{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35630/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35630","id":"gutenberg_35630","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35630","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: French Literature","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Criticism (Philosophy)","Philosophy -- Dictionaries"],"text":"</pre>\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nVOLUME X\n\nBy\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\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 XIV\n\nE.R. DuMONT\n\nPARIS--LONDON--NEW YORK--CHICAGO\n\n1901\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES--VOL. X\n\nVOLTAIRE'S REMAINS ON THE BASTILLE--_Frontispiece_\n\nTHE DEATH OF SOCRATES\n\nTHE VISION\n\nPIERRE CORNEILLE\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\n[Illustration: Throned Upon The Ruins Of The Bastille. \"For one night,\nupon the ruins of the Bastille, rested the body of Voltaire, on fallen\nwall and broken aroh, above the dungeons where light had faded from the\nlives of men, and hope had died in breaking hearts. The conqueror,\nresting upon the conquered; throned upon the Bastille, the fallen\nfortress of night.\"--INGERSOLL.]\n\n\n\n\nVOLTAIRE\n\nA PHILOSOPHICAL DICTIONARY\n\nIN TEN VOLUMES\n\nVOL. X.\n\nSTYLE--ZOROASTER\n\nAND DECLARATION OF THE AMATEURS, INQUIRERS, AND DOUBTERS\n\n\n\n\nSTYLE.\n\n\nIt is very strange that since the French people became literary they\nhave had no book written in a good style, until the year 1654, when the\n\"Provincial Letters\" appeared; and why had no one written history in a\nsuitable tone, previous to that of the \"Conspiracy of Venice\" of the\nAbb\u00e9 St. R\u00e9al? How is it that Pellisson was the first who adopted the\ntrue Ciceronian style, in his memoir for the superintendent Fouquet?\n\nNothing is more difficult and more rare than a style altogether suitable\nto the subject in hand.\n\nThe style of the letters of Balzac would not be amiss for funeral\norations; and we have some physical treatises in the style of the epic\npoem or the ode. It is proper that all things occupy their own places.\n\nAffect not strange terms of expression, or new words, in a treatise on\nreligion, like the Abb\u00e9 Houteville; neither declaim in a physical\ntreatise. Avoid pleasantry in the mathematics, and flourish and\nextravagant figures in a pleading. If a poor intoxicated woman dies of\nan apoplexy, you say that she is in the regions of death; they bury her,\nand you exclaim that her mortal remains are confided to the earth. If\nthe bell tolls at her burial, it is her funeral knell ascending to the\nskies. In all this you think you imitate Cicero, and you only copy\nMaster Littlejohn....\n\nWithout style, it is impossible that there can be a good work in any\nkind of eloquence or poetry. A profusion of words is the great vice of\nall our modern philosophers and anti-philosophers. The \"_Syst\u00e8me de la\nNature_\" is a great proof of this truth. It is very difficult to give\njust ideas of God and nature, and perhaps equally so to form a good\nstyle.\n\nAs the kind of execution to be employed by every artist depends upon the\nsubject of which he treats--as the line of Poussin is not that of\nTeniers, nor the architecture of a temple that of a common house, nor\nmusic of a serious opera that of a comic one--so has each kind of\nwriting its proper style, both in prose and verse. It is obvious that\nthe style of history is not that of a funeral oration, and that the\ndespatch of an ambassador ought not to be written like a sermon; that\ncomedy is not to borrow the boldness of the ode, the pathetic expression\nof the tragedy, nor the metaphors and similes of the epic.\n\nEvery species has its different shades, which may, however, be reduced\nto two, the simple and the elevated. These two kinds, which embrace so\nmany others, possess essential beauties in common, which beauties are\naccuracy of idea, adaptation, elegance, propriety of expression, and\npurity of language. Every piece of writing, whatever its nature, calls\nfor these qualities; the difference consists in the employment of the\ncorresponding tropes. Thus, a character in comedy will not utter sublime\nor philosophical ideas, a shepherd spout the notions of a conqueror, not\na didactic epistle breathe forth passion; and none of these forms of\ncomposition ought to exhibit bold metaphor, pathetic exclamation, or\nvehement expression.\n\nBetween the simple and the sublime there are many shades, and it is the\nart of adjusting them which contributes to the perfection of eloquence\nand poetry. It is by this art that Virgil frequently exalts the eclogue.\nThis verse: _Ut vidi ut perii, ut me malus abstulit error!_ (Eclogue\nviii, v. 41)--I saw, I perished, yet indulged my pain! (Dryden)--would\nbe as fine in the mouth of Dido as in that of a shepherd, because it is\nnature, true and elegant, and the sentiment belongs to any condition.\nBut this:\n\n     _Castaneasque nuces me quas Amaryllis amabat._\n                                  --_Eclogue, ii, v. 52._.\n\n     And pluck the chestnuts from the neighboring grove,\n     Such as my Amaryllis used to love.\n                                        --DRYDEN.\n\nbelongs not to an heroic personage, because the allusion is not such as\nwould be made by a hero.\n\nThese two instances are examples of the cases in which the mingling of\nstyles may be defended. Tragedy may occasionally stoop; it even ought to\ndo so. Simplicity, according to the precept of Horace, often relieves\ngrandeur. _Et tragicus plerumque dolet sermone pedestri_ (_Ars Poet._,\nv. 95)--And oft the tragic language humbly flows (Francis).\n\nThese two verses in Titus, so natural and so tender:\n\n     _Depuis cinq ans entiers chaque jour je la vois._\n     _Et crois toujours la voir pour la premi\u00e8re fois._\n                             --B\u00c9R\u00c9NICE, acte ii, scene 1.\n\n     Each day, for five years, have I seen her face,\n     And each succeeding time appears the first.\n\nwould not be at all out of place in serious comedy; but the following\nverse of Antiochus: _Dans l'orient desert quel devint mon ennui!_ (Id.,\nacte i, scene 4)--The lonely east, how wearisome to me!--would not suit\na lover in comedy; the figure of the \"lonely east\" is too elevated for\nthe simplicity of the buskin. We have already remarked, that an author\nwho writes on physics, in allusion to a writer on physics, called\nHercules, adds that he is not able to resist a philosopher so powerful.\nAnother who has written a small book, which he imagines to be physical\nand moral, against the utility of inoculation, says that if the smallpox\nbe diffused artificially, death will be defrauded.\n\nThe above defect springs from a ridiculous affectation. There is another\nwhich is the result of negligence, which is that of mingling with the\nsimple and noble style required by history, popular phrases and low\nexpressions, which are inimical to good taste. We often read in M\u00e9zeray,\nand even in Daniel, who, having written so long after him, ought to be\nmore correct, that \"a general pursued at the heels of the enemy,\nfollowed his track, and utterly basted him\"--_\u00e0 plate couture_. We read\nnothing of this kind in Livy, Tacitus, Guicciardini, or Clarendon.\n\nLet us observe, that an author accustomed to this kind of style can\nseldom change it with his subject. In his operas, La Fontaine composed\nin the style of his fables; and Benserade, in his translation of Ovid's\n\"Metamorphoses,\" exhibited the same kind of pleasantry which rendered\nhis madrigals successful. Perfection consists in knowing how to adapt\nour style to the various subjects of which we treat; but who is\naltogether the master of his habits, and able to direct his genius at\npleasure?\n\n\nVARIOUS STYLES DISTINGUISHED.\n\n_The Feeble._\n\nWeakness of the heart is not that of the mind, nor weakness of the soul\nthat of the heart. A feeble soul is without resource in action, and\nabandons itself to those who govern it. The _heart_ which is weak or\nfeeble is easily softened, changes its inclinations with facility,\nresists not the seduction or the ascendency required, and may subsist\nwith a strong _mind_; for we may think strongly and act weakly. The weak\nmind receives impressions without resistance, embraces opinions without\nexamination, is alarmed without cause, and tends naturally to\nsuperstition.\n\nA work may be feeble either in its matter or its style; by the\nthoughts, when too common, or when, being correct, they are not\nsufficiently profound; and by the style, when it is destitute of images,\nor turns of expression, and of figures which rouse attention. Compared\nwith those of Bossuet, the funeral orations of Mascaron are weak, and\nhis style is lifeless.\n\nEvery speech is feeble when it is not relieved by ingenious turns, and\nby energetic expressions; but a pleader is weak, when, with all the aid\nof eloquence, and all the earnestness of action, he fails in\nratiocination. No philosophical work is feeble, notwithstanding the\ndeficiency of its style, if the reasoning be correct and profound. A\ntragedy is weak, although the style be otherwise, when the interest is\nnot sustained. The best-written comedy is feeble if it fails in that\nwhich the Latins call the \"_vis comica_,\" which is the defect pointed\nout by C\u00e6sar in Terence: \"_Lenibus atque utinam scriptis adjuncta foret\nvis comica!_\"\n\nThis is above all the sin of the weeping or sentimental comedy\n(_larmoyante_). Feeble verses are not those which sin against rules, but\nagainst genius; which in their mechanism are without variety, without\nchoice expression, or felicitous inversions; and which retain in poetry\nthe simplicity and homeliness of prose. The distinction cannot be better\ncomprehended than by a reference to the similar passages of Racine and\nCampistron, his imitator.\n\n_Flowery Style._\n\n\"Flowery,\" that which is in blossom; a tree in blossom, a rose-bush in\nblossom: people do not say, flowers which blossom. Of flowery bloom, the\ncarnation seems a mixture of white and rose-color. We sometimes say a\nflowery mind, to signify a person possessing a lighter species of\nliterature, and whose imagination is lively.\n\nA flowery discourse is more replete with agreeable than with strong\nthoughts, with images more sparkling than sublime, and terms more\ncurious than forcible. This metaphor is correctly taken from flowers,\nwhich are showy without strength or stability.\n\nThe flowery style is not unsuitable to public speeches or addresses\nwhich amount only to compliment. The lighter beauties are in their place\nwhen there is nothing more solid to say; but the flowery style should be\nbanished from a pleading, a sermon, or a didactic work.\n\nWhile banishing the flowery style, we are not to reject the soft and\nlively images which enter naturally into the subject; a few flowers are\neven admissible; but the flowery style cannot be made suitable to a\nserious subject.\n\nThis style belongs to productions of mere amusement; to idyls, eclogues,\nand descriptions of the seasons, or of gardens. It may gracefully occupy\na portion of the most sublime ode, provided it be duly relieved by\nstanzas of more masculine beauty. It has little to do with comedy,\nwhich, as it ought to possess a resemblance to common life, requires\nmore of the style of ordinary conversation. It is still less admissible\nin tragedy, which is the province of strong passions and momentous\ninterests; and when occasionally employed in tragedy or comedy, it is in\ncertain descriptions in which the heart takes no part, and which amuse\nthe imagination without moving or occupying the soul.\n\nThe flowery style detracts from the interest of tragedy, and weakens\nridicule in comedy. It is in its place in the French opera, which rather\nflourishes on the passions than exhibits them. The flowery is not to be\nconfounded with the easy style, which rejects this class of\nembellishment.\n\n_Coldness of Style._\n\nIt is said that a piece of poetry, of eloquence, of music, and even of\npainting, is cold, when we look for an animated expression in it, which\nwe find not. Other arts are not so susceptible of this defect; for\ninstance, architecture, geometry, logic, metaphysics, all the principal\nmerit of which is correctness, cannot properly be called warm or cold.\nThe picture of the family of Darius, by Mignard, is very cold in\ncomparison with that of Lebrun, because we do not discover in the\npersonages of Mignard the same affliction which Lebrun has so animatedly\nexpressed in the attitudes and countenances of the Persian princesses.\nEven a statue may be cold; we ought to perceive fear and horror in the\nfeatures of an Andromeda, the effect of a writhing of the muscles; and\nanger mingled with courageous boldness in the attitude and on the brow\nof Hercules, who suspends and strangles Ant\u00e6us.\n\nIn poetry and eloquence the great movements of the soul become cold,\nwhen they are expressed in common terms, and are unaided by imagination.\nIt is this latter which makes love so animated in Racine, and so languid\nin his imitator, Campistron.\n\nThe sentiments which escape from a soul which seeks concealment, on the\ncontrary, require the most simple expression. Nothing is more animated\nthan those verses in \"The Cid\": \"Go; I hate thee not--thou knowest it; I\ncannot.\" This feeling would become cold, if conveyed in studied phrases.\n\nFor this reason, nothing is so cold as the timid style. A hero in a poem\nsays, that he has encountered a tempest, and that he has beheld his\nfriend perish in the storm. He touches and affects, if he speaks with\nprofound grief of his loss--that is, if he is more occupied with his\nfriend than with all the rest; but he becomes cold, and ceases to affect\nus, if he amuses us with a description of the tempest; if he speaks of\nthe source of \"the fire which was boiling up the waters, and of the\nthunder which roars and which redoubles the furrows of the earth and of\nthe waves.\" Coldness of style, therefore, often arises from a sterility\nof ideas; often from a deficiency in the power of governing them;\nfrequently from a too common diction, and sometimes from one that is\ntoo far-fetched.\n\nThe author who is cold only in consequence of being animated out of time\nand place, may correct this defect of a too fruitful imagination; but he\nwho is cold from a deficiency of soul is incapable of self-correction.\nWe may allay a fire which is too intense, but cannot acquire heat if we\nhave none.\n\n_On Corruption of Style._\n\nA general complaint is made, that eloquence is corrupted, although we\nhave models of almost all kinds. One of the greatest defects of the day,\nwhich contributes most to this defect, is the mixture of style. It\nappears to me, that we authors do not sufficiently imitate the painters,\nwho never introduce the attitudes of Calot with the figures of Raphael.\nI perceive in histories, otherwise tolerably well written, and in good\ndoctrinal works, the familiar style of conversation. Some one has\nformerly said, that we must write as we speak; the sense of which law\nis, that we should write naturally. We tolerate irregularity in a\nletter, freedom as to style, incorrectness, and bold pleasantries,\nbecause letters, written spontaneously, without particular object or\nact, are negligent conversations; but when we speak or treat of a\nsubject formally, some attention is due to decorum; and to whom ought we\nto pay more respect than to the public?\n\nIs it allowable to write in a mathematical work, that \"a geometrician\nwho would pay his devotions, ought to ascend to heaven in a right line;\nthat evanescent quantities turn up their noses at the earth for having\ntoo much elevated them; that a seed sown in the ground takes an\nopportunity to release and amuse itself; that if Saturn should perish,\nit would be his fifth and not his first satellite that would take his\nplace, because kings always keep their heirs at a distance; that there\nis no void except in the purse of a ruined man; that when Hercules\ntreats of physics, no one is able to resist a philosopher of his degree\nof power?\" etc.\n\nSome very valuable works are infected with this fault. The source of a\ndefect so common seems to me to be the accusation of pedantry, so long\nand so justly made against authors. \"_In vitium ducit culp\u00e6 fuga._\" It\nis frequently said, that we ought to write in the style of good company;\nthat the most serious authors are becoming agreeable: that is to say, in\norder to exhibit the manners of good company to their readers, they\ndeliver themselves in the style of very bad company.\n\nAuthors have sought to speak of science as Voiture spoke to Mademoiselle\nPaulet of gallantry, without dreaming that Voiture by no means exhibits\na correct taste in the species of composition in which he was esteemed\nexcellent; for he often takes the false for the refined, and the\naffected for the natural. Pleasantry is never good on serious points,\nbecause it always regards subjects in that point of view in which it is\nnot the purpose to consider them. It almost always turns upon false\nrelations and equivoque, whence jokers by profession usually possess\nminds as incorrect as they are superficial.\n\nIt appears to me, that it is as improper to mingle styles in poetry as\nin prose. The macaroni style has for some time past injured poetry by\nthis medley of mean and of elevated, of ancient and of modern\nexpression. In certain moral pieces it is not musical to hear the\nwhistle of Rabelais in the midst of sounds from the flute of Horace--a\npractice which we should leave to inferior minds, and attend to the\nlessons of good sense and of Boileau. The following is a singular\ninstance of style, in a speech delivered at Versailles in 1745:\n\n_Speech Addressed to the King (Louis XV.) by M. le Camus, First\nPresident of the Court of Aids._\n\n\"Sire--The conquests of your majesty are so rapid, that it will be\nnecessary to consult the power of belief on the part of posterity, and\nto soften their surprise at so many miracles, for fear that heroes\nshould hold themselves dispensed from imitation, and people in general\nfrom believing them.