take part\nin a civil war. There is no sect in mathematics or experimental\nphilosophy: a man who examines the relation between a cone and a sphere\nis not of the sect of Archimedes; and he who perceived that the square\nof the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the\nsquares of the other two sides, is not in consequence a Pythagorean.\n\nWhen we say that the blood circulates, that the air is weighty, that the\nrays of the sun are a bundle of seven refrangible rays, it follows not\nthat we are of the sect of Harvey, of Torricelli, or of Newton; we\nsimply acquiesce in the truths which they demonstrate, and the whole\nuniverse will be of the same opinion.\n\nSuch is the character of truth, which belongs to all time and to all\nmen. It is only to be produced to be acknowledged, and admits of no\nopposition. A long dispute signifies that both parties are in error.\n\n\n\n\nSELF-LOVE.\n\n\nNicole, in his \"Moral Essays,\" written after two or three thousand\nvolumes on morals (Treatise on Charity, chap, ii.), says, that \"by means\nof the gibbets and tortures which are established in common, the\ntyrannical designs of the self-love of each individual are repressed.\"\n\nI will not examine whether we have gibbets in common, as we have fields\nand woods in common, and a common purse, or if thoughts are repressed by\nwheels; but it seems to me very strange that Nicole has taken highway\nrobbery and murder for self-love. The distinctions must be a little\nmore examined. He who should say that Nero killed his mother from\nself-love, that Cartouche had much self-love, would not express himself\nvery correctly. Self-love is not a wickedness; it is a sentiment natural\nto all men; it is much more the neighbor of vanity than of crime.\n\nA beggar of the suburbs of Madrid boldly asked alms; a passenger said to\nhim: Are you not ashamed to carry on this infamous trade, when you can\nwork? Sir, replied the mendicant, I ask you for money, and not for\nadvice; and turned his back on him with Castilian dignity. This\ngentleman was a haughty beggar; his vanity was wounded by very little:\nhe asked alms for love of himself, and would not suffer the reprimand\nfrom a still greater love of himself.\n\nA missionary, travelling in India, met a fakir loaded with chains, naked\nas an ape, lying on his stomach, and lashing himself for the sins of his\ncountrymen, the Indians, who gave him some coins of the country. What a\nrenouncement of himself! said one of the spectators. Renouncement of\nmyself! said the fakir, learn that I only lash myself in this world to\nserve you the same in the next, when you will be the horses and I the\nrider.\n\nThose who said that love of ourselves is the basis of all our sentiments\nand actions were right; and as it has not been written to prove to men\nthat they have a face, there is no occasion to prove to them that they\npossess self-love. This self-love is the instrument of our\npreservation; it resembles the provision for the perpetuity of mankind;\nit is necessary, it is dear to us, it gives us pleasure, and we must\nconceal it.\n\n\n\n\nSENSATION.\n\n\nOysters, it is said, have two senses; moles four; all other animals,\nlike man, five. Some people contend for a sixth, but it is evident that\nthe voluptuous sensation to which they allude is reducible to that of\ntouch; and that five senses are our lot. It is impossible for us to\nimagine anything beyond them, or to desire out of their range.\n\nIt may be, that in other globes the inhabitants possess sensations of\nwhich we can form no idea. It is possible that the number of our senses\naugments from globe to globe, and that an existence with innumerable and\nperfect senses will be the final attainment of all being.\n\nBut with respect to ourselves and our five senses, what is the extent of\nour capacity? We constantly feel in spite of ourselves, and never\nbecause we will do so: it is impossible for us to avoid having the\nsensation which our nature ordains when any object excites it. The\nsensation is within us, but depends not upon ourselves. We receive it,\nbut how do we receive it? It is evident that there is no connection\nbetween the stricken air, the words which I sing, and the impression\nwhich these words make upon my brain.\n\nWe are astonished at thought, but sensation is equally wonderful. A\ndivine power is as manifest in the sensation of the meanest of insects\nas in the brain of Newton. In the meantime, if a thousand animals die\nbefore our eyes, we are not anxious to know what becomes of their\nfaculty of sensation, although it is as much the work of the Supreme\nBeing as our own. We regard them as the machines of nature, created to\nperish, and to give place to others.\n\nFor what purpose and in what manner may their sensations exist, when\nthey exist no longer? What need has the author of all things to preserve\nqualities, when the substance is destroyed? It is as reasonable to\nassert that the power of the plant called \"sensitive,\" to withdraw its\nleaves towards its branches, exists when the plant is no more. You will\nask, without doubt, in what manner the sensation of animals perishes\nwith them, while the mind of man perishes not? I am too ignorant to\nsolve this question. The eternal author of mind and of sensation alone\nknows how to give, and how to preserve them.\n\nAll antiquity maintains that our understanding contains nothing which\nhas not been received by our senses. Descartes, on the contrary, asserts\nin his \"Romances,\" that we have metaphysical ideas before we are\nacquainted with the nipple of our nurse. A faculty of theology\nproscribed this dogma, not because it was erroneous, but because it was\nnew. Finally, however, it was adopted, because it had been destroyed by\nLocke, an English philosopher, and an Englishman must necessarily be in\nthe wrong. In fine, after having so often changed opinion, the ancient\nopinion which declares that the senses are the inlets to the\nunderstanding is finally proscribed. This is acting like deeply indebted\ngovernments, who sometimes issue certain notes which are to pass\ncurrent, and at other times cry them down; but for a long time no one\nwill accept the notes of the said faculty of theology.\n\nAll the faculties in the world will never prevent a philosopher from\nperceiving that we commence by sensation, and that our memory is nothing\nbut a continued sensation. A man born without his five senses would be\ndestitute of all idea, supposing it possible for him to live.\nMetaphysical notions are obtained only through the senses; for how is a\ncircle or a triangle to be measured, if a circle or a triangle has\nneither been touched nor seen? How form an imperfect notion of infinity,\nwithout a notion of limits? And how take away limits, without having\neither beheld or felt them?\n\nSensation includes all our faculties, says a great philosopher. What\nought to be concluded from all this? You who read and think, pray\nconclude.\n\nThe Greeks invented the faculty \"_Psyche_\" for sensation, and the\nfaculty \"_Nous_\" for mind. We are, unhappily, ignorant of the nature of\nthese two faculties: we possess them, but their origin is no more known\nto us than to the oyster, the sea-nettle, the polypus, worms, or plants.\nBy some inconceivable mechanism, sensitiveness is diffused throughout my\nbody, and thought in my head alone. If the head be cut off, there will\nremain a very small chance of its solving a problem in geometry. In the\nmeantime, your pineal gland, your fleshly body, in which abides your\nsoul, exists for a long time without alteration, while your separated\nhead is so full of animal spirits that it frequently exhibits motion\nafter its removal from the trunk. It seems as if at this moment it\npossessed the most lively ideas, resembling the head of Orpheus, which\nstill uttered melodious song, and chanted Eurydice, when cast into the\nwaters of the Hebrus.\n\nIf we think no longer, after losing our heads, whence does it happen\nthat the heart beats, and appears to be sensitive after being torn out?\n\nWe feel, you say, because all our nerves have their origin in the brain;\nand in the meantime, if you are trepanned, and a portion of your brain\nbe thrown into the fire, you feel nothing the less. Men who can state\nthe reason of all this are very clever.\n\n\n\n\nSENTENCES (REMARKABLE).\n\n_On Natural Liberty._\n\n\nIn several countries, and particularly in France, collections have been\nmade of the juridical murders which tyranny, fanaticism, or even error\nand weakness, have committed with the sword of justice.\n\nThere are sentences of death which whole years of vengeance could\nscarcely expiate, and which will make all future ages tremble. Such are\nthe sentences given against the natural king of Naples and Sicily, by\nthe tribunal of Charles of Anjou; against John Huss and Jerome of\nPrague, by priests and monks; and against the king of England, Charles\nI., by fanatical citizens.\n\nAfter these enormous crimes, formally committed, come the legal murders\ncommitted by indolence, stupidity, and superstition, and these are\ninnumerable. We shall relate some of them in other articles.\n\nIn this class we must principally place the trials for witchcraft, and\nnever forget that even in our days, in 1750, the sacerdotal justice of\nthe bishop of W\u00fcrzburg has condemned as a witch a nun, a girl of\nquality, to the punishment of fire. I here repeat this circumstance,\nwhich I have elsewhere mentioned, that it should not be forgotten. We\nforget too much and too soon.\n\nEvery day of the year I would have a public crier, instead of crying as\nin Germany and Holland what time it is--which is known very well without\ntheir crying--cry: It was on this day that, in the religious wars\nMagdeburg and all its inhabitants were reduced to ashes. It was on May\n14th that Henry IV. was assassinated, only because he was not submissive\nto the pope; it was on such a day that such an abominable cruelty was\nperpetrated in your town, under the name of justice.\n\nThese continual advertisements would be very useful; but the judgments\ngiven in favor of innocence against persecutors should be cried with a\nmuch louder voice. For example, I propose, that every year, the two\nstrongest throats which can be found in Paris and Toulouse shall cry\nthese words in all the streets: It was on such a day that fifty\nmagistrates of the council re-established the memory of John Calas, with\na unanimous voice, and obtained for his family the favors of the king\nhimself, in whose name John Calas had been condemned to the most\nhorrible execution.\n\nIt would not be amiss to have another crier at the door of all the\nministers, to say to all who came to demand _lettres de cachet_, in\norder to possess themselves of the property of their relations, friends,\nor dependents: Gentlemen, fear to seduce the minister by false\nstatements, and to abuse the name of the king. It is dangerous to take\nit in vain. There was in the world one Gerbier, who defended the cause\nof the widow and orphan oppressed under the weight of a sacred name. It\nwas he who, at the bar of the Parliament of Paris, obtained the\nabolishment of the Society of Jesus. Listen attentively to the lesson\nwhich he gave to the society of St. Bernard, conjointly with Master\nLoiseau, another protector of widows.\n\nYou must first know, that the reverend Bernardine fathers of Clairvaux\npossess seventeen thousand acres of wood, seven large forges, fourteen\nlarge farms, a quantity of fiefs, benefices, and even rights in foreign\ncountries. The yearly revenue of the convent amounts to two hundred\nthousand livres. The treasure is immense; the abbot's palace is that of\na prince. Nothing is more just; it is a poor recompense for the services\nwhich the Bernardines continually render to the State.\n\nIt happened, that a youth of seventeen years of age, named Castille,\nwhose baptismal name was Bernard, believed, for that reason, that he\nshould become a Bernardine. It is thus that we reason at seventeen, and\nsometimes at thirty. He went to pass his novitiate at Lorraine, in the\nabbey of Orval. When he was required to pronounce his vows, grace was\nwanting in him: he did not sign them; he departed and became a man\nagain. He established himself at Paris, and at the end of thirty years,\nhaving made a little fortune, he married, and had children.\n\nThe reverend father, attorney of Clairvaux, named Mayeur, a worthy\nsolicitor, brother of the abbot, having learned from a woman of pleasure\nat Paris, that this Castille was formerly a Bernardine, plotted to\nchallenge him as a deserter--though he was not really engaged--to make\nhis wife pass for his concubine, and to place his children in the\nhospital as bastards. He associated himself with another rogue, to\ndivide the spoils. Both went to the court for _lettres de cachet_,\nexposed their grievances in the name of St. Bernard, obtained the\nletter, seized Bernard Castille, his wife, and their children, possessed\nthemselves of all the property, and are now devouring it, you know\nwhere.\n\nBernard Castille was shut up at Orval in a dungeon, where he was\nexecuted after six months, for fear that he should demand justice. His\nwife was conducted to another dungeon, at St. Pelagie, a house for\nprostitutes. Of three children, one died in the hospital.\n\nThings remained in this state for three years. At the end of this time,\nthe wife of Castille obtained her enlargement. God is just: He gave a\nsecond husband to the widow. The husband, named Lannai, was a man of\nhead, who discovered all the frauds, horrors, and crimes employed\nagainst his wife. They both entered into a suit against the monks. It is\ntrue, that brother Mayeur, who is called Dom Mayeur, was not hanged, but\nthe convent of Clairvaux was condemned to pay forty thousand livres.\nThere is no convent which would not rather see its attorney hanged than\nlose its money.\n\nThis history should teach you, gentlemen, to use much moderation in the\nfact of _lettres de cachet_. Know, that Master Elias de Beaumont, that\ncelebrated defender of the memory of Calas, and Master Target that other\nprotector of oppressed innocence, caused the man to pay a fine of twenty\nthousand francs, who by his intrigues had gained a _lettre de cachet_\nto seize upon the dying countess of Lancize, to drag her from the bosom\nof her family and divest her of all her titles.\n\nWhen tribunals give such sentences as these, we hear clapping of hands\nfrom the extent of the grand chamber to the gates of Paris. Take care of\nyourselves, gentlemen; do not lightly demand _lettres de cachet_.\n\nAn Englishman, on reading this article, exclaimed, \"What is a _lettre de\ncachet_?\" We could never make him comprehend it.\n\n\n\n\nSENTENCES OF DEATH.\n\n\nIn reading history, and seeing its course continually interrupted with\ninnumerable calamities heaped upon this globe, which some call the best\nof all possible worlds, I have been particularly struck with the great\nquantity of considerable men in the State, in the Church, and in\nsociety, who have suffered death like robbers on the highway. Setting\naside assassinations and poisonings, I speak only of massacres in a\njuridical form, performed with loyalty and ceremony; I commence with\nkings and queens; England alone furnishes an ample list; but for\nchancellors, knights, and esquires, volumes are required. Of all who\nhave thus perished by justice, I do not believe that there are four in\nall Europe who would have undergone their sentence if their suits had\nlasted some time longer, or if the adverse parties had died of apoplexy\nduring the preparation.\n\nIf fistula had gangrened the rectum of Cardinal Richelieu some months\nlonger, the virtuous de Thou, Cinq-Mars, and so many others would have\nbeen at liberty. If Barneveldt had had as many Arminians for his judges\nas Gomerists, he would have died in his bed; if the constable de Luynes\nhad not demanded the confiscation of the property of the lady of the\nMarshal d'Ancre, she would not have been burned as a witch. If a really\ncriminal man, an assassin, a public thief, a poisoner, a parricide, be\narrested, and his crime be proved, it is certain that in all times and\nwhoever the judges, he will be condemned. But it is not the same with\nstatesmen; only give them other judges, or wait until time has changed\ninterests, cooled passions, and introduced other sentiments, and their\nlives will be in safety.\n\nSuppose Queen Elizabeth had died of an indigestion on the eve of the\nexecution of Mary Stuart, then Mary Stuart would have been seated on the\nthrone of England, Ireland, and Scotland, instead of dying by the hand\nof an executioner in a chamber hung with black. If Cromwell had only\nfallen sick, care would have been taken how Charles I.'s head was cut\noff. These two assassinations--disguised, I know not how, in the garb of\nthe laws--scarcely entered into the list of ordinary injustice. Figure\nto yourself some highwaymen who, having bound and robbed two passengers,\namuse themselves with naming in the troop an attorney-general, a\npresident, an advocate and counsellors, and who, having signed a\nsentence, cause the two victims to be hanged in ceremony; it was thus\nthat the Queen of Scotland and her grandson were judged.\n\nBut of common judgments, pronounced by competent judges against princes\nor men in place, is there a single one which would have been either\nexecuted, or even passed, if another time had been chosen? Is there a\nsingle one of the condemned, immolated under Cardinal Richelieu, who\nwould not have been in favor if their suits had been prolonged until the\nregency of Anne of Austria? The Prince of Cond\u00e9 was arrested under\nFrancis II., he was condemned to death by commissaries; Francis II.\ndied, and the Prince of Cond\u00e9 again became powerful.\n\nThese instances are innumerable; we should above all consider the spirit\nof the times. Vanini was burned on a vague suspicion of atheism. At\npresent, if any one was foolish and pedantic enough to write such books\nas Vanini, they would not be read, and that is all which could happen to\nthem. A Spaniard passed through Geneva in the middle of the sixteenth\ncentury; the Picard, John Calvin, learned that this Spaniard was lodged\nat an inn; he remembered that this Spaniard had disputed with him on a\nsubject which neither of them understood. Behold! my theologian, John\nCalvin, arrested the passenger, contrary to all laws, human or divine,\ncontrary to the right possessed by people among all nations; immured him\nin a dungeon, and burned him at a slow fire with green faggots, that the\npain might last the longer. Certainly this infernal man\u0153uvre would\nnever enter the head of any one in the present day; and if the fool\nServetus had lived in good times, he would have had nothing to fear;\nwhat is called justice is therefore as arbitrary as fashion. There are\ntimes of horrors and follies among men, as there are times of\npestilence, and this contagion has made the tour of the world.\n\n\n\n\nSERPENTS.\n\n\n\"I certify that I have many times killed serpents by moistening in a\nslight degree, with my spittle, a stick or a stone, and giving them a\nslight blow on the middle of the body, scarcely sufficient to produce a\nsmall contusion. January 19, 1757. Figuier, Surgeon.\"\n\nThe above surgeon having given me this certificate, two witnesses, who\nhad seen him kill serpents in this manner, attested what they had\nbeheld. Notwithstanding, I wished to behold the thing myself; for I\nconfess that, in various parts of these queries, I have taken St. Thomas\nof Didymus for my patron saint, who always insisted on an examination\nwith his own hands.\n\nFor eighteen hundred years this opinion has been perpetuated among the\npeople, and it might possibly be even eighteen thousand years old, if\nGenesis had not supplied us with the precise date of our enmity to this\nreptile. It may be asserted that if Eve had spit on the serpent when he\ntook his place at her ear, a world of evil would have been spared human\nnature.\n\nLucretius, in his fourth book, alludes to this manner of killing\nserpents as very well known:\n\n     _Est utique ut serpens hominis contacta salivis._\n     _Disperit, ac sese mandendo conficit ipsa._\n                                  --LIB., iv, v. 642-643.\n\n     Spit on a serpent, and his vigor flies,\n     He straight devours himself, and quickly dies.\n\nThere is some slight contradiction in painting him at once deprived of\nvigor and self-devouring, but my surgeon Figuier asserts not that the\nserpents which he killed were self-devouring. Genesis says wisely that\nwe kill them with our heels, and not with spittle.\n\nWe are in the midst of winter on January 19, which is the time when\nserpents visit us. I cannot find any at Mount Krapak; but I exhort all\nphilosophers to spit upon every serpent they meet with in the spring. It\nis good to know the extent of the power of the saliva of man.\n\nIt is certain that Jesus Christ employed his spittle to cure a man who\nwas deaf and dumb. He took him aside, placed His fingers on his ears,\nand looking up to heaven, sighed and said to him: \"_Ephphatha_\"--\"be\nopened\"--when the deaf and dumb person immediately began to speak.\n\nIt may therefore be true that God has allowed the saliva of man to kill\nserpents; but He may have also permitted my surgeon to assail them with\nheavy blows from a stick or a stone, in such a way that they would die\nwhether he spat upon them or not.\n\nI beg of all philosophers to examine the thing with attention. For\nexample, should they meet Freron in the street, let them spit in his\nface, and if he die, the fact will be confirmed, in spite of all the\nreasoning of the incredulous.\n\nI take this opportunity also to beg of philosophers not to cut off the\nheads of any more snails; for I affirm that the head has returned to\nsnails which I have decapitated very effectively. But it is not enough\nthat I know it by experience, others must be equally satisfied in order\nthat the fact be rendered probable; for although I have twice succeeded,\nI have failed thirty times. Success depends upon the age of the snail,\nthe time in which the head is cut off, the situation of the incision,\nand the manner in which it is kept until the head grows again.\n\nIf it is important to know that death may be inflicted by spitting, it\nis still more important to know that heads may be renewed. Man is of\nmore consequence than a snail, and I doubt not that in due time, when\nthe arts are brought to perfection, some means will be found to give a\nsound head to a man who has none at all.\n\n\n\n\nSHEKEL.\n\n\nA weight and denomination of money among the Jews; but as they never\ncoined money, and always made use of the coinage of other people, all\ngold coins weighing about a guinea, and all silver coins of the weight\nof a small French crown, were called a shekel; and these shekels were\ndistinguished into those of the weight of the sanctuary, and those of\nthe weight of the king.\n\nIt is said in the Book of Samuel that Absalom had very fine hair, from\nwhich he cut a part every year. Many profound commentators assert that\nhe cut it once a month, and that it was valued at two hundred shekels.\nIf these shekels were of gold, the locks of Absalom were worth two\nthousand four hundred guineas per annum. There are few seigniories which\nproduce at present the revenue that Absalom derived from his head.\n\nIt is said that when Abraham bought a cave in Hebron from the Canaanite\nEphron, Ephron sold him the cave for four hundred shekels of silver, of\ncurrent money with the merchant--_probat\u00e6 monet\u00e6 public\u00e6_.\n\nWe have already remarked that there was no coined money in these days,\nand thus these four hundred shekels of silver became four hundred\nshekels in weight, which, valued at present at three livres four sous\neach, are equal to twelve hundred and eighty livres of France.\n\nIt follows that the little field, which was sold with this cavern, was\nexcellent land, to bring so high a price.\n\nWhen Eleazar, the servant of Abraham, met the beautiful Rebecca, the\ndaughter of Bethnel, carrying a pitcher of water upon her shoulder, from\nwhich she gave him and his camels leave to drink, he presented her with\nearrings of gold, which weighed two shekels, and bracelets which weighed\nten, amounting in the whole to a present of the value of twenty-four\nguineas.\n\nIn the laws of Exodus it is said that if an ox gored a male or female\nslave, the possessor of the ox should give thirty shekels of silver to\nthe master of the slave, and that the ox should be stoned. It is\napparently to be understood that the ox in this case has produced a very\ndangerous wound, otherwise thirty-two crowns was a large sum for the\nneighborhood of Mount Sinai, where money was uncommon. It is for the\nsame reason that many grave, but too hasty, persons suspect that Exodus\nas well as Genesis was not written until a comparatively late period.\n\nWhat tends to confirm them in this erroneous opinion is a passage in the\nsame Exodus: \"Take of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet\ncinnamon half as much; of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels;\nof cassia five hundred shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; and\nof olive-oil a ton, to form an ointment to annoint the tabernacle\"; and\nwhosoever anointed himself or any stranger with a similar composition,\nwas to be put to death.\n\nIt is added that with all these aromatics were to be united stacte,\nonyx, galbanum, and frankincense; and that a perfume was to be mixed up\naccording to the art of the apothecary or perfumer.\n\nBut I cannot perceive anything in this composition which ought to excite\nthe doubt of the incredulous. It is natural to imagine that the\nJews--who, according to the text, stole from the Egyptians all which\nthey could bring away--had also taken frankincense, galbanum, onyx,\nstacte, olive-oil, cassia, sweet calamus, cinnamon, and myrrh. They\nalso, without doubt, stole many shekels; indeed, we have seen, that one\nof the most zealous partisans of this Hebrew horde estimates what they\nstole, in gold alone, at nine millions. I abide by his reckoning.\n\n\n\n\nSIBYL.\n\n\nThe first woman who pronounced oracles at Delphos was called Sibylla.\nAccording to Pausanias, she was the daughter of Jupiter, and of Lamia,\nthe daughter of Neptune, and she lived a long time before the siege of\nTroy. From her all women were distinguished by the name of sibyls, who,\nwithout being priestesses, or even attached to a particular oracle,\nannounced the future, and called themselves inspired. Different ages and\ncountries have had their sibyls, or preserved predictions which bear\ntheir name, and collections were formed of them.\n\nThe greatest embarrassment to the ancients was to explain by what happy\nprivilege these sibyls had the gift of predicting the future. Platonists\nfound the cause of it in the intimate union which the creature, arrived\nat a certain degree of perfection, might have with the Divinity. Others\nattribute this divine property of the sibyls to the vapors and\nexhalations of the caves which they inhabited. Finally others attributed\nthe prophetic spirit of the sibyls to their sombre and melancholy humor,\nor to some singular malady.