\n\n\"But no, sire, it will be impossible for them to doubt it, when they\nshall read in history that your majesty has been at the head of your\ntroops, recording them yourself in the field of Mars upon a drum. This\nis to engrave them eternally in the temple of Memory.\n\n\"Ages the most distant will learn, that the English, that bold and\naudacious foe, that enemy so jealous of your glory, have been obliged to\nturn away from your victory; that their allies have been witnesses of\ntheir shame, and that all of them have hastened to the combat only to\nimmortalize the glory of the conqueror.\n\n\"We venture to say to your majesty, relying on the love that you bear to\nyour people, that there is but one way of augmenting our happiness,\nwhich is to diminish your courage; as heaven would lavish its prodigies\nat too costly a rate, if they increased your dangers, or those of the\nyoung heroes who constitute our dearest hopes.\"\n\n\n\n\nSUPERSTITION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nI have sometimes heard you say--We are no longer superstitious; the\nreformation of the sixteenth century has made us more prudent; the\nProtestants have taught us better manners.\n\nBut what then is the blood of a St. Januarius, which you liquefy every\nyear by bringing it near his head? Would it not be better to make ten\nthousand beggars earn their bread, by employing them in useful tasks,\nthan to boil the blood of a saint for their amusement? Think rather how\nto make their pots boil.\n\nWhy do you still, in Rome, bless the horses and mules at St. Mary's the\nGreater? What mean those bands of flagellators in Italy and Spain, who\ngo about singing and giving themselves the lash in the presence of\nladies? Do they think there is no road to heaven but by flogging?\n\nAre those pieces of the true cross, which would suffice to build a\nhundred-gun ship--are the many relics acknowledged to be false--are the\nmany false miracles--so many monuments of an enlightened piety?\n\nFrance boasts of being less superstitious than the neighbors of St.\nJames of Compostello, or those of Our Lady of Loretto. Yet how many\nsacristies are there where you still find pieces of the Virgin's gown,\nvials of her milk, and locks of her hair! And have you not still, in the\nchurch of Puy-en-Velay, her Son's foreskin preciously preserved?\n\nYou all know the abominable farce that has been played, ever since the\nearly part of the fourteenth century, in the chapel of St. Louis, in the\nPalais at Paris, every Maundy Thursday night. All the possessed in the\nkingdom then meet in this church. The convulsions of St. M\u00e9dard fall far\nshort of the horrible grimaces, the dreadful howlings, the violent\ncontortions, made by these wretched people. A piece of the true cross is\ngiven them to kiss, encased in three feet of gold, and adorned with\nprecious stones. Then the cries and contortions are redoubled. The devil\nis then appeased by giving the demoniacs a few sous; but the better to\nrestrain them, fifty archers of the watch are placed in the church with\nfixed bayonets.\n\nThe same execrable farce is played at St. Maur. I could cite twenty such\ninstances. Blush, and correct yourselves.\n\nThere are wise men who assert, that we should leave the people their\nsuperstitions, as we leave them their raree-shows, etc.; that the people\nhave at all times been fond of prodigies, fortune-tellers, pilgrimages,\nand quack-doctors; that in the most remote antiquity they celebrated\nBacchus delivered from the waves, wearing horns, making a fountain of\nwine issue from a rock by a stroke of his wand, passing the Red Sea on\ndry ground with all his people, stopping the sun and moon, etc.; that at\nLaced\u00e6mon they kept the two eggs brought forth by Leda, hanging from the\ndome of a temple; that in some towns of Greece the priests showed the\nknife with which Iphigenia had been immolated, etc.\n\nThere are other wise men who say--Not one of these superstitions has\nproduced any good; many of them have done great harm: let them then be\nabolished.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nI beg of you, my dear reader, to cast your eye for a moment on the\nmiracle which was lately worked in Lower Brittany, in the year of our\nLord 1771. Nothing can be more authentic: this publication is clothed in\nall the legal forms. Read:--\n\n\"_Surprising Account of the Visible and Miraculous Appearance of Our\nLord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar; which was worked\nby the Almighty Power of God in the Parish Church of Paimpole, near\nTr\u00e9guier, in Lower Brittany, on Twelfth-day._\n\n\"On January 6, 1771, being Twelfth-day, during the chanting of the\n_Salve_, rays of light were seen to issue from the consecrated host, and\ninstantly the Lord Jesus was beheld in natural figure, seeming more\nbrilliant than the sun, and was seen for a whole half-hour, during which\nthere appeared a rainbow over the top of the church. The footprints of\nJesus remained on the tabernacle, where they are still to be seen; and\nmany miracles are worked there every day. At four in the afternoon,\nJesus having disappeared from over the tabernacle, the curate of the\nsaid parish approached the altar, and found there a letter which Jesus\nhad left; he would have taken it up, but he found that he could not lift\nit. This curate, together with the vicar, went to give information of it\nto the bishop of Tr\u00e9guier, who ordered the forty-hour prayers to be said\nin all the churches of the town for eight days, during which time the\npeople went in crowds to see this holy letter. At the expiration of the\neight days, the bishop went thither in procession, attended by all the\nregular and secular clergy of the town, after three days' fasting on\nbread and water. The procession having entered the church, the bishop\nknelt down on the steps of the altar; and after asking of God the grace\nto be able to lift this letter, he ascended to the altar and took it up\nwithout difficulty; then, turning to the people, he read it over with a\nloud voice, and recommended to all who could read to peruse this letter\non the first Friday of every month; and to those who could not read, to\nsay five paternosters, and five ave-marias, in honor of the five wounds\nof Jesus Christ, in order to obtain the graces promised to such as shall\nread it devoutly, and the preservation of the fruits of the earth!\nPregnant women are to say, for their happy delivery, nine paters and\nnine aves for the benefit of the souls in purgatory, in order that their\nchildren may have the happiness of receiving the holy sacrament of\nbaptism.\n\n\"All that is contained in this account has been approved by the bishop,\nby the lieutenant-general of the said town of Tr\u00e9guier, and by many\npersons of distinction who were present at this miracle.\"\n\n\"_Copy of the Letter Found Upon the Altar, at the Time of the Miraculous\nAppearance of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the Most Holy Sacrament of the\nAltar, on Twelfth-day, 1771._\n\n\"Everlasting life, everlasting punishments, or everlasting delights,\nnone can forego; one part must be chosen--either to go to glory, or to\ndepart into torment. The number of years that men pass on earth in all\nsorts of sensual pleasures and excessive debaucheries, of usurpation,\nluxury, murder, theft, slander, and impurity, no longer permitting it to\nbe suffered that creatures created in My image and likeness, redeemed by\nthe price of My blood on the tree of the cross, on which I suffered\npassion and death, should offend Me continually, by transgressing My\ncommands and abandoning My divine law--I warn you all, that if you\ncontinue to live in sin, and I behold in you neither remorse, nor\ncontrition, nor a true and sincere confession and satisfaction, I shall\nmake you feel the weight of My divine arm. But for the prayers of My\ndear mother, I should already have destroyed the earth, for the sins\nwhich you commit one against another. I have given you six days to\nlabor, and the seventh to rest, to sanctify My Holy Name, to hear the\nholy mass, and employ the remainder of the day in the service of God My\nFather. But, on the contrary, nothing is to be seen but blasphemy and\ndrunkenness; and so disordered is the world that all in it is vanity and\nlies. Christians, instead of taking compassion on the poor whom they\nbehold every day at their doors, prefer fondling dogs and other animals,\nand letting the poor die of hunger and thirst--abandoning themselves\nentirely to Satan by their avarice, gluttony, and other vices; instead\nof relieving the needy, they prefer sacrificing all to their pleasures\nand debauchery. Thus do they declare war against Me. And you, iniquitous\nfathers and mothers, suffer your children to swear and blaspheme\nagainst My holy name; instead of giving them a good education, you\navariciously lay up for them wealth, which is dedicated to Satan. I tell\nyou, by the mouth of God My Father and My dear mother, of all the\ncherubim and seraphim, and by St. Peter, the head of My church, that if\nyou do not amend your ways, I will send you extraordinary diseases, by\nwhich all shall perish. You shall feel the just anger of God My Father;\nyou shall be reduced to such a state that you shall not know one\nanother. Open your eyes, and contemplate My cross, which I have left to\nbe your weapon against the enemy of mankind, and your guide to eternal\nglory; look upon My head crowned with thorns, My feet and hands pierced\nwith nails; I shed the last drop of My blood to redeem you, from pure\nfatherly love for ungrateful children. Do such works as may secure to\nyou My mercy; do not swear by My Holy Name; pray to Me devoutly; fast\noften; and in particular give alms to the poor, who are members of My\nbody--for of all good works this is the most pleasing to Me; neither\ndespise the widow nor the orphan; make restitution of that which does\nnot belong to you; fly all occasions of sin; carefully keep My\ncommandments; and honor Mary My very dear mother.\n\n\"Such of you who shall not profit by the warnings I give them, such as\nshall not believe My words, will, by their obstinacy, bring down My\navenging arm upon their heads; they shall be overwhelmed by\nmisfortunes, which shall be the forerunners of their final and unhappy\nend; after which they shall be cast into everlasting flames, where they\nshall suffer endless pains--the just punishment reserved for their\ncrimes.\n\n\"On the other hand, such of you as shall make a holy use of the warnings\nof God, given them in this letter, shall appease His wrath, and shall\nobtain from Him, after a sincere confession of their faults, the\nremission of their sins, how great soever they may be.\n\n     \"With permission, Bourges, July 30, 1771.\n\n          \"DE BEAUVOIR, Lieut.-Gen. of Police.\n\n\"This letter must be carefully kept, in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ.\"\n\nN.B.--It must be observed that this piece of absurdity was printed at\nBourges, without there having been, either at Tr\u00e9guier or at Paimpole,\nthe smallest pretence that could afford occasion for such an imposture.\nHowever, we will suppose that in a future age some miracle-finder shall\nthink fit to prove a point in divinity by the appearance of Jesus Christ\non the altar at Paimpole, will he not think himself entitled to quote\nChrist's own letter, printed at Bourges \"with permission\"? Will he not\nprove, by facts, that in our time Jesus worked miracles everywhere? Here\nis a fine field opened for the Houtevilles and the Abadies.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_A Fresh Instance of the Most Horrible Superstition._\n\nThe thirty conspirators who fell upon the king of Poland, in the night\nof November 3, of the present year, 1771, had communicated at the altar\nof the Holy Virgin, and had sworn by the Holy Virgin to butcher their\nking.\n\nIt seems that some one of the conspirators was not entirely in a state\nof grace, when he received into his stomach the body of the Holy\nVirgin's own Son, together with His blood, under the appearance of\nbread; and that while he was taking the oath to kill his king, he had\nhis god in his mouth for only two of the king's domestics. The guns and\npistols fired at his majesty missed him; he received only a slight\nshot-wound in the face, and several sabre-wounds, which were not mortal.\nHis life would have been at an end, but that humanity at length combated\nsuperstition in the breast of one of the assassins named Kosinski. What\na moment was that when this wretched man said to the bleeding prince:\n\"You are, however, my king!\" \"Yes,\" answered Stanislaus Augustus, \"and\nyour good king, who has never done you any harm.\" \"True,\" said the\nother; \"but I have taken an oath to kill you.\"\n\nThey had sworn before the miraculous image of the virgin at Czentoshova.\nThe following is the formula of this fine oath: \"We ---- who, excited\nby a holy and religious zeal, have resolved to avenge the Deity,\nreligion, and our country, outraged by Stanislaus Augustus, a despiser\nof laws both divine and human, a favorer of atheists and heretics, do\npromise and swear, before the sacred and miraculous image of the mother\nof God, to extirpate from the face of the earth him who dishonors her by\ntrampling on religion.... So help us God!\"\n\nThus did the assassins of Sforza, of Medici, and so many other holy\nassassins, have masses said, or say them themselves, for the happy\nsuccess of their undertaking.\n\nThe letter from Warsaw which gives the particulars of this attempt,\nadds: \"The religious who employ their pious ardor in causing blood to\nflow and ravaging their country, have succeeded in Poland, as elsewhere,\nin inculcating on the minds of their affiliated, that it is allowable to\nkill kings.\"\n\nIndeed, the assassins had been hidden in Warsaw for three days in the\nhouse of the reverend Dominican fathers; and when these accessory monks\nwere asked why they had harbored thirty armed men without informing the\ngovernment of it, they answered, that these men had come to perform\ntheir devotions, and to fulfil a vow.\n\nO ye times of Ch\u00e2tel, of Guinard, of Ricodovis, of Poltrot, of\nRavaillac, of Damiens, of Malagrida, are you then returning? Holy\nVirgin, and Thou her holy Son, let not Your sacred names be abused for\nthe commission of the crime which disgraced them!\n\nM. Jean Georges le Franc, bishop of Puy-en-Velay, says, in his immense\npastoral letter to the inhabitants of Puy, pages 258-9, that it is the\nphilosophers who are seditious. And whom does he accuse of sedition?\nReaders, you will be astonished; it is Locke, the wise Locke himself! He\nmakes him an accomplice in the pernicious designs of the earl of\nShaftesbury, one of the heroes of the philosophical party.\n\nAlas! M. Jean Georges, how many mistakes in a few words! First, you take\nthe grandson for the grandfather. The earl of Shaftesbury, author of the\n\"Characteristics\" and the \"Inquiry Into Virtue,\" that \"hero of the\nphilosophical party,\" who died in 1713, cultivated letters all his life\nin the most profound retirement. Secondly, his grandfather,\nLord-Chancellor Shaftesbury, to whom you attribute misdeeds, is\nconsidered by many in England to have been a true patriot. Thirdly,\nLocke is revered as a wise man throughout Europe.\n\nI defy you to show me a single philosopher, from Zoroaster down to\nLocke, that has ever stirred up a sedition; that has ever been concerned\nin an attempt against the life of a king; that has ever disturbed\nsociety; and, unfortunately, I will find you a thousand votaries of\nsuperstition, from Ehud down to Kosinski, stained with the blood of\nkings and with that of nations. Superstition sets the whole world in\nflames; philosophy extinguishes them. Perhaps these poor philosophers\nare not devoted enough to the Holy Virgin; but they are so to God, to\nreason, and to humanity.\n\nPoles! if you are not philosophers, at least do not cut one another's\nthroats. Frenchmen! be gay, and cease to quarrel. Spaniards! let the\nwords \"inquisition\" and \"holy brotherhood\" be no longer uttered among\nyou. Turks, who have enslaved Greece--monks, who have brutalized\nher--disappear ye from the face of the earth.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_Drawn from Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch._\n\nNearly all that goes farther than the adoration of a supreme being, and\nthe submission of the heart to his eternal orders, is superstition. The\nforgiveness of crimes, which is attached to certain ceremonies, is a\nvery dangerous one.\n\n     _Et nigras mactant pecudes, et manibu', divis,_\n     _Inferias mittunt._\n                                  --LUCRETIUS, b. iii, 52-53.\n\n     _O faciles nimium, qui tristia crimina c\u0153dis,_\n       _Fluminea tolli posse putatis aqua!_\n                                  --OVID, _Fasti_ ii, 45-46.\n\nYou think that God will forget your homicide, if you bathe in a river,\nif you immolate a black sheep, and a few words are pronounced over you.\nA second homicide then will be forgiven you at the same price, and so of\na third; and a hundred murders will cost you only a hundred black sheep\nand a hundred ablutions. Ye miserable mortals, do better; but let there\nbe no murders, and no offerings of black sheep.\n\nWhat an infamous idea, to imagine that a priest of Isis and Cybele, by\nplaying cymbals and castanets, will reconcile you to the Divinity. And\nwhat then is this priest of Cybele, this vagrant eunuch, who lives on\nyour weakness, and sets himself up as a mediator between heaven and you?\nWhat patent has he received from God? He receives money from you for\nmuttering words; and you think that the Being of Beings ratifies the\nutterance of this charlatan!