\n\nSt. Jerome maintained that this gift was to them a recompense for their\nchastity; but there was at least one very celebrated one who boasted of\nhaving had a thousand lovers without being married. It would have been\nmuch more sensible in St. Jerome and other fathers of the Church to have\ndenied the prophetic spirit of the sibyls, and to have said that by\nmeans of hazarding predictions at a venture, they might sometimes have\nbeen fulfilled, particularly with the help of a favorable commentary, by\nwhich words, spoken by chance, have been turned into facts which it was\nimpossible they could have predicted.\n\nIt is singular that their predictions were collected after the event.\nThe first collection of sibylline leaves, bought by Tarquin, contained\nthree books; the second was compiled after the fire of the capitol, but\nwe are ignorant how many books it contained; and the third is that which\nwe possess in eight books, and in which it is doubtful whether the\nauthor has not inserted several predictions of the second. This\ncollection is the fruit of the pious fraud of some Platonic Christians,\nmore zealous than clever, who in composing it thought to lend arms to\nthe Christian religion, and to put those who defended it in a situation\nto combat paganism with the greatest advantage.\n\nThis confused compilation of different prophecies was printed for the\nfirst time in the year 1545 from manuscripts, and published several\ntimes after, with ample commentaries, burdened with an erudition often\ntrivial, and almost always foreign to the text, which they seldom\nenlightened. The number of works composed for and against the\nauthenticity of these sibylline books is very great, and some even very\nlearned; but there prevails so little order and reasoning, and the\nauthors are so devoid of all philosophic spirit that those who might\nhave courage to read them would gain nothing but ennui and fatigue. The\ndate of the publication is found clearly indicated in the fifth and\neighth books. The sibyl is made to say that the Roman Empire will have\nonly fifteen emperors, fourteen of which are designated by the numeral\nvalue of the first letter of their names in the Greek alphabet. She adds\nthat the fifteenth, who would be a man with a white head, would bear the\nname of a sea near Rome. The fifteenth of the Roman emperors was Adrian,\nand the Asiatic gulf is the sea of which he bears the name.\n\nFrom this prince, continues the sibyl, three others will proceed who\nwill rule the empire at the same time; but finally one of them will\nremain the possessor. These three shoots were Antoninus, Marcus\nAurelius, and Lucius Verus. The sibyl alludes to the adoptions and\nassociations which united them. Marcus Aurelius found himself sole\nmaster of the empire at the death of Lucius Verus, at the commencement\nof the year 169; and he governed it without any colleague until the year\n177, when he associated with his son Commodus. As there is nothing which\ncan have any relation to this new colleague of Marcus Aurelius, it is\nevident that the collection must have been made between the years 169\nand 177 of the vulgar era.\n\nJosephus, the historian, quotes a work of the sibyl, in which the Tower\nof Babel and the confusion of tongues are spoken of nearly as in\nGenesis; which proves that the Christians are not the first authors of\nthe supposition of the sibylline books. Josephus not relating the exact\nwords of the sibyl, we cannot ascertain whether what is said of the same\nevent in our collection was extracted from the work quoted by Josephus;\nbut it is certain that several lines, attributed to the sibyl, in the\nexhortations found in the works of St. Justin, of Theophilus of Antioch,\nof Clement of Alexandria, and in some other fathers, are not in our\ncollection; and as most of these lines bear no stamp of Christianity,\nthey might be the work of some Platonic Jew.\n\nIn the time of Celsus, sibyls had already some credit among the\nChristians, as it appears by two passages of the answer of Origen. But\nin time sibylline prophecies appearing favorable to Christianity, they\nwere commonly made use of in works of controversy with much more\nconfidence than by the pagans themselves, who, acknowledging sibyls to\nbe inspired women, confined themselves to saying that the Christians had\nfalsified their writings, a fact which could only be decided by a\ncomparison of the two manuscripts, which few people are in a situation\nto make.\n\nFinally, it was from a poem of the sibyl of Cumea that the principal\ndogmas of Christianity were taken. Constantine, in the fine discourse\nwhich he pronounced before the assembly of the saints, shows that the\nfourth eclogue of Virgil is only a prophetic description of the Saviour;\nand if that was not the immediate object of the poet, it was that of the\nsibyl from whom he borrowed his ideas, who, being filled with the spirit\nof God, announced the birth of the Redeemer.\n\nHe believed that he saw in this poem the miracle of the birth of Jesus\nof a virgin, the abolition of sin by the preaching of the gospel, and\nthe abolition of punishment by the grace of the Redeemer. He believed he\nsaw the old serpent overthrown, and the mortal venom with which he\npoisoned human nature entirely deadened. He believed that he saw that\nthe grace of the Lord, however powerful it might be, would nevertheless\nsuffer the dregs and traces of sin to remain in the faithful; in a\nword, he believed that he saw Jesus Christ announced under the great\ncharacter of the Son of God.\n\nIn this eclogue there are many other passages which might have been said\nto be copies of the Jewish prophets, who apply it themselves to Jesus\nChrist; it is at least the general opinion of the Church. St. Augustine,\nlike others, has been persuaded of it, and has pretended that the lines\nof Virgil can only be applied to Jesus Christ. Finally, the most clever\nmoderns maintain the same opinion.\n\n\n\n\nSINGING.\n\n_Questions on Singing, Music, Modulation, Gesticulation, etc._\n\n\nCould a Turk conceive that we have one kind of singing for the first of\nour mysteries when we celebrate it in music, another kind which we call\n\"motetts\" in the same temple, a third kind at the opera, and a fourth at\nthe theatre?\n\nIn like manner, can we imagine how the ancients blew their flutes,\nrecited on their theatres with their heads covered by enormous masks,\nand how their declamation was written down.\n\nLaw was promulgated in Athens nearly as in Paris we sing an air on the\nPont-Neuf. The public crier sang an edict, accompanying himself on the\nlyre.\n\nIt is thus that in Paris the rose in bud is cried in one tone; old\nsilver lace to sell in another; only in the streets of Paris the lyre is\ndispensed with.\n\nAfter the victory of Ch\u00e6ronea, Philip, the father of Alexander, sang the\ndecree by which Demosthenes had made him declare war, and beat time with\nhis foot. We are very far from singing in our streets our edicts, or\nfinances, or upon the two sous in the livre.\n\nIt is very probable that the melop\u00e9e, or modulation, regarded by\nAristotle in his poetic art as an essential part of tragedy, was an\neven, simple chant, like that which we call the preface to mass, which\nin my opinion is the Gregorian chant, and not the Ambrosian, and which\nis a true melop\u00e9e.\n\nWhen the Italians revived tragedy in the sixteenth century the\nrecitative was a melop\u00e9e which could not be written; for who could write\ninflections of the voice which are octaves and sixths of tone? They were\nlearned by heart. This custom was received in France when the French\nbegan to form a theatre, more than a century after the Italians. The\n\"_Sophonisba_\" of Mairet was sung like that of Trissin, but more\ngrossly; for throats as well as minds were then rather coarser at Paris.\nAll the parts of the actors, but particularly of the actresses, were\nnoted from memory by tradition. Mademoiselle Bauval, an actress of the\ntime of Corneille, Racine, and Moli\u00e8re, recited to me, about sixty years\nago or more, the commencement of the part of _Emilia_, in \"Cinna,\" as it\nhad been played in the first representations by La Beaupr\u00e9. This\nmodulation resembled the declamation of the present day much less than\nour modern recitative resembles the manner of reading the newspaper.\n\nI cannot better compare this kind of singing, this modulation, than to\nthe admirable recitative of Lulli, criticised by adorers of double\ncrochets, who have no knowledge of the genius of our language, and who\nare ignorant what help this melody furnishes to an ingenious and\nsensible actor.\n\nTheatrical modulation perished with the comedian Duclos, whose only\nmerit being a fine voice without spirit and soul, finally rendered that\nridiculous which had been admired in Des \u0152uillets, and in Champmesl\u00e9.\n\nTragedy is now played dryly; if we were not heated by the pathos of the\nspectacle and the action, it would be very insipid. Our age, commendable\nin other things, is the age of dryness.\n\nIt is true that among the Romans one actor recited and another made\ngestures. It was not by chance that the abb\u00e9 Dubos imagined this\npleasant method of declaiming. Titus Livius, who never fails to instruct\nus in the manners and customs of the Romans, and who, in that respect is\nmore useful than the ingenious and satirical Tacitus, informs us, I say,\nthat Andronicus, being hoarse while singing in the interludes, got\nanother to sing for him while he executed the dance; and thence came the\ncustom of dividing interludes between dancers and singers: \"_Dicitur\ncantum egisse magis vigente motu quum nihil vocis usis impediebat_.\" The\nsong is expressed by the dance. \"Cantum egisse magis vigente motu.\" With\nmore vigorous movements.\n\nBut they divided not the story of the piece between an actor who only\ngesticulates and another who only sings. The thing would have been as\nridiculous as impracticable.\n\nThe art of pantomimes, which are played without speaking, is quite\ndifferent, and we have seen very striking examples of it; but this art\ncan please only when a marked action is represented, a theatrical event\nwhich is easily presented to the imagination of the spectator. It can\nrepresent Orosmanes killing Za\u00efre and killing himself; Semiramis\nwounded, dragging herself on the frontiers to the tomb of Ninus, and\nholding her son in her arms. There is no occasion for verses to express\nthese situations by gestures to the sound of a mournful and terrible\nsymphony. But how would two pantomimes paint the dessertation of Maximus\nand Cinna on monarchical and popular governments?\n\nApropos of the theatrical execution of the Romans, the abb\u00e9 Dubos says\nthat the dancers in the interludes were always in gowns. Dancing\nrequires a closer dress. In the Pays de Vaud, a suite of baths built by\nthe Romans, is carefully preserved, the pavement of which is mosaic.\nThis mosaic, which is not decayed, represents dancers dressed like opera\ndancers. We make not these observations to detect errors in Dubos;\nthere is no merit in having seen this antique monument which he had not\nseen; and besides, a very solid and just mind might be deceived by a\npassage of Titus Livius.\n\n\n\n\nSLAVES.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWhy do we denominate slaves those whom the Romans called \"_servi_,\" and\nthe Greeks \"_duloi_\"? Etymology is here exceedingly at fault; and\nBochart has not been able to derive this word from the Hebrew.\n\nThe most ancient record that we possess in which the word \"slave\" is\nfound is the will of one Ermangaut, archbishop of Narbonne, who\nbequeathed to Bishop Fredelon his slave Anaph--\"Anaphinus Slavonium.\"\nThis Anaph was very fortunate in belonging to two bishops successively.\n\nIt is not unlikely that the Slavonians came from the distant North with\nother indigent and conquering hordes, to pillage from the Roman Empire\nwhat that empire had pilliged from other nations, and especially in\nDalmatia and Illyria. The Italians called the misfortune of falling into\ntheir hands \"_shiavitu_,\" and \"_schiavi_\" the captives themselves.\n\nAll that we can gather from the confused history of the middle ages is\nthat in the time of the Romans the known world was divided between\nfreemen and slaves. When the Slavonians, Alans, Huns, Heruli,\nOstrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks and Normans came to\ndespoil Europe, there was little probability that the multitude of\nslaves would diminish. Ancient masters, in fact, saw themselves reduced\nto slavery, and the smaller number enslaved the greater, as negroes are\nenslaved in the colonies, and according to the practice in many other\ncases.\n\nWe read nothing in ancient authors concerning the slaves of the\nAssyrians and the Babylonians. The book which speaks most of slaves is\nthe \"Iliad.\" In the first place, Briseis is slave to Achilles; and all\nthe Trojan women, and more especially the princesses, fear becoming\nslaves to the Greeks, and spinners for their wives.\n\nSlavery is also as ancient as war, and war as human nature. Society was\nso accustomed to this degradation of the species that Epictetus, who was\nassuredly worth more than his master, never expresses any surprise at\nhis being a slave.\n\nNo legislator of antiquity ever attempted to abrogate slavery; on the\ncontrary, the people most enthusiastic for liberty--the Athenians, the\nLaced\u00e6monians, the Romans, and the Carthaginians--were those who enacted\nthe most severe laws against their serfs. The right of life and death\nover them was one of the principles of society. It must be confessed\nthat, of all wars, that of Spartacus was the most just, and possibly the\nonly one that was ever absolutely so.\n\nWho would believe that the Jews, created as it might appear to serve all\nnations in turn, should also appear to possess slaves of their own? It\nis observed in their laws, that they may purchase their brethren for\nsix years, and strangers forever. It was said, that the children of Esau\nwould become bondsmen to the children of Jacob; but since, under a\ndifferent dispensation, the Arabs, who call themselves descendants of\nEsau, have enslaved the posterity of Jacob.\n\nThe Evangelists put not a single word into the mouth of Jesus Christ\nwhich recalls mankind to the primitive liberty to which they appear to\nbe born. There is nothing said in the New Testament on this state of\ndegradation and suffering, to which one-half of the human race was\ncondemned. Not a word appears in the writings of the apostles and the\nfathers of the Church, tending to change beasts of burden into citizens,\nas began to be done among ourselves in the thirteenth century. If\nslavery be spoken of, it is the slavery of sin.\n\nIt is difficult to comprehend how, in St. John, the Jews can say to\nJesus: \"We have never been slaves to any one\"--they who were at that\ntime subjected to the Romans; they who had been sold in the market after\nthe taking of Jerusalem; they of whom ten tribes, led away as slaves by\nShalmaneser, had disappeared from the face of the earth, and of whom two\nother tribes were held in chains by the Babylonians for seventy years;\nthey who had been seven times reduced to slavery in their promised land,\naccording to their own avowal; they who in all their writings speak of\ntheir bondage in that Egypt which they abhorred, but to which they ran\nin crowds to gain money, as soon as Alexander condescended to allow\nthem to settle there. The reverend Dom Calmet says, that we must\nunderstand in this passage, \"intrinsic servitude,\" an explanation which\nby no means renders it more comprehensible.\n\nItaly, the Gauls, Spain, and a part of Germany, were inhabited by\nstrangers, by foreigners become masters, and natives reduced to serfs.\nWhen the bishop of Seville, Opas, and Count Julian called over the\nMahometan Moors against the Christian kings of the Visigoths, who\nreigned in the Pyrenees, the Mahometans, according to their custom,\nproposed to the natives, either to receive circumcision, give battle, or\npay tribute in money and girls. King Roderick was vanquished, and slaves\nwere made of those who were taken captive.\n\nThe conquered preserved their wealth and their religion by paying; and\nit is thus that the Turks have since treated Greece, except that they\nimposed upon the latter a tribute of children of both sexes, the boys of\nwhich they circumcise and transform into pages and janissaries, while\nthe girls are devoted to the harems. This tribute has since been\ncompromised for money. The Turks have only a few slaves for the interior\nservice of their houses, and these they purchase from the Circassians,\nMingrelians, and nations of Lesser Tartary.\n\nBetween the African Mahometans and the European Christians, the custom\nof piracy, and of making slaves of all who could be seized on the high\nseas, has always existed. They are birds of prey who feed upon one\nanother; the Algerines, natives of Morocco, and Tunisians, all live by\npiracy. The Knights of Malta, successors to those of Rhodes, formally\nswear to rob and enslave all the Mahometans whom they meet; and the\ngalleys of the pope cruise for Algerines on the northern coasts of\nAfrica. Those who call themselves whites and Christians proceed to\npurchase negroes at a good market, in order to sell them dear in\nAmerica. The Pennsylvanians alone have renounced this traffic, which\nthey account flagitious.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nI read a short time ago at Mount Krapak, where it is known that I\nreside, a book written at Paris, abounding in wit and paradoxes, bold\nviews and hardihood, resembling in some respects those of Montesquieu,\nagainst whom it is written. In this book, slavery is decidedly preferred\nto domesticity, and above all to the free labor. This book exceedingly\npities those unhappy free men who earn a subsistence where they please,\nby the labor for which man is born, and which is the guardian of\ninnocence, as well as the support of life. It is incumbent on no one,\nsays the author, either to nourish or to succor them; whereas, slaves\nare fed and protected by their masters like their horses. All this is\ntrue; but human beings would rather provide for themselves than depend\non others; and horses bred in the forest prefer them to stables.\n\nHe justly remarks that artisans lose many days in which they are\nforbidden to work, which is very true; but this is not because they are\nfree, but because ridiculous laws exist in regard to holidays.\n\nHe says most truly, that it is not Christian charity which has broken\nthe fetters of servitude, since the same charity has riveted them for\nmore than twelve centuries; and that Christians, and even monks, all\ncharitable as they are, still possess slaves reduced to a frightful\nstate of bondage, under the name of \"_mortaillables, mainmortables_\" and\nserfs of the soil.\n\nHe asserts that which is very true, that Christian princes only\naffranchised their serfs through avarice. It was, in fact, to obtain the\nmoney laboriously amassed by these unhappy persons, that they signed\ntheir letters of manumission. They did not bestow liberty, but sold it.\nThe emperor Henry V. began: he freed the serfs of Spires and Worms in\nthe twelfth century. The kings of France followed his example; and\nnothing tends more to prove the value of liberty than the high price\nthese gross men paid for it.\n\nLastly, it is for the men on whose condition the dispute turns to decide\nupon which state they prefer. Interrogate the lowest laborer covered\nwith rags, fed upon black bread, and sleeping on straw, in a hut half\nopen to the elements; ask this man, whether he will be a slave, better\nfed, clothed, and bedded; not only will he recoil with horror at the\nproposal, but regard you with horror for making the proposal. Ask a\nslave if he is willing to be free, and you will hear his answer. This\nalone ought to decide the question.\n\nIt is also to be considered that a laborer may become a farmer, and a\nfarmer a proprietor. In France, he may even become a counsellor of the\nking, if he acquire riches. In England, he may become a freeholder, or a\nmember of parliament. In Sweden, he may become a member of the national\nstates. These possibilities are of more value than that of dying\nneglected in the corner of his master's stable.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nPuffendorff says, that slavery has been established \"by the free consent\nof the opposing parties.\" I will believe Puffendorff, when he shows me\nthe original contract.\n\nGrotius inquires, whether a man who is taken captive in war has a right\nto escape; and it is to be remarked, that he speaks not of a prisoner on\nhis parole of honor. He decides, that he has no such right; which is\nabout as much as to say that a wounded man has no right to get cured.\nNature decides against Grotius.\n\nAttend to the following observations of the author of the \"Spirit of\nLaws,\" after painting negro slavery with the pencil of Moli\u00e8re:\n\n\"Mr. Perry says that the Moscovites sell themselves readily; I can\nguess the reason--their liberty is worth nothing.\"\n\nCaptain John Perry, an Englishman, who wrote an account of the state of\nRussia in 1714, says nothing of that which the \"Spirit of Laws\" makes\nhim say. Perry contains a few lines only on the subject of Russian\nbondage, which are as follows: \"The czar has ordered that, throughout\nhis states, in future, no one is to be called '_golup_' or slave; but\nonly '_raab_,' which signifies subject. However, the people derive no\nreal advantage from this order, being still in reality slaves.\"\n\nThe author of the \"Spirit of Laws\" adds, that according to Captain\nDampier, \"everybody sells himself in the kingdom of Achem.\" This would\nbe a singular species of commerce, and I have seen nothing in the\n\"Voyage\" of Dampier which conveys such a notion. It is a pity that a man\nso replete with wit should hazard so many crudities, and so frequently\nquote incorrectly.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_Serfs of the Body, Serfs of the Glebe, Mainmort, etc._\n\nIt is commonly asserted that there are no more slaves in France; that it\nis the kingdom of the Franks, and that slave and Frank are contradictory\nterms; that people are so free there that many financiers die worth more\nthan thirty millions of francs, acquired at the expense of the\ndescendants of the ancient Franks. Happy French nation to be thus free!\nBut how, in the meantime, is so much freedom compatible with so many\nspecies of servitude, as for instance, that of the _mainmort_?\n\nMany a fine lady at Paris, who sparkles in her box at the opera, is\nignorant that she descends from a family of Burgundy, the Bourbonnais,\nFranche-Comt\u00e9, Marche, or Auvergne, which family is still enslaved,\n_mortaillable_ and _mainmortable_.\n\nOf these slaves, some are obliged to work three days a week for the\nlord, and others two. If they die without children, their wealth belongs\nto the lord; if they leave children, the lord takes only the finest\ncattle and, according to more than one custom, the most valuable\nmovables. According to other customs, if the son of a _mainmortable_\nslave visits not the house of his father within a year and a day from\nhis death, he loses all his father's property, yet still remains a\nslave; that is to say, whatever wealth he may acquire by his industry,\nbecomes at his death the property of the lord.\n\nWhat follows is still better: An honest Parisian pays a visit to his\nparents in Burgundy and in Franche-Comt\u00e9, resides a year and a day in a\n_mainmortable_ house, and returning to Paris finds that his property,\nwherever situated, belongs to the lord, in case he dies without issue.\n\nIt is very properly asked how the province of Burgundy obtained the\nnickname of \"free,\" while distinguished by such a species of servitude?\nIt is without doubt upon the principle that the Greeks called the\nfuries _Eumenides_, \"good hearts.\"\n\nBut the most curious and most consolatory circumstance attendant on this\njurisprudence is that the lords of half these _mainmortable_ territories\nare monks.\n\nIf by chance a prince of the blood, a minister of state, or a chancellor\ncast his eyes upon this article, it will be well for him to recollect,\nthat the king of France, in his ordinance of May 18, 1731, declares to\nthe nation, \"that the monks and endowments possess more than half of the\nproperty of Franche-Comt\u00e9.\"\n\nThe marquis d'Argenson, in \"_Le Droit Public Ecclesiastique_,\" says,\nthat in Artois, out of eighteen ploughs, the monks possess thirteen. The\nmonks themselves are called _mainmortables_, and yet possess slaves. Let\nus refer these monkish possessions to the chapter of contradictions.\n\nWhen we have made some modest remonstrances upon this strange tyranny on\nthe part of people who have vowed to God to be poor and humble, they\nwill then reply to us: We have enjoyed this right for six hundred years;\nwhy then despoil us of it? We may humbly rejoin, that for these thirty\nor forty thousand years, the weasels have been in the habit of sucking\nthe blood of our pullets; yet we assume to ourselves the right of\ndestroying them when we can catch them.\n\nN.B. It is a mortal sin for a Chartreux to eat half an ounce of mutton,\nbut he may with a safe conscience devour the entire substance of a\nfamily. I have seen the Chartreux in my neighborhood inherit a hundred\nthousand crowns from one of their mainmortable slaves, who had made a\nfortune by commerce at Frankfort. But all the truth must be told; it is\nno less true, that his family enjoys the right of soliciting alms at the\ngate of the convent.\n\nLet us suppose that the monks have still fifty or sixty thousand slaves\nin the kingdom of France. Time has not been found hitherto to reform\nthis Christian jurisprudence; but something is beginning to be thought\nabout it. It is only to wait a few hundred years, until the debts of the\nstate be paid.\n\n\n\n\nSLEEPERS (THE SEVEN).\n\n\nFable supposes that one Epimenides in a single nap, slept twenty-seven\nyears, and that on his awaking he was quite astonished at finding his\ngrandchildren--who asked him his name--married, his friends dead, his\ntown and the manners of its inhabitants changed. It was a fine field for\ncriticism, and a pleasant subject for a comedy. The legend has borrowed\nall the features of the fable, and enlarged upon them.\n\nThe author of the \"Golden Legend\" was not the first who, in the\nthirteenth century, instead of one sleeper, gave us seven, and bravely\nmade them seven martyrs. He took his edifying history from Gregory de\nTours, a veridical writer, who took it from Sigebert, who took it from\nMetaphrastes, who had taken it from Nicephorus. It is thus that truth is\nhanded down from man to man.\n\nThe reverend father Peter Ribadeneira, of the company of Jesus, goes\nstill further in this celebrated \"Flower of the Saints,\" of which\nmention Is made in Moli\u00e8re's \"_Tartuffe_.\" It was translated, augmented;\nand enriched with engravings, by the reverend Antony Girard, of the same\nsociety: nothing was wanting to it.\n\nSome of the curious will doubtless like to see the prose of the reverend\nfather Girard: behold a specimen! \"In the time of the emperor Decius,\nthe Church experienced a violent and fearful persecution. Among other\nChristians, seven brothers were accused, young, well disposed, and\ngraceful; they were the children of a knight of Ephesus, and called\nMaximilian, Marius, Martinian, Dionysius, John, Serapion, and\nConstantine. The emperor first took from them their golden girdles; then\nthey hid themselves in a cavern, the entrance of which Decius caused to\nbe walled up that they might die of hunger.\"\n\nFather Girard proceeds to say, that all seven quickly fell asleep, and\ndid not awake again until they had slept one hundred and seventy-seven\nyears.\n\nFather Girard, far from believing that this is the dream of a man awake,\nproves its authenticity by the most demonstrative arguments; and when\nhe could find no other proof, alleges the names of these seven\nsleepers--names never being given to people who have not existed. The\nseven sleepers doubtless could neither be deceived nor deceivers, so\nthat it is not to dispute this history that we speak of it, but merely\nto remark that there is not a single fabulous event of antiquity which\nhas not been _rectified_ by ancient legendaries. All the history of\n\u0152dipus, Hercules, and Theseus is found among them, accommodated to\ntheir style. They have invented little, but they have _perfected_ much.\n\nI ingenuously confess that I know not whence Nicephorus took this fine\nstory. I suppose it was from the tradition of Ephesus; for the cave of\nthe seven sleepers, and the little church dedicated to them, still\nexist. The least awakened of the poor Greeks still go there to perform\ntheir devotions. Sir Paul Rycaut and several other English travellers\nhave seen these two monuments; but as to their devotions there, we hear\nnothing about them.\n\nLet us conclude this article with the reasoning of Abbadie: \"These are\nmemorials instituted to celebrate forever the adventure of the seven\nsleepers. No Greek in Ephesus has ever doubted of it, and these Greeks\ncould not have been deceived, nor deceive anybody else; therefore the\nhistory of the seven sleepers is incontestable.\"\n\n\n\n\nSLOW BELLIES (VENTRES PARESSEUX).\n\n\nSt. Paul says, that the Cretans were all \"liars,\" \"evil beasts,\" and\n\"slow bellies.\" The physician Hequet understood by slow bellies, that\nthe Cretans were costive, which vitiated their blood, and rendered them\nill-disposed and mischievous. It is doubtless very true that persons of\nthis habit are more prone to choler than others: their bile passes not\naway, but accumulates until their blood is overheated.\n\nWhen you have a favor to beg of a minister, or his first secretary,\ninform yourself adroitly of the state of his stomach, and always seize\non \"mollia fandi tempora.\"\n\nNo one is ignorant that our character and turn of mind are intimately\nconnected with the water-closet. Cardinal Richelieu was sanguinary,\nbecause he had the piles, which afflicted his rectum and hardened his\ndisposition. Queen Anne of Austria always called him \"_cul pourri_\"\n(sore bottom), which nickname redoubled his bile, and possibly cost\nMarshal Marillac his life, and Marshal Bassompierre his liberty; but I\ncannot discover why certain persons should be greater liars than others.\nThere is no known connection between the anal sphincter and falsehood,\nlike that very sensible one between our stomach and our passions, our\nmanner of thinking and our conduct.\n\nI am much disposed to believe, that by \"slow bellies\" St. Paul\nunderstood voluptuous men and gross feeders--a kind of priors, canons,\nand abbots-commendatory--rich prelates, who lay in bed all the morning\nto recover from the excesses of the evening, as Marot observes in his\neighty-sixth epigram in regard to a fat prior, who lay in bed and\nfondled his grandson while his partridges were preparing:\n\n     _Un gros prieur son petit fils baisait,_\n     _Et mignardait au matin dans sa couche,_\n     _Tandis r\u00f4tir sa perdrix en faisait, etc._\n\nBut people may lie in bed all the morning without being either liars, or\nbadly disposed. On the contrary, the voluptuously indolent are generally\nsocially gentle, and easy in their commerce with the world.\n\nHowever this may be, I regret that St. Paul should offend an entire\npeople. In this passage, humanly speaking, there is neither politeness,\nability, or even truth. Nothing is gained from men by calling them evil\nbeasts; and doubtless men of merit were to be found in Crete. Why thus\noutrage the country of Minos, which Archbishop F\u00e9nelon, infinitely more\npolished than St. Paul, so much eulogizes in his \"Telemachus\"?\n\nWas not St. Paul somewhat difficult to live with, of a proud spirit, and\nof a hard and imperious character? If I had been one of the apostles, or\neven a disciple only, I should infallibly have quarrelled with him. It\nappears to me, that the fault was all on his side, in his dispute with\nSimon Peter Barjonas. He had a furious passion for domination. He often\nboasts of being an apostle, and more an apostle than his associates--he\nwho had assisted to stone St. Stephen, he who had been assistant\npersecutor under Gamaliel, and who was called upon to weep longer for\nhis crimes than St. Peter for his weakness!--always, however, humanly\nspeaking.\n\nHe boasts of being a Roman citizen born at Tarsus, whereas St. Jerome\npretends that he was a poor provincial Jew, born at Giscala in Galilee.\nIn his letters addressed to the small flock of his brethren, he always\nspeaks magisterially: \"I will come,\" says he to certain Corinthians,\n\"and I will judge of you all on the testimony of two or three witnesses;\nand I will neither pardon those who have sinned, nor others.\" This \"nor\nothers\" is somewhat severe.\n\nMany men at present would be disposed to take the part of St. Peter\nagainst St. Paul, but for the episode of Ananias and Sapphira, which has\nintimidated persons inclined to bestow alms.\n\nI return to my text of the Cretan liars, evil beasts, and slow bellies;\nand I recommend to all missionaries never to commence their labors among\nany people with insults.\n\nIt is not that I regard the Cretans as the most just and respectable of\nmen, as they were called by fabulous Greece. I pretend not to reconcile\ntheir pretended virtue with the pretended bull of which the beautiful\nPasiph\u00e6 was so much enamored; nor with the skill exerted by the artisan\nD\u00e6dalus in the construction of a cow of brass, by which Pasiph\u00e6 was\nenabled to produce a Minotaur, to whom the pious and equitable Minos\nsacrificed every year--and not every nine years--seven grown-up boys and\nseven virgins of Athens.\n\nIt is not that I believe in the hundred large cities in Crete, meaning a\nhundred poor villages standing upon a long and narrow rock, with two or\nthree towns. It is to be regretted that Rollin, in his elegant\ncompilation of \"Ancient History,\" has repeated so many of the ancient\nfables of Crete, and that of Minos among others.\n\nWith respect to the poor Greeks and Jews who now inhabit the steep\nmountains of this island, under the government of a pasha, they may\npossibly be liars and evil disposed, but I cannot tell if they are slow\nof digestion: I sincerely hope, however, that they have sufficient to\neat.\n\n\n\n\nSOCIETY (ROYAL) OF LONDON, AND ACADEMIES.\n\n\nGreat men have all been formed either before academies or independent of\nthem. Homer and Phidias, Sophocles and Apelles, Virgil and Vitruvius,\nAriosto and Michelangelo, were none of them academicians. Tasso\nencountered only unjust criticism from the Academy della Crusca, and\nNewton was not indebted to the Royal Society of London for his\ndiscoveries in optics, upon gravitation, upon the integral calculus, and\nupon chronology. Of what use then are academies? To cherish the fire\nwhich great genius has kindled.\n\nThe Royal Society of London was formed in 1660, six years before the\nFrench Academy of Science. It has no rewards like ours, but neither has\nit any of the disagreeable distinctions invented by the abb\u00e9 Bignon, who\ndivided the Academy of Sciences between those who paid, and honorary\nmembers who were not learned. The society of London being independent,\nand only self-encouraged, has been composed of members who have\ndiscovered the laws of light, of gravitation, of the aberration of the\nstars, the reflecting telescope, the fire engine, solar microscope, and\nmany other inventions, as useful as admirable. Could they have had\ngreater men, had they admitted pensionaries or honorary members?\n\nThe famous Doctor Swift, in the last years of the reign of Queen Anne,\nformed the idea of establishing an academy for the English language,\nafter the model of the Acad\u00e9mie Fran\u00e7aise. This project was countenanced\nby the earl of Oxford, first lord of the treasury, and still more by\nLord Bolingbroke, secretary of state, who possessed the gift of speaking\nextempore in parliament with as much purity as Doctor Swift composed in\nhis closet, and who would have been the patron and ornament of this\nacademy. The members likely to compose it were men whose works will last\nas long as the English language. Doctor Swift would have been one, and\nMr. Prior, whom we had among us as public minister, and who enjoyed a\nsimilar reputation in England to that of La Fontaine among ourselves.\nThere were also Mr. Pope, the English Boileau, and Mr. Congreve, whom\nthey call their Moli\u00e8re, and many more whose names escape my\nrecollection. The queen, however, dying suddenly, the Whigs took it into\ntheir heads to occupy themselves in hanging the protectors of academies,\na process which is very injurious to the belles-lettres. The members of\nthis body would have enjoyed much greater advantages than were possessed\nby the first who composed the French Academy. Swift, Prior, Congreve,\nDryden, Pope, Addison, and others, had fixed the English language by\ntheir writings, whereas Chapelain, Colletet, Cassaigne, Faret, and\nCotin, our first academicians, were a scandal to the nation; and their\nnames have become so ridiculous that if any author had the misfortune to\nbe called Chapelain or Cotin at present, he would be obliged to change\nhis name.\n\nAbove all, the labors of an English academy would have materially\ndiffered from our own. One day, a wit of that country asked me for the\nmemoirs of the French Academy. It composes no memoirs, I replied; but it\nhas caused sixty or eighty volumes of compliments to be printed. He ran\nthrough one or two, but was not able to comprehend the style, although\nperfectly able to understand our best authors. \"All that I can learn by\nthese fine compositions,\" said he to me, \"is, that the new member,\nhaving assured the body that his predecessor was a great man, Cardinal\nRichelieu a very great man, and Chancellor S\u00e9guier a tolerably great\nman, the president replies by a similar string of assurances, to which\nhe adds a new one, implying that the new member is also a sort of great\nman; and as for himself, the president, he may also perchance possess a\nspice of pretension.\" It is easy to perceive by what fatality all the\nacademic speeches are so little honorable to the body. \"_Vitium est\ntemporis, potius quam hominis_.\" It insensibly became a custom for every\nacademician to repeat those eulogies at his reception; and thus the body\nimposed upon themselves a kind of obligation to fatigue the public. If\nwe wish to discover the reason why the most brilliant among the men of\ngenius, who have been chosen by this body, have so frequently made the\nworst speeches, the cause may be easily explained. It is, that they have\nbeen anxious to shine, and to treat worn-out matter in a new way. The\nnecessity of saying something; the embarrassment produced by the\nconsciousness of having nothing to say; and the desire to exhibit\nability, are three things sufficient to render even a great man\nridiculous. Unable to discover new thoughts, the new members fatigue\nthemselves for novel terms of expression, and often speak without\nthinking; like men who, affecting to chew with nothing in their mouths,\nseem to eat while perishing with hunger. Instead of a law in the French\nAcademy to have these speeches printed, a law should be passed in\nprevention of that absurdity.\n\nThe Academy of Belles-Lettres imposed upon itself a task more judicious\nand useful--that of presenting to the public a collection of memoirs\ncomprising the most critical and curious disquisitions and researches.\nThese memoirs are already held in great esteem by foreigners. It is only\ndesirable, that some subjects were treated more profoundly, and others\nnot treated of at all. They might, for example, very well dispense with\ndissertations upon the prerogative of the right hand over the left; and\nof other inquiries which, under a less ridiculous title, are not less\nfrivolous. The Academy of Sciences, in its more difficult and useful\ninvestigation, embraces a study of nature, and the improvement of the\narts; and it is to be expected that studies so profound and\nperseveringly pursued, calculations so exact, and discoveries so\nrefined, will in the end produce a corresponding benefit to the world at\nlarge.\n\nAs to the French Academy, what services might it not render to letters,\nto the language, and the nation, if, instead of printing volumes of\ncompliments every year, it would reprint the best works of the age of\nLouis XIV., purified from all the faults of language which have crept\ninto them! Corneille and Moli\u00e8re are full of them, and they swarm in La\nFontaine. Those which could not be corrected might at least be marked,\nand Europe at large, which reads these authors, would then learn our\nlanguage with certainty, and its purity would be forever fixed. Good\nFrench books, printed with care at the expense of the king, would be\none of the most glorious monuments of the nation. I have heard say, that\nM. Despr\u00e9aux once made this proposal, which has since been renewed by a\nman whose wit, wisdom, and sound criticism are generally acknowledged;\nbut this idea has met with the fate of several other useful\nprojects--that of being approved and neglected.\n\n\n\n\nSOCRATES.\n\n\nIs the mould broken of those who loved virtue for itself, of a\nConfucius, a Pythagoras, a Thales, a Socrates? In their time, there were\ncrowds of devotees to their pagods and divinities; minds struck with\nfear of Cerberus and of the Furies, who underwent initiations,\npilgrimages, and mysteries, who ruined themselves in offerings of black\nsheep. All times have seen those unfortunates of whom Lucretius speaks:\n\n     _Qui quocumque tamen miseri venere parentant,_\n     _Et nigras mactant pecudes, et manibu Divis_\n     _In ferias mittunt; multoque in rebus acerbis_\n     _Acrius advertunt animus ad religionem._\n                               --LUCRETIUS, iii, 51-54.\n\n     Who sacrifice black sheep on every tomb\n     To please the manes; and of all the rout\n     When cares and dangers press, grow most devout.\n                                            --CREECH.\n\nMortifications were in use; the priests of Cybele castrated themselves\nto preserve continence. How comes it, that among all the martyrs of\nsuperstition, antiquity reckons not a single great man--a sage? It is,\nthat fear could never make virtue, and that great men have been\nenthusiasts in moral good. Wisdom was their predominant passion; they\nwere sages as Alexander was a warrior, as Homer was a poet, and Apelles\na painter--by a superior energy and nature; which is all that is meant\nby the demon of Socrates.\n\nOne day, two citizens of Athens, returning from the temple of Mercury,\nperceived Socrates in the public place. One said to the other: \"Is not\nthat the rascal who says that one can be virtuous without going every\nday to offer up sheep and geese?\" \"Yes,\" said the other, \"that is the\nsage who has no religion; that is the atheist who says there is only one\nGod.\" Socrates approached them with his simple air, his d\u00e6mon, and his\nirony, which Madame Dacier has so highly exalted. \"My friends,\" said he\nto them, \"one word, if you please: a man who prays to God, who adores\nHim, who seeks to resemble Him as much as human weakness can do, and who\ndoes all the good which lies in his power, what would you call him?\" \"A\nvery religious soul,\" said they. \"Very well; we may therefore adore the\nSupreme Being, and have a great deal of religion?\" \"Granted,\" said the\ntwo Athenians. \"But do you believe,\" pursued Socrates, \"that when the\nDivine Architect of the world arranged all the globes which roll over\nour heads, when He gave motion and life to so many different beings, He\nmade use of the arm of Hercules, the lyre of Apollo, or the flute of\nPan?\" \"It is not probable,\" said they. \"But if it is not likely that He\ncalled in the aid of others to construct that which we see, it is not\nprobable that He preserves it through others rather than through\nHimself. If Neptune was the absolute master of the sea, Juno of the air,\n\u00c6olus of the winds, Ceres of harvests--and one would have a calm, when\nthe other would have rain--you feel clearly, that the order of nature\ncould not exist as it is. You will confess, that all depends upon Him\nwho has made all. You give four white horses to the sun, and four black\nones to the moon; but is it not more likely, that day and night are the\neffect of the motion given to the stars by their Master, than that they\nwere produced by eight horses?\" The two citizens looked at him, but\nanswered nothing. In short, Socrates concluded by proving to them, that\nthey might have harvests without giving money to the priests of Ceres;\ngo to the chase without offering little silver statues to the temple of\nDiana; that Pomona gave not fruits; that Neptune gave not horses; and\nthat they should thank the Sovereign who had made all.\n\nHis discourse was most exactly logical. Xenophon, his disciple, a man\nwho knew the world, and who afterwards sacrificed to the wind, in the\nretreat of the ten thousand, took Socrates by the sleeve, and said to\nhim: \"Your discourse is admirable; you have spoken better than an\noracle; you are lost; one of these honest people to whom you speak is a\nbutcher, who sells sheep and geese for sacrifices; and the other a\ngoldsmith, who gains much by making little gods of silver and brass for\nwomen. They will accuse you of being a blasphemer, who would diminish\ntheir trade; they will depose against you to Melitus and Anitus, your\nenemies, who have resolved upon your ruin: have a care of hemlock; your\nfamiliar spirit should have warned you not to say to a butcher and a\ngoldsmith what you should only say to Plato and Xenophon.\"\n\nSome time after, the enemies of Socrates caused him to be condemned by\nthe council of five hundred. He had two hundred and twenty voices in his\nfavor, which may cause it to be presumed that there were two hundred and\ntwenty philosophers in this tribunal; but it shows that, in all\ncompanies, the number of philosophers is always the minority.\n\nSocrates therefore drank hemlock, for having spoken in favor of the\nunity of God; and the Athenians afterwards consecrated a temple to\nSocrates--to him who disputed against all temples dedicated to inferior\nbeings.\n\n\n\n\nSOLOMON.\n\n\nSeveral kings have been good scholars, and have written good books. The\nking of Prussia, Frederick the Great, is the latest example we have had\nof it: German monarchs will be found who compose French verses, and who\nwrite the history of their countries. James I. in England, and even\nHenry VIII. have written. In Spain, we must go back as far as Alphonso\nX. Still it is doubtful whether he put his hand to the \"Alphonsine\nTables.\"\n\nFrance cannot boast of having had an author king. The empire of Germany\nhas no book from the pen of its emperors; but Rome was glorified in\nC\u00e6sar, Marcus Aurelius, and Julian. In Asia, several writers are\nreckoned among the kings. The present emperor of China, Kien Long,\nparticularly, is considered a great poet; but Solomon, or Solyman, the\nHebrew, has still more reputation than Kien Long, the Chinese.\n\nThe name of Solomon has always been revered in the East. The works\nbelieved to be his, the \"Annals of the Jews,\" and the fables of the\nArabs, have carried his renown as far as the Indies. His reign is the\ngreat epoch of the Hebrews.\n\nHe was the third king of Palestine. The First Book of Kings says that\nhis mother, Bathsheba, obtained from David, the promise that he should\ncrown Solomon, her son, instead of Adonijah, his eldest. It is not\nsurprising that a woman, an accomplice in the death of her first\nhusband, should have had artifice enough to cause the inheritance to be\ngiven to the fruit of her adultery, and to cause the legitimate son to\nbe disinherited, who was also the eldest.\n\nIt is a very remarkable fact that the prophet Nathan, who reproached\nDavid with his adultery, the murder of Uriah, and the marriage which\nfollowed this murder, was the same who afterwards seconded Bathsheba in\nplacing that Solomon on the throne, who was born of this sanguine and\ninfamous marriage. This conduct, reasoning according to the flesh, would\nprove, that the prophet Nathan had, according to circumstances, two\nweights and two measures. The book even says not that Nathan received a\nparticular mission from God to disinherit Adonijah. If he had one, we\nmust respect it; but we cannot admit that we find it written.\n\nIt is a great question in theology, whether Solomon is most renowned for\nhis ready money, his wives, or his books. I am sorry that he commenced\nhis reign in the Turkish style by murdering his brother.\n\nAdonijah, excluded from the throne by Solomon, asked him, as an only\nfavor, permission to espouse Abishag, the young girl who had been given\nto David to warm him in his old age. Scripture says not whether Solomon\ndisputed with Adonijah, the concubine of his father; but it says, that\nSolomon, simply on this demand of Adonijah, caused him to be\nassassinated. Apparently God, who gave him the spirit of wisdom, refused\nhim that of justice and humanity, as he afterwards refused him the gift\nof continence.\n\nIt is said in the same Book of Kings that he was the master of a great\nkingdom which extended from the Euphrates to the Red Sea and the\nMediterranean; but unfortunately it is said at the same time, that the\nking of Egypt conquered the country of Gezer, in Canaan, and that he\ngave the city of Gezer as a portion to his daughter, whom it is\npretended that Solomon espoused. It is also said that there was a king\nat Damascus; and the kingdoms of Tyre and Sidon flourished. Surrounded\nthus with powerful states, he doubtless manifested his wisdom in living\nin peace with them all. The extreme abundance which enriched his country\ncould only be the fruit of this profound wisdom, since, as we have\nalready remarked, in the time of Saul there was not a worker in iron in\nthe whole country. Those who reason find it difficult to understand how\nDavid, the successor of Saul, so vanquished by the Philistines, could\nhave established so vast an empire.\n\nThe riches which he left to Solomon are still more wonderful; he gave\nhim in ready money one hundred and three thousand talents of gold, and\none million thirteen thousand talents of silver. The Hebraic talent of\ngold, according; to Arbuthnot, is worth six thousand livres sterling,\nthe talent of silver, about five hundred livres sterling. The sum total\nof the legacy in ready money, without the jewels and other effects, and\nwithout the ordinary revenue--proportioned no doubt to this\ntreasure--amounted, according to this calculation, to one billion, one\nhundred and nineteen millions, five hundred thousand pounds sterling, or\nto five billions, five hundred and ninety-seven crowns of Germany, or to\ntwenty-five billions, forty-eight millions of francs. There was not then\nso much money circulating through the whole world. Some scholars value\nthis treasure at a little less, but the sum is always very large for\nPalestine.\n\nWe see not, after that, why Solomon should torment himself so much to\nsend fleets to Ophir to bring gold. We can still less divine how this\npowerful monarch, in his vast states, had not a man who knew how to\nfashion wood from the forest of Libanus. He was obliged to beg Hiram,\nking of Tyre, to lend him wood cutters and laborers to work it. It must\nbe confessed that these contradictions exceedingly exercise the genius\nof commentators.\n\nEvery day, fifty oxen, and one hundred sheep were served up for the\ndinner and supper of his houses, and poultry and game in proportion,\nwhich might be about sixty thousand pounds weight of meat per day. He\nkept a good house. It is added, that he had forty thousand stables, and\nas many houses for his chariots of war, but only twelve thousand stables\nfor his cavalry. Here is a great number of chariots for a mountainous\ncountry; and it was a great equipage for a king whose predecessor had\nonly a mule at his coronation, and a territory which bred asses alone.\n\nIt was not becoming a prince possessing so many chariots to be limited\nin the article of women; he therefore possessed seven hundred who bore\nthe name of queen; and what is strange, he had but three hundred\nconcubines; contrary to the custom of kings, who have generally more\nmistresses than wives.\n\nHe kept four hundred and twelve thousand horses, doubtless to take the\nair with them along the lake of Gennesaret, or that of Sodom, in the\nneighborhood of the Brook of Kedron, which would be one of the most\ndelightful places upon earth, if the brook was not dry nine months of\nthe year, and if the earth was not horribly stony.\n\nAs to the temple which he built, and which the Jews believed to be the\nfinest work of the universe, if the Bramantes, the Michelangelos, and\nthe Palladios, had seen this building, they would not have admired it.\nIt was a kind of small square fortress, which enclosed a court; in this\ncourt was one edifice of forty cubits long, and another of twenty; and\nit is said, that this second edifice, which was properly the temple, the\noracle, the holy of holies, was only twenty cubits in length and\nbreadth, and twenty cubits high. M. Souflot would not have been quite\npleased with those proportions.\n\nThe books attributed to Solomon have lasted longer than his temple.\n\nThe name of the author alone has rendered these books respectable. They\nshould be good, since they were written by a king, and this king passed\nfor the wisest of men.\n\nThe first work attributed to him is that of Proverbs. It is a collection\nof maxims, which sometimes appear to our refined minds trifling, low,\nincoherent, in bad taste, and without meaning. People cannot be\npersuaded that an enlightened king has composed a collection of\nsentences, in which there is not one which regards the art of\ngovernment, politics, manners of courtiers, or customs of a court. They\nare astonished at seeing whole chapters in which nothing is spoken of\nbut prostitutes, who invite passengers in the streets to lie with them.