\n\nThere are innocent superstitions; you dance on festival days, in honor\nof Diana or Pomona, or some one of the secular divinities of which your\ncalendar is full; be it so. Dancing is very agreeable; it is useful to\nthe body; it exhilarates the mind; it does no harm to any one; but do\nnot imagine that Pomona and Vertumnus are much pleased at your having\njumped in honor of them, and that they may punish you for having failed\nto jump. There are no Pomona and Vertumnus but the gardener's spade and\nhoe. Do not be so imbecile as to believe that your garden will be hailed\nupon, if you have missed dancing the _pyrrhic_ or the _cordax_.\n\nThere is one superstition which is perhaps pardonable, and even\nencouraging to virtue--that of placing among the gods great men who have\nbeen benefactors to mankind. It were doubtless better to confine\nourselves to regarding them simply as venerable men, and above all, to\nimitating them. Venerate, without worshipping, a Solon, a Thales, a\nPythagoras; but do not adore a Hercules for having cleansed the stables\nof Augeas, and for having lain with fifty women in one night.\n\nAbove all, beware of establishing a worship for vagabonds who have no\nmerit but ignorance, enthusiasm, and filth; who have made idleness and\nbeggary their duty and their glory. Do they who have been at best\nuseless during their lives, merit an apotheosis after their deaths? Be\nit observed, that the most superstitious times have always been those of\nthe most horrible crimes.\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\nThe superstitious man is to the knave, what the slave is to the tyrant;\nnay more--the superstitious man is governed by the fanatic, and becomes\na fanatic himself. Superstition, born in Paganism, adopted by Judaism,\ninfected the Church in the earliest ages. All the fathers of the Church,\nwithout exception, believed in the power of magic. The Church always\ncondemned magic, but she always believed in it; she excommunicated\nsorcerers, not as madmen who were in delusion, but as men who really had\nintercourse with the devils.\n\nAt this day, one half of Europe believes that the other half has long\nbeen and still is superstitious. The Protestants regard relics,\nindulgences, macerations, prayers for the dead, holy water, and almost\nall the rites of the Roman church, as mad superstitions. According to\nthem, superstition consists in mistaking useless practices for necessary\nones. Among the Roman Catholics there are some, more enlightened than\ntheir forefathers, who have renounced many of these usages formerly\nsacred; and they defend their adherence to those which they have\nretained, by saying they are indifferent, and what is indifferent cannot\nbe an evil.\n\nIt is difficult to mark the limits of superstition. A Frenchman\ntravelling in Italy thinks almost everything superstitious; nor is he\nmuch mistaken. The archbishop of Canterbury asserts that the archbishop\nof Paris is superstitious; the Presbyterians cast the same reproach upon\nhis grace of Canterbury, and are in their turn called superstitious by\nthe Quakers, who in the eyes of the rest of Christians are the most\nsuperstitious of all.\n\nIt is then nowhere agreed among Christian societies what superstition\nis. The sect which appears to be the least violently attacked by this\nmental disease, is that which has the fewest rites. But if, with but few\nceremonies, it is strongly attached to an absurd belief, that absurd\nbelief is of itself equivalent to all the superstitious practices\nobserved from the time of Simon the Magician, down to that of the curate\nGaufredi. It is therefore evident that what is the foundation of the\nreligion of one sect, is by another sect regarded as superstitious.\n\nThe Mussulmans accuse all Christian societies of it, and are accused of\nit by them. Who shall decide this great cause? Shall not reason? But\neach sect declares that reason is on its side. Force then will decide,\nuntil reason shall have penetrated into a sufficient number of heads to\ndisarm force.\n\nFor instance: there was a time in Christian Europe when a newly married\npair were not permitted to enjoy the nuptial rights, until they had\nbought that privilege of the bishop and the curate. Whosoever, in his\nwill, did not leave a part of his property to the Church, was\nexcommunicated, and deprived of burial. This was called dying\nunconfessed--i.e., not confessing the Christian religion. And when a\nChristian died intestate, the Church relieved the deceased from this\nexcommunication, by making a will for him, stipulating for and enforcing\nthe payment of the pious legacy which the defunct should have made.\n\nTherefore it was, that Pope Gregory IX. and St. Louis ordained, after\nthe Council of Nice, held in 1235, that every will to the making of\nwhich a priest had not been called, should be null; and the pope decreed\nthat the testator and the notary should be excommunicated.\n\nThe tax on sins was, if possible, still more scandalous. It was force\nwhich supported all these laws, to which the superstition of nations\nsubmitted; and it was only in the course of time that reason caused\nthese shameful vexations to be abolished, while it left so many others\nin existence.\n\nHow far does policy permit superstition to be undermined? This is a very\nknotty question; it is like asking how far a dropsical man may be\npunctured without his dying under the operation; this depends on the\nprudence of the physician.\n\nCan there exist a people free from all superstitious prejudices? This is\nasking, Can there exist a people of philosophers? It is said that there\nis no superstition in the magistracy of China. It is likely that the\nmagistracy of some towns in Europe will also be free from it. These\nmagistrates will then prevent the superstition of the people from being\ndangerous. Their example will not enlighten the mob; but the principal\ncitizens will restrain it. Formerly, there was not perhaps a single\nreligious tumult, not a single violence, in which the townspeople did\nnot take part, because these townspeople were then part of the mob; but\nreason and time have changed them. Their ameliorated manners will\nimprove those of the lowest and most ferocious of the populace; of\nwhich, in more countries than one, we have striking examples. In short,\nthe fewer superstitions, the less fanaticism; and the less fanaticism,\nthe fewer calamities.\n\n\n\n\nSYMBOL, OR CREDO.\n\n\nWe resemble not the celebrated comedian, Mademoiselle Duclos, to whom\nsomebody said: \"I would lay a wager, mademoiselle, that you know not\nyour credo!\" \"What!\" said she, \"not know my credo? I will repeat it to\nyou. '_Pater noster qui._' ... Help me, I remember no more.\" For myself,\nI repeat my pater and credo every morning. I am not like Broussin, of\nwhom Reminiac said, that although he could distinguish a sauce almost in\nhis infancy, he could never be taught his creed or pater-noster:\n\n          _Broussin, d\u00e8s l'\u00e2ge le plus tendre,_\n          _Poss\u00e9da la sauce Robert,_\n     _Sans que son pr\u00e9cepteur lui p\u00fbt jamais apprende_\n          _Ni son credo, ni son pater._\n\nThe term \"symbol\" comes from the word \"_symbolein_,\" and the Latin\nchurch adopts this word because it has taken everything from the Greek\nchurch. Even slightly learned theologians know that the symbol, which we\ncall apostolical, is not that of all the apostles.\n\nSymbol, among the Greeks, signified the words and signs by which those\ninitiated into the mysteries of Ceres, Cybele, and Mythra, recognized\none another; and Christians in time had their symbol. If it had existed\nin the time of the apostles, we think that St. Luke would have spoken of\nit.\n\nA history of the symbol is attributed to St. Augustine in his one\nhundred and fifteenth sermon; he is made to say, that Peter commenced\nthe symbol by saying: \"I believe in God, the Father Almighty.\" John\nadded: \"Maker of heaven and earth;\" James proceeded: \"I believe in Jesus\nChrist, His only Son, our Lord,\" and so on with the rest. This fable has\nbeen expunged from the last edition of Augustine; and I relate it to\nthe reverend Benedictine fathers, in order to know whether this little\ncurious article ought to be left out or not.\n\nThe fact is, that no person heard anything of this \"creed\" for more than\nfour hundred years. People also say that Paris was not made in a day,\nand people are often right in their proverbs. The apostles had our\nsymbol in their hearts, but they put it not into writing. One was formed\nin the time of St. Iren\u00e6us, which does not at all resemble that which we\nrepeat. Our symbol, such as it is at present, is of the fifth century,\nwhich is posterior to that of Nice. The passage which says that Jesus\ndescended into hell, and that which speaks of the communion of saints,\nare not found in any of the symbols which preceded ours; and, indeed,\nneither the gospels, nor the Acts of the Apostles, say that Jesus\ndescended into hell; but it was an established opinion, from the third\ncentury, that Jesus descended into Hades, or Tartarus, words which we\ntranslate by that of hell. Hell, in this sense, is not the Hebrew word\n\"_sheol_,\" which signifies \"under ground,\" \"the pit\"; for which reason\nSt. Athanasius has since taught us how our Saviour descended into hell.\nHis humanity, says he, was not entirely in the tomb, nor entirely in\nhell. It was in the sepulchre, according to the body, and in hell,\naccording to the soul.\n\nSt. Thomas affirms that the saints who arose at the death of Jesus\nChrist, died again to rise afterwards with him, which is the most\ngeneral sentiment. All these opinions are absolutely foreign to\nmorality. We must be good men, whether the saints were raised once or\ntwice. Our symbol has been formed, I confess, recently, but virtue is\nfrom all eternity.\n\nIf it is permitted to quote moderns on so grave a matter, I will here\nrepeat the creed of the Abb\u00e9 de St. Pierre, as it was written with his\nown hand, in his book on the purity of religion, which has not been\nprinted, but which I have copied faithfully:\n\n\"I believe in one God alone, and I love Him. I believe that He\nenlightens all souls coming into the world; thus says St. John. By that,\nI understand all souls which seek Him in good faith. I believe in one\nGod alone, because there can be but one soul of the Great All, a single\nvivifying being, a sole Creator.\n\n\"I believe in God, the Father Almighty; because He is the common Father\nof nature, and of all men, who are equally His children. I believe that\nHe who has caused all to be born equally, who arranges the springs of\ntheir life in the same manner, who has given them the same moral\nprinciples, as soon as they reflect, has made no difference between His\nchildren but that of crime and virtue.\n\n\"I believe that the just and righteous Chinese is more precious to Him\nthan the cavilling and arrogant European scholar. I believe that God,\nbeing our common Father, we are bound to regard all men as our brothers.\nI believe that the persecutor is abominable, and that he follows\nimmediately after the poisoner and parricide. I believe that theological\ndisputes are at once the most ridiculous farce, and the most dreadful\nscourge of the earth, immediately after war, pestilence, famine, and\nleprosy.\n\n\"I believe that ecclesiastics should be paid and well paid, as servants\nof the public, moral teachers, keepers of registers of births and\ndeaths; but there should be given to them neither the riches of\nfarmers-general, nor the rank of princes, because both corrupt the soul;\nand nothing is more revolting than to see men so rich and so proud\npreach humility through their clerks, who have only a hundred crowns'\nwages.\n\n\"I believe that all priests who serve a parish should be married, as in\nthe Greek church; not only to have an honest woman to take care of their\nhousehold, but to be better citizens, to give good subjects to the\nstate, and to have plenty of well-bred children.\n\n\"I believe that many monks should give up the monastic form of life, for\nthe sake of the country and themselves. It is said that there are men\nwhom Circe has changed into hogs, whom the wise Ulysses must restore to\nthe human form.\"\n\n\"Paradise to the beneficent!\" We repeat this symbol of the Abb\u00e9 St.\nPierre historically, without approving of it. We regard it merely as a\ncurious singularity, and we hold with the most respectful faith to the\ntrue symbol of the Church.\n\n\n\n\nSYSTEM.\n\n\nWe understand by system a supposition; for if a system can be proved, it\nis no longer a system, but a truth. In the meantime, led by habit, we\nsay the celestial system, although we understand by it the real position\nof the stars.\n\nI once thought that Pythagoras had learned the true celestial system\nfrom the Chald\u00e6ans; but I think so no longer. In proportion as I grow\nolder, I doubt of all things. Notwithstanding that Newton, Gregory, and\nKeil honor Pythagoras and the Chald\u00e6ans with a knowledge of the system\nof Copernicus, and that latterly M. Monier is of their opinion, I have\nthe impudence to think otherwise.\n\nOne of my reasons is, that if the Chald\u00e6ans had been so well informed,\nso fine and important a discovery would not have been lost, but would\nhave been handed down from age to age, like the admirable discoveries of\nArchimedes.\n\nAnother reason is that it was necessary to be more widely informed than\nthe Chald\u00e6ans, in order to be able to contradict the apparent testimony\nof the senses in regard to the celestial appearances; that it required\nnot only the most refined experimental observation, but the most\nprofound mathematical science; as also the indispensable aid of\ntelescopes, without which it is impossible to discover the phases of\nVenus, which prove her course around the sun, or to discover the spots\nin the sun, which demonstrate his motion round his own almost immovable\naxis. Another reason, not less strong, is that of all those who have\nattributed this discovery to Pythagoras, no one can positively say how\nhe treated it.\n\nDiogenes Laertius, who lived about nine hundred years after Pythagoras,\nteaches us, that according to this grand philosopher, the number one was\nthe first principle, and that from two sprang all numbers; that body has\nfour elements--fire, water, air, and earth; that light and darkness,\ncold and heat, wet and dry, are equally distributed; that we must not\neat beans; that the soul is divided into three parts; that Pythagoras\nhad formerly been Atalides, then Euphorbus, afterwards Hermotimus; and,\nfinally, that this great man studied magic very profoundly. Diogenes\nsays not a word concerning the true system of the world, attributed to\nthis Pythagoras; and it must be confessed that it is by no means to an\naversion to beans that we owe the calculations which at present\ndemonstrate the motion of the earth and planets generally.\n\nThe famous Arian Eusebius, bishop of C\u00e6sarea, in his \"Evangelical\nPreparation,\" expresses himself thus: \"All the philosophers declare that\nthe earth is in a state of repose; but Philolaus, the peripatetic,\nthinks that it moves round fire in an oblique circle, like the sun and\nthe moon.\" This gibberish has nothing in common with the sublime truths\ntaught by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and above all by Newton.\n\nAs to the pretended Aristarchus of Samos, who, it is asserted, developed\nthe discoveries of the Chald\u00e6ans in regard to the motion of the earth\nand other planets, he is so obscure, that Wallace has been obliged to\nplay the commentator from one end of him to the other, in order to\nrender him intelligible.\n\nFinally, it is very much to be doubted whether the book, attributed to\nthis Aristarchus of Samos, really belongs to him. It has been strongly\nsuspected that the enemies of the new philosophy have constructed this\nforgery in favor of their bad cause. It is not only in respect to old\ncharters that similar forgeries are resorted to. This Aristarchus of\nSamos is also the more to be suspected, as Plutarch accuses him of\nbigotry and malevolent hypocrisy, in consequence of being imbued with a\ndirect contrary opinion. The following are the words of Plutarch, in his\npiece of absurdity entitled \"The Round Aspect of the Moon.\" Aristarchus\nthe Samian said, \"that the Greeks ought to punish Cleanthes of Samos,\nwho suggested that the heavens were immovable, and that it is the earth\nwhich travels through the zodiac by turning on its axis.\"\n\nThey will tell me that even this passage proves that the system of\nCopernicus was already in the head of Cleanthes and others--of what\nimport is it whether Aristarchus the Samian was of the opinion of\nCleanthes, or his accuser, as the Jesuit Skeiner was subsequently\nGalileo's?--it equally follows that the true system of the present day\nwas known to the ancients.\n\nI reply, no; but that a very slight part of this system was vaguely\nsurmised by heads better organized than the rest. I further answer that\nit was never received or taught in the schools, and that it never formed\na body of doctrine. Attentively peruse this \"Face of the Moon\" of\nPlutarch, and you will find, if you look for it, the doctrine of\ngravitation; but the true author of a system is he who demonstrates it.\n\nWe will not take away from Copernicus the honor of this discovery. Three\nor four words brought to light in an old author, which exhibit some\ndistant glimpse of his system, ought not to deprive him of the glory of\nthe discovery.\n\nLet us admire the great rule of Kepler, that the revolutions of the\nplanets round the sun are in proportion to the cubes of their distances.\nLet us still more admire the profundity, the justness, and the invention\nof the great Newton, who alone discovered the fundamental reasons of\nthese laws unknown to all antiquity, which have opened the eyes of\nmankind to a new heaven.\n\nPetty compilers are always to be found who dare to become the enemies of\ntheir age. They string together passages from Plutarch and Athen\u00e6us, to\nprove that we have no obligations to Newton, to Halley, and to Bradley.