\nThey revolt against sentences in the following style: \"There are three\nthings that are never satisfied, a fourth which never says 'enough'; the\ngrave; the barren womb; the earth that is not filled with water, are the\nthree; and the fourth is fire, which never sayeth 'enough.'\n\n\"There be three things which are too wonderful for me; yea, four which I\nknow not. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a\nrock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man\nwith a maid.\n\n\"There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are\nexceeding wise. The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their\nmeat in the summer; the conies are but a feeble race, yet they make\ntheir houses in rocks; the locusts have no king, yet go they forth all\nof them by bands; the spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in\nkings' palaces.\"\n\nCan we impute such follies as these to a great king, to the wisest of\nmortals? say the objectors. This criticism is strong; it should deliver\nitself with more respect.\n\nThe Proverbs have been attributed to Isaiah, Elijah, Sobna, Eliakim,\nJoachim, and several others; but whoever compiled this collection of\nEastern sentences, it does not appear that it was a king who gave\nhimself the trouble. Would he have said that the terror of the king is\nlike the roaring of a lion? It is thus that a subject or a slave speaks,\nwho trembles at the anger of his master. Would Solomon have spoken so\nmuch of unchaste women? Would he have said: \"Look thou not upon the wine\nwhen it is red, when it giveth its color in the glass\"?\n\nI doubt very much whether there were any drinking glasses in the time of\nSolomon; it is a very recent invention; all antiquity drank from cups of\nwood or metal; and this single passage perhaps indicates that this\nJewish collection was composed in Alexandria, as well as most of the\nother Jewish books.\n\nThe Book of Ecclesiastes, which is attributed to Solomon, is in quite a\ndifferent order and taste. He who speaks in this work seems not to be\ndeceived by visions of grandeur, to be tired of pleasures, and disgusted\nwith science. We have taken him for an Epicurean who repeats on each\npage, that the just and unjust are subject to the same accidents; that\nman is nothing more than the beast which perishes; that it is better not\nto be born than to exist; that there is no other life; and that there is\nnothing more good and reasonable than to enjoy the fruit of our labors\nwith a woman whom we love.\n\nIt might happen that Solomon held such discourse with some of his wives;\nand it is pretended that these are objections which he made; but these\nmaxims, which have a libertine air, do not at all resemble objections;\nand it is a joke to profess to understand in an author the exact\ncontrary of that which he says.\n\nWe believe that we read the sentiments of a materialist, at once sensual\nand disgusted, who appears to have put an edifying word or two on God in\nthe last verse, to diminish the scandal which such a book must\nnecessarily create. As to the rest, several fathers say that Solomon did\npenance; so that we can pardon him.\n\nCritics have difficulty in persuading themselves that this book can be\nby Solomon; and Grotius pretends that it was written under Zerubbabel.\nIt is not natural for Solomon to say: \"Woe to thee, O land, when thy\nking is a child!\" The Jews had not then such kings.\n\nIt is not natural for him to say: \"I observe the face of the king.\" It\nis much more likely, that the author spoke of Solomon, and that by this\nalienation of mind, which we discover in so many rabbins, he has often\nforgotten, in the course of the book, that it was a king whom he caused\nto speak.\n\nWhat appears surprising to them is that this work has been consecrated\namong the canonical books. If the canon of the Bible were to be\nestablished now, say they, perhaps the Book of Ecclesiastes might not be\ninserted; but it was inserted at a time when books were very rare, and\nmore admired than read. All that can be done now is to palliate the\nEpicureanism which prevails in this work. The Book of Ecclesiastes has\nbeen treated like many other things which disgust in a particular\nmanner. Being established in times of ignorance, we are forced, to the\nscandal of reason, to maintain them in wiser times, and to disguise the\nhorror or absurdity of them by allegories. These critics are too bold.\n\nThe \"Song of Songs\" is further attributed to Solomon, because the name\nof that king is found in two or three places; because it is said to the\nbeloved, that she is beautiful as the curtains of Solomon; because she\nsays that she is black, by which epithet it is believed that Solomon\ndesignated his Egyptian wife.\n\nThese three reasons have not proved convincing:\n\n1. When the beloved, in speaking to her lover, says \"The king hath\nbrought me into his chamber,\" she evidently speaks of another than her\nlover; therefore the king is not this lover; it is the king of the\nfestival; it is the paranymph, the master of the house, whom she means;\nand this Jewess is so far from being the mistress of a king, that\nthroughout the work she is a shepherdess, a country girl, who goes\nseeking her lover through the fields, and in the streets of the town,\nand who is stopped at the gates by a porter who steals her garment.\n\n2. \"I am beautiful as the curtains of Solomon,\" is the expression of a\nvillager, who would say: I am as beautiful as the king's tapestries; and\nit is precisely because the name of Solomon is found in this work, that\nit cannot be his. What monarch could make so ridiculous a comparison?\n\"Behold,\" says the beloved, \"behold King Solomon with the crown\nwherewith his mother crowned him in the day of his espousals!\" Who\nrecognizes not in these expressions the common comparisons which girls\nmake in speaking of their lovers? They say: \"He is as beautiful as a\nprince; he has the air of a king,\" etc.\n\nIt is true that the shepherdess, who is made to speak in this amorous\nsong, says that she is tanned by the sun, that she is brown. Now if this\nwas the daughter of the king of Egypt, she was not so tanned. Females of\nquality in Egypt were fair. Cleopatra was so; and, in a word, this\nperson could not be at once a peasant and a queen.\n\nA monarch who had a thousand wives might have said to one of them: \"Let\nher kiss me with the lips of her mouth; for thy breasts are better than\nwine.\" A king and a shepherd, when the subject is of kissing, might\nexpress themselves in the same manner. It is true, that it is strange\nenough it should be pretended, that the girl speaks in this place, and\neulogizes the breasts of her lover.\n\nWe further avow that a gallant king might have said to his mistress: \"A\nbundle of myrrh is my well beloved unto me; he shall lie all night\nbetween my breasts.\"\n\nThat he might have said to her: \"Thy navel is like a round goblet which\nwanteth not liquor; thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with\nlilies; thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins; thy neck\nis as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fish pools in Heshbon; and\nthy nose as the tower of Lebanon.\"\n\nI confess that the \"Eclogues\" of Virgil are in a different style; but\neach has his own, and a Jew is not obliged to write like Virgil.\n\nWe have not noticed this fine turn of Eastern eloquence: \"We have a\nlittle sister, and she hath no breasts. What shall we do for our sister\nin the day when she shall be spoken for? If she be a wall, we will build\nupon her; and if she be a door, we will close it.\"\n\nSolomon, the wisest of men, might have spoken thus in his merry moods;\nbut several rabbins have maintained, not only that this voluptuous\neclogue was not King Solomon's, but that it is not authentic. Theodore\nof Mopsuestes was of this opinion, and the celebrated Grotius calls the\n\"Song of Songs,\" a libertine flagitious work. However, it is\nconsecrated, and we regard it as a perpetual allegory of the marriage of\nJesus Christ with the Church. We must confess, that the allegory is\nrather strong, and we see not what the Church could understand, when the\nauthor says that his little sister has no breasts.\n\nAfter all, this song is a precious relic of antiquity; it is the only\nbook of love of the Hebrews which remains to us. Enjoyment is often\nspoken of in it. It is a Jewish eclogue. The style is like that of all\nthe eloquent works of the Hebrews, without connection, without order,\nfull of repetition, confused, ridiculously metaphorical, but containing\npassages which breathe simplicity and love.\n\nThe \"Book of Wisdom\" is in a more serious taste; but it is no more\nSolomon's than the \"Song of Songs.\" It is generally attributed to Jesus,\nthe son of Sirac, and by some to Philo of Biblos; but whoever may be the\nauthor, it is believed, that in his time the Pentateuch did not exist;\nfor he says in chapter x., that Abraham was going to sacrifice Isaac at\nthe time of the Deluge; and in another place he speaks of the patriarch\nJoseph as of a king of Egypt. At least, it is the most natural sense.\n\nThe worst of it is, that the author in the same chapter pretends, that\nin his time the statue of salt into which Lot's wife was changed was to\nbe seen. What critics find still worse is that the book appears to them\na tiresome mass of commonplaces; but they should consider that such\nworks are not made to follow the vain rules of eloquence. They are\nwritten to edify, and not to please, and we should even combat our\ndisinclination to read them.\n\nIt is very likely that Solomon was rich and learned for his time and\npeople. Exaggeration, the inseparable companion of greatness, attributes\nriches to him which he could not have possessed, and books which he\ncould not have written. Respect for antiquity has since consecrated\nthese errors.\n\nBut what signifies it to us, that these books were written by a Jew?\nOur Christian religion is founded on the Jewish, but not on all the\nbooks which the Jews have written.\n\nFor instance, why should the \"Song of Songs\" be more sacred to us than\nthe fables of Talmud? It is, say they, because we have comprised it in\nthe canon of the Hebrews. And what is this canon? It is a collection of\nauthentic works. Well, must a work be divine to be authentic? A history\nof the little kingdoms of Judah and Sichem, for instance--is it anything\nbut a history? This is a strange prejudice. We hold the Jews in horror,\nand we insist that all which has been written by them, and collected by\nus, bears the stamp of Divinity. There never was so palpable a\ncontradiction.\n\n\n\n\nSOMNAMBULISTS AND DREAMERS.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nI have seen a somnambulist, but he contented himself with rising,\ndressing himself, making a bow, and dancing a minuet, all which he did\nvery properly; and having again undressed himself, returned to bed and\ncontinued to sleep.\n\nThis comes not near the somnambulist of the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia.\" The last was\na young seminarist, who set himself to compose a sermon in his sleep. He\nwrote it correctly, read it from one end to the other, or at least\nappeared to read it, made corrections, erased some lines, substituted\nothers, and inserted an omitted word. He even composed music, noted it\nwith precision, and after preparing his paper with his ruler, placed the\nwords under the notes without the least mistake.\n\nIt is said, that an archbishop of Bordeaux has witnessed all these\noperations, and many others equally astonishing. It is to be wished that\nthis prelate had affixed his attestation to the account, signed by his\ngrand vicars, or at least by his secretary.\n\nBut supposing that this somnambulist has done all which is imputed to\nhim, I would persist in putting the same queries to him as to a simple\ndreamer. I would say to him: You have dreamed more forcibly than\nanother; but it is upon the same principle; one has had a fever only,\nthe other a degree of madness; but both the one and the other have\nreceived ideas and sensations to which they have not attended. You have\nboth done what you did not intend to do.\n\nOf two dreamers, the one has not a single idea, the other a crowd; the\none is as insensible as marble, while the other experiences desires and\nenjoyments. A lover composes a song on his mistress in a dream, and in\nhis delirium imagines himself to be reading a tender letter from her,\nwhich he repeats aloud:\n\n     _Scribit amatori meretrix; dat adultera munus_\n     _In noctis spatio miserorum vulnera durant._\n                              --PETRONIUS, chap. civ.\n\nDoes anything pass within you during this powerful dream more than what\npasses every day when you are awake?\n\nYou, Mr. Seminarist, born with the gift of imitation, you have listened\nto some hundred sermons, and your brain is prepared to make them: moved\nby the talent of imitation, you have written them waking; and you are\nled by the same talent and impulse when you are asleep. But how have you\nbeen able to become a preacher in a dream? You went to sleep, without\nany desire to preach. Remember well the first time that you were led to\ncompose the sketch of a sermon while awake. You thought not of it a\nquarter of an hour before; but seated in your chamber, occupied in a\nreverie, without any determinate ideas, your memory recalls, without\nyour will interfering, the remembrance of a certain holiday; this\nholiday reminds you that sermons are delivered on that day; you remember\na text; this text suggests an exordium; pens, ink, and paper, are lying\nnear you; and you begin to write things you had not the least previous\nintention of writing. Such is precisely what came to pass in your\nnoctambulism.\n\nYou believe yourself, both in the one and the other occupation, to have\ndone only what you intended to do; and you have been directed without\nconsciousness by all which preceded the writing of the sermon.\n\nIn the same manner when, on coming from vespers, you are shut up in your\ncell to meditate, you have no design to occupy yourself with the image\nof your fair neighbor; but it somehow or another intrudes; your\nimagination is inflamed; and I need not refer to the consequences. You\nmay have experienced the same adventure in your sleep.\n\nWhat share has your will had in all these modifications of sensation?\nThe same that it has had in the coursing of your blood through your\narteries and veins, in the action of your lymphatic vessels, or in the\npulsation of your heart, or of your brain.\n\nI have read the article on \"Dreams\" in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" and have\nunderstood nothing; and when I search after the cause of my ideas and\nactions, either in sleeping or waking, I am equally confounded.\n\nI know well, that a reasoner who would prove to me when I wake, and when\nI am neither mad nor intoxicated, that I am then an active agent, would\nbut slightly embarrass me; but I should be still more embarrassed if I\nundertook to prove to him that when he slept he was passive and a pure\nautomaton.\n\nExplain to me an animal who is a mere machine one-half of his life, and\nwho changes his nature twice every twenty-four hours.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Letter on Dreams to the Editor of the Literary Gazette, August, 1764._\n\nGentlemen: All the objects of science are within your jurisdiction;\nallow chimeras to be so also. \"_Nil sub sole novum_\"--\"nothing new under\nthe sun\". Thus it is not of anything which passes in noonday that I am\ngoing to treat, but of that which takes place during the night. Be not\nalarmed; it is only with dreams that I concern myself.\n\nI confess, gentlemen, that I am constantly of the opinion of the\nphysician of M. Pourceaugnac; he inquires of his patient the nature of\nhis dreams, and M. Pourceaugnac, who is not a philosopher, replies that\nthey are of the nature of dreams. It is most certain however, with no\noffence to your Limousin, that uneasy and horrible dreams denote pain\neither of body or mind; a body overcharged with aliment, or a mind\noccupied with melancholy ideas when awake.\n\nThe laborer who has waked without chagrin, and fed without excess,\nsleeps sound and tranquil, and dreams disturb him not; so long as he is\nin this state, he seldom remembers having a dream--a truth which I have\nfully ascertained on my estate in Herefordshire. Every dream of a\nforcible nature is produced by some excess, either in the passions of\nthe soul, or the nourishment of the body; it seems as if nature intended\nto punish us for them, by suggesting ideas, and making us think in spite\nof ourselves. It may be inferred from this, that those who think the\nleast are the most happy; but it is not that conclusion which I seek to\nestablish.\n\nWe must acknowledge, with Petronius, \"_Quidquid luce fuit, tenebris\nagit_.\" I have known advocates who have pleaded in dreams;\nmathematicians who have sought to solve problems; and poets who have\ncomposed verses. I have made some myself, which are very passable. It\nis therefore incontestable, that consecutive ideas occur in sleep, as\nwell as when we are awake, which ideas as certainly come in spite of us.\nWe think while sleeping, as we move in our beds, without our will having\nanything to do either in the motive or the thought. Your Father\nMalebranche is right in asserting that we are not able to give ourselves\nideas. For why are we to be masters of them, when waking, more than\nduring sleep? If your Malebranche had stopped there, he would have been\na great philosopher; he deceived himself only by going too far: of him\nwe may say:\n\n     _Processit longe flammantia m\u0153nia mundi._\n                                  --LUCRETIUS, i, 74.\n\n     His vigorous and active mind was hurled\n     Beyond the flaming limits of this world.\n                                     --CREECH.\n\nFor my part, I am persuaded that the reflection that our thoughts\nproceed not from ourselves, may induce the visit of some very good\nthoughts. I will not, however, undertake to develop mine, for fear of\ntiring some readers, and astonishing others.\n\nI simply beg to say two or three words in relation to dreams. Have you\nnot found, like me, that they are the origin of the opinion so generally\ndiffused throughout antiquity, touching spectres and manes? A man\nprofoundly afflicted at the death of his wife or his son, sees them in\nhis sleep; he speaks to them; they reply to him; and to him they have\ncertainly appeared. Other men have had similar dreams; it is therefore\nimpossible to deny that the dead may return; but it is certain, at the\nsame time, that these deceased, whether inhumed, reduced to ashes, or\nburied in the abyss of the sea, have not been able to reserve their\nbodies; it is, therefore, the soul which we have seen. This soul must\nnecessarily be extended, light, and impalpable, because in speaking to\nit we have not been able to embrace it: \"_Effugit imago par levibus\nventis_.\" It is moulded and designed from the body that it inhabits,\nsince it perfectly resembles it. The name of shade or manes is given it;\nfrom all which a confused idea remains in the head, which differs itself\nso much more because no one can understand it.\n\nDreams also appear to me to have been the sensible origin of primitive\nprophecy or prediction. What more natural or common than to dream that a\nperson dear to us is in danger of dying, or that we see him expiring?\nWhat more natural, again, than that such a person may really die soon\nafter this ominous dream of his friend? Dreams which have come to pass\nare always predictions which no one can doubt, no account being taken of\nthe dreams which are never fulfilled; a single dream accomplished has\nmore effect than a hundred which fail. Antiquity abounds with these\nexamples. How constructed are we for the reception of error! Day and\nnight unite to deceive us!\n\nYou see, gentlemen, that by attending to these ideas, we may gather\nsome fruit from the book of my compatriot, the dreamer; but I finish,\nlest you should take me myself for a mere visionary.\n\n                           Yours,\n\n                                  JOHN DREAMER.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Of Dreams._\n\nAccording to Petronius, dreams are not of divine origin, but\nself-formed:\n\n    _Somnia qua mentes ludunt volitantibus umbris,_\n    _Non delumbra deum nec ab \u00e6there numina mittunt,_\n    _Sed sibi quisque facit._\n\nBut how, all the senses being defunct in sleep, does there remain an\ninternal one which retains consciousness? How is it, that while the eyes\nsee not, the ears hear not, we notwithstanding understand in our dreams?\nThe hound renews the chase in a dream: he barks, follows his prey, and\nis in at the death. The poet composes verses in his sleep; the\nmathematician examines his diagram; and the metaphysician reasons well\nor ill; of all which there are striking examples.\n\nAre they only the organs of the machine which act? Is it the pure soul,\nsubmitted to the empire of the senses, enjoying its faculties at\nliberty?\n\nIf the organs alone produce dreams by night, why not alone produce ideas\nby day? If the soul, pure and tranquil, acting for itself during the\nrepose of the senses, is the sole cause of our ideas while we are\nsleeping, why are all these ideas usually irregular, unreasonable, and\nincoherent? What! at a time when the soul is least disturbed, it is so\nmuch disquieted in its imagination? Is it frantic when at liberty? If it\nwas produced with metaphysical ideas, as so many sages assert who dream\nwith their eyes open, its correct and luminous ideas of being, of\ninfinity, and of all the primary principles, ought to be revealed in the\nsoul with the greatest energy when the body sleeps. We should never be\ngood philosophers except when dreaming.\n\nWhatever system we embrace, whatever our vain endeavors to prove that\nthe memory impels the brain, and that the brain acts upon the soul, we\nmust allow that our ideas come, in sleep, independently of our will. It\nis therefore certain that we can think seven or eight hours running\nwithout the least intention of doing so, and even without being certain\nthat we think. Pause upon that, and endeavor to divine what there is in\nthis which is animal.\n\nDreams have always formed a great object of superstition, and nothing is\nmore natural. A man deeply affected by the sickness of his mistress\ndreams that he sees her dying; she dies the next day; and of course the\ngods have predicted her death.\n\nThe general of an army dreams that he shall gain a battle; he\nsubsequently gains one; the gods had decreed that he should be a\nconqueror. Dreams which are accomplished are alone attended to. Dreams\nform a great part of ancient history, as also of oracles.\n\nThe \"Vulgate\" thus translates the end of Leviticus, xix, 26: \"You shall\nnot observe dreams.\" But the word \"dream\" exists not in the Hebrew; and\nit would be exceedingly strange, if attention to dreams was reproved in\nthe same book in which it is said that Joseph became the benefactor of\nEgypt and his family, in consequence of his interpretation of three\ndreams.\n\nThe interpretation of dreams was a thing so common, that the supposed\nart had no limits, and the interpreter was sometimes called upon to say\nwhat another person had dreamed. Nebuchadnezzar, having forgotten his\ndream, orders his Magi to say what it was he had dreamed, and threatened\nthem with death if they failed; but the Jew Daniel, who was in the\nschool of the Magi, saved their lives by divining at once what the king\nhad dreamed, and interpreting it. This history, and many others, may\nserve to prove that the laws of the Jews did not forbid oneiromancy,\nthat is to say, the science of dreams.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n                          Lausanne, Oct. 25, 1757.\n\nIn one of my dreams, I supped with M. Touron, who appeared to compose\nverses and music, which he sang to us. I addressed these four lines to\nhim in my dream:\n\n     _Mon cher Touron, que tu m'enchantes_\n     _Par la douceur de tes accens!_\n     _Que tes vers sont doux et coulans!_\n     _Tu les fais comme tu tes chantes._\n\n     Thy gentle accents, Touron dear,\n     Sound most delightful to my ear!\n     With how much ease the verses roll,\n     Which flow, while singing, from thy soul!\n\nIn another dream, I recited the first canto of the \"Henriade\" quite\ndifferent from what it is. Yesterday, I dreamed that verses were recited\nat supper, and that some one pretended they were too witty. I replied\nthat verses were entertainments given to the soul, and that ornaments\nare necessary in entertainments.\n\nI have therefore said things in my sleep which I should have some\ndifficulty to say when awake; I have had thoughts and reflections, in\nspite of myself, and without the least voluntary operation on my own\npart, and nevertheless combined my ideas with sagacity, and even with\ngenius. What am I, therefore, if not a machine?\n\n\n\n\nSOPHIST.\n\n\nA geometrician, a little severe, thus addressed us one day: There is\nnothing in literature more dangerous than rhetorical sophists; and among\nthese sophists none are more unintelligible and unworthy of being\nunderstood than the divine Plato.\n\nThe only useful idea to be found in him, is that of the immortality of\nthe soul, which was already admitted among cultivated nations; but,\nthen, how does he prove this immortality?\n\nWe cannot too forcibly appeal to this proof, in order to correctly\nappreciate this famous Greek. He asserts, in his \"Ph\u00e6don\" that death is\nthe opposite of life, that death springs from life, and the living from\nthe dead, consequently that our souls will descend beneath the earth\nwhen we die.\n\nIf it is true that the sophist Plato, who gives himself out for the\nenemy of all sophists, reasons always thus, what have been all these\npretended great men, and in what has consisted their utility?\n\nThe grand defect of the Platonic philosophy is the transformation of\nabstract ideas into realities. A man can only perform a fine action,\nbecause a beauty really exists, which is its archetype.\n\nWe cannot perform any action, without forming an idea of the\naction--therefore these ideas exist I know not where, and it is\nnecessary to study them.\n\nGod formed an idea of the world before He created it. This was His\n_logos_: the world, therefore, is the production of the _logos_!\n\nWhat disputes, how many vain and even sanguinary contests, has this\nmanner of argument produced upon earth! Plato never dreamed that his\ndoctrine would be able, at some future period, to divide a church which\nin his time was not in existence.\n\nTo conceive a just contempt for all these foolish subtilties, read\nDemosthenes, and see if in any one of his harangues he employs one of\nthese ridiculous sophisms. It is a clear proof that, in serious\nbusiness, no more attention is paid to these chimeras than in a council\nof state to theses of theology.\n\nNeither will you find any of this sophistry in the speeches of Cicero.\nIt was a jargon of the schools, invented to amuse idleness--the quackery\nof mind.\n\n\n\n\nSOUL.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThis is a vague and indeterminate term, expressing an unknown principle\nof known effects, which we feel in ourselves. This word \"soul\" answers\nto the \"anima\" of the Latins--to the \"pneuma\" of the Greeks--to the term\nwhich each and every nation has used to express what they understood no\nbetter than we do.\n\nIn the proper and literal sense of the Latin and the languages derived\nfrom it, it signifies that which animates. Thus people say, the soul of\nmen, of animals, and sometimes of plants, to denote their principle of\nvegetation and life. This word has never been uttered with any but a\nconfused idea, as when it is said in Genesis: \"God breathed into his\nnostrils the breath of life, and he became a living soul\"; and: \"The\nsoul of animals is in the blood\"; and: \"Stay not my soul.\"\n\nThus the soul was taken for the origin and the cause of life, and for\nlife itself. Hence all known nations long imagined that everything died\nwith the body. If anything can be discerned with clearness in the chaos\nof ancient histories, it seems that the Egyptians were at least the\nfirst who made a distinction between the intelligence and the soul; and\nthe Greeks learned from them to distinguish their \"_nous_\" and their\n\"_pneuma_.\" The Latins, after the example of the Greeks, distinguished\n\"_animus_\" and \"_anima_\"; and we have, too, our soul and our\nunderstanding. But are that which is the principle of our life, and that\nwhich is the principle of our thoughts, two different things? Does that\nwhich causes us to digest, and which gives us sensation and memory,\nresemble that which is the cause of digestion in animals, and of their\nsensations and memory?\n\nHere is an eternal object for disputation: I say an eternal object, for\nhaving no primitive notion from which to deduce in this investigation,\nwe must ever continue in a labyrinth of doubts and feeble conjectures.\n\nWe have not the smallest step on which to set our foot, to reach the\nslightest knowledge of what makes us live and what makes us think. How\nshould we? For we must then have seen life and thought enter a body.\nDoes a father know how he produced his son? Does a mother know how she\nconceived him? Has anyone ever been able to divine how he acts, how he\nwakes, or how he sleeps? Does anyone know how his limbs obey his will?\nHas anyone discovered by what art his ideas are traced in his brain, and\nissue from it at his command? Feeble automata, moved by the invisible\nhand which directs us on the stage of this world, which of us has ever\nperceived the thread which guides us?\n\nWe dare to put in question, whether the intelligent soul is spirit or\nmatter; whether it is created before us, or proceeds from nothing at our\nbirth; whether, after animating us for a day on this earth, it lives\nafter us in eternity. These questions appear sublime; what are they?\nQuestions of blind men asking one another: What is light?\n\nWhen we wish to have a rude knowledge of a piece of metal, we put it on\nthe fire in a crucible; but have we any crucible wherein to put the\nsoul? It is spirit, says one; but what is spirit? Assuredly, no one\nknows. This is a word so void of meaning, that to tell what spirit is,\nyou are obliged to say what it is not. The soul is matter, says another;\nbut what is matter? We know nothing of it but a few appearances and\nproperties; and not one of these properties, not one of these\nappearances, can bear the least affinity to thought.\n\nIt is something distinct from matter, you say; but what proof have you\nof this? Is it because matter is divisible and figurable, and thought is\nnot? But how do you know that the first principles of matter are\ndivisible and figurable? It is very likely that they are not; whole\nsects of philosophers assert that the elements of matter have neither\nfigure nor extent. You triumphantly exclaim: Thought is neither wood,\nnor stone, nor sand, nor metal; therefore, thought belongs not to\nmatter. Weak and presumptuous reasoners! Gravitation is neither wood,\nnor sand, nor metal, nor stone; nor is motion, or vegetation, or life,\nany of all these; yet life, vegetation, motion, gravitation, are given\nto matter. To say that God cannot give thought to matter, is to say the\nmost insolently absurd thing that has ever been advanced in the\nprivileged schools of madness and folly. We are not assured that God has\ndone this; we are only assured that He can do it. But of what avail is\nall that has been said, or all that will be said, about the soul? What\navails it that it has been called \"_entelechia_,\" quintessence, flame,\nether--that it has been believed to be universal, uncreated,\ntransmigrant?\n\nOf what avail, in these questions inaccessible to reason, are the\nromances of our uncertain imaginations? What avails it, that the fathers\nin the four primitive ages believed the soul to be corporeal? What\navails it that Tertullian, with a contradictoriness that was familiar to\nhim, decided that it is at once corporeal, figured, and simple? We have\na thousand testimonies of ignorance, but not one which affords us a ray\nof probability.\n\nHow, then, shall we be bold enough to affirm what the soul is? We know\ncertainly that we exist, that we feel, that we think. Seek we to advance\none step further--we fall into an abyss of darkness; and in this abyss,\nwe have still the foolish temerity to dispute whether this soul, of\nwhich we have not the least idea, is made before us or with us, and\nwhether it is perishable or immortal?\n\nThe article on \"Soul,\" and all articles belonging to metaphysics,\nshould begin with a sincere submission to the indubitable tenets of the\nChurch. Revelation is doubtless much better than philosophy. Systems\nexercise the mind, but faith enlightens and guides it.\n\nAre there not words often pronounced of which we have but a very\nconfused idea, or perhaps no idea at all? Is not the word \"soul\" one of\nthese? When the tongue of a pair of bellows is out of order, and the\nair, escaping through the valve, is not driven with violence towards the\nfire, the maid-servant says: \"The soul of the bellows is burst.\" She\nknows no better, and the question does not at all disturb her quiet.\n\nThe gardener uses the expression, \"Soul of the plants\"; and cultivates\nthem very well without knowing what the term means.\n\nThe musical-instrument maker places, and shifts forward or backward, the\nsoul of a violin, under the bridge, in the interior of the instrument: a\nsorry bit of wood more or less gives it or takes from it a harmonious\nsoul.\n\nWe have several manufactures in which the workmen give the appellation\nof \"soul\" to their machines; but they are never heard to dispute about\nthe word: it is otherwise with philosophers.\n\nThe word \"soul,\" with us, signifies in general that which animates. Our\npredecessors, the Celts, gave their soul the name of \"_seel_,\" of which\nthe English have made soul, while the Germans retain \"_seel_\"; and it\nis probable that the ancient Teutons and the ancient Britons had no\nuniversity quarrels about this expression.\n\nThe Greeks distinguished three sorts of souls: \"_Psyche_,\" signifying\nthe sensitive soul--the soul of the senses; and hence it was that Love,\nthe son of Aphrodite, had so much passion for Psyche, and that she loved\nhim so tenderly; \"_Pneuma_,\" the breath which gave life and motion to\nthe whole machine, and which we have rendered by \"_spiritus_\"--spirit--a\nvague term, which has received a thousand different acceptations: and\nlastly, \"_nous_,\" intelligence.\n\nThus we possess three souls, without having the slightest notion of any\none of them. St. Thomas Aquinas admits these three souls in his quality\nof peripatetic, and distinguishes each of the three into three parts.\n\n\"_Psyche_\" was in the breast; \"_Pneuma_\" was spread throughout the body;\nand \"_Nous_\" was in the head. There was no other philosophy in our\nschools until the present day; and woe to the man who took one of these\nsouls for another!\n\nIn this chaos of ideas, there was however a foundation. Men had clearly\nperceived that in their passions of love, anger, fear, etc., motions\nwere excited within them; the heart and the liver were the seat of the\npassions. When thinking deeply, one feels a laboring in the organs of\nthe head; \"therefore, the intellectual soul is in the brain. Without\nrespiration there is no vegetation, no life; therefore, the vegetative\nsoul is in the breast, which receives the breath of the air.\"\n\nWhen men had seen in their sleep their dead relatives or friends, they\nnecessarily sought to discover what had appeared to them. It was not the\nbody, which had been consumed on a pile or swallowed up in the sea and\neaten by the fishes. However, they would declare it was something, for\nthey had seen it; the dead man had spoken; the dreamer had questioned\nhim. Was it \"_Psyche_\"; was it \"_Pneuma_\"; was it \"_Nous_\" with whom he\nhad conversed in his sleep? Then a phantom was imagined--a slight\nfigure; it was \"_skia_\"--it was \"_daimonos_\"--a shade of the manes; a\nsmall soul of air and fire, extremely slender, wandering none knew\nwhere.\n\nIn after times, when it was determined to sound the matter, the\nundisputed result was, that this soul was corporeal, and all antiquity\nhad no other idea of it. At length came Plato, who so subtilized this\nsoul, that it was doubted whether he did not entirely separate it from\nmatter; but the problem was never resolved until faith came to enlighten\nus.\n\nIn vain do the materialists adduce the testimony of some fathers of the\nChurch who do not express themselves with exactness. St. Iren\u00e6us says\nthat the soul is but the breath of life, that it is incorporeal only in\ncomparison with the mortal body, and that it retains the human figure in\norder that it may be recognized.\n\nIn vain does Tertullian express himself thus:\n\n\"The corporality of the soul shines forth in the Gospel. _'Corporalitas\nanim\u00e6 in ipso evangelio relucesseit.'_\" For if the soul had not a body,\nthe image of the soul would not have the image of the body.\n\nIn vain does he even relate the vision of a holy woman who had seen a\nvery brilliant soul of the color of the air.\n\nIn vain does Tatian expressly say:\n\n     _\u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74 \u03bc\u1f72\u03bd \u03bf\u1f56\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd \u03c0\u03c5\u03bb\u03c5\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03ae\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd_\n\n--\"The soul of man is composed of several parts.\"\n\nIn vain do they adduce St. Hilary, who said in later times: \"There is\nnothing created which is not corporeal, neither in heaven nor on earth;\nneither visible nor invisible; all is formed of elements; and souls,\nwhether they inhabit a body or are without a body, have always a\ncorporeal substance.\"\n\nIn vain does St. Ambrose, in the fourth century, say: \"We know nothing\nbut what is material, excepting only the ever-venerable Trinity.\"\n\nThe whole body of the Church has decided that the soul is immaterial.\nThese holy men had fallen into an error then universal; they were men:\nbut they were not mistaken concerning immortality, because it is\nevidently announced in the Gospels.\n\nSo evident is our need of the decision of the infallible Church on these\npoints of philosophy, that indeed we have not of ourselves any\nsufficient notion of what is called pure spirit, nor of what is called\nmatter. Pure spirit is an expression which gives us no idea; and we are\nacquainted with matter only by a few phenomena. So little do we know of\nit, that we call it substance, which word \"substance\" means that which\nis beneath; but this beneath will eternally be concealed from us; this\nbeneath is the Creator's secret, and this secret of the Creator is\neverywhere. We do not know how we receive life, how we give it, how we\ngrow, how we digest, how we sleep, how we think, nor how we feel. The\ngreat difficulty is, to comprehend how a being, whatsoever it be, has\nthoughts.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Locke's Doubts concerning the Soul._\n\nThe author of the article on \"Soul,\" in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" who has\nscrupulously followed Jacquelot, teaches us nothing. He also rises up\nagainst Locke, because the modest Locke has said:\n\n\"Perhaps we shall never be capable of knowing whether a material being\nthinks or not; for this reason--that it is impossible for us to\ndiscover, by the contemplation of our own ideas, 'without revelation,'\nwhether God has not given to some portion of matter, disposed as He\nthinks fit, the power of perceiving and thinking; or whether He has\njoined and united to matter so disposed, an immaterial and thinking\nsubstance. For with regard to our notions, it is no less easy for us to\nconceive that God can, if He pleases, add to an idea of matter the\nfaculty of thinking, than to comprehend that He joins to it another\nsubstance with the faculty of thinking; since we know not in what\nthought consists, nor to what kind of substance this all-powerful Being\nhas thought fit to grant this power, which could be created only by\nvirtue of the good-will and pleasure of the Creator. I do not see that\nthere is any contradiction in God--that thinking, eternal, and\nall-powerful Being--giving, if He wills it, certain degrees of feeling,\nperception, and thought, to certain portions of matter, created and\ninsensible, which He joins together as he thinks fit.\"\n\nThis was speaking like a profound, religious, and modest man. It is\nknown what contests he had to maintain concerning this opinion, which he\nappeared to have hazarded, but which was really no other than a\nconsequence of the conviction he felt of the omnipotence of God, and the\nweakness of man. He did not say that matter thought; but he said that we\ndo not know enough to demonstrate that it is impossible for God to add\nthe gift of thought to the unknown being called \"matter,\" after granting\nto it those of gravitation and of motion, which are equally\nincomprehensible.\n\nAssuredly, Locke was not the only one who advanced this opinion; it was\nthat of all the ancients--regarding the soul only as very subtile\nmatter, they consequently affirmed that matter could feel and think.\n\nSuch was the opinion of Gassendi, as we find in his objections to\nDescartes. \"It is true,\" says Gassendi, \"that you know that you think;\nbut you, who think, know not of what kind of substance you are. Thus,\nthough the operation of thought is known to you, the principle of your\nessence is hidden from you, and you do not know what is the nature of\nthat substance, one of the operations of which is to think. You resemble\na blind man who, feeling the heat of the sun, and being informed that it\nis caused by the sun, should believe himself to have a clear and\ndistinct idea of that luminary, because, if he were asked what the sun\nis, he could answer, that it is a thing which warms....\"\n\nThe same Gassendi, in his \"Philosophy of Epicurus,\" repeats several\ntimes that there is no mathematical evidence of the pure spirituality of\nthe soul.\n\nDescartes, in one of his letters to Elizabeth, princess palatine, says\nto her: \"I confess, that by natural reason alone, we can form many\nconjectures about the soul, and conceive flattering hopes; but we can\nhave no assurance.\" And here Descartes combats in his letters what he\nadvances in his books--a too ordinary contradiction.\n\nWe have seen, too, that all the fathers in the first ages of the Church,\nwhile they believed the soul immortal, believed it to be material. They\nthought it as easy for God to preserve as to create. They said, God made\nit thinking, He will preserve it thinking.\n\nMalebranche has clearly proved, that by ourselves we have no idea, and\nthat objects are incapable of giving us any; whence he concludes that we\nsee all things in God. This, in substance, is the same as making God\nthe author of all our ideas; for wherewith should we see ourselves in\nHim, if we had not instruments for seeing? and these instruments are\nheld and directed by him alone. This system is a labyrinth, of which one\npath would lead you to Spinozism, another to Stoicism, another to chaos.\n\nWhen men have disputed well and long on matter and spirit, they always\nend in understanding neither one another nor themselves. No philosopher\nhas ever been able to lift by his own strength the veil which nature has\nspread over the first principle of things. They dispute, while nature is\nacting.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_On the Souls of Beasts, and on Some Empty Ideas._\n\nBefore the strange system which supposes animals to be pure machines\nwithout any sensation, men had never imagined an immaterial soul in\nbeasts; and no one had carried temerity so far as to say that an oyster\nhas a spiritual soul. All the world peaceably agreed that beasts had\nreceived from God feeling, memory, ideas, but not a pure spirit. No one\nhad abused the gift of reason so far as to say that nature has given to\nbeasts the organs of feeling, in order that they may have no feeling. No\none had said that they cry out when wounded, and fly when pursued,\nwithout experiencing either pain or fear.\n\nGod's omnipotence was not then denied: it was in His power to\ncommunicate to the organized matter of animals pleasure, pain,\nremembrance, the combination of some ideas; it was in His power to give\nto several of them, as the ape, the elephant, the hound, the talent of\nperfecting themselves in the arts which are taught them: not only was it\nin His power to endow almost all carnivorous animals with the talent of\nmaking war better in their experienced old age than in their confiding\nyouth; not only was it in His power to do this, but He had done it, as\nthe whole world could witness.\n\nPereira and Descartes maintained against the whole world that it was\nmistaken; that God had played the conjurer; that He had given to animals\nall the instruments of life and sensation, that they might have neither\nsensation or life properly so called. But some pretended philosophers, I\nknow not whom, in order to answer Descartes' chimera, threw themselves\ninto the opposite chimera very liberally, giving \"pure spirit\" to toads\nand insects. \"_In vitium ducit culp\u00e6 fuga._\"\n\nBetwixt these two follies, the one depriving of feeling the organs of\nfeeling, the other lodging pure spirit in a bug--a mean was imagined,\nviz., instinct. And what is \"instinct\"? Oh! it is a substantial form; it\nis a plastic form; it is a--I know not what--it is instinct. I will be\nof your opinion, so long as you apply to most things \"I know not what\";\nso long as your philosophy shall begin and end with \"I know not\"; but\nwhen you \"affirm,\" I shall say to you with Prior, in his poem on the\nvanity of the world:\n\n     Then vainly the philosopher avers\n     That reason guides our deeds, and instinct theirs.\n     How can we justly different causes frame,\n     When the effects entirely are the same?\n     Instinct and reason how can we divide?\n     'Tis the fool's ignorance, and the pedant's pride.\n\nThe author of the article on \"Soul,\" in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" explains\nhimself thus: \"I represent to myself the soul of beasts as a substance\nimmaterial and intelligent.\" But of what kind? It seems to me, that it\nmust be an active principle having sensations, and only sensations....\nIf we reflect on the nature of the souls of beasts, it does not of\nitself give us any grounds for believing that their spirituality will\nsave them from annihilation.\n\nI do not understand how you represent to yourself an immaterial\nsubstance. To represent a thing to yourself is to make to yourself an\nimage of it; and hitherto no one has been able to paint the mind. I am\nwilling to suppose that by the word \"represent,\" the author means I\n\"conceive\"; for my part, I own that I do not conceive it. Still less do\nI conceive how a spiritual soul is annihilated, because I have no\nconception of creation or of nothing; because I never attended God's\ncouncil; because I know nothing at all of the principle of things.\n\nIf I seek to prove that the soul is a real being, I am stopped, and told\nthat it is a faculty. If I affirm that it is a faculty, and that I have\nthat of thinking, I am answered, that I mistake; that God, the eternal\nmaster of all nature, does everything in me, directing all my actions,\nand all my thoughts; that if I produced my thoughts, I should know\nthose which I should have the next minute; that I never know this; that\nI am but an automaton with sensations and ideas, necessarily dependent,\nand in the hands of the Supreme Being, infinitely more subject to Him\nthan clay is to the potter.\n\nI acknowledge then my ignorance; I acknowledge that four thousand\nvolumes of metaphysics will not teach us what our soul is.\n\nAn orthodox philosopher said to a heterodox philosopher, \"How can you\nhave brought yourself to imagine that the soul is of its nature mortal,\nand that it is eternal only by the pure will of God?\" \"By my\nexperience,\" says the other. \"How! have you been dead then?\" \"Yes, very\noften: in my youth I had a fit of epilepsy; and I assure you, that I was\nperfectly dead for several hours: I had no sensation, nor even any\nrecollection from the moment that I was seized. The same thing happens\nto me now almost every night. I never feel precisely the moment when I\nfall asleep, and my sleep is absolutely without dreams. I cannot\nimagine, but by conjectures, how long I have slept. I am dead regularly\nsix hours in twenty-four, which is one-fourth of my life.\"\n\nThe orthodox then maintained against him that he always thought while he\nwas asleep, without his knowing of it. The heterodox replied: \"I\nbelieve, by revelation, that I shall think forever in the next world;\nbut I assure you, that I seldom think in this.\"\n\nThe orthodox was not mistaken in affirming the immortality of the soul,\nsince faith demonstrates that truth; but he might be mistaken in\naffirming that a sleeping man constantly thinks.\n\nLocke frankly owned that he did not always think while he was asleep.\nAnother philosopher has said: \"Thought is peculiar to man, but it is not\nhis essence.\"\n\nLet us leave every man at liberty to seek into himself and to lose\nhimself in his ideas. However, it is well to know that in 1750, a\nphilosopher underwent a very severe persecution, for having\nacknowledged, with Locke, that his understanding was not exercised every\nmoment of the day and of the night, no more than his arms or his legs.\nNot only was he persecuted by the ignorance of the court, but the\nmalicious ignorance of some pretended men of letters assailed the object\nof persecution. That which in England had produced only some\nphilosophical disputes, produced in France the most disgraceful\natrocities: a Frenchman was made the victim of Locke.\n\nThere have always been among the refuse of our literature, some of those\nwretches who have sold their pens and caballed against their very\nbenefactors. This remark is to be sure foreign to the article on \"Soul\":\nbut ought one to lose a single opportunity of striking terror into those\nwho render themselves unworthy of the name of literary men, who\nprostitute the little wit and conscience they have to a vile interest,\nto a chimerical policy, who betray their friends to flatter fools, who\nprepare in secret the hemlock-draught with which powerful and wicked\nignorance would destroy useful citizens.\n\nDid it ever occur in true Rome, that a Lucretius was denounced to the\nconsuls for having put the system of Epicurus into verse; a Cicero, for\nhaving repeatedly written, that there is no pain after death; or that a\nPliny or a Varro was accused of having peculiar notions of the divinity?\nThe liberty of thinking was unlimited among the Romans. Those of harsh,\njealous, and narrow minds, who among us have endeavored to crush this\nliberty--the parent of our knowledge, the mainspring of the\nunderstanding--have made chimerical dangers their pretext; they have\nforgotten that the Romans, who carried this liberty much further than we\ndo, were nevertheless our conquerors, our lawgivers; and that the\ndisputes of schools have no more to do with government than the tub of\nDiogenes had with the victories of Alexander.\n\nThis lesson is worth quite as much as a lesson on the soul. We shall\nperhaps have occasion more than once to recur to it.\n\nIn fine, while adoring God with all our soul, let us ever confess our\nprofound ignorance concerning that soul--that faculty of feeling and\nthinking which we owe to His infinite goodness. Let us acknowledge that\nour weak reasonings can neither take from nor add to revelation and\nfaith. Let us, in short, conclude that we ought to employ this\nintelligence, whose nature is unknown, in perfecting the sciences which\nare the object of the \"Encyclop\u00e6dia,\" as watchmakers make use of springs\nin their watches, without knowing what _spring_ is.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_On the Soul, and on our Ignorance._\n\nRelying on our acquired knowledge, we have ventured to discuss the\nquestion: Whether the soul is created before us? Whether it arrives from\nnothing in our bodies? At what age it came and placed itself between the\nbladder and the intestines, \"c\u00e6cum\" and \"rectum\"? Whether it received or\nbrought there any ideas, and what those ideas are? Whether, after\nanimating us for a few moments, its essence is to live after us in\neternity, without the intervention of God Himself? Whether, it being a\nspirit, and God being spirit, they are of like nature? These questions\nhave an appearance of sublimity. What are they but questions of men born\nblind discussing the nature of light?\n\nWhat have all the philosophers, ancient and modern, taught us? A child\nis wiser than they: he does not think about what he cannot conceive.\n\nHow unfortunate, you will say, for an insatiable curiosity, for an\nunquenchable thirst after well-being, that we are thus ignorant of\nourselves! Granted: and there are things yet more unfortunate than this;\nbut I will answer you: \"_Sors tua mortalis, non est mortale quod\noptas.\"_--\"Mortal thy fate, thy wishes those of gods.\"\n\nOnce more let it be repeated, the nature of every principle of things\nappears to be the secret of the Creator. How does the air convey sound?\nHow are animals formed? How do some of our members constantly obey our\nwill? What hand places ideas in our memory, keeps them there as in a\nregister, and draws them thence sometimes at our command, and sometimes\nin spite of us? Our own nature, that of the universe, that of the\nsmallest plant--all, to us, involved in utter darkness.