\nThey trumpet forth the glory of the ancients, whom they pretend have\nsaid everything; and they are so imbecile as to think that they divide\nthe glory by publishing it. They twist an expression of Hippocrates, in\norder to persuade us that the Greeks were acquainted with the\ncirculation of the blood better than Harvey. Why not also assert that\nthe Greeks were possessed of better muskets and field-pieces; that they\nthrew bomb-shells farther, had better printed books, and much finer\nengravings? That they excelled in oil-paintings, possessed\nlooking-glasses of crystal, telescopes, microscopes, and thermometers?\nAll this may be found out by men, who assure us that Solomon, who\npossessed not a single seaport, sent fleets to America, and so forth.\n\nOne of the greatest detractors of modern times is a person named Dutens,\nwho finished by compiling a libel, as infamous as insipid, against the\nphilosophers of the present day. This libel is entitled the \"Tocsin\";\nbut he had better have called it his clock, as no one came to his aid;\nand he has only tended to increase the number of the Zoilusses, who,\nbeing unable to produce anything themselves, spit their venom upon all\nwho by their productions do honor to their country and benefit mankind.\n\n\n\n\nTABOR, OR THABOR.\n\n\nA famous mountain in Jud\u00e6a, often alluded to in general conversation. It\nis not true that this mountain is a league and a half high, as\nmentioned in certain dictionaries. There is no mountain in Jud\u00e6a so\nelevated; Tabor is not more than six hundred feet high, but it appears\nloftier, in consequence of its situation on a vast plain.\n\nThe Tabor of Bohemia is still more celebrated by the resistance which\nthe imperial armies encountered from Ziska. It is from thence that they\nhave given the name of Tabor to intrenchments formed with carriages. The\nTaborites, a sect very similar to the Hussites, also take their name\nfrom the latter mountain.\n\n\n\n\nTALISMAN.\n\n\nTalisman, an Arabian word, signifies properly \"consecration.\" The same\nthing as \"telesma,\" or \"philactery,\" a preservative charm, figure, or\ncharacter; a superstition which has prevailed at all times and among all\npeople. It is usually a sort of medal, cast and stamped under the\nascendency of certain constellations. The famous talisman of Catherine\nde Medici still exists.\n\n\n\n\nTARTUFFE--TARTUFERIE.\n\n\nTartuffe, a name invented by Moli\u00e8re, and now adopted in all the\nlanguages of Europe to signify hypocrites, who make use of the cloak of\nreligion. \"He is a Tartuffe; he is a true Tartuffe.\" _Tartuferie_, a new\nword formed from Tartuffe--the action of a hypocrite, the behavior of a\nhypocrite, the knavery of a false devotee; it is often used in the\ndisputes concerning the Bull Unigenitus.\n\n\n\n\nTASTE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe taste, the sense by which we distinguish the flavor of our food, has\nproduced, in all known languages, the metaphor expressed by the word\n\"taste\"--a feeling of beauty and defects in all the arts. It is a quick\nperception, like that of the tongue and the palate, and in the same\nmanner anticipates consideration. Like the mere sense, it is sensitive\nand luxuriant in respect to the good, and rejects the bad spontaneously;\nin a similar way it is often uncertain, divided, and even ignorant\nwhether it ought to be pleased; lastly, and to conclude the resemblance,\nit sometimes requires to be formed and corrected by habit and\nexperience.\n\nTo constitute taste, it is not sufficient to see and to know the beauty\nof a work. We must feel and be affected by it. Neither will it suffice\nto feel and be affected in a confused or ignorant manner; it is\nnecessary to distinguish the different shades; nothing ought to escape\nthe promptitude of its discernment; and this is another instance of the\nresemblance of taste, the sense, to intellectual taste; for an epicure\nwill quickly feel and detect a mixture of two liquors, as the man of\ntaste and connoisseur will, with a single glance, distinguish the\nmixture of two styles, or a defect by the side of a beauty. He will be\nenthusiastically moved with this verse in the Horatii:\n\n     _Que voulez-vous qu'il f\u00eet contre trois?--Qu'il mour\u00fbt!_\n\n     What have him do 'gainst three?--Die!\n\nHe feels involuntary disgust at the following:\n\n     _Ou qu'un beau d\u00e9sespoir alors le secour\u00fbt._\n                                      --ACT iii, sc. 6.\n\n     Or, whether aided by a fine despair.\n\nAs a physical bad taste consists in being pleased only with high\nseasoning and curious dishes, so a bad taste in the arts is pleased only\nwith studied ornament, and feels not the pure beauty of nature.\n\nA depraved taste in food is gratified with that which disgusts other\npeople: it is a species of disease. A depraved taste in the arts is to\nbe pleased with subjects which disgust accomplished minds, and to prefer\nthe burlesque to the noble, and the finical and the affected to the\nsimple and natural: it is a mental disease. A taste for the arts is,\nhowever, much more a thing of formation than physical taste; for\nalthough in the latter we sometimes finish by liking those things to\nwhich we had in the first instance a repugnance, nature seldom renders\nit necessary for men in general to learn what is necessary to them in\nthe way of food, whereas intellectual taste requires time to duly form\nit. A sensible young man may not, without science, distinguish at once\nthe different parts of a grand choir of music; in a fine picture, his\neyes at first sight may not perceive the gradation, the chiaroscuro\nperspective, agreement of colors, and correctness of design; but by\nlittle and little his ears will learn to hear and his eyes to see. He\nwill be affected at the first representation of a fine tragedy, but he\nwill not perceive the merit of the unities, nor the delicate management\nthat allows no one to enter or depart without a sufficient reason,\nnor that still greater art which concentrates all the interest in a\nsingle one; nor, lastly, will he be aware of the difficulties overcome.\nIt is only by habit and reflection, that he arrives spontaneously at\nthat which he was not able to distinguish in the first instance. In a\nsimilar way, a national taste is gradually formed where it existed not\nbefore, because by degrees the spirit of the best artists is duly\nimbibed. We accustom ourselves to look at pictures with the eyes of\nLebrun, Poussin, and Le Sueur. We listen to musical declamation from the\nscenes of Quinault with the ears of Lulli, and to the airs and\naccompaniments with those of Rameau. Finally, books are read in the\nspirit of the best authors.\n\nIf an entire nation is led, during its early culture of the arts, to\nadmire authors abounding in the defects and errors of the age, it is\nbecause these authors possess beauties which are admired by everybody,\nwhile at the same time readers are not sufficiently instructed to detect\nthe imperfections. Thus, Lucilius was prized by the Romans, until Horace\nmade them forget him; and Regnier was admired by the French, until the\nappearance of Boileau; and if old authors who stumble at every step\nhave, notwithstanding, attained great reputation, it is because purer\nwriters have not arisen to open the eyes of their national admirers, as\nHorace did those of the Romans, and Boileau those of the French.\n\nIt is said that there is no disputation on taste, and the observation is\ncorrect in respect to physical taste, in which the repugnance felt to\ncertain aliments, and the preference given to others, are not to be\ndisputed, because there is no correction of a defect of the organs. It\nis not the same with the arts which possess actual beauties, which are\ndiscernible by a good taste, and unperceivable by a bad one; which last,\nhowever, may frequently be improved. There are also persons with a\ncoldness of soul, as there are defective minds; and in respect to them,\nit is of little use to dispute concerning predilections, as they possess\nnone.\n\nTaste is arbitrary in many things, as in raiment, decoration, and\nequipage, which, however, scarcely belong to the department of the fine\narts, but are rather affairs of fancy. It is fancy rather than taste\nwhich produces so many new fashions.\n\nTaste may become vitiated in a nation, a misfortune which usually\nfollows a period of perfection. Fearing to be called imitators, artists\nseek new and devious routes, and fly from the pure and beautiful nature\nof which their predecessors have made so much advantage. If there is\nmerit in these labors, this merit veils their defects, and the public\nin love with novelty runs after them, and becomes disgusted, which makes\nway for still minor efforts to please, in which nature is still more\nabandoned. Taste loses itself amidst this succession of novelties, the\nlast one of which rapidly effaces the other; the public loses its\n\"whereabout,\" and regrets in vain the flight of the age of good taste,\nwhich will return no more, although a remnant of it is still preserved\nby certain correct spirits, at a distance from the crowd.\n\nThere are vast countries in which taste has never existed: such are they\nin which society is still rude, where the sexes have little general\nintercourse, and where certain arts, like sculpture and the painting of\nanimated beings, are forbidden by religion. Where there is little\ngeneral intercourse, the mind is straitened, its edge is blunted, and\nnothing is possessed on which a taste can be formed. Where several of\nthe fine arts are wanting, the remainder can seldom find sufficient\nsupport, as they go hand in hand, and rest one on the other. On this\naccount, the Asiatics have never produced fine arts in any department,\nand taste is confined to certain nations of Europe.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nIs there not a good and a bad taste? Without doubt; although men differ\nin opinions, manners, and customs. The best taste in every species of\ncultivation is to imitate nature with the highest fidelity, energy, and\ngrace. But is not grace arbitrary? No, since it consists in giving\nanimation and sweetness to the objects represented. Between two men, the\none of whom is gross and the other refined, it will readily be allowed\nthat one possesses more grace than the other.\n\nBefore a polished period arose, Voiture, who in his rage for\nembroidering nothings, was occasionally refined and agreeable, wrote\nsome verses to the great Cond\u00e9 upon his illness, which are still\nregarded as very tasteful, and among the best of this author.\n\nAt the same time, L'\u00c9toile, who passed for a genius--L'\u00c9toile, one of\nthe five authors who constructed tragedies for Cardinal Richelieu--made\nsome verses, which are printed at the end of Malherbe and Racan. When\ncompared with those of Voiture referred to, every reader will allow that\nthe verses of Voiture are the production of a courtier of good taste,\nand those of L'\u00c9toile the labor of a coarse and unintellectual\npretender.\n\nIt is a pity that we can gift Voiture with occasional taste only: his\nfamous letter from the carp to the pike, which enjoyed so much\nreputation, is a too extended pleasantry, and in passages exhibiting\nvery little nature. Is it not a mixture of refinement and coarseness, of\nthe true and the false? Was it right to say to the great Cond\u00e9, who was\ncalled \"the pike\" by a party among the courtiers, that at his name the\nwhales of the North perspired profusely, and that the subjects of the\nemperor had expected to fry and to eat him with a grain of salt? Was it\nproper to write so many letters, only to show a little of the wit which\nconsists in puns and conceits?\n\nAre we not disgusted when Voiture says to the great Cond\u00e9, on the taking\nof Dunkirk: \"I expect you to seize the moon with your teeth.\" Voiture\napparently acquired this false taste from Marini, who came into France\nwith Mary of Medici. Voiture and Costar frequently cite him as a model\nin their letters. They admire his description of the rose, daughter of\nApril, virgin and queen, seated on a thorny throne, extending\nmajestically a flowery sceptre, having for courtiers and ministers the\namorous family of the zephyrs, and wearing a crown of gold and a robe of\nscarlet:\n\n     _Bella figlia d'Aprile,_\n     _Verginella e reina,_\n     _Sic lo spinoso trono_\n     _Del verde cespo assisa,_\n     _De' fior' lo scettro in maest\u00e0 sostiene;_\n     _E corteggiata intorno_\n     _Da lascivia famiglia_\n     _Di Zefiri ministri,_\n     _Porta d'or' la corona et dostro il manto._\n\nVoiture, in his thirty-fifth letter to Costar, compliments the musical\natom of Marini, the feathered voice, the living breath clothed in\nplumage, the winged song, the small spirit of harmony, hidden amidst\ndiminutive lungs; all of which terms are employed to convey the word\nnightingale:\n\n     _Una voce pennuta, un suon' volante,_\n     _E vestito di penne, un vivo fiato,_\n     _Una piuma canora, un canto alato,_\n     _Un spiritel' che d'armonia composto_\n     _Vive in auguste vise ere nascosto._\n\nThe bad taste of Balzac was of a different description; he composed\nfamiliar letters in a fustian style. He wrote to the Cardinal de la\nValette, that neither in the deserts of Libya, nor in the abyss of the\nsea, there was so furious a monster as the sciatica; and that if\ntyrants, whose memory is odious to us, had instruments of cruelty in\ntheir possession equal to the sciatica, the martyrs would have endured\nthem for their religion.\n\nThese emphatic exaggerations--these long and stately periods, so opposed\nto the epistolary style--these fastidious declamations, garnished with\nGreek and Latin, concerning two middling sonnets, the merits of which\ndivided the court and the town, and upon the miserable tragedy of \"Herod\nthe Infanticide,\"--all indicate a time and a taste which were yet to be\nformed and corrected. Even \"Cinna,\" and the \"Provincial Letters,\" which\nastonished the nations, had not yet cleared away the rust.\n\nAs an artist forms his taste by degrees, so does a nation. It stagnates\nfor a long time in barbarism; then it elevates itself feebly, until at\nlength a noon appears, after which we witness nothing but a long and\nmelancholy twilight. It has long been agreed, that in spite of the\nsolicitude of Francis I., to produce a taste in France for the fine\narts, this taste was not formed until towards the age of Louis XIV.,\nand we already begin to complain of its degeneracy. The Greeks of the\nlower empire confess, that the taste which reigned in the days of\nPericles was lost among them, and the modern Greeks admit the same\nthing. Quintilian allows that the taste of the Romans began to decline\nin his days.\n\nLope de Vega made great complaints of the bad taste of the Spaniards.\nThe Italians perceived, among the first, that everything had declined\namong them since their immortal sixteenth century, and that they have\nwitnessed the decline of the arts, which they caused to spring up.\n\nAddison often attacks the bad taste of the English in more than one\ndepartment--as well when he ridicules the carved wig of Sir Cloudesley\nShovel, as when he testifies his contempt for a serious employment of\nconceit and pun, or the introduction of mountebanks in tragedy.\n\nIf, therefore, the most gifted minds allow that taste has been wanting\nat certain periods in their country, their neighbors may certainly feel\nit, as lookers-on; and as it is evident among ourselves that one man has\na good and another a bad taste, it is equally evident that of two\ncontemporary nations, the one may be rude and gross, and the other\nrefined and natural.\n\nThe misfortune is, that when we speak this truth, we disgust the whole\nnation to which we allude, as we provoke an individual of bad taste when\nwe seek to improve him. It is better to wait until time and example\ninstruct a nation which sins against taste. It is in this way that the\nSpaniards are beginning to reform their drama, and the Germans to create\none.\n\n_Of National Taste._\n\nThere is beauty of all times and of all places, and there is likewise\nlocal beauty. Eloquence ought to be everywhere persuasive, grief\naffecting, anger impetuous, wisdom tranquil; but the details which may\ngratify a citizen of London, would have little effect on an inhabitant\nof Paris. The English drew some of their most happy metaphors and\ncomparisons from the marine, while Parisians seldom see anything of\nships. All which affects an Englishman in relation to liberty, his\nrights and his privileges, would make little impression on a Frenchman.\n\nThe state of the climate will introduce into a cold and humid country a\ntaste for architecture, furniture, and clothing, which may be very good,\nbut not admissible at Rome or in Sicily. Theocritus and Virgil, in their\neclogues, boast of the shades and of the cooling freshness of the\nfountains. Thomson, in his \"Seasons,\" dwells upon contrary attractions.\n\nAn enlightened nation with little sociability will not have the same\npoints of ridicule as a nation equally intellectual, which gives in to\nthe spirit of society even to indiscretion; and, in consequence, these\ntwo nations will differ materially in their comedy. Poetry will be very\ndifferent in a country where women are secluded, and in another in\nwhich they enjoy liberty without bounds.\n\nBut it will always be true that the pastoral painting of Virgil exceeds\nthat of Thomson, and that there has been more taste on the banks of the\nTiber than on those of the Thames; that the natural scenes of the Pastor\nFido are incomparably superior to the shepherdizing of Racan; and that\nRacine and Moli\u00e8re are inspired persons in comparison with the\ndramatists of other theatres.\n\n_On the Taste of Connoisseurs._\n\nIn general, a refined and certain taste consists in a quick feeling of\nbeauty amidst defects, and defects amidst beauties. The epicure is he\nwho can discern the adulteration of wines, and feel the predominating\nflavor in his viands, of which his associates entertain only a confused\nand general perception.\n\nAre not those deceived who say, that it is a misfortune to possess too\nrefined a taste, and to be too much of a connoisseur; that in\nconsequence we become too much occupied by defects, and insensible to\nbeauties, which are lost by this fastidiousness? Is it not, on the\ncontrary, certain that men of taste alone enjoy true pleasure, who see,\nhear, and feel, that which escapes persons less sensitively organized,\nand less mentally disciplined?\n\nThe connoisseur in music, in painting, in architecture, in poetry, in\nmedals, etc., experiences sensations of which the vulgar have no\ncomprehension; the discovery even of a fault pleases him, and makes him\nfeel the beauties with more animation. It is the advantage of a good\nsight over a bad one. The man of taste has other eyes, other ears, and\nanother tact from the uncultivated man; he is displeased with the poor\ndraperies of Raphael, but he admires the noble purity of his conception.\nHe takes a pleasure in discovering that the children of Laocoon bear no\nproportion to the height of their father, but the whole group makes him\ntremble, while other spectators are unmoved.\n\nThe celebrated sculptor, man of letters and of genius, who placed the\ncolossal statue of Peter the Great at St. Petersburg, criticises with\nreason the attitude of the Moses of Michelangelo, and his small, tight\nvest, which is not even an Oriental costume; but, at the same time, he\ncontemplates the air and expression of the head with ecstasy.\n\n_Rarity of Men of Taste._\n\nIt is afflicting to reflect on the prodigious number of men--above all,\nin cold and damp climates--who possess not the least spark of taste, who\ncare not for the fine arts, who never read, and of whom a large portion\nread only a journal once a month, in order to be put in possession of\ncurrent matter, and to furnish themselves with the ability of saying\nthings at random, on subjects in regard to which they have only confused\nideas.\n\nEnter into a small provincial town: how rarely will you find more than\none or two good libraries, and those private. Even in the capital of the\nprovinces which possess academies, taste is very rare.\n\nIt is necessary to select the capital of a great kingdom to form the\nabode of taste, and yet even there it is very partially divided among a\nsmall number, the populace being wholly excluded. It is unknown to the\nfamilies of traders, and those who are occupied in making fortunes, who\nare either engrossed with domestic details, or divided between\nunintellectual idleness and a game at cards. Every place which contains\nthe courts of law, the offices of revenue, government, and commerce, is\nclosed against the fine arts. It is the reproach of the human mind that\na taste for the common and ordinary introduces only opulent idleness. I\nknew a commissioner in one of the offices at Versailles, who exclaimed:\n\"I am very unhappy; I have not time to acquire a taste.\"\n\nIn a town like Paris, peopled with more than six hundred thousand\npersons, I do not think there are three thousand who cultivate a taste\nfor the fine arts. When a dramatic masterpiece is represented, a\ncircumstance so very rare, people exclaim: \"All Paris is enchanted,\" but\nonly three thousand copies, more or less, are printed.\n\nTaste, then, like philosophy, belongs only to a small number of\nprivileged souls. It was, therefore, great happiness for France to\npossess, in Louis XIV., a king born with taste.\n\n     _Pauci, quos \u00e6quus amavit_\n     _Jupiter, aut ardens, evexit ad \u00e6thera virtus_\n     _Dis geniti, potuere._\n                              --\u00c6NEID, b. vi, v. 129 and s.\n\n     To few great Jupiter imparts his grace,\n     And those of shining worth and heavenly race.\n                                        --DRYDEN.\n\nOvid has said in vain, that God has created us to look up to heaven:\n\"_Erectos ad sidera tollere vultus_.\" Men are always crouching on the\nground. Why has a misshapen statue, or a bad picture, where the figures\nare disproportionate, never passed for a masterpiece? Why has an\nill-built house never been regarded as a fine monument of architecture?\nWhy in music will not sharp and discordant sounds please the ears of any\none? And yet, very bad and barbarous tragedies, written in a style\nperfectly Allobrogian, have succeeded, even after the sublime scenes of\nCorneille, the affecting ones of Racine, and the fine pieces written\nsince the latter poet. It is only at the theatre that we sometimes see\ndetestable compositions succeed both in tragedy and comedy.\n\nWhat is the reason of it? It is, that a species of delusion prevails at\nthe theatre; it is, that the success depends upon two or three actors,\nand sometimes even upon a single one; and, above all, that a cabal is\nformed in favor of such pieces, whilst men of taste never form any. This\ncabal often lasts for an entire generation, and it is so much the more\nactive, as its object is less to elevate the bad author than to depress\nthe good one. A century possibly is necessary to adjust the real value\nof things in the drama.\n\nThere are three kinds of taste, which in the long run prevail in the\nempire of the arts. Poussin was obliged to quit France and leave the\nfield to an inferior painter; Le Moine killed himself in despair; and\nVanloo was near quitting the kingdom, to exercise his talents elsewhere.\nConnoisseurs alone have put all of them in possession of the rank\nbelonging to them. We often witness all kinds of bad works meet with\nprodigious success. The solecisms, barbarisms, false statement, and\nextravagant bombast, are not felt for awhile, because the cabal and the\nsenseless enthusiasm of the vulgar produce an intoxication which\ndiscriminates in nothing. The connoisseurs alone bring back the public\nin due time; and it is the only difference which exists between the most\nenlightened and the most cultivated of nations for the vulgar of Paris\nare in no respect beyond; the vulgar of other countries; but in Paris\nthere is a sufficient number of correct opinions to lead the crowd. This\ncrowd is rapidly excited in popular movements, but many years are\nnecessary to establish in it a general good taste in the arts.\n\n\n\n\nTAUROBOLIUM.\n\n\nTaurobolium, a sacrifice of expiation, very common in the third and\nfourth centuries. The throat of a bull was cut on a great stone slightly\nhollowed and perforated in various places. Underneath this stone was a\ntrench, in which the person whose offence called for expiation received\nupon his body and his face the blood of the immolated animal. Julian the\nPhilosopher condescended to submit to this expiation, to reconcile\nhimself to the priests of the Gentiles.\n\n\n\n\nTAX--FEE.\n\n\nPope Pius II., in an epistle to John Peregal, acknowledges that the\nRoman court gives nothing without money; it sells even the imposition of\nhands and the gifts of the Holy Ghost; nor does it grant the remission\nof sins to any but the rich.\n\nBefore him, St. Antonine, archbishop of Florence, had observed that in\nthe time of Boniface IX., who died in 1404, the Roman court was so\ninfamously stained with simony, that benefices were conferred, not so\nmuch on merit, as on those who brought a deal of money. He adds, that\nthis pope filled the world with plenary indulgences; so that the small\nchurches, on their festival days, obtained them at a low price.\n\nThat pontiff's secretary, Theodoric de Nieur, does indeed inform us,\nthat Boniface sent questors into different kingdoms, to sell indulgences\nto such as should offer them as much money as it would have cost them to\nmake a journey to Rome to fetch them; so that they remitted all sins,\neven without penance, to such as confessed, and granted them, for\nmoney, dispensations for irregularities of every sort; saying, that they\nhad in that respect all the power which Christ had granted to Peter, of\nbinding and unbinding on earth.\n\nAnd, what is still more singular, the price of every crime is fixed in a\nLatin work, printed at Rome by order of Leo X., and published on\nNovember 18, 1514, under the title of \"Taxes of the Holy and Apostolic\nChancery and Penitentiary.\"\n\nAmong many other editions of this book, published in different\ncountries, the Paris edition--quarto 1520, Toussaint Denis, Rue St.\nJacques, at the wooden cross, near St. Yves, with the king's privilege,\nfor three years--bears in the frontispiece the arms of France, and those\nof the house of Medici, to which Leo N. belonged. This must have\ndeceived the author of the \"Picture of the Popes\" (_Tableau de Papes_),\nwho attributes the establishment of these taxes to Leo X., although\nPolydore Virgil, and Cardinal d'Ossat agree in fixing the period of the\ninvention of the chancery tax about the year 1320, and the commencement\nof the penitentiary tax about sixteen years later, in the time of\nBenedict XII.\n\nTo give some idea of these taxes, we will here copy a few articles from\nthe chapter of absolutions: Absolution for one who has carnally known\nhis mother, his sister, etc., costs five drachmas. Absolution for one\nwho has deflowered a virgin, six drachmas. Absolution for one who has\nrevealed another's confession, seven drachmas. Absolution for one who\nhas killed his father, his mother, etc., five drachmas. And so of other\nsins, as we shall shortly see; but, at the end of the book, the prices\nare estimated in ducats.\n\nA sort of letters too are here spoken of, called confessional, by which,\nat the approach of death, the pope permits a confessor to be chosen, who\ngives full pardon for every sin; these letters are granted only to\nprinces, and not to them without great difficulty. These particulars\nwill be found in page 32 of the Paris edition.\n\nThe court of Rome was at length ashamed of this book, and suppressed it\nas far as it was able. It was even inserted in the expurgatory index of\nthe Council of Trent, on the false supposition that heretics had\ncorrupted it.\n\nIt is true that Antoine Du Pinet, a French gentleman of Franche-Comt\u00e9,\nhad an abstract of it printed at Lyons in 1564, under this title:\n\"Casual Perquisites of the Pope's Shop\" (_Taxes des Parties Casuelles de\nla Boutique du Pape_), \"taken from the Decrees, Councils, and Canons,\nancient and modern, in order to verify the discipline formerly observed\nin the Church; by A.D.P.\" But, although, he does not inform us that his\nwork is but an abridgment of the other, yet, far from corrupting his\noriginal, he on the contrary strikes out of it some odious passages,\nsuch as the following, beginning page 23, line 9 from the bottom, in\nthe Paris edition: \"And carefully observe, that these kinds of graces\nand dispensations are not granted to the poor, because, not having\nwherewith, they cannot be consoled.\"\n\nIt is also true, that Du Pinet estimates these taxes in tournois,\nducats, and carlins; but, as he observes (page 42) that the carlins and\nthe drachmas are of the same value, the substituting for the tax of\nfive, six, or seven drachmas in the original, the like number of\ncarlins, is not falsifying it. We have a proof of this in the four\narticles already quoted from the original.\n\nAbsolution--says Du Pinet--for one who has a carnal knowledge of his\nmother, his sister, or any of his kindred by birth or affinity, or his\ngodmother, is taxed at five carlins. Absolution for one who deflowers a\nyoung woman, is taxed at six carlins. Absolution for one who reveals the\nconfession of a penitent, is taxed at seven carlins. Absolution for one\nwho has killed his father, his mother, his brother, his sister, his\nwife, or any of his kindred--they being of the laity--is taxed at five\ncarlins; for if the deceased was an ecclesiastic, the homicide would be\nobliged to visit the sanctuary. We will here repeat a few others.\n\nAbsolution--continues Du Pinet--for any act of fornication whatsoever,\ncommitted by a clerk, whether with a nun in the cloister or out of the\ncloister, or with any of his kinswomen, or with his spiritual daughter,\nor with any other woman whatsoever, costs thirty-six tournois, three\nducats. Absolution for a priest who keeps a concubine, twenty-one\ntournois, live ducats, six carlins. The absolution of a layman for all\nsorts of sins of the flesh, is given at the tribunal of conscience for\nsix tournois, two ducats.\n\nThe absolution of a layman for the crime of adultery, given at the\ntribunal of conscience, costs four tournois; and if the adultery is\naccompanied by incest, six tournois must be paid per head. If, besides\nthese crimes, is required the absolution of the sin against nature, or\nof bestiality, there must be paid ninety tournois, twelve ducats, six\ncarlins; but if only the absolution of the crime against nature, or of\nbestiality, is required, it will cost only thirty-six tournois, nine\nducats.\n\nA woman who has taken a beverage to procure an abortion, or the father\nwho has caused her to take it, shall pay four tournois, one ducat, eight\ncarlins; and if a stranger has given her the said beverage, he shall pay\nfour tournois, one ducat, five carlins.\n\nA father, a mother, or any other relative, who has smothered a child,\nshall pay four tournois, one ducat, eight carlins; and if it has been\nkilled by the husband and wife together, they shall pay six tournois,\ntwo ducats.\n\nThe tax granted by the datary for the contracting of marriage out of the\npermitted seasons, is twenty carlins; and in the permitted periods, if\nthe contracting parties are the second or third degree of kindred, it\nis commonly twenty-five ducats, and four for expediting the bulls; and\nin the fourth degree, seven tournois, one ducat, six carlins.\n\nThe dispensation of a layman from fasting on the days appointed by the\nChurch, and the permission to eat cheese, are taxed at twenty carlins.\nThe permission to eat meat and eggs on forbidden days is taxed at twelve\ncarlins; and that to eat butter, cheese, etc., at six tournois for one\nperson only; and at twelve tournois, three ducats, six carlins for a\nwhole family, or for several relatives.\n\nThe absolution of an apostate and a vagabond, who wishes to return into\nthe pale of the Church, costs twelve tournois, three ducats, six\ncarlins. The absolution and reinstatement of one who is guilty of\nsacrilege, robbery, burning, rapine, perjury, and the like, is taxed at\nthirty-six tournois, nine ducats.\n\nAbsolution for a servant who detains his deceased master's property, for\nthe payment of his wages, and after receiving notice does not restore\nit, provided the property so detained does not exceed the amount of his\nwages, is taxed in the tribunal of conscience at only six tournois, two\nducats. For changing the clauses of a will, the ordinary tax is twelve\ntournois, three ducats, six carlins. The permission to change one's\nproper name costs nine tournois, two ducats, nine carlins; and to change\nthe surname and mode of signing, six tournois, two ducats. The\npermission to have a portable altar for one person only, is taxed at\nten carlins: and to have a domestic chapel on account of the distance of\nthe parish church, and furnish it with baptismal fonts and chaplains,\nthirty carlins.\n\nLastly, the permission to convey merchandise, one or more times, to the\ncountries of the infidels, and in general to traffic and sell\nmerchandise without being obliged to obtain permission from the temporal\nlords of the respected places, even though they be kings or emperors,\nwith all the very ample derogatory clauses, is taxed at only twenty-four\ntournois, six ducats.\n\nThis permission, which supersedes that of the temporal lords, is a fresh\nevidence of the papal pretensions, which we have already spoken of in\nthe article on \"Bull.\" Besides, it is known that all rescripts, or\nexpeditions for benefices, are still paid for at Rome according to the\ntax; and this charge always falls at last on the laity, by the\nimpositions which the subordinate clergy exact from them. We shall here\nnotice only the fees for marriages and burials.\n\nA decree of the Parliament of Paris, of May 19, 1409, provides that\nevery one shall be at liberty to sleep with his wife as soon as he\npleases after the celebration of the marriage, without waiting for leave\nfrom the bishop of Amiens, and without paying the fee required by that\nprelate for taking off his prohibitions to consummate the marriage\nduring the first three nights of the nuptials. The monks of St. Stephen\nof Nevers were deprived of the same fee by another decree of September\n27, 1591. Some theologians have asserted, that it took its origin from\nthe fourth Council of Carthage, which had ordained it for the reverence\nof the matrimonial benediction. But as that council did not order its\nprohibition to be evaded by paying, it is more likely that this tax was\na consequence of the infamous custom which gave to certain lords the\nfirst nuptial night of the brides of their vassals. Buchanan thinks that\nthis usage began in Scotland under King Evan.\n\nBe this as it may, the lords of Prellay and Persanny, in Piedmont,\ncalled this privilege \"_carrajio_\"; but having refused to commute it for\na reasonable payment, the vassals revolted, and put themselves under\nAmadeus VI., fourteenth count of Savoy.\n\nThere is still preserved a _proc\u00e8s-verbal_, drawn up by M. Jean Fraguier,\nauditor in the _Chambre des Comptes_, at Paris, by virtue of a decree of\nthe said chamber of April 7, 1507, for valuing the county of Eu, fallen\ninto the king's keeping by the minority of the children of the count of\nNevers, and his wife Charlotte de Bourbon. In the chapter of the revenue\nof the barony of St. Martin-le-Gaillard, dependent on the county of Eu,\nit is said: \"Item, the said lord, at the said place of St. Martin, has\nthe right of 'cuissage' in case of marriage.\"\n\nThe lords of Souloire had the like privilege, and having omitted it in\nthe acknowledgment made by them to their sovereign, the lord of\nMontlevrier, the acknowledgment was disapproved; but by deed of Dec.\n15, 1607, the sieur de Montlevrier formally renounced it; and these\nshameful privileges have everywhere been converted into small payments,\ncalled \"marchetta.\"\n\nNow, when our prelates had fiefs, they thought--as the judicious Fleury\nremarks--that they had as bishops what they possessed only as lords; and\nthe curates, as their under-vassals, bethought themselves of blessing\ntheir nuptial bed, which brought them a small fee under the name of\nwedding-dishes--i.e., their dinner, in money or in kind. On one of these\noccasions the following quatrain was put by a country curate under the\npillow of a very aged president, who married a young woman named La\nMontagne. He alludes to Moses' horns, which are spoken of in Exodus.