\n\nMan is an acting, feeling, and thinking being; this is all we know of\nthe matter: it is not given to us to know either what renders us feeling\nor thinking, or what makes us act, or what causes us to be. The acting\nfaculty is to us as incomprehensible as the thinking faculty. The\ndifficulty is not so much to conceive how this body of clay has feelings\nand ideas as to conceive how a being, whatever it be, has ideas and\nfeelings.\n\nBehold on one hand the soul of Archimedes, and on the other that of a\nsimpleton; are they of the same nature? If their essence is to think,\nthen they think always and independently of the body, which cannot act\nwithout them. If they think by their own nature, can a soul, which is\nincapable of performing a single arithmetical operation, be of the same\nspecies as that which has measured the heavens? If it is the organs of\nthe body that have made Archimedes think, why does not my idiot think,\nseeing that he is better constituted than Archimedes, more vigorous,\ndigesting better, performing all his functions better? Because, say you,\nhis brain is not so good; but you suppose this; you have no knowledge of\nit. No difference has ever been found among sound brains that have been\ndissected; indeed, it is very likely that the brain-pan of a blockhead\nwould be found in a better state than that of Archimedes, which has been\nprodigiously fatigued, and may be worn and contracted.\n\nLet us then conclude what we have concluded already, that we are\nignorant of all first principles. As for those who are ignorant and\nself-sufficient, they are far below the ape.\n\nNow then dispute, ye choleric arguers; present memorials against one\nanother; abuse one another; pronounce your sentences--you who know not a\nsyllable of the matter!\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\n_Warburtons Paradox on the Immortality of the Soul._\n\nWarburton, the editor and commentator of Shakespeare, and Bishop of\nGloucester, using English liberty, and abusing the custom of\nvituperating against adversaries, has composed four volumes to prove\nthat the immortality of the soul was never announced in the Pentateuch;\nand to conclude from this very proof, that the mission of Moses, which\nhe calls \"legation,\" was divine. The following is an abstract of his\nbook, which he himself gives at the commencement of the first volume:\n\n\"1. That to inculcate the doctrine of a future state of rewards and\npunishments is necessary to the well-being of civil society.\n\n\"2. That all mankind [wherein he is mistaken], especially the most wise\nand learned nations of antiquity, have concurred in believing and\nteaching, that this doctrine was of such use to civil society.\n\n\"3. That the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments is\nnot to be found in, nor did it make part of, the Mosaic dispensation.\n\n\"That therefore the law of Moses is of divine origin;\n\n\"Which one or both of the two following syllogisms will evince:\n\n\"I. Whatever religion and society have no future state for their support\nmust be supported by an extraordinary Providence.\n\n\"The Jewish religion and society had no future state for their support;\n\n\"Therefore the Jewish religion and society were supported by an\nextraordinary Providence.\n\n\"And again,\n\n\"II. The ancient lawgivers universally believed that such a religion\ncould be supported only by an extraordinary Providence.\n\n\"Moses, an ancient lawgiver, versed in all the wisdom of Egypt,\npurposely instituted such a religion; Therefore Moses believed his\nreligion was supported by an extraordinary Providence.\"\n\nWhat is most extraordinary, is this assertion of Warburton, which he has\nput in large characters at the head of his work. He has often been\nreproached with his extreme temerity and dishonesty in daring to say\nthat all ancient lawgivers believed that a religion which is not founded\non rewards and punishments after death cannot be upheld but by an\nextraordinary Providence: not one of them ever said so. He does not even\nundertake to adduce a single instance of this in his enormous book,\nstuffed with an immense number of quotations, all foreign to the\nsubject. He has buried himself under a heap of Greek and Latin authors,\nancient and modern, that no one may reach him through this horrible\naccumulation of coverings. When at length the critic has rummaged to the\nbottom, the author is raised to life from among all those dead, to load\nhis adversaries with abuse.\n\nIt is true, that near the close of the fourth volume, after ranging\nthrough a hundred labyrinths, and fighting all he met with on the way,\nhe does at last come back to his great question from which he has so\nlong wandered. He takes up the Book of Job, which the learned consider\nas the work of an Arab; and he seeks to prove, that Job did not believe\nin the immortality of the soul. He then explains, in his own way, all\nthe texts of Scripture that have been brought to combat his opinion.\n\nAll that should be said of him is, that if he was in the right, it was\nnot for a bishop to be so in the right. He should have felt that two\ndangerous consequences might be drawn: but all goes by chance in this\nworld. This man, who became an informer and a persecutor, was not made a\nbishop through the patronage of a minister of state, until immediately\nafter he wrote his book.\n\nAt Salamanca, at Coimbra, or at Rome, he would have been obliged to\nretract and to ask pardon. In England he became a peer of the realm,\nwith an income of a hundred thousand livres. Here was something to\nsoften his manners.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\n_On the Need of Revelation._\n\nThe greatest benefit for which we are indebted to the New Testament is\nits having revealed to us the immortality of the soul. It is therefore\nquite in vain that this Warburton has sought to cloud this important\ntruth, by continually representing, in his \"Legation of Moses,\" that\n\"the ancient Jews had no knowledge of this necessary dogma,\" and that\n\"the Sadducees did not admit it in the time of our Lord Jesus.\"\n\nHe interprets in his own way, the very words which Jesus Christ is made\nto utter: \"Have ye not read that which is spoken unto you by God saying,\nI am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob: God\nis not the God of the dead, but of the living.\" He gives to the parable\nof the rich bad man a sense contrary to that of all the churches.\nSherlock, bishop of London, and twenty other learned men, have refuted\nhim. Even the English philosophers have reminded him how scandalous it\nis in an English bishop to manifest an opinion so contrary to the Church\nof England; and after all, this man has thought proper to call others\nimpious: like Harlequin, in the farce of \"The Housebreaker\" (_Le\nD\u00e9valiseur des Maisons_) who, after throwing the furniture out at the\nwindow, seeing a man carrying some articles away, cries with all his\nmight--\"Stop, thief!\"\n\nThe revelation of the immortality of the soul, and of pains and rewards\nafter death, is the more to be blessed, as the vain philosophy of men\nalways doubted of it. The great C\u00e6sar had no faith in it. He explained\nhimself clearly to the whole senate, when, to prevent Catiline from\nbeing put to death, he represented to them that death left man without\nfeeling--that all died with him: and no one refuted this opinion.\n\nThe Roman Empire was divided between two great principal sects: that of\nEpicurus, who affirmed that the divinity was useless to the world, and\nthe soul perished with the body; and that of the Stoics, who regarded\nthe soul as a portion of the divinity, which after death was reunited to\nits original--to the great All from which it had emanated. So that,\nwhether the soul was believed to be mortal, or to be immortal, all\nsects united in contemning the idea of rewards and punishments after\ndeath.\n\nThere are still remaining numerous monuments of this belief of the\nRomans. It was from the force of this opinion profoundly engraved on all\nhearts, that so many Roman heroes and so many private citizens put\nthemselves to death without the smallest scruple; they did not wait for\na tyrant to deliver them into the hands of the executioner.\n\nEven the most virtuous men, and the most thoroughly persuaded of the\nexistence of a God, did not then hope any reward, nor did they fear any\npunishment. It has been seen in the article on \"Apocrypha,\" that Clement\nhimself, who was afterwards pope and saint, began with doubting what the\nfirst Christians said of another life, and that he consulted St. Peter\nat C\u00e6sarea. We are very far from believing that St. Clement wrote the\nhistory which is attributed to him; but it shows what need mankind had\nof a precise revelation. All that can surprise us is that a tenet so\nrepressing and so salutary should have left men a prey to so many\nhorrible crimes, who have so short a time to live, and find themselves\npressed between the eternities.\n\n\nSECTION VII.\n\n_Souls of Fools and Monsters._\n\nA child, ill-formed, is born absolutely imbecile, has no ideas, lives\nwithout ideas; instances of this have been known. How shall this animal\nbe defined? Doctors have said that it is something between man and\nbeast; others have said that it is a sensitive soul, but not an\nintellectual soul: it eats, it drinks, it sleeps, it wakes, it has\nsensations, but it does not think.\n\nIs there for it another life, or is there none? The case has been put,\nand has not yet been entirely resolved.\n\nSome have said that this creature must have a soul, because its father\nand its mother had souls. But by this reasoning it would be proved that\nif it had come into the world without a nose, it should have the\nreputation of having one, because its father and its mother had one.\n\nA woman is brought to bed: her infant has no chin; its forehead is flat\nand somewhat black, its eyes round, its nose thin and sharp; its\ncountenance is not much unlike that of a swallow: yet the rest of his\nbody is made like ours. It is decided by a majority of voices that it is\na man, and possesses an immaterial soul; whereupon the parents have it\nbaptized. But if this little ridiculous figure has pointed claws, and a\nmouth in the form of a beak, it is declared to be a monster; it has no\nsoul; it is not baptized.\n\nIt is known, that in 1726, there was in London a woman who was brought\nto bed every eight days of a young rabbit. No difficulty was made of\nrefusing baptism to this child, notwithstanding the epidemic folly which\nprevailed in London for three weeks, of believing that this poor jade\nactually brought forth wild rabbits. The surgeon who delivered her,\nnamed St. Andr\u00e9, swore that nothing was more true; and he was believed.\nBut what reason had the credulous for refusing a soul to this woman's\noffspring? She had a soul; her children must likewise have been\nfurnished with souls, whether they had hands? or paws, whether they were\nborn with a snout or with a face: cannot the Supreme Being vouchsafe the\ngift of thought and sensation to a little nondescript, born of a woman,\nwith the figure of a rabbit, as well as a little nondescript born with\nthe figure of a man? Will the soul which was ready to take up its abode\nin this woman's f\u0153tus return unhoused?\n\nIt is very well observed by Locke, with regard to monsters, that\nimmortality must not be attributed to the exterior of a body--that it\nhas nothing to do with the figure. \"This immortality,\" says he, \"is no\nmore attached to the form of one's face or breast than it is to the way\nin which one's beard is clipped or one's coat is cut.\"\n\nHe asks: What is the exact measure of deformity by which you can\nrecognize whether an infant has a soul or not? What is the precise\ndegree at which it is to be declared a monster and without a soul?\n\nAgain, it is asked: What would a soul be that should have none but\nchimerical ideas? There are some which never go beyond such. Are they\nworthy or unworthy? What is to be made of their pure spirit?\n\nWhat are we to think of a child with two heads, which is otherwise well\nformed? Some say that it has two souls, because it is furnished with two\npineal glands, with two callous substances, with two \"_sensoria\ncommunia_.\" Others answer that there cannot be two souls, with but one\nbreast and one navel.\n\nIn short, so many questions have been asked about this poor human soul,\nthat if it were necessary to put an end to them all, such an examination\nof its own person would cause it the most insupportable annoyance. The\nsame would happen to it as happened to Cardinal Polignac at a conclave:\nhis steward, tired of having never been able to make him pass his\naccounts, took a journey to Rome, and went to the small window of his\ncell, laden with an immense bundle of papers; he read for nearly two\nhours; at last, finding that no answer was made, he thrust forward his\nhead: the cardinal had been gone almost two hours. Our souls will be\ngone before their stewards have finished their statements; but let us be\njust before God--ignorant as both we and our stewards are.\n\nSee what is said on the soul in the \"Letters of Memmius.\"\n\n\nSECTION VIII.\n\n_Different Opinions Criticised--Apology for Locke._\n\nI must acknowledge, that when I examined the infallible Aristotle, the\nevangelical doctor, and the divine Plato, I took all these epithets for\nnicknames. In all the philosophers who have spoken of the human\nsoul, I have found only blind men, full of babble and temerity,\nstriving to persuade themselves that they have an eagle eye; and others,\ncurious and foolish, believing them on their word, and imagining that\nthey see something too.\n\n[Illustration: John Locke.]\n\nI shall not feign to rank Descartes and Malebranche with these teachers\nof error. The former assures us that the soul of man is a substance,\nwhose essence is to think, which is always thinking, and which, in the\nmother's womb, is occupied with fine metaphysical ideas and general\naxioms, which it afterwards forgets.\n\nAs for Father Malebranche, he is quite persuaded that we see all in\nGod--and he has found partisans: for the most extravagant fables are\nthose which are the best received by the weak imaginations of men.\nVarious philosophers then had written the romance of the soul: at\nlength, a wise man modestly wrote its history. Of this history I am\nabout to give an abridgment, according to the conception I have formed\nof it. I very well know that all the world will not agree with Locke's\nideas; it is not unlikely, that against Descartes and Malebranche, Locke\nwas right, but that against the Sorbonne he was wrong: I speak according\nto the lights of philosophy, not according to the relations of the\nfaith.\n\nIt is not for me to think otherwise than humanly; theologians decide\ndivinely, which is quite another thing: reason and faith are of contrary\nnatures. In a word, here follows a short abstract of Locke, which I\nwould censure, if I were a theologian, but which I adopt for a moment,\nsimply as a hypothesis--a conjecture of philosophy. Humanly speaking,\nthe question is: What is the soul?\n\n1. The word \"soul\" is one of those which everyone pronounces without\nunderstanding it; we understand only those things of which we have an\nidea; we have no idea of soul--spirit; therefore we do not understand\nit.\n\n2. We have then been pleased to give the name of soul to the faculty of\nfeeling and thinking, as we have given that of life to the faculty of\nliving, and that of will to the faculty of willing.\n\nReasoners have come and said: Man is composed of matter and spirit:\nmatter is extended and divisible; spirit is neither extended nor\ndivisible; therefore, say they, it is of another nature. This is a\njoining together of beings which are not made for each other, and which\nGod unites in spite of their nature. We see little of the body, we see\nnothing of the soul; it has no parts, therefore it is eternal; it has\nideas pure and spiritual, therefore it does not receive them from\nmatter; nor does it receive them from itself, therefore God gives them\nto it, and it brings with it at its birth the ideas of God, infinity,\nand all general ideas.\n\nStill humanly speaking, I answer these gentlemen that they are very\nknowing. They tell us, first, that there is a soul, and then what that\nsoul must be. They pronounce the word \"matter,\" and then plainly decide\nwhat it is. And I say to them: You have no knowledge either of spirit or\nof matter. By spirit you can imagine only the faculty of thinking; by\nmatter you can understand only a certain assemblage of qualities,\ncolors, extents, and solidities, which it has pleased you to call\nmatter; and you have assigned limits to matter and to the soul, even\nbefore you are sure of the existence of either the one or the other.\n\nAs for matter, you gravely teach that it has only extent and solidity;\nand I tell you modestly, that it is capable of a thousand properties\nabout which neither you nor I know anything. You say that the soul is\nindivisible, eternal; and here you assume that which is in question. You\nare much like the regent of a college, who, having never in his life\nseen a clock, should all at once have an English repeater put into his\nhands. This man, a good peripatetic, is struck by the exactness with\nwhich the hands mark the time, and still more astonished that a button,\npressed by the finger, should sound precisely the hour marked by the\nhand. My philosopher will not fail to prove that there is in this\nmachine a soul which governs it and directs its springs. He learnedly\ndemonstrates his opinion by the simile of the angels who keep the\ncelestial spheres in motion; and in the class he forms fine theses,\nmaintained on the souls of watches. One of his scholars opens the watch,\nand nothing is found but springs; yet the system of the soul of watches\nis still maintained, and is considered as demonstrated. I am that\nscholar, opening the watch called man; but instead of boldly defining\nwhat we do not understand, I endeavor to examine by degrees what we wish\nto know.\n\nLet us take an infant at the moment of its birth, and follow, step by\nstep, the progress of its understanding. You do me the honor of\ninforming me that God took the trouble of creating a soul, to go and\ntake up its abode in this body when about six weeks old; that this soul,\non its arrival, is provided with metaphysical ideas--having consequently\na very clear knowledge of spirit, of abstract ideas, of infinity--being,\nin short, a very knowing person. But unfortunately it quits the uterus\nin the uttermost ignorance: for eighteen months it knows nothing but its\nnurse's teat; and when at the age of twenty years an attempt is made to\nbring back to this soul's recollection all the scientific ideas which it\nhad when it entered its body, it is often too dull of apprehension to\nconceive any one of them. There are whole nations which have never had\nso much as one of these ideas. What, in truth, were the souls of\nDescartes and Malebranche thinking of, when they imagined such reveries?\nLet us then follow the idea of the child, without stopping at the\nimaginings of the philosophers.\n\nThe day that his mother was brought to bed of him and his soul, there\nwere born in the house a dog, a cat, and a canary bird. At the end of\neighteen months I make the dog an excellent hunter; in a year the\ncanary bird whistles an air; in six weeks the cat is master of its\nprofession; and the child, at the end of four years, does nothing. I, a\ngross person, witnessing this prodigious difference, and never having\nseen a child, think at first that the cat, the dog, and the canary are\nvery intelligent creatures, and that the infant is an automaton.\nHowever, by little and little, I perceive that this child has ideas and\nmemory, that he has the same passions as these animals; and then I\nacknowledge that he is, like them, a rational creature. He communicates\nto me different ideas by some words which he has learned, in like manner\nas my dog, by diversified cries, makes known to me exactly his different\nwants. I perceive at the age of six or seven years the child combines in\nhis little brain almost as many ideas as my hound in his; and at length,\nas he grows older, he acquires an infinite variety of knowledge. Then\nwhat am I to think of him? Shall I believe that he is of a nature\naltogether different? Undoubtedly not; for you see on one hand an idiot,\nand on the other a Newton; yet you assert that they are of one and the\nsame nature--that there is no difference but that of greater and less.\nThe better to assure myself of the verisimilitude of my probable\nopinion, I examine the dog and the child both waking and sleeping--I\nhave them each bled immediately; then their ideas seem to escape with\ntheir blood. In this state I call them--they do not answer; and if I\ndraw from them a few more ounces, my two machines, which before had\nideas in great plenty and passions of every kind, have no longer any\nfeeling. I next examine my two animals while they sleep; I perceive that\nthe dog, after eating too much, has dreams; he hunts and cries after the\ngame; my youngster, in the same state, talks to his mistress and makes\nlove in his dreams. If both have eaten moderately, I observe that\nneither of them dream; in short, I see that the faculties of feeling,\nperceiving, and expressing their ideas unfold themselves gradually, and\nalso become weaker by degrees. I discover many more affinities between\nthem than between any man of strong mind and one absolutely imbecile.\nWhat opinion then shall I entertain of their nature? That which every\npeople at first imagined, before Egyptian policy asserted the\nspirituality, the immortality, of the soul. I shall even suspect that\nArchimedes and a mole are but different varieties of the same\nspecies--as an oak and a grain of mustard are formed by the same\nprinciples, though the one is a large tree and the other the seed of a\nsmall plant. I shall believe that God has given portions of intelligence\nto portions of matter organized for thinking; I shall believe that\nmatter has sensations in proportion to the fineness of its senses, that\nit is they which proportion them to the measure of our ideas; I shall\nbelieve that the oyster in its shell has fewer sensations and senses,\nbecause its soul being attached to its shell, five senses would not at\nall be useful to it. There are many animals with only two senses; we\nhave five--which are very few. It is to be believed that in other\nworlds there are other animals enjoying twenty or thirty senses, and\nthat other species, yet more perfect, have senses to infinity.\n\nSuch, it appears to me, is the most natural way of reasoning on the\nmatter--that is, of guessing and inspecting with certainty. A long time\nelapsed before men were ingenious enough to imagine an unknown being,\nwhich is ourselves, which does all in us, which is not altogether\nourselves, and which lives after us. Nor was so bold an idea adopted all\nat once. At first this word \"soul\" signifies life, and was common to us\nand the other animals; then our pride made us a soul apart, and caused\nus to imagine a substantial form for other creatures. This human pride\nasks: What then is that power of perceiving and feeling, which in man is\ncalled soul, and in the brute instinct? I will satisfy this demand when\nthe natural philosophers shall have informed me what is sound, light,\nspace, body, time. I will say, in the spirit of the wise Locke:\nPhilosophy consists in stopping when the torch of physical science fails\nus. I observe the effects of nature; but I freely own that of first\nprinciples I have no more conception than you have. All I do know is\nthat I ought not to attribute to several causes--especially to unknown\ncauses--that which I can attribute to a known cause; now I can attribute\nto my body the faculty of thinking and feeling; therefore I ought not to\nseek this faculty of thinking and feeling in another substance, called\nsoul or spirit, of which I cannot have the smallest idea. You exclaim\nagainst this proposition. Do you then think it irreligious to dare to\nsay that the body can think? But what would you say, Locke would answer,\nif you yourselves were found guilty of irreligion in thus daring to set\nbounds to the power of God? What man upon earth can affirm, without\nabsurd impiety, that it is impossible for God to give to matter\nsensation and thought? Weak and presumptuous that you are! you boldly\nadvance that matter does not think, because you do not conceive how\nmatter of any kind should think.\n\nYe great philosophers, who decide on the power of God, and say that God\ncan of a stone make an angel--do you not see that, according to\nyourselves, God would in that case only give to a stone the power of\nthinking? for if the matter of the stone did not remain, there would no\nlonger be a stone; there would be a stone annihilated and an angel\ncreated. Whichever way you turn you are forced to acknowledge two\nthings--your ignorance and the boundless power of the Creator; your\nignorance, to which thinking matter is repugnant; and the Creator's\npower, to which certes it is not impossible.\n\nYou, who know that matter does not perish, will dispute whether God has\nthe power to preserve in that matter the noblest quality with which He\nhas endowed it. Extent subsists perfectly without body, through Him,\nsince there are philosophers who believe in a void; accidents subsist\nvery well without substance with Christians who believe in\ntransubstantiation. God, you say, cannot do that which implies\ncontradiction. To be sure of this, it is necessary to know more of the\nmatter than you do know; it is all in vain; you will never know more\nthan this--that you are a body, and that you think. Many persons who\nhave learned at school to doubt of nothing, who take their syllogisms\nfor oracles and their superstitions for religion, consider Locke as\nimpious and dangerous. These superstitious people are in society what\ncowards are in an army; they are possessed by and communicate panic\nterror. We must have the compassion to dissipate their fears; they must\nbe made sensible that the opinions of philosophers will never do harm to\nreligion. We know for certain that light comes from the sun, and that\nthe planets revolve round that luminary; yet we do not read with any the\nless edification in the Bible that light was made before the sun, and\nthat the sun stood still over the village of Gibeon. It is demonstrated\nthat the rainbow is necessarily formed by the rain; yet we do not the\nleast reverence the sacred text which says that God set His bow in the\nclouds, after the Deluge, as a sign that there should never be another\ninundation.\n\nWhat though the mystery of the Trinity and that of the eucharist are\ncontradictory to known demonstrations? They are not the less venerated\nby Catholic philosophers, who know that the things of reason and those\nof faith are different in their nature. The notion of the antipodes was\ncondemned by the popes and the councils; yet the popes discovered the\nantipodes and carried thither that very Christian religion, the\ndestruction of which had been thought to be sure, in case there could be\nfound a man who, as it was then expressed, should have, as relative to\nour own position, his head downwards and his feet upwards, and who, as\nthe very unphilosophical St. Augustine says, should have fallen from\nheaven.\n\nAnd now, let me once repeat that, while I write with freedom, I warrant\nno opinion--I am responsible for nothing. Perhaps there are, among these\ndreams, some reasonings, and even some reveries, to which I should give\nthe preference; but there is not one that I would not unhesitatingly\nsacrifice to religion and to my country.\n\n\nSECTION IX.\n\nI shall suppose a dozen of good philosophers in an island where they\nhave never seen anything but vegetables. Such an island, and especially\ntwelve such philosophers, would be very hard to find; however, the\nfiction is allowable. They admire the life which circulates in the\nfibres of the plants, appearing to be alternately lost and renewed; and\nas they know not how a plant springs up, how it derives its nourishment\nand growth, they call this a vegetative soul. What, they are asked, do\nyou understand by a vegetative soul? They answer: It is a word that\nserves to express the unknown spring by which all this is operated. But\ndo you not see, a mechanic will ask them, that all this is naturally\ndone by weights, levers, wheels, and pulleys? No, the philosophers will\nsay; there is in this vegetation something other than ordinary motion;\nthere is a secret power which all plants have of drawing to themselves\nthe juices which nourish them; and this power cannot be explained by any\nsystem of mechanics; it is a gift which God has made to matter, and the\nnature of which neither you nor we comprehend.\n\nAfter disputing thus, our reasoners at length discover animals. Oh, oh!\nsay they, after a long examination, here are beings organized like\nourselves. It is indisputable that they have memory, and often more than\nwe have. They have our passions; they have knowledge; they make us\nunderstand all their wants; they perpetuate their species like us. Our\nphilosophers dissect some of these beings, and find in them hearts and\nbrains. What! say they, can the author of these machines, who does\nnothing in vain, have given them all the organs of feeling, in order\nthat they may have no feeling? It were absurd to think so--there is\ncertainly something in thera which, for want of knowing a better term,\nwe likewise call soul--something that experiences sensations, and has a\ncertain number of ideas. But what is this principle? Is it something\nabsolutely different from matter? Is it a pure spirit? Is it a middle\nbeing, between matter, of which we know little, and pure spirit, of\nwhich we know nothing? Is it a property given by God to organized\nmatter?\n\nThey then make experiments upon insects; upon earth worms--they cut them\ninto several parts, and are astonished to find that, after a short time,\nthere come heads to all these divided parts; the same animal is\nreproduced, and its very destruction becomes the means of its\nmultiplication. Has it several souls, which wait until the head is cut\noff the original trunk, to animate the reproduced parts? They are like\ntrees, which put forth fresh branches, and are reproduced from slips.\nHave these trees several souls? It is not likely. Then it is very\nprobable that the soul of these reptiles is of a different kind from\nthat which we call vegetative soul in plants; that it is a faculty of a\nsuperior order, which God has vouchsafed to give to certain portions of\nmatter. Here is a fresh proof of His power--a fresh subject of\nadoration.\n\nA man of violent temper, and a bad reasoner, hears this discourse and\nsays to them: You are wicked wretches, whose bodies should be burned for\nthe good of your souls, for you deny the immortality of the soul of man.\nOur philosophers then look at one another in perfect astonishment, and\none of them mildly answers him: Why burn us so hastily? Whence have you\nconcluded that we have an idea that your cruel soul is mortal? From your\nbelieving, returns the other, that God has given to the brutes which are\norganized like us, the faculty of having feelings and ideas. Now this\nsoul of the beasts perishes with them; therefore you believe that the\nsoul of man perishes also.\n\nThe philosopher replies: We are not at all sure that what we call \"soul\"\nin animal perishes with them; we know very well that matter does not\nperish, and we believe that God may have put in animals something which,\nif God will it, shall forever retain the faculty of having ideas. We are\nvery far from affirming that such is the case, for it is hardly for men\nto be so confident; but we dare not set bounds to the power of God. We\nsay that it is very probable that the beasts, which are matter, have\nreceived from Him a little intelligence. We are every day discovering\nproperties of matter--that is, presents from God--of which we had before\nno idea. We at first defined matter to be an extended substance; next we\nfound it necessary to add solidity; some time afterwards we were obliged\nto admit that this matter has a force which is called \"_vis inerti\u00e6_\";\nand after this, to our great astonishment, we had to acknowledge that\nmatter gravitates.\n\nWhen we sought to carry our researches further, we were forced to\nrecognize beings resembling matter in some things, but without the\nother, attributes with which matter is gifted. The elementary fire, for\ninstance, acts upon our senses like other bodies; but it does not, like\nthem, tend to a centre; on the contrary, it escapes from the centre in\nstraight lines on every side. It does not seem to obey the laws of\nattraction, of gravitation, like other bodies. There are mysteries in\noptics, for which it would be hard to account, without venturing to\nsuppose that the rays of light penetrate one another. There is certainly\nsomething in light which distinguishes it from known matter. Light seems\nto be a middle being between bodies and other kinds of beings of which\nwe are ignorant! It is very likely that these other kinds are themselves\na medium leading to other creatures, and that there is a chain of\nsubstances extending to infinity. \"_Usque adeo quod tangit idem est,\ntamen ultima distant!_\"\n\nThis idea seems to us to be worthy of the greatness of God, if anything\nis worthy of it. Among these substances He has doubtless had power to\nchoose one which He has lodged in our bodies, and which we call the\nhuman soul; and the sacred books which we have read inform us that this\nsoul is immortal. Reason is in accordance with revelation; for how\nshould any substance perish? Every mode is destroyed; the substance\nremains. We cannot conceive the creation of a substance; we cannot\nconceive its annihilation; but we dare not affirm that the absolute\nmaster of all beings cannot also give feelings and perceptions to the\nbeing which we call matter. You are quite sure that the essence of your\nsoul is to think; but we are not so sure of this; for when we examine a\nf\u0153tus, we can hardly believe that its soul had many ideas in its\nhead; and we very much doubt whether, in a sound and deep sleep, or in a\ncomplete lethargy, any one ever meditated. Thus it appears to us that\nthought may very well be, not the essence of the thinking being, but a\npresent made by the Creator to beings which we call thinking; from all\nwhich we suspect that, if He would, He could make this present to an\natom; and could preserve this atom and His present forever, or destroy\nit at His pleasure. The difficulty consists not so much in divining how\nmatter could think, as in divining how any substance whatever does\nthink. You have ideas only because God has been pleased to give them to\nyou; why would you prevent Him from giving them to other species? Can\nyou really be so fearless as to dare to believe that your soul is\nprecisely of the same kind as the substances which approach nearest to\nthe Divinity? There is great probability that they are of an order very\nsuperior, and that consequently God has vouchsafed to give them a way of\nthinking infinitely finer, just as He has given a very limited measure\nof ideas to the animals which are of an order inferior to you. I know\nnot how I live, nor how I give life; yet you would have me know how I\nhave ideas. The soul is a timepiece which God has given us to manage;\nbut He has not told us of what the spring of this timepiece is composed.\n\nIs there anything in all this from which it can be inferred that our\nsouls are mortal? Once more let us repeat it--we think as you do of the\nimmortality announced to us by faith; but we believe that we are too\nignorant to affirm that God has not the power of granting thought to\nwhatever being He pleases. You bound the power of the Creator, which is\nboundless; and we extend it as far as His existence extends. Forgive us\nfor believing Him to be omnipotent, as we forgive you for restraining\nHis power. You doubtless know all that He can do, and we know nothing of\nit. Let us live as brethren; let us adore our common Father in\npeace--you with your knowing and daring souls, we with our ignorant and\ntimid souls. We have a day to live; let us pass it calmly, without\nquarrelling about difficulties that will be cleared up in the immortal\nlife which will begin to-morrow.\n\nThe brutal man, having nothing good to say in reply, talked a long\nwhile, and was very angry. Our poor philosophers employed themselves for\nsome weeks in reading history; and after reading well, they spoke as\nfollows to this barbarian, who was so unworthy to have an immortal soul:\n\nMy friend, we have read that in all antiquity things went on as well as\nthey do in our own times--that there were even greater virtues, and that\nphilosophers were not persecuted for the opinions which they held; why,\nthen, should you seek to injure us for opinions which we do not hold? We\nread that all the ancients believed matter to be eternal. They who saw\nthat it was created left the others at rest. Pythagoras had been a cock,\nhis relations had been swine; but no one found fault with this; his sect\nwas cherished and revered by all, except the cooks and those who had\nbeans to sell.\n\nThe Stoics acknowledged a god, nearly the same as the god afterwards so\nrashly admitted by the Spinozists; yet Stoicism was a sect the most\nfruitful in heroic virtues, and the most accredited.\n\nThe Epicureans made their god like our canons, whose indolent corpulence\nupholds their divinity, and who take their nectar and ambrosia in quiet,\nwithout meddling with anything. These Epicureans boldly taught the\nmateriality and the mortality of the soul; but they were not the less\nrespected; they were admitted into all offices; and their crooked atoms\nnever did the world any harm.\n\nThe Platonists, like the Gymnosophists, did not do us the honor to think\nthat God had condescended to form us Himself. According to them, He left\nthis task to His officers--to genii, who in the course of their work\nmade many blunders. The god of the Platonists was an excellent workman,\nwho employed here below very indifferent assistants; but men did not the\nless reverence the school of Plato.\n\nIn short, among the Greeks and the Romans, so many sects as there were,\nso many ways of thinking about God and the soul, the past and the\nfuture, none of these sects were persecutors. They were all\nmistaken--and we are very sorry for it; but they were all peaceful--and\nthis confounds us, this condemns us, this shows us that most of the\nreasoners of the present day are monsters, and that those of antiquity\nwere men. They sang publicly on the Roman stage: \"_Post mortem nihil\nest, ipsaque mors nihil._\"--\"Naught after death, and death is nothing.\"\n\nThese opinions made men neither better nor worse; all was governed, all\nwent on as usual; and Titus, Trajan, and Aurelius governed the earth\nlike beneficent deities.\n\nPassing from the Greeks and the Romans to barbarous nations, let us only\ncontemplate the Jews. Superstitious, cruel, and ignorant as this\nwretched people were, still they honored the Pharisees, who admitted the\nfatality of destiny and the metempsychosis; they also paid respect to\nthe Sadducees, who absolutely denied the immortality of the soul and the\nexistence of spirits, taking for their foundation the law of Moses,\nwhich had made no mention of pain or reward after death. The Essenes,\nwho also believed in fatality, and who never offered up victims in the\ntemple, were reverenced still more than the Pharisees and the Sadducees.\nNone of their opinions ever disturbed the government. Yet here were\nabundant subjects for slaughtering, burning, and exterminating one\nanother, had they been so inclined. Oh, miserable men! profit by these\nexamples. Think, and let others think. It is the solace of our feeble\nminds in this short life. What! will you receive with politeness a Turk,\nwho believes that Mahomet travelled to the moon; will you be careful not\nto displease the pasha Bonneval; and yet will you have your brother\nhanged, drawn, and quartered, because he believes that God created\nintelligence in every creature?\n\nSo spake one of the philosophers; and another of them added: Believe me,\nit need never be feared that any philosophical opinion will hurt the\nreligion of a country. What though our mysteries are contrary to our\ndemonstrations, they are not the less reverenced by our Christian\nphilosophers, who know that the objects of reason and faith are of\ndifferent natures. Philosophers will never form a religious sect; and\nwhy? Because they are without enthusiasm. Divide mankind into twenty\nparts; and of these, nineteen consist of those who labor with their\nhands, and will never know that there has been such a person as Locke in\nthe world. In the remaining twentieth, how few men will be found who\nread! and among those who read, there are twenty that read novels for\none that studies philosophy. Those who think are excessively few; and\nthose few do not set themselves to disturb the world.\n\nWho are they who have waved the torch of discord in their native\ncountry? Are they Pomponatius, Montaigne, La Vayer, Descartes, Gassendi,\nBayle, Spinoza, Hobbes, Shaftesbury, Boulainvilliers, the Consul\nMaillet, Toland, Collins, Flood, Woolston, Bekker, the author disguised\nunder the name of Jacques Mass\u00e9, he of the \"Turkish Spy,\" he of the\n\"_Lettres Persanes_\" of the \"_Lettres Juives_,\" of the \"_Pens\u00e9es\nPhilosophiques_\"? No; they are for the most part theologians, who,\nhaving at first been ambitious of becoming leaders of a sect, have soon\nbecome ambitious to be leaders of a party. Nay, not all the books of\nmodern philosophy put together will ever make so much noise in the world\nas was once made by the dispute of the Cordeliers about the form of\ntheir hoods and sleeves.\n\n\nSECTION X.\n\n_On the Antiquity of the Dogma of the Immortality of the Soul--A\nFragment_.\n\nThe dogma of the immortality of the soul is at once the most consoling\nand the most repressing idea that the mind of man can receive. This fine\nphilosophy was as ancient among the Egyptians as their pyramids; and\nbefore them it was known to the Persians. I have already elsewhere\nrelated the allegory of the first Zoroaster, cited in the \"Sadder,\" in\nwhich God shows to Zoroaster a place of chastisement, such as the\n_Dardaroth_ or _Keron_ of the Egyptians, the _Hades_ and the _Tartarus_\nof the Greeks, which we have but imperfectly rendered in our modern\ntongues by the words \"_inferno_,\" \"_enfer_,\" \"infernal regions,\" \"hell,\"\n\"bottomless pit.\" In this place of punishment God showed to Zoroaster\nall the bad kings; one of them had but one foot; Zoroaster asked the\nreason; and God answered that this king had done only one good action in\nhis life, which was by approaching to kick forward a trough which was\nnot near enough to a poor ass dying of hunger. God had placed this\nwicked man's foot in heaven; the rest of his body was in hell.\n\nThis fable, which cannot be too often repeated, shows how ancient was\nthe opinion of another life. The Indians were persuaded of it, as their\nmetempsychosis proves. The Chinese venerated the souls of their\nancestors. Each of these nations had founded powerful empires long\nbefore the Egyptians. This is a very important truth, which I think I\nhave already proved by the very nature of the soil of Egypt. The most\nfavorable grounds must have been cultivated the first; the ground of\nEgypt is the least favorable of all, being under water four months of\nthe year; it was not until after immense labor, and consequently after a\nprodigious lapse of time, that towns were at length raised which the\nNile could not inundate.\n\nThis empire, then, ancient as it was, was much less ancient than the\nempires of Asia; and in both one and the other it was believed that the\nsoul existed after death. It is true that all these nations, without\nexception, considered the soul as a light ethereal form, an image of the\nbody; the Greek word signifying \"breath\" was invented long after by the\nGreeks. But it is beyond a doubt that a part of ourselves was considered\nas immortal. Rewards and punishments in another life were the grand\nfoundation of ancient theology.\n\nPherecides was the first among the Greeks who believed that souls\nexisted from all eternity, and not the first, as has been supposed, who\nsaid that the soul survived the body. Ulysses, long before Pherecides,\nhad seen the souls of heroes in the infernal regions; but that souls\nwere as old as the world was a system which had sprung up in the East,\nand was brought into the West by Pherecides. I do not believe that there\nis among us a single system which is not to be found among the ancients.\nThe materials of all our modern edifices are taken from the wreck of\nantiquity.\n\n\nSECTION XI.\n\nIt would be a fine thing to see one's soul. \"Know thyself\" is an\nexcellent precept; but it belongs only to God to put it in practice. Who\nbut He can know His own essence?\n\nWe call \"soul\" that which animates. Owing to our limited intelligence we\nknow scarcely anything more of the matter. Three-fourths of mankind go\nno further, and give themselves no concern about the thinking being; the\nother fourth seek it; no one has found it, or ever will find it.\n\nPoor pedant! thou seest a plant which vegetates, and thou sayest,\n\"vegetation,\" or perhaps \"vegetative soul.\" Thou remarkest that bodies\nhave and communicate motion, and thou sayest, \"force\"; thou seest thy\ndog learn his craft under thee, and thou exclaimest, \"instinct,\"\n\"sensitive soul\"! Thou hast combined ideas, and thou exclaimest,\n\"spirit!\"\n\nBut pray, what dost thou understand by these words? This flower\nvegetates; but is there any real being called vegetation? This body\npushes along another, but does it possess within itself a distinct being\ncalled force? Thy dog brings thee a partridge, but is there any being\ncalled instinct? Wouldst thou not laugh, if a reasoner--though he had\nbeen preceptor to Alexander--were to say to thee: All animals live;\ntherefore there is in them a being, a substantial form, which is life?\n\nIf a tulip could speak and were to tell thee: I and my vegetation are\ntwo beings evidently joined together; wouldst thou not laugh at the\ntulip?\n\nLet us at first see what thou knowest, of what thou art certain; that\nthou walkest with thy feet; that thou digestest with thy stomach; that\nthou feelest with thy whole body; and that thou thinkest with thy head.\nLet us see if thy reason alone can have given thee light enough by which\nto conclude, without supernatural aid, that thou hast a soul.\n\nThe first philosophers, whether Chald\u00e6ans or Egyptians, said: There must\nbe something within us which produces our thoughts; that something must\nbe very subtile; it is a breath; it is fire; it is ether; it is a\nquintessence; it is a slender likeness; it is an antelechia; it is a\nnumber; it is a harmony. Lastly, according to the divine Plato, it is a\ncompound of the _same_ and the _other_. \"It is atoms which think in us,\"\nsaid Epicurus, after Democrites. But, my friend, how does an atom think?\nAcknowledge that thou knowest nothing of the matter.\n\nThe opinion which one ought to adopt is, doubtless, that the soul is an\nimmaterial being; but certainly we cannot conceive what an immaterial\nbeing is. No, answer the learned; but we know that its nature is to\nthink. And whence do you know this? We know, because it does think. Oh,\nye learned! I am much afraid that you are as ignorant as Epicurus! The\nnature of a stone is to fall, because it does fall; but I ask you, what\nmakes it fall?\n\nWe know, continue they, that a stone has no soul. Granted; I believe it\nas well as you. We know that an affirmative and a negative are not\ndivisible, are not parts of matter. I am of your opinion. But matter,\notherwise unknown to us, possesses qualities which are not material,\nwhich are not divisible; it has gravitation towards a centre, which God\nhas given it; and this gravitation has no parts; it is not divisible.\nThe moving force of bodies is not a being composed of parts. In like\nmanner the vegetation of organized bodies, their life, their instinct,\nare not beings apart, divisible beings; you can no more cut in two the\nvegetation of a rose, the life of a horse, the instinct of a dog, than\nyou can cut in two a sensation, an affirmation, a negation. Therefore\nyour fine argument, drawn from the indivisibility of thought, proves\nnothing at all.\n\nWhat, then, do you call your soul? What idea have you of it? You cannot\nof yourselves, without revelation, admit the existence within you of\nanything but a power unknown to you of feeling and thinking.\n\nNow tell me honestly, is this power of feeling and thinking the same as\nthat which causes you to digest and to walk? You own that it is not; for\nin vain might your understanding say to your stomach--Digest; it will\nnot, if it be sick. In vain might your immaterial being order your feet\nto walk; they will not stir, if they have the gout.\n\nThe Greeks clearly perceived that thought has frequently nothing to do\nwith the play of our organs; they admitted the existence of an animal\nsoul for these organs, and for the thoughts a soul finer, more\nsubtile--a _nous_.\n\nBut we find that this soul of thought has, on a thousand occasions, the\nascendency over the animal soul. The thinking soul commands the hands to\ntake, and they obey. It does not tell the heart to beat, the blood to\nflow, the chyle to form; all this is done without it. Here then are two\nsouls much involved, and neither of them having the mastery.\n\nNow, this first animal soul certainly does not exist; it is nothing more\nthan the movement of our organs. Take heed, O man! lest thou have no\nmore proofs but thy weak reason that the other soul exists. Thou canst\nnot know it but by faith; thou art born, thou eatest, thou thinkest,\nthou wakest, thou sleepest, without knowing how. God has given thee the\nfaculty of thinking, as He has given thee all the rest; and if He had\nnot come at the time appointed by His providence, to teach thee that\nthou hast an immaterial and an immortal soul, thou wouldst have no\nproof whatever of it.\n\nLet us examine the fine systems on the soul, which thy philosophy has\nfabricated.\n\nOne says that the soul of man is part of the substance of God Himself;\nanother that it is part of the great whole; a third that it is created\nfrom all eternity; a fourth that it is made, and not created. Others\nassure us that God makes souls according as they are wanted, and that\nthey arrive at the moment of copulation. They are lodged in the seminal\nanimalcules, cries one. No, says another, they take up their abode in\nthe Fallopian tubes. A third comes and says: You are all wrong; the soul\nwaits for six weeks, until the f\u0153tus is formed, and then it takes\npossession of the pineal gland; but if it finds a false conception, it\nreturns and waits for a better opportunity. The last opinion is that its\ndwelling is in the callous body; this is the post assigned to it by La\nPeyronie. A man should be first surgeon to the king of France to dispose\nin this way of the lodging of the soul. Yet the callous body was not so\nsuccessful in the world as the surgeon was.\n\nSt. Thomas in his question 75 and following, says that the soul is a\nform subsisting _per se_, that it is all in all, that its essence\ndiffers from its power; that there are three vegetative souls, viz., the\nnutritive, the argumentative, and the generative; that the memory of\nspiritual things is spiritual, and the memory of corporeal things is\ncorporeal; that the rational soul is a form \"immaterial as to its\noperations, and material as to its being.\" St. Thomas wrote two thousand\npages, of like force and clearness; and he is the angel of the schools.\n\nNor have there been fewer systems contrived on the way in which this\nsoul will feel, when it shall have laid aside the body with which it\nfelt; how it will hear without ears, smell without a nose, and touch\nwithout hands; what body it will afterwards resume, whether that which\nit had at two years old, or at eighty; how the _I_--the identity of the\nsame person will subsist; how the soul of a man become imbecile at the\nage of fifteen, and dying imbecile at the age of seventy, will resume\nthe thread of the ideas which he had at the age of puberty; by what\ncontrivance a soul, the leg of whose body shall be cut off in Europe,\nand one of its arms lost in America, will recover this leg and arm,\nwhich, having been transformed into vegetables, will have passed into\nthe blood of some other animal. We should never finish, if we were to\nseek to give an account of all the extravagances which this poor human\nsoul has imagined about itself.\n\nIt is very singular that, in the laws of God's people, not a word is\nsaid of the spirituality and immortality of the soul; nothing in the\nDecalogue, nothing in Leviticus, or in Deuteronomy.\n\nIt is quite certain, it is indubitable, that Moses nowhere proposes to\nthe Jews pains and rewards in another life; that he never mentions to\nthem the immortality of their souls; that he never gives them hopes of\nheaven, nor threatens them with hell; all is temporal.\n\nMany illustrious commentators have thought that Moses was perfectly\nacquainted with these two great dogmas; and they prove it by the words\nof Jacob, who, believing that his son had been devoured by wild beasts,\nsaid in his grief: \"I will go down into the grave--_in infernum_--unto\nmy son\"; that is, I will die, since my son is dead.\n\nThey further prove it by the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel; but the\nHebrews, to whom Moses spoke, could not have read either Ezekiel or\nIsaiah, who did not come until several centuries after.\n\nIt is quite useless to dispute about the private opinions of Moses. The\nfact is that in his public laws he never spoke of a life to come; that\nhe limited all rewards and punishments to the time present. If he knew\nof a future life, why did he not expressly set forth that dogma? And if\nhe did not know of it, what were the object and extent of his mission?