\n\n     _Le Pr\u00e9sident \u00e0 barbe grise_\n     _Sur La Montagne va monter;_\n     _Mais certes il peut bien compter_\n     _D'en descendre comme Mo\u00efse._\n\nA word or two on the fees exacted by the clergy for the burial of the\nlaity. Formerly, at the decease of each individual, the bishops had the\ncontents of his will made known to them; and forbade those to receive\nthe rights of sepulchre who had died \"unconfessed,\" i.e., left no legacy\nto the Church, unless the relatives went to the official, who\ncommissioned a priest, or some other ecclesiastic, to repair the fault\nof the deceased, and make a legacy in his name. The curates also opposed\nthe profession of such as wished to turn monks, until they had paid\ntheir burial-fees; saying that since they died to the world, it was but\nright that they should discharge what would have been due from them had\nthey been interred.\n\nBut the frequent disputes occasioned by these vexations obliged the\nmagistrates to fix the rate of these singular fees. The following is\nextracted from a regulation on this subject, brought in by Francis de\nHarlai de Chamvallon, archbishop of Paris, on May 30, 1693, and passed\nin the court of parliament on the tenth of June following:\n\n                   _Marriages._\n                                             Liv. Sous.\n  For the publication of the bans..........    1   10\n\n  For the betrothing.......................    2    0\n\n  For celebrating the marriage.............    6    0\n\n  For the certificate of the publication of\n    the bans, and the permission given to\n    the future husband to go and be married\n    in the parish of his future wife.......    5    0\n\n  For the wedding mass.....................    1   10\n\n  For the vicar............................    1   10\n\n  For the clerk of the sacrament...........    1   10\n\n  For blessing the bed.....................    1   10\n\n\n              _Funeral Processions._\n\n    Of children under seven years old, when\n      the clergy do not go in a body:\n  For the curate...........................    1   10\n\n  For each priest..........................    1   10\n\n    When the clergy go in a body:\n  For the curial fee.......................    4    0\n\n  For the presence of the curate...........    2    0\n\n  For each priest..........................    0   10\n\n  For the vicar............................    1   10\n\n  For each singing-boy, when they carry\n    the body...............................    8    0\n\n  And when they do not carry it............    5    0\n    And so of young persons from seven to\n      twelve years old.\n\n    Of persons above twelve years old:\n  For the curial fee.......................    6    0\n\n  For the curate's attendance..............    4    0\n\n  For each vicar...........................    2    0\n\n  For the priest...........................    1    0\n\n  For each singing-boy.....................    0   10\n\n  Each of the priests that watch the body\n    in the night, for drink, etc...........    3    0\n\n  And in the day, each.....................    2    0\n\n  For the celebration of the mass..........    1    0\n\n  For the service extraordinary; called the\n    complete service; viz., the vigils and\n    the two masses of the Holy Ghost and\n    the Holy Virgin........................    4   10\n\n  For each of the priests that carry the\n    body...................................    1    0\n\n  For carrying the great cross.............    0   10\n\n  For the holy water-pot carrier...........    0    5\n\n  For carrying the little cross............    0    5\n\n  For the clerk of the processions.........    0    1\n\n    For conveying bodies from one church to\n      another there shall be paid, for each\n      of the above fees, one-half more.\n\n  For the reception of bodies thus conveyed:\n  To the curate............................    6   10\n\n  To the vicar.............................    1   10\n\n  To each priest...........................    0   15\n\n\n\n\nTEARS.\n\n\nTears are the silent language of grief. But why? What relation is there\nbetween a melancholy idea and this limpid and briny liquid filtered\nthrough a little gland into the external corner of the eye which\nmoistens the conjunctiva and little lachrymal points, whence it descends\ninto the nose and mouth by the reservoir called the lachrymal duct, and\nby its conduits? Why in women and children, whose organs are of a\ndelicate texture, are tears more easily excited by grief than in men,\nwhose formation is firmer?\n\nHas nature intended to excite compassion in us at the sight of these\ntears, which soften us and lead us to help those who shed them? The\nfemale savage is as strongly determined to assist her child who cries,\nas a lady of the court would be, and perhaps more so, because she has\nfewer distractions and passions.\n\nEverything in the animal body has, no doubt, its object. The eyes,\nparticularly, have mathematical relations so evident, so demonstrable,\nso admirable with the rays of light; this mechanism is so divine, that I\nshould be tempted to take for the delirium of a high fever, the audacity\nof denying the final causes of the structure of our eyes. The use of\ntears appears not to have so determined and striking an object; but it\nis probable that nature caused them to flow in order to excite us to\npity.\n\nThere are women who are accused of weeping when they choose. I am not at\nall surprised at their talent. A lively, sensible, and tender\nimagination can fix upon some object, on some melancholy recollection,\nand represent it in such lively colors as to draw tears; which happens\nto several performers, and particularly to actresses on the stage.\n\nWomen who imitate them in the interior of their houses, join to this\ntalent the little fraud of appearing to weep for their husbands, while\nthey really weep for their lovers. Their tears are true, but the object\nof them is false.\n\nIt is impossible to affect tears without a subject, in the same manner\nas we can affect to laugh. We must be sensibly touched to force the\nlachrymal gland to compress itself, and to spread its liquor on the\norbit of the eye; but the will alone is required to laugh.\n\nWe demand why the same man, who has seen with a dry eye the most\natrocious events, and even committed crimes with sang-froid, will weep\nat the theatre at the representation of similar events and crimes? It\nis, that he sees them not with the same eyes; he sees them with those of\nthe author and the actor. He is no longer the same man; he was\nbarbarous, he was agitated with furious passions, when he saw an\ninnocent woman killed, when he stained himself with the blood of his\nfriend; he became a man again at the representation of it. His soul was\nfilled with a stormy tumult; it is now tranquil and void, and nature\nre-entering it, he sheds virtuous tears. Such is the true merit, the\ngreat good of theatrical representation, which can never be effected by\nthe cold declamation of an orator paid to tire an audience for an hour.\n\nThe capitoul David, who; without emotion, saw and caused the innocent\nCalas to die on the wheel, would have shed tears at seeing his own crime\nin a well-written and well-acted tragedy. Pope has elegantly said this\nin the prologue to Addison's Cato:\n\n     Tyrants no more their savage nature kept,\n     And foes to virtue wondered how they wept.\n\n\n\n\nTERELAS.\n\n\nTerelas, Pterelas, or Pterlaus, just which you please, was the son of\nTaphus, or Taphius. Which signifies what you say? Gently, I will tell\nyou. This Terelas had a golden lock, to which was attached the destiny\nof the town of Taphia, and what is more, this lock rendered Terelas\nimmortal, as he would not die while this lock remained upon his head;\nfor this reason he never combed it, lest he should comb it off. An\nimmortality, however, which depends upon a lock of hair, is not the most\ncertain of all things.\n\nAmphitryon, general of the republic of Thebes, besieged Taphia, and the\ndaughter of King Terelas became desperately in love with him on seeing\nhim pass the ramparts. Thus excited, she stole to her father in the dead\nof night, cut off his golden lock, and sent it to the general, in\nconsequence of which the town was taken, and Terelas killed. Some\nlearned men assure us, that it was the wife of Terelas who played him\nthis ill turn; and as they ground their opinions upon great authorities,\nit might be rendered the subject of a useful dissertation. I confess\nthat I am somewhat inclined to be of the opinion of those learned\npersons, as it appears to me that a wife is usually less timorous than a\ndaughter.\n\nThe same thing happened to Nisus, king of Megara, which town was\nbesieged by Minos. Scylla, the daughter of Nisus, became madly in love\nwith him; and although in point of fact, her father did not possess a\nlock of gold, he had one of purple, and it is known that on this lock\ndepended equally his life and the fate of the Megarian Empire. To oblige\nMinos, the dutiful Scylla cut it off, and presented it to her lover.\n\n\"All the history of Minos is true,\" writes the profound Bannier; \"and\nthis is attested by all antiquity.\" I believe it precisely as I do that\nof Terelas, but I am embarrassed between the profound Calmet and the\nprofound Huet. Calmet is of opinion, that the adventure of the lock of\nNisus presented to Minos, and that of Terelas given to Amphitryon, are\nobviously taken from the genuine history of Samson. Huet the\ndemonstrator, on the contrary shows, that Minos is evidently Moses, as\ncutting out the letters _n_ and _e_, one of these names is the anagram\nof the other.\n\nBut, notwithstanding the demonstration of Huet, I am entirely on the\nside of the refined Dom Calmet, and for those who are of the opinion\nthat all which relates to the locks of Terelas and of Nisus is connected\nwith the hair of Samson. The most convincing of my triumphant reasons\nis, that without reference to the family of Terelas, with the\nmetamorphoses of which I am unacquainted, it is certain that Scylla was\nchanged into a lark, and her father Nisus into a sparrow-hawk. Now,\nBochart being of opinion that a sparrow-hawk is called \"neis\" in\nHebrew, I thence conclude, that the history of Terelas, Amphitryon,\nNisus, and Minos is copied from the history of Samson.\n\nI am aware that a dreadful sect has arisen in our days, equally detested\nby God and man, who pretend that the Greek fables are more ancient than\nthe Jewish history; that the Greeks never heard a word of Samson any\nmore than of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, etc., which names are not cited by\nany Greek author. They assert, as we have modestly intimated--in the\narticles on \"Bacchus\" and \"Jew\"--that the Greeks could not possibly take\nanything from the Jews, but that the Jews might derive something from\nthe Greeks.\n\nI answer with the doctor Hayet, the doctor Gauchat, the ex-Jesuit\nPatouillet, and the ex-Jesuit Paulian, that this is the most damnable\nheresy which ever issued from hell; that it was formerly anathematized\nin full parliament, on petition, and condemned in the report of the\nSieur P.; and finally, that if indulgence be extended to those who\nsupport such frightful systems, there will be no more certainty in the\nworld; but that Antichrist will quickly arrive, if he has not come\nalready.\n\n\n\n\nTESTES.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThis word is scientific, and a little obscure, signifying small\nwitnesses. Sixtus V., a Cordelier become pope, declared, by his letter\nof the 25th of June, 1587, to his nuncio in Spain, that he must unmarry\nall those who were not possessed of testicles. It seems by this order,\nwhich was executed by Philip II., that there were many husbands in Spain\ndeprived of these two organs. But how could a man, who had been a\nCordelier, be ignorant that the testicles of men are often hidden in the\nabdomen, and that they are equally if not more effective in that\nsituation? We have beheld in France three brothers of the highest rank,\none of whom possessed three, the other only one, while the third\npossessed no appearance of any, and yet was the most vigorous of the\nthree.\n\nThe angelic doctor, who was simply a Jacobin, decides that two testicles\nare \"_de essentia matrimonii_\" (of the essence of marriage); in which\nopinion he is followed by Ricardus, Scotus, Durandus, and Sylvius. If\nyou are not able to obtain a sight of the pleadings of the advocate\nSebastian Rouillard, in 1600, in favor of the testicles of his client,\nconcealed in his abdomen, at least consult the dictionary of Bayle, at\nthe article \"Quellenec.\" You will there discover, that the wicked wife\nof the client of Sebastian Rouillard wished to render her marriage void,\non the plea that her husband could not exhibit testicles. The defendant\nreplied, that he had perfectly fulfilled his matrimonial duties, and\noffered the usual proof of a re-performance of them in full assembly.\nThe jilt replied, that this trial was too offensive to her modesty, and\nwas, moreover, superfluous, since the defendant was visibly deprived of\ntesticles, and that messieurs of the assembly were fully aware that\ntesticles are necessary to perfect consummation.\n\nI am unacquainted with the result of this process, but I suspect that\nher husband lost his cause. What induces me to think so is, that the\nsame Parliament of Paris, on the 8th of January, 1665, issued a decree,\nasserting the necessity of two visible testicles, without which marriage\nwas not to be contracted. Had there been any member in the assembly in\nthe situation described, and reduced to the necessity of being a\nwitness, he might have convinced the assembly that it decided without a\ndue knowledge of circumstances. Pontas may be profitably consulted on\ntesticles, as well as upon any other subject. He was a sub-penitentiary,\nwho decided every sort of case, and who sometimes comes near to Sanchez.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nA word or two on hermaphrodites. A prejudice has for a long time crept\ninto the Russian Church, that it is not lawful to say mass without\ntesticles; or, at least, they must be hid in the officiator's pocket.\nThis ancient idea was founded in the Council of Nice, who forbade the\nadmission into orders of those who mutilated themselves. The example of\nOrigen, and of certain enthusiasts, was the cause of this order, which\nwas confirmed a second time in the Council of Aries.\n\nThe Greek Church did not exclude from the altar those who had endured\nthe operation of Origen against their own consent. The patriarchs of\nConstantinople, Nicetas, Ignatius, Photius, and Methodius, were eunuchs.\nAt present this point of discipline seems undecided in the Catholic\nChurch. The most general opinion, however, is, that in order to be\nordained a priest, a eunuch will require a dispensation.\n\nThe banishment of eunuchs from the service of the altar appears contrary\nto the purity and chastity which the service exacts; and certainly such\nof the priests as confess handsome women and girls would be exposed to\nless temptation. Opposing reasons of convenience and decorum have\ndetermined those who make these laws.\n\nIn Leviticus, all corporeal defects are excluded from the service of the\naltar--the blind, the crooked, the maimed, the lame, the one-eyed, the\nleper, the scabby, long noses, and short noses. Eunuchs are not spoken\nof, as there were none among the Jews. Those who acted as eunuchs in the\nservice of their kings, were foreigners.\n\nIt has been demanded whether an animal, a man for example, can possess\nat once testicles and ovaries, or the glands which are taken for\novaries; in a word, the distinctive organs of both sexes? Can nature\nform veritable hermaphrodites, and can a hermaphrodite be rendered\npregnant? I answer, that I know nothing about it, nor the\nten-thousandth part of what is within the operation of nature. I\nbelieve, however, that Europe has never witnessed a genuine\nhermaphrodite, nor has it indeed produced elephants, zebras, giraffes,\nostriches, and many more of the animals which inhabit Asia, Africa, and\nAmerica. It is hazardous to assert, that because we never beheld a\nthing, it does not exist.\n\nExamine \"Cheselden,\" page 34, and you will behold there a very good\ndelineation of an animal man and woman--a negro and negress of Angola,\nwhich was brought to London in its infancy, and carefully examined by\nthis celebrated surgeon, as much distinguished for his probity as his\ninformation. The plate is entitled \"Members of an Hermaphrodite Negro,\nof the Age of Twenty-six Years, of both Sexes.\" They are not absolutely\nperfect, but they exhibit a strange mixture of the one and the other.\n\nCheselden has frequently attested the truth of this prodigy, which,\nhowever, is possibly no such thing in some of the countries of Africa.\nThe two sexes are not perfect in this instance; who can assure us, that\nother negroes, mulatto, or copper-colored individuals, are not\nabsolutely male and female? It would be as reasonable to assert, that a\nperfect statue cannot exist, because we have witnessed none without\ndefects. There are insects which possess both sexes; why may there not\nbe human beings similarly endowed? I affirm nothing; God keep me from\ndoing so. I only doubt.\n\nHow many things belong to the animal man, in respect to which he must\ndoubt, from his pineal gland to his spleen, the use of which is unknown;\nand from the principle of his thoughts and sensations to his animal\nspirits, of which everybody speaks, and which nobody ever saw or ever\nwill see!\n\n\n\n\nTHEISM.\n\n\nTheism is a religion diffused through all religions; it is a metal which\nmixes itself with all the others, the veins of which extend under ground\nto the four corners of the world. This mine is more openly worked in\nChina; everywhere else it is hidden, and the secret is only in the hands\nof the adepts.\n\nThere is no country where there are more of these adepts than in\nEngland. In the last century there were many atheists in that country,\nas well as in France and Italy. What the chancellor Bacon had said\nproved true to the letter, that a little philosophy makes a man an\natheist, and that much philosophy leads to the knowledge of a God. When\nit was believed with Epicurus, that chance made everything, or with\nAristotle, and even with several ancient theologians, that nothing was\ncreated but through corruption, and that by matter and motion alone the\nworld goes on, then it was impossible to believe in a providence. But\nsince nature has been looked into, which the ancients did not perceive\nat all; since it is observed that all is organized, that everything has\nits germ; since it is well known that a mushroom is the work of\ninfinite wisdom, as well as all the worlds; then those who thought,\nadored in the countries where their ancestors had blasphemed. The\nphysicians are become the heralds of providence; a catechist announces\nGod to children, and a Newton demonstrates Him to the learned.\n\nMany persons ask whether theism, considered abstractedly, and without\nany religious ceremony, is in fact a religion? The answer is easy: he\nwho recognizes only a creating God, he who views in God only a Being\ninfinitely powerful, and who sees in His creatures only wonderful\nmachines, is not religious towards Him any more than a European,\nadmiring the king of China, would thereby profess allegiance to that\nprince. But he who thinks that God has deigned to place a relation\nbetween Himself and mankind; that He has made him free, capable of good\nand evil; that He has given all of them that good sense which is the\ninstinct of man, and on which the law of nature is founded; such a one\nundoubtedly has a religion, and a much better religion than all those\nsects who are beyond the pale of our Church; for all these sects are\nfalse, and the law of nature is true. Thus, theism is good sense not yet\ninstructed by revelation; and other religions are good sense perverted\nby superstition.\n\nAll sects differ, because they come from men; morality is everywhere the\nsame because it comes from God. It is asked why, out of five or six\nhundred sects, there have scarcely been any who have not spilled blood;\nand why the theists, who are everywhere so numerous, have never caused\nthe least disturbance? It is because they are philosophers. Now\nphilosophers may reason badly, but they never intrigue. Those who\npersecute a philosopher, under the pretext that his opinions may be\ndangerous to the public, are as absurd as those who are afraid that the\nstudy of algebra will raise the price of bread in the market; one must\npity a thinking being who errs; the persecutor is frantic and horrible.\nWe are all brethren; if one of my brothers, full of respect and filial\nlove, inspired by the most fraternal charity, does not salute our common\nFather with the same ceremonies as I do, ought I to cut his throat and\ntear out his heart?\n\nWhat is a true theist? It is he who says to God: \"I adore and serve\nYou;\" it is he who says to the Turk, to the Chinese, the Indian, and the\nRussian: \"I love you.\" He doubts, perhaps, that Mahomet made a journey\nto the moon and put half of it in his pocket; he does not wish that\nafter his death his wife should burn herself from devotion; he is\nsometimes tempted not to believe the story of the eleven thousand\nvirgins, and that of St. Amable, whose hat and gloves were carried by a\nray of the sun from Auvergne as far as Rome.\n\nBut for all that he is a just man. Noah would have placed him in his\nark, Numa Pompilius in his councils; he would have ascended the car of\nZoroaster; he would have talked philosophy with the Platos, the\nAristippuses, the Ciceros, the Atticuses--but would he not have drunk\nhemlock with Socrates?\n\n\n\n\nTHEIST.\n\n\nThe theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being\nequally good and powerful, who has formed all extended, vegetating,\nsentient, and reflecting existences; who perpetuates their species, who\npunishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with\nkindness.\n\nThe theist does not know how God punishes, how He rewards, how He\npardons; for he is not presumptuous enough to flatter himself that he\nunderstands how God acts; but he knows that God does act, and that He is\njust. The difficulties opposed to a providence do not stagger him in his\nfaith, because they are only great difficulties, not proofs; he submits\nhimself to that providence, although he only perceives some of its\neffects and some appearances; and judging of the things he does not see\nfrom those he does see, he thinks that this providence pervades all\nplaces and all ages.\n\n[Illustration: Death of Socrates.]\n\nUnited in this principle with the rest of the universe, he does not join\nany of the sects, who all contradict themselves; his religion is the\nmost ancient and the most extended; for the simple adoration of a\nGod has preceded all the systems in the world. He speaks a language\nwhich all nations understand, while they are unable to understand each\nother's. He has brethren from Pekin to Cayenne, and he reckons all the\nwise his brothers. He believes that religion consists neither in the\nopinions of incomprehensible metaphysics, nor in vain decorations, but\nin adoration and justice. To do good--that is his worship; to submit\noneself to God--that is his doctrine. The Mahometan cries out to him:\n\"Take care of yourself, if you do not make the pilgrimage to Mecca.\"\n\"Woe be to thee,\" says a Franciscan, \"if thou dost not make a journey to\nour Lady of Loretto.\" He laughs at Loretto and Mecca; but he succors the\nindigent and defends the oppressed.\n\n\n\n\nTHEOCRACY.\n\n_Government of God or Gods._\n\n\nI deceive myself every day; but I suspect that all the nations who have\ncultivated the arts have lived under a theocracy. I always except the\nChinese, who appear learned as soon as they became a nation. They were\nfree from superstition directly China was a kingdom. It is a great pity,\nthat having been raised so high at first, they should remain stationary\nat the degree they have so long occupied in the sciences. It would seem\nthat they have received from nature an ample allowance of good sense,\nand a very small one of industry. Yet in other things their industry is\ndisplayed more than ours.\n\nThe Japanese, their neighbors, of whose origin I know nothing\nwhatever--for whose origin do we know?--were incontestably governed by a\ntheocracy. The earliest well-ascertained sovereigns were the \"_dairos_,\"\nthe high priests of their gods; this theocracy is well established.\nThese priests reigned despotically about eight hundred years. In the\nmiddle of our twelfth century it came to pass that a captain, an\n\"_imperator_,\" a \"_seogon_\" shared their authority; and in our sixteenth\ncentury the captains seized the whole power, and kept it. The \"_dairos_\"\nhave remained the heads of religion; they were kings--they are now only\nsaints; they regulate festivals, they bestow sacred titles, but they\ncannot give a company of infantry.\n\nThe Brahmins in India possessed for a long time the theocratical power;\nthat is to say, they held the sovereign authority in the name of Brahma,\nthe son of God; and even in their present humble condition they still\nbelieve their character indelible. These are the two principal among the\ncertain theocracies.\n\nThe priests of Chald\u00e6a, Persia, Syria, Ph\u0153nicia, and Egypt, were so\npowerful, had so great a share in the government, and carried the censer\nso loftily above the sceptre, that empire may be said, among those\nnations, to nave been divided between theocracy and royalty.\n\nThe government of Numa Pompilius was evidently theocratical. When a man\nsays: \"I give you laws furnished by the gods; it is not I, it is a god\nwho speaks to you\"--then it is God who is king, and he who talks thus is\nlieutenant-general.\n\nAmong all the Celtic nations who had only elective chiefs, and not\nkings, the Druids and their sorceries governed everything. But I cannot\nventure to give the name of theocracy to the anarchy of these savages.\n\nThe little Jewish nation does not deserve to be considered politically,\nexcept on account of the prodigious revolution that has occurred in the\nworld, of which it was the very obscure and unconscious cause.\n\nDo but consider the history of this strange people. They have a\nconductor who undertakes to guide them in the name of his God to\nPh\u0153nicia, which he calls Canaan. The way was direct and plain, from\nthe country of Goshen as far as Tyre, from south to north; and there was\nno danger for six hundred and thirty thousand fighting men, having at\ntheir head a general like Moses, who, according to Flavius Josephus, had\nalready vanquished an army of Ethiopians, and even an army of serpents.\n\nInstead of taking this short and easy route, he conducts them from\nRameses to Baal-Sephon, in an opposite direction, right into the middle\nof Egypt, due south. He crosses the sea; he marches for forty years in\nthe most frightful deserts, where there is not a single spring of water,\nor a tree, or a cultivated field--nothing but sand and dreary rocks. It\nis evident that God alone could make the Jews, by a miracle, take this\nroute, and support them there by a succession of miracles.\n\nThe Jewish government therefore was then a true theocracy. Moses,\nhowever, was never pontiff, and Aaron, who was pontiff, was never chief\nnor legislator. After that time we do not find any pontiff governing.\nJoshua, Jephthah, Samson, and the other chiefs of the people, except\nElias and Samuel, were not priests. The Jewish republic, reduced to\nslavery so often, was anarchical rather than theocratical.\n\nUnder the kings of Judah and Israel, it was but a long succession of\nassassinations and civil wars. These horrors were interrupted only by\nthe entire extinction of ten tribes, afterwards by the enslavement of\ntwo others, and by the destruction of the city amidst famine and\npestilence. This was not then divine government.\n\nWhen the Jewish slaves returned to Jerusalem, they were subdued by the\nkings of Persia, by the conqueror Alexandria and his successors. It\nappears that God did not then reign immediately over this nation, since\na little before the invasion of Alexander, the pontiff John assassinated\nthe priest Jesus, his brother, in the temple of Jerusalem, as Solomon\nhad assassinated his brother Adonijah on the altar.\n\nThe government was still less theocratical when Antiochus Epiphanes,\nking of Syria, employed many of the Jews to punish those whom he\nregarded as rebels. He forbade them all, under pain of death, to\ncircumcise their children; he compelled them to sacrifice swine in their\ntemple, to burn the gates, to destroy the altar; and the whole enclosure\nwas filled with thorns and brambles.\n\nMatthias rose against him at the head of some citizens, but he was not\nking. His son, Judas Maccab\u00e6us, taken for the Messiah, perished after\nglorious struggles. To these bloody contests succeeded civil wars. The\nmen of Jerusalem destroyed Samaria, which the Romans subsequently\nrebuilt under the name of Sebasta.\n\nIn this chaos of revolutions, Aristobulus, of the race of the Maccabees,\nand son of a high priest, made himself king, more than five hundred\nyears after the destruction of Jerusalem. He signalized his reign like\nsome Turkish sultans, by cutting his brother's throat, and causing his\nmother to be put to death. His successors followed his example, until\nthe period when the Romans punished all these barbarians. Nothing in all\nthis is theocratical.\n\nIf anything affords an idea of theocracy, it must be granted that it is\nthe papacy of Rome; it never announces itself but in the name of God,\nand its subjects live in peace. For a long time Thibet enjoyed the same\nadvantages under the Grand Lama; but that is a gross error striving to\nimitate a sublime truth.\n\nThe first Incas, by calling themselves descendants in a right line from\nthe sun, established a theocracy; everything was done in the name of the\nsun. Theocracy ought to be universal; for every man, whether a prince or\na boatman, should obey the natural and eternal laws which God has given\nhim.\n\n\n\n\nTHEODOSIUS.\n\n\nEvery prince who puts himself at the head of a party, and succeeds, is\nsure of being praised to all eternity, if the party lasts that time; and\nhis adversaries may be assured that they will be treated by orators,\npoets, and preachers, as Titans who revolted against the gods. This is\nwhat happened to Octavius Augustus, when his good fortune made him\ndefeat Brutus, Cassius, and Antony. It was the lot of Constantine, when\nMaxentius, the legitimate emperor, elected by the Roman senate and\npeople, fell into the water and was drowned.\n\nTheodosius had the same advantage. Woe to the vanquished! blessed be the\nvictorious!--that is the motto of mankind. Theodosius was a Spanish\nofficer, the son of a Spanish soldier of fortune. As soon as he was\nemperor he persecuted the anti-consubstantialists. Judge of the\napplauses, benedictions, and pompous eulogies, on the part of the\nconsubstantialists! Their adversaries scarcely subsist any longer; their\ncomplaints and clamors against the tyranny of Theodosius have perished\nwith them, and the predominant party still lavishes on this prince the\nepithets of pious, just, clement, wise, and great.\n\nOne day this pious and clement prince, who loved money to distraction,\nproposed laying a very heavy tax upon the city of Antioch, then the\nfinest of Asia Minor. The people, in despair, having demanded a slight\ndiminution, and not being able to obtain it, went so far as to break\nsome statues, among which was one of the soldier, the emperor's father.\nSt. John Chrysostom, or golden mouth, the priest and flatterer of\nTheodosius, failed not to call this action a detestable sacrilege, since\nTheodosius was the image of God, and his father was almost as sacred as\nhimself. But if this Spaniard resembled God, he should have remembered\nthat the Antiochians also resembled Him, and that men formed after the\nexemplar of all the gods existed before emperors.\n\n     _Finxit in effigiem moderantum cuncta deorum._\n                                      --OVID, _Met._ i, b. 83.\n\nTheodosius immediately sent a letter to the governor, with an order to\napply the torture to the principal images of God who had taken part in\nthis passing sedition; to make them perish under blows received from\ncords terminated with leaden balls; to burn some, and deliver others up\nto the sword. This was executed with all the punctuality of a governor\nwho did his duty like a Christian, who paid his court well, and who\nwould make his way there. The Orontes bore nothing but corpses to the\nsea for several days; after which, his gracious imperial majesty\npardoned the Antiochians with his usual clemency, and doubled the tax.\n\nHow did the emperor Julian act in the same city, when he had received a\nmore personal and injurious outrage? It was not a paltry statue of his\nfather which they defaced; it was to himself that the Antiochians\naddressed themselves, and against whom they composed the most violent\nsatires. The philosophical emperor answered them by a light and\ningenious satire. He took from them neither their lives nor their\npurses. He contented himself with having more wit than they had. This is\nthe man whom St. Gregory Nazianzen and Theodoret, who were not of his\ncommunion, dare to calumniate so far as to say that he sacrificed women\nand children to the moon; while those who were of the communion of\nTheodosius have persisted to our day in copying one another, by saying\nin a hundred ways, that Theodosius was the most virtuous of men, and by\nwishing to make him a saint.\n\nWe know well enough what was the mildness of this saint in the massacre\nof fifteen thousand of his subjects at Thessalonica. His panegyrists\nreduce the number of the murdered to seven or eight thousand, which is a\nvery small number to them; but they elevate to the sky the tender piety\nof this good prince, who deprived himself of mass, as also that of his\naccomplice, the detestable Rufinus. I confess once more, that it was a\ngreat expiation, a great act of devotion, the not going to mass; but it\nrestores not life to fifteen thousand innocents, slain in cold blood by\nan abominable perfidy. If a heretic was stained with such a crime, with\nwhat pleasure would all historians turn their boasting against him; with\nwhat colors would they paint him in the pulpits and college\ndeclamations!\n\nI will suppose that the prince of Parma entered Paris, after having\nforced our dear Henry IV. to raise the siege; I will suppose that Philip\nII. gave the throne of France to his Catholic daughter, and to the young\nCatholic duke of Guise; how many pens and voices would forever have\nanathematized Henry IV., and the Salic law! They would be both\nforgotten, and the Guises would be the heroes of the state and religion.\nThus it is--applaud the prosperous and fly the miserable! \"_Et cole\nfelices, miseros fuge._\"\n\nIf Hugh Capet dispossess the legitimate heir of Charlemagne, he becomes\nthe root of a race of heroes. If he fails, he may be treated as the\nbrother of St. Louis since treated Conradin and the duke of Austria, and\nwith much more reason.\n\nPepin rebels, dethrones the Merovingian race, and shuts his king in a\ncloister; but if he succeeds not, he mounts the scaffold. If Clovis, the\nfirst king of Belgic Gaul, is beaten in his invasion, he runs the risk\nof being condemned to the fangs of beasts, as one of his ancestors was\nby Constantine. Thus goes the world under the empire of fortune, which\nis nothing but necessity, insurmountable fatality. \"_Fortuna s\u00e6vo l\u00e6ta\nnegotio._\" She makes us blindly play her terrible game, and we never see\nbeneath the cards.\n\n\n\n\nTHEOLOGIAN.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe theologian knows perfectly that, according to St. Thomas, angels are\ncorporeal with relation to God; that the soul receives its being in the\nbody; and that man has a vegetative, sensitive, and intellectual soul;\nthat the soul is all in all, and all in every part; that it is the\nefficient and formal cause of the body; that it is the greatest in\nnobleness of form; that the appetite is a passive power; that archangels\nare the medium between angels and principalities; that baptism\nregenerates of itself and by chance; that the catechism is not a\nsacrament, but sacramental; that certainty springs from the cause and\nsubject; that concupiscence is the appetite of sensitive delectation;\nthat conscience is an act and not a power.\n\nThe angel of the schools has written about four thousand fine pages in\nthis style, and a shaven-crowned young man passes three years in filling\nhis brain with this sublime knowledge; after which he receives the\nbonnet of a doctor of the Sorbonne, instead of going to Bedlam. If he is\na man of quality, or the son of a rich man, or intriguing and fortunate,\nhe becomes bishop, archbishop, cardinal, and pope.\n\nIf he is poor and without credit, he becomes the chaplain of one of\nthese people; it is he who preaches for them, who reads St. Thomas and\nScotus for them, who makes commandments for them, and who in a council\ndecides for them.\n\nThe title of theologian is so great that the fathers of the Council of\nTrent give it to their cooks, \"_cuoco celeste, gran theologo_.\" Their\nscience is the first of sciences, their condition the first of\nconditions, and themselves the first of men; such the empire of true\ndoctrine; so much does reason govern mankind!\n\nWhen a theologian has become--thanks to his arguments--either prince of\nthe holy Roman Empire, archbishop of Toledo, or one of the seventy\nprinces clothed in red, successors of the humble apostles, then the\nsuccessors of Galen and Hippocrates are at his service. They were his\nequals when they studied in the same university; they had the same\ndegrees, and received the same furred bonnet. Fortune changes all; and\nthose who discovered the circulation of the blood, the lacteal veins,\nand the thoracic canal, are the servants of those who have learned what\nconcomitant grace is, and have forgotten it.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nI knew a true theologian; he was master of the languages of the East,\nand was instructed as much as possible in the ancient rites of nations.\nThe Brahmins, Chald\u00e6ans, Fire-worshippers, Sabeans, Syrians, and\nEgyptians, were as well known to him as the Jews; the several lessons of\nthe Bible were familiar to him; and for thirty years he had tried to\nreconcile the gospels, and endeavored to make the fathers agree. He\nsought in what time precisely the creed attributed to the apostles was\ndigested, and that which bears the name of Athanasius; how the\nsacraments were instituted one after the other; what was the difference\nbetween synaxis and mass; how the Christian Church was divided since its\norigin into different parties, and how the predominating society treated\nall the others as heretics. He sounded the depth of policy which always\nmixes with these quarrels; and he distinguished between policy and\nwisdom, between the pride which would subjugate minds and the desire of\nself-illumination, between zeal and fanaticism.\n\nThe difficulty of arranging in his head so many things, the nature of\nwhich is to be confounded, and of throwing a little light on so many\nclouds, often checked him; but as these researches were the duty of his\nprofession, he gave himself up to them notwithstanding his distaste. He\nat length arrived at knowledge unknown to the greater part of his\nbrethren: but the more learned he waxed, the more mistrustful he became\nof all that he knew. While he lived he was indulgent; and at his death,\nhe confessed that he had spent his life uselessly.\n\n\n\n\nTHUNDER.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\n     _Vidi et crudeles dantem Salmonea p\u0153nas_\n     _Dum flammas Jovis et sonitus imitatur Olympia, etc._\n                             --VIRGIL, \u00c6neid, b. vi, 1. 585.\n\n     Salmoneus suffering cruel pains I found,\n     For imitating Jove, the rattling sound\n     Of mimic thunder, and the glittering blaze\n     Of pointed lightnings and their forked rays.\n\nThose who invented and perfected artillery are so many other\nSalmoneuses. A cannon-ball of twenty-four pounds can make, and has often\nmade, more ravage than an hundred thunder-claps; yet no cannoneer has\never been struck by Jupiter for imitating that which passes in the\natmosphere.\n\nWe have seen that Polyphemus, in a piece of Euripides, boasts of making\nmore noise, when he had supped well, than the thunder of Jupiter.\nBoileau, more honest than Polyphemus, says that another world astonishes\nhim, and that he believes in the immortality of the soul, and that it is\nGod who thunders:\n\n     _Pour moi, qu'en sant\u00e9 m\u00eame un autre monde \u00e9tonne,_\n     _Qui crois l'\u00e2me immortelle, et que c'est Dieu qui tonne._\n                                       --SAT. i, line 161,162.\n\nI know not why he is so astonished at another world, since all antiquity\nbelieved in it. Astonish was not the proper word; it was alarm. He\nbelieves that it is God who thunders; but he thunders only as he hails,\nas he rains, and as he produces fine weather--as he operates all, as he\nperforms all. It is not because he is angry that he sends thunder and\nrain. The ancients paint Jupiter taking thunder, composed of three\nburning arrows, and hurling it at whomsoever he chose. Sound reason does\nnot agree with these poetical ideas.\n\nThunder is like everything else, the necessary effect of the laws of\nnature, prescribed by its author. It is merely a great electrical\nphenomenon. Franklin forces it to descend tranquilly on the earth; it\nfell on Professor Richmann as on rocks and churches; and if it struck\nAjax Oileus, it was assuredly not because Minerva was irritated against\nhim.\n\nIf it had fallen on Cartouche, or the abb\u00e9 Desfontaines, people would\nnot have failed to say:\n\n\"Behold how God punishes thieves and--.\" But it is a useful prejudice to\nmake the sky fearful to the perverse. Thus all our tragic poets, when\nthey would rhyme to \"_poudre_\" or \"_resoudre_,\" invariably make use of\n\"_foudre_\"; and uniformly make \"_tonnerre_\" roll, when they would rhyme\nto \"_terre_.\"\n\nTheseus, in \"_Ph\u00e8dre_,\" says to his son--act iv, scene 2:\n\n     _Monstre, qu'\u00e0 trop longtemps \u00e9pargn\u00e9 le tonnerre,_\n     _Reste impur des brigands dont j'ai purg\u00e9 la terre!_\n\nSeverus, in \"_Polyeucte_,\" without even having occasion to rhyme, when\nhe learns that his mistress is married, talks to Fabian, his friend, of\na clap of thunder. He says elsewhere to the same Fabian--act iv, scene\n6--that a new clap of \"_foudre_\" strikes upon his hope, and reduces it\nto \"_poudre_\":\n\n     _Qu'est ceci, Fabian, quel nouveau coup de foudre_\n     _Tombe sur mon espoir, et le r\u00e9duit en poudre?_\n\n\nA hope reduced to powder must astonish the pit! Lusignan, in \"_Za\u00efre_,\"\nprays God that the thunder will burst on him alone:\n\n\n     _Que la foudre en \u00e9clats ne tombe que sur moi._\n\nIf Tydeus consults the gods in the cave of a temple, the cave answers\nhim only by great claps of thunder.\n\n     I've finally seen the thunder and \"foudre\"\n     Reduce verses to cinders and rhymes into \"poudre.\"\n\nWe must endeavor to thunder less frequently.\n\nI could never clearly comprehend the fable of Jupiter and Thunder, in La\nFontaine--b. viii, fable 20.\n\n     _Vulcain remplit ses fourneaux_\n     _De deux sortes de carreaux._\n     _L'un jamais ne se fourvoie,_\n     _Et c'est celui que toujours_\n     _L'Olympe en corps nous envoie._\n     _L'autre s'\u00e9carte en son cours,_\n     _Ce n'est qu'aux monts qu'il en co\u00fbte;_\n     _Bien souvent m\u00eame il se perd;_\n     _Et ce dernier en sa route_\n     _Nous vient du seul Jupiter._\n\n\"Vulcan fills his furnaces with two sorts of thunderbolts. The one never\nwanders, and it is that which comes direct from Olympus. The other\ndiverges in its route, and only spends itself on mountains; it is often\neven altogether dissipated. It is this last alone which proceeds from\nJupiter.\"\n\nWas the subject of this fable, which La Fontaine put into bad verse so\ndifferent from his general style, given to him? Would it infer that the\nministers of Louis XIV. were inflexible, and that the king pardoned?\nCr\u00e9billon, in his academical discourse in foreign verse, says that\nCardinal Fleury is a wise depositary, the eagle, using his thunder, yet\nthe friend of peace:\n\n     _Usant en citoyen du pouvoir arbitraire,_\n     _Aigle de Jupiter, mais ami de la paix,_\n     _Il gouverne la foudre, et ne tonne jamais._\n\nHe says that Marshal Villars made it appear that he survived Malplaquet\nonly to become more celebrated at Denain, and that with a clap of\nthunder Prince Eugene was vanquished:\n\n     _Fit voir, qu'\u00e0 Malplaquet il n'avait surv\u00e9cu_\n     _Que pour rendre \u00e0 Denain sa valeur plus c\u00e9l\u00e8bre_\n     _Et qu'un foudre du moins Eug\u00e8ne \u00e9tait vaincu._\n\nThus the eagle Fleury governed thunder without thundering, and Eugene\nwas vanquished by thunder. Here is quite enough of thunder.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nHorace, sometimes the debauched and sometimes the moral, has said--book\ni, ode 3--that our folly extends to heaven itself: \"_C\u0153lum ipsum\npetimus stultitia._\"\n\nWe can say at present that we carry our wisdom to heaven, if we may be\npermitted to call that blue and white mass of exhalations which causes\nwinds, rain, snow, hail, and thunder, heaven. We have decomposed the\nthunderbolt, as Newton disentangled light. We have perceived that these\nthunderbolts, formerly borne by the eagle of Jupiter, are really only\nelectric fire; that in short we can draw down thunder, conduct it,\ndivide it, and render ourselves masters of it, as we make the rays of\nlight pass through a prism, as we give course to the waters which fall\nfrom heaven, that is to say, from the height of half a league from our\natmosphere. We plant a high fir with the branches lopped off, the top of\nwhich is covered with a cone of iron. The clouds which form thunder are\nelectrical; their electricity is communicated to this cone, and a brass\nwire which is attached to it conducts the matter of thunder wherever we\nplease. An ingenious physician calls this experiment the inoculation of\nthunder.\n\nIt is true, that inoculation for the smallpox, which has preserved so\nmany mortals, caused some to perish, to whom the smallpox had been\ninconsiderately given; and in like manner the inoculation of thunder\nill-performed would be dangerous. There are great lords whom we can only\napproach with the greatest precaution, and thunder is of this number. We\nknow that the mathematical professor Richmann was killed at St.\nPetersburg, in 1753, by a thunderbolt which he had drawn into his\nchamber: \"_Arte sua periit._\" As he was a philosopher, a theological\nprofessor failed not to publish that he had been thunderstruck like\nSalmoneus, for having usurped the rights of God, and for wishing to hurl\nthe thunder: but if the physician had directed the brass wire outside\nthe house, and not into his pent-up chamber, he would not have shared\nthe lot of Salmoneus, Ajax Oileus, the emperor Carus, the son of a\nFrench minister of state, and of several monks in the Pyrenees.\n\n\n\n\nTOLERATION.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nWhat is toleration? It is the appurtenance of humanity. We are all full\nof weakness and errors; let us mutually pardon each other our\nfollies--it is the first law of nature.\n\nWhen, on the exchange of Amsterdam, of London, of Surat, or of Bassora,\nthe Gueber, the Banian, the Jew, the Mahometan, the Chinese Deist, the\nBrahmin, the Christian of the Greek Church, the Roman Catholic\nChristian, the Protestant Christian, and the Quaker Christian, traffic\ntogether, they do not lift the poniard against each other, in order to\ngain souls for their religion. Why then have we been cutting one\nanother's throats almost without interruption since the first Council of\nNice?\n\nConstantine began by issuing an edict which allowed all religions, and\nended by persecuting. Before him, tumults were excited against the\nChristians, only because they began to make a party in the state. The\nRomans permitted all kinds of worship, even those of the Jews, and of\nthe Egyptians, for whom they had so much contempt. Why did Rome tolerate\nthese religions? Because neither the Egyptians, nor even the Jews,\naimed at exterminating the ancient religion of the empire, or ranged\nthrough land and sea for proselytes; they thought only of money-getting;\nbut it is undeniable, that the Christians wished their own religion to\nbe the dominant one. The Jews would not suffer the statue of Jupiter at\nJerusalem, but the Christians wished it not to be in the capitol. St.\nThomas had the candor to avow, that if the Christians did not dethrone\nthe emperors, it was because they could not. Their opinion was, that the\nwhole earth ought to be Christian. They were therefore necessarily\nenemies to the whole earth, until it was converted.\n\nAmong themselves, they were the enemies of each other on all their\npoints of controversy. Was it first of all necessary to regard Jesus\nChrist as God? Those who denied it were anathematized under the name of\nEbionites, who themselves anathematized the adorers of Jesus.\n\nDid some among them wish all things to be in common, as it is pretended\nthey were in the time of the apostles? Their adversaries called them\nNicolaites, and accused them of the most infamous crimes. Did others\nprofess a mystical devotion? They were termed Gnostics, and attacked\nwith fury. Did Marcion dispute on the Trinity? He was treated as an\nidolater.\n\nTertullian, Praxeas, Origen, Novatus, Novatian, Sabellius, Donatus, were\nall persecuted by their brethren, before Constantine; and scarcely had\nConstantine made the Christian religion the ruling one, when the\nAthanasians and the Eusebians tore each other to pieces; and from that\ntime to our own days, the Christian Church has been deluged with blood.\n\nThe Jewish people were, I confess, a very barbarous nation. They\nmercilessly cut the throats of all the inhabitants of an unfortunate\nlittle country upon which they had no more claim than they had upon\nParis or London. However, when Naaman was cured of the leprosy by being\nplunged seven times in the Jordan--when, in order to testify his\ngratitude to Elisha, who had taught him the secret, he told him he would\nadore the god of the Jews from gratitude, he reserved to himself the\nliberty to adore also the god of his own king; he asked Elisha's\npermission to do so, and the prophet did not hesitate to grant it. The\nJews adored their god, but they were never astonished that every nation\nhad its own. They approved of Chemos having given a certain district to\nthe Moabites, provided their god would give them one also. Jacob did not\nhesitate to marry the daughters of an idolater. Laban had his god, as\nJacob had his. Such are the examples of toleration among the most\nintolerant and cruel people of antiquity. We have imitated them in their\nabsurd passions, and not in their indulgence.\n\nIt is clear that every private individual who persecutes a man, his\nbrother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster. This\nadmits of no difficulty. But the government, the magistrates, the\nprinces!--how do they conduct themselves towards those who have a faith\ndifferent from their own? If they are powerful foreigners, it is certain\nthat a prince will form an alliance with them. The Most Christian\nFrancis I. will league himself with the Mussulmans against the Most\nCatholic Charles V. Francis I. will give money to the Lutherans in\nGermany, to support them in their rebellion against their emperor; but\nhe will commence, as usual, by having the Lutherans in his own country\nburned. He pays them in Saxony from policy; he burns them in Paris from\npolicy. But what follows? Persecutions make proselytes. France will soon\nbe filled with new Protestants. At first they will submit to be hanged;\nafterwards they will hang in their turn. There will be civil wars; then\nSaint Bartholomew will come; and this corner of the world will be worse\nthan all that the ancients and moderns have ever said of hell.\n\nBlockheads, who have never been able to render a pure worship to the God\nwho made you! Wretches, whom the example of the Noachides, the Chinese\nliterati, the Parsees, and of all the wise, has not availed to guide!\nMonsters, who need superstitions, just as the gizzard of a raven needs\ncarrion! We have already told you--and we have nothing else to say--if\nyou have two religions among you, they will massacre each other; if you\nhave thirty, they will live in peace. Look at the Grand Turk: he governs\nGuebers, Banians, Christians of the Greek Church, Nestorians, and Roman\nCatholics. The first who would excite a tumult is empaled; and all is\ntranquil.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nOf all religions, the Christian ought doubtless to inspire the most\ntoleration, although hitherto the Christians have been the most\nintolerant of all men. Jesus, having deigned to be born in poverty and\nlowliness like his brethren, never condescended to practise the art of\nwriting. The Jews had a law written with the greatest minuteness, and we\nhave not a single line from the hand of Jesus. The apostles were divided\non many points. St. Peter and St. Barnabas ate forbidden meats with the\nnew stranger Christians, and abstained from them with the Jewish\nChristians. St. Paul reproached them with this conduct; and this same\nSt. Paul, the Pharisee, the disciple of the Pharisee Gamaliel--this same\nSt. Paul, who had persecuted the Christians with fury, and who after\nbreaking with Gamaliel became a Christian himself--nevertheless, went\nafterwards to sacrifice