\nThis question is asked by many great persons. The answer is, that the\nMaster of Moses, and of all men, reserved to Himself the right of\nexpounding to the Jews, at His own time, a doctrine which they were not\nin a condition to understand when they were in the desert.\n\nIf Moses had announced the immortality of the soul, a great school among\nthe Jews would not have constantly combated it. This great retreat of\nthe Sadducees would not have been authorized in the State; the Sadducees\nwould not have filled the highest offices, nor would pontiffs have been\nchosen from their body.\n\nIt appears that it was not until after the founding of Alexandria that\nthe Jews were divided into three sects--the Pharisees, the Sadducees,\nand the Essenes. The historian Josephus, who was a Pharisee, informs us\nin the thirteenth book of his \"Antiquities\" that the Pharisees believed\nin the metempsychosis; the Sadducees believed that the soul perished\nwith the body; the Essenes, says Josephus, held that souls were\nimmortal; according to them souls descended in an aerial form into the\nbody, from the highest region of the air, whither they were carried back\nagain by a violent attraction; and after death, those which had belonged\nto the good dwelt beyond the ocean in a country where there was neither\nheat nor cold, nor wind, nor rain. The souls of the wicked went into a\nclimate of an opposite description. Such was the theology of the Jews.\n\nHe who alone was to instruct all men came and condemned these three\nsects; but without Him we could never have known anything of our soul;\nfor the philosophers never had any determinate idea of it; and\nMoses--the only true lawgiver in the world before our own--Moses, who\ntalked with God face to face, left men in the most profound ignorance on\nthis great point. It is, then, only for seventeen hundred years that\nthere has been any certainty of the soul's existence and its\nimmortality.\n\nCicero had only doubts; his grandson and granddaughter might learn the\ntruth from the first Galileans who came to Rome.\n\nBut before that time, and since then, in all the rest of the earth where\nthe apostles did not penetrate, each one must have said to his soul:\nWhat art thou? whence comest thou? what dost thou? whither goest thou?\nThou art I know not what, thinking and feeling: and wert thou to feel\nand think for a hundred thousand millions of years, thou wouldst never\nknow any more by thine own light without the assistance of God.\n\nO man! God has given thee understanding for thy own good conduct, and\nnot to penetrate into the essence of the things which He has created.\n\nSo thought Locke; and before Locke, Gassendi; and before Gassendi, a\nmultitude of sages; but we have bachelors who know all of which those\ngreat men were ignorant.\n\nSome cruel enemies of reason have dared to rise up against these truths,\nacknowledged by all the wise. They have carried their dishonesty and\nimpudence so far as to charge the authors of this work with having\naffirmed that the soul is matter. You well know, persecutors of\ninnocence, that we have said quite the contrary. You must have read\nthese very words against Epicurus, Democritus, and Lucretius: \"My\nfriend, how does an atom think? Acknowledge that thou knowest nothing\nof the matter.\" It is then evident, ye are calumniators.\n\nNo one knows what that material being is, which is called \"spirit,\" to\nwhich--be it observed--you give this material name, signifying \"wind.\"\nAll the first fathers of the Church believed the soul to be corporeal.\nIt is impossible for us limited beings to know whether our intelligence\nis substance or faculty: we cannot thoroughly know either the extended\nbeing, or the thinking beings, or the mechanism of thought.\n\nWe exclaim to you, with the ever to be revered Gassendi and Locke, that\nwe know nothing by ourselves of the secrets of the Creator. And are you\ngods, who know everything? We repeat to you, that you cannot know the\nnature and distinction of the soul but by revelation. And is not this\nrevelation sufficient for you? You must surely be enemies of this\nrevelation which we claim, since you persecute those who expect\neverything from it, and believe only in it.\n\nYes, we tell you, we defer wholly to the word of God; and you, enemies\nof reason and of God, treat the humble doubt and humble submission of\nthe philosopher as the wolf in the fable treated the lamb; you say to\nhim: You said ill of me last year; I must suck your blood. Philosophy\ntakes no revenge; she smiles in peace at your vain endeavors; she mildly\nenlightens mankind, whom you would brutalize, to make them like\nyourselves.\n\n\n\n\nSPACE.\n\n\nWhat is space? \"There is no space in void,\" exclaimed Leibnitz, after\nhaving admitted a void; but when he admitted a void, he had not\nembroiled himself with Newton, nor disputed with him on the calculus of\nfluxions, of which Newton was the inventor. This dispute breaking out,\nthere was no longer space or a void for Leibnitz.\n\nFortunately, whatever may be said by philosophers on these insolvable\nquestions, whether it be for Epicurus, for Gassendi, for Newton, for\nDescartes, or Rohaut, the laws of motion will be always the same.\n\n     _Que Rohaut vainement s\u00e8che pour concevoir_\n     _Comment tout \u00e9tant plein, tout a pu se mouvoir_.\n                               --BOILEAU, Ep. v, 31-32.\n\nThat Rohaut exhausts himself by vainly endeavoring to understand how\nmotion can exist in a plenum will not prevent our vessels from sailing\nto the Indies, and all motion proceeding with regularity. Pure space,\nyou say, can neither be matter, nor spirit; and as there is nothing in\nthis world but matter and spirit, there can therefore be no space.\n\nSo, gentlemen, you assert that there is only matter and spirit, to us\nwho know so little either of the one or the other--a pleasant decision,\ntruly! \"There are only two things in nature, and these we know not.\"\nMontezuma reasons more justly in the English tragedy of Dryden: \"Why\ncome you here to tell me of the emperor Charles the Fifth? There are\nbut two emperors in the world; he of Peru and myself.\" Montezuma spoke\nof two things with which he was acquainted, but we speak of two things\nof which we have no precise idea.\n\nWe are very pleasant atoms. We make God a spirit in a mode of our own;\nand because we denominate that faculty spirit, which the supreme,\nuniversal, eternal, and all-powerful Being has given us, of combining a\nfew ideas in our little brain, of the extent of six inches more or less,\nwe suppose God to be a spirit in the same sense. God always in _our_\nimage--honest souls!\n\nBut how, if there be millions of beings of another nature from our\nmatter, of which we know only a few qualities, and from our spirit, our\nideal breath of which we accurately know nothing at all? and who can\nassert that these millions of beings exist not; or suspects not that\nGod, demonstrated to exist by His works, is eminently different from all\nthese beings, and that space may not be one of them?\n\nWe are far from asserting with Lucretius--\n\n     _Ergo, pr\u00e6ter inane et corpora, tertia per se_\n     _Nulla potest rerum in numero natura referri._\n                                --LIB., i, v. 446, 447.\n\n     That all consists of body and of space.--CREECH.\n\nBut may we venture to believe with him, that space is infinite?\n\nHas any one been ever able to answer his question: Speed an arrow from\nthe limits of the world--will it fall into nothing, into nihility?\n\nClarke, who spoke in the name of Newton, pretends that \"space has\nproperties, for since it is extended, it is measurable, and therefore\nexists.\" But if we answer, that something may be put where there is\nnothing, what answer will be made by Newton and Clarke?\n\nNewton regards space as the sensorium of God. I thought that I\nunderstood this grand saying formerly, because I was young; at present,\nI understand it no more than his explanation of the Apocalypse. Space,\nthe sensorium, the internal organ of God! I lose both Newton and myself\nthere.\n\nNewton thought, according to Locke, that the creation might be explained\nby supposing that God, by an act of His will and His power, had rendered\nspace impenetrable. It is melancholy that a genius so profound as that\npossessed by Newton should suggest such unintelligible things.\n\n\n\n\nSTAGE (POLICE OF THE).\n\n\nKings of France were formerly excommunicated; all from Philip I. to\nLouis VIII. were solemnly so; as also the emperors from Henry IV. to\nLouis of Bavaria inclusively. The kings of England had likewise a very\ndecent part of these favors from the court of Rome. It was the rage of\nthe times, and this rage cost six or seven hundred thousand men their\nlives. They actually excommunicated the representatives of monarchs; I\ndo not mean ambassadors, but players, who are kings and emperors three\nor four times a week, and who govern the universe to procure a\nlivelihood.\n\nI scarcely know of any but this profession, and that of magicians, to\nwhich this honor could now be paid; but as sorcerers have ceased for the\neighty years that sound philosophy has been known to men, there are no\nlonger any victims but Alexander, C\u00e6sar, Athalie, Polyeucte, Andromache,\nBrutus, Za\u00efre, and Harlequin.\n\nThe principal reason given is, that these gentlemen and ladies represent\nthe passions; but if depicting the human heart merits so horrible a\ndisgrace, a greater rigor should be used with painters and sculptors.\nThere are many licentious pictures which are publicly sold, while we do\nnot represent a single dramatic poem which maintains not the strictest\ndecorum. The Venus of Titian and that of Correggio are quite naked, and\nare at all times dangerous for our modest youth; but comedians only\nrecite the admirable lines of \"Cinna\" for about two hours, and with the\napprobation of the magistracy under the royal authority. Why, therefore,\nare these living personages on the stage more condemned than these mute\ncomedians on canvas? \"_Ut pictura poesis erit_.\" What would Sophocles\nand Euripides have said, if they could have foreseen that a people, who\nonly ceased to be barbarous by imitating them, would one day inflict\nthis disgrace upon the stage, which in their time received such high\nglory?\n\nEsopus and Roscius were not Roman senators, it is true; but the Flamen\ndid not declare them infamous; and the art of Terence was not doubted.\nThe great pope and prince, Leo X., to whom we owe the renewal of good\ntragedy and comedy in Europe, and who caused dramatic pieces to be\nrepresented in his palace with so much magnificence, foresaw not that\none day, in a part of Gaul, the descendants of the Celts and the Goths\nwould believe they had a right to disgrace that which he honored. If\nCardinal Richelieu had lived--he who caused the Palais Royal to be\nbuilt, and to whom France owes the stage--he would no longer have\nsuffered them to have dared to cover with ignominy those whom he\nemployed to recite his own works.\n\nIt must be confessed that they were heretics who began to outrage the\nfinest of all the arts. Leo X., having revived the tragic scene, the\npretended reformers required nothing more to convince them that it was\nthe work of Satan. Thus the town of Geneva, and several illustrious\nplaces of Switzerland, have been a hundred and fifty years without\nsuffering a violin amongst them. The Jansenists, who now dance on the\ntomb of St. Paris, to the great edification of the neighborhood, in the\nlast century forbade a princess of Conti, whom they governed, to allow\nher son to learn dancing, saying that dancing was too profane. However,\nas it was necessary he should be graceful, he was taught the minuet, but\nthey would not allow a violin, and the director was a long time before\nhe would suffer the prince of Conti to be taught with castanets. A few\nCatholic Visigoths on this side the Alps, therefore, fearing the\nreproaches of the reformers, cried as loudly as they did. Thus, by\ndegrees, the fashion of defaming C\u00e6sar and Pompey, and of refusing\ncertain ceremonies to certain persons paid by the king, and laboring\nunder the eyes of the magistracy, was established in France. We do not\ndeclaim against this abuse; for who would embroil himself with powerful\nmen of the present time, for hedra and heroes of past ages?\n\nWe are content with finding this rigor absurd, and with always paying\nour full tribute of admiration to the masterpieces of our stage.\n\nRome, from whom we have learned our catechism, does not use it as we do;\nshe has always known how to temper her laws according to times and\noccasions; she has known how to distinguish impudent mountebanks, who\nwere formerly rightly censured, from the dramatic pieces of Trissin, and\nof several bishops and cardinals who have assisted to revive tragedy.\nEven at present, comedies are publicly represented at Rome in religious\nhouses. Ladies go to them without scandal; they think not that\ndialogues, recited on boards, are a diabolical infamy. We have even seen\nthe piece of \"George Dandin\" executed at Rome by nuns, in the presence\nof a crowd of ecclesiastics and ladies. The wise Romans are above all\ncareful how they excommunicate the gentlemen who sing the trebles in the\nItalian operas; for, in truth, it is enough to be castrated in this\nworld, without being damned in the other.\n\nIn the good time of Louis XIV., there was always a bench at the\nspectacles, which was called the bench of bishops. I have been a\nwitness, that in the minority of Louis XV., Cardinal Fleury, then bishop\nof Fr\u00e9jus, was very anxious to revive this custom. With other times and\nother manners, we are apparently much wiser than in the times in which\nthe whole of Europe came to admire our shows, when Richelieu revived the\nstage in France, when Leo X. renewed the age of Augustus in Italy: but a\ntime will come in which our children, seeing the impertinent work of\nFather Le Brun against the art of Sophocles, and the works of our great\nmen printed at the same time, will exclaim: Is it possible that the\nFrench could thus contradict themselves, and that the most absurd\nbarbarity has so proudly raised its head against some of the finest\nproductions of the human mind?\n\nSt. Thomas of Aquinas, whose morals were equal to those of Calvin and\nFather Quesnel--St. Thomas, who had never seen good comedy, and who knew\nonly miserable players, thinks however that the theatre might be useful.\nHe had sufficient good sense and justice to feel the merit of this art,\nunfinished as it was, and permitted and approved of it. St. Charles\nBorromeo personally examined the pieces which were played at Milan, and\ngave them his approbation and signature. Who after that will be\nVisigoths enough to treat Roderigo and Chimene as soul-corrupters?\nWould to God that these barbarians, the enemies of the finest of arts,\nhad the piety of Polyeucte, the clemency of Augustus, the virtue of\nBurrhus, and would die like the husband of Al-zira!\n\n\n\n\nSTATES--GOVERNMENTS.\n\n\nWhich is the best? I have not hitherto known any person who has not\ngoverned some state. I speak not of messieurs the ministers, who really\ngovern; some two or three years, others six months, and others six\nweeks; I speak of all other men, who, at supper or in their closet,\nunfold their systems of government, and reform armies, the Church, the\ngown, and finances.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 de Bourzeis began to govern France towards the year 1645, under\nthe name of Cardinal Richelieu, and made the \"Political Testament,\" in\nwhich he would enlist the nobility into the cavalry for three years,\nmake chambers of accounts and parliaments pay the poll-tax, and deprive\nthe king of the produce of the excise. He asserts, above all, that to\nenter a country with fifty thousand men, it is essential to economy that\na hundred thousand should be raised. He affirms that \"Provence alone has\nmore fine seaports than Spain and Italy together.\"\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 de Bourzeis had not travelled. As to the rest, his work abounds\nwith anachronisms and errors; and as he makes Cardinal Richelieu sign\nin a manner in which he never signed, so he makes him speak as he had\nnever spoken. Moreover, he fills a whole chapter with saying that reason\nshould guide a state, and in endeavoring to prove this discovery. This\nwork of obscurities, this bastard of the Abb\u00e9 de Bourzeis, has long\npassed for the legitimate offspring of the Cardinal Richelieu; and all\nacademicians, in their speeches of reception, fail not to praise\nextravagantly this political masterpiece.\n\nThe Sieur Gatien de Courtilz, seeing the success of the \"_Testament\nPolitique_\" of Richelieu, published at The Hague the \"_Testament de\nColbert_\" with a fine letter of M. Colbert to the king. It is clear that\nif this minister made such a testament, it must have been suppressed;\nyet this book has been quoted by several authors.\n\nAnother ignoramus, of whose name we are ignorant, failed not to produce\nthe \"_Testament de Louis_\" still worse, if possible, than that of\nColbert. An abb\u00e9 of Chevremont also made Charles, duke of Lorraine, form\na testament. We have had the political testaments of Cardinal Alberoni,\nMarshal Belle-Isle, and finally that of Mandrin.\n\nM. de Boisguillebert, author of the \"D\u00e9tail de la France\" published in\n1695, produced the impracticable project of the royal tithe, under the\nname of the marshal de Vauban.\n\nA madman, named La Jonchere, wanting bread, wrote, in 1720, a \"Project\nof Finance,\" in four volumes; and some fools have quoted this\nproduction as a work of La Jonchere, the treasurer-general, imagining\nthat a treasurer could not write a bad book on finance.\n\nBut it must be confessed that very wise men, perhaps very worthy to\ngovern, have written on the administration of states in France, Spain,\nand England. Their books have done much good; not that they have\ncorrected ministers who were in place when these books appeared, for a\nminister does not and cannot correct himself. He has attained his\ngrowth, and more instruction, more counsel, he has not time to listen\nto. The current of affairs carries him away; but good books form, young\npeople, destined for their places; and princes and statesmen of a\nsucceeding generation are instructed.\n\nThe strength and weakness of all governments has been narrowly examined\nin latter times. Tell me, then, you who have travelled, who have read\nand have seen, in what state, under what sort of government, would you\nbe born? I conceive that a great landed lord in France would have no\nobjection to be born in Germany: he would be a sovereign instead of a\nsubject. A peer of France would be very glad to have the privileges of\nthe English peerage: he would be a legislator. The gownsman and\nfinancier would find himself better off in France than elsewhere. But\nwhat country would a wise freeman choose--a man of small fortune,\nwithout prejudices?\n\nA rather learned member of the council of Pondicherry came into Europe,\nby land, with a brahmin, more learned than the generality of them. \"How\ndo you find the government of the Great Mogul?\" said the counsellor.\n\"Abominable,\" answered the brahmin; \"how can you expect a state to be\nhappily governed by Tartars? Our rajahs, our omras, and our nabobs are\nvery contented, but the citizens are by no means so; and millions of\ncitizens are something.\"\n\nThe counsellor and the brahmin traversed all Upper Asia, reasoning on\ntheir way. \"I reflect,\" said the brahmin, \"that there is not a republic\nin all this vast part of the world.\" \"There was formerly that of Tyre,\"\nsaid the counsellor, \"but it lasted not long; there was another towards\nArabia Petr\u00e6a, in a little nook called Palestine--if we can honor with\nthe name of republic a horde of thieves and usurers, sometimes governed\nby judges, sometimes by a sort of kings, sometimes by high priests; who\nbecame slaves seven or eight times, and were finally driven from the\ncountry which they had usurped.\"\n\n\"I fancy,\" said the brahmin, \"that we should find very few republics on\nearth. Men are seldom worthy to govern themselves. This happiness should\nonly belong to little people, who conceal themselves in islands, or\nbetween mountains, like rabbits who steal away from carnivorous animals,\nbut at length are discovered and devoured.\"\n\nWhen the travellers arrived in Asia Minor, the counsellor said to the\nbrahmin, \"Would you believe that there was a republic formed in a corner\nof Italy, which lasted more than five hundred years, and which\npossessed this Asia Minor, Asia, Africa, Greece, the Gauls, Spain, and\nthe whole of Italy?\" \"It was therefore soon turned into a monarchy?\"\nsaid the brahmin. \"You have guessed it,\" said the other; \"but this\nmonarchy has fallen, and every day we make fine dissertations to\ndiscover the causes of its decay and fall.\" \"You take much useless\npains,\" said the Indian: \"this empire has fallen because it existed. All\nmust fall. I hope that the same will happen to the empire of the Great\nMogul.\" \"Apropos,\" said the European, \"do you believe that more honor is\nrequired in a despotic state, and more virtue in a republic?\" The term\n\"honor\" being first explained to the Indian, he replied, that honor was\nmore necessary in a republic, and that there is more need of virtue in a\nmonarchical state. \"For,\" said he, \"a man who pretends to be elected by\nthe people, will not be so, if he is dishonored; while at court he can\neasily obtain a place, according to the maxim of a great prince, that to\nsucceed, a courtier should have neither honor nor a will of his own.\nWith respect to virtue, it is prodigiously required in a court, in order\nto dare to tell the truth. The virtuous man is much more at his ease in\na republic, having nobody to flatter.\"\n\n\"Do you believe,\" said the European, \"that laws and religions can be\nformed for climates, the same as furs are required at Moscow, and gauze\nstuffs at Delhi?\" \"Yes, doubtless,\" said the brahmin; \"all laws which\nconcern physics are calculated for the meridian which we inhabit; a\nGerman requires only one wife, and a Persian must have two or three.\n\n\"Rites of religion are of the same nature. If I were a Christian, how\nwould you have me say mass in my province, where there is neither bread\nnor wine? With regard to dogmas, it is another thing; climate has\nnothing to do with them. Did not your religion commence in Asia, from\nwhence it was driven? does it not exist towards the Baltic Sea, where it\nwas unknown?\"\n\n\"In what state, under what dominion, would you like to live?\" said the\ncounsellor. \"Under any but my own,\" said his companion, \"and I have\nfound many Siamese, Tonquinese, Persians, and Turks who have said the\nsame.\" \"But, once more,\" said the European, \"what state would you\nchoose?\" The brahmin answered, \"That in which the laws alone are\nobeyed.\" \"That is an odd answer,\" said the counsellor. \"It is not the\nworse for that,\" said the brahmin. \"Where is this country?\" said the\ncounsellor. The brahmin: \"We must seek it.\"\n\n\n\n\nSTATES-GENERAL.\n\n\nThere have been always such in Europe, and probably in all the earth, so\nnatural is it to assemble the family, to know its interests, and to\nprovide for its wants! The Tartars had their _cour-ilt\u00e9_. The Germans,\naccording to Tacitus, assembled to consult. The Saxons and people of the\nNorth had their _witenagemot_. The people at large formed\nstates-general in the Greek and Roman republics.\n\nWe see none among the Egyptians, Persians, or Chinese, because we have\nbut very imperfect fragments of their histories: we scarcely know\nanything of them until since the time in which their kings were\nabsolute, or at least since the time in which they had only priests to\nbalance their authority.\n\nWhen the comitia were abolished at Rome, the Pr\u00e6torian guards took their\nplace: insolent, greedy, barbarous, and idle soldiers were the republic.\nSeptimius Severus conquered and disbanded them.\n\nThe states-general of the Ottoman Empire are the janissaries and\ncavalry; in Algiers and Tunis, it is the militia. The greatest and most\nsingular example of these states-general is the Diet of Ratisbon, which\nhas lasted a hundred years, where the representatives of the empire, the\nministers of electors, princes, counts, prelates and imperial cities, to\nthe number of thirty-seven, continually sit.\n\nThe second states-general of Europe are those of Great Britain. They are\nnot always assembled, like the Diet of Ratisbon; but they are become so\nnecessary that the king convokes them every year.\n\nThe House of Commons answers precisely to the deputies of cities\nreceived in the diet of the empire; but it is much larger in number, and\nenjoys a superior power. It is properly the nation. Peers and bishops\nare in parliament only for themselves, and the House of Commons for all\nthe country.\n\nThis parliament of England is only a perfected imitation of certain\nstates-general of France. In 1355, under King John, the three states\nwere assembled at Paris, to aid him against the English. They granted\nhim a considerable sum, at five livres five sous the mark, for fear the\nking should change the numerary value. They regulated the tax necessary\nto gather in this money, and they established nine commissioners to\npreside at the receipt. The king promised for himself and his\nsuccessors, not to make any change in the coin in future.\n\nWhat is promising for himself and his heirs? Either it is promising\nnothing, or it is saying: Neither myself nor my heirs have the right of\naltering the money; we have not the power of doing ill.\n\nWith this money, which was soon raised, an army was quickly formed,\nwhich prevented not King John from being made prisoner at the battle of\nPoitiers.\n\nAccount should be rendered at the end of the year, of the employment of\nthe granted sum. This is now the custom in England, with the House of\nCommons. The English nation has preserved all that the French nation has\nlost.\n\nThe states-general of Sweden have a custom still more honorable to\nhumanity, which is not found among any other people. They admit into\ntheir assemblies two hundred peasants, who form a body separated from\nthe three others, and who maintain the liberty of those who labor for\nthe subsistence of man.\n\nThe states-general of Denmark took quite a contrary resolution in 1660;\nthey deprived themselves of all their rights, in favor of the king. They\ngave him an absolute and unlimited power; but what is more strange is,\nthat they have not hitherto repented it.\n\nThe states-general in France have not been assembled since 1613, and the\ncortes of Spain lasted a hundred years after. The latter were assembled\nin 1712, to confirm the renunciation of Philip V., of the crown of\nFrance. These states-general have not been convoked since that\ntime.\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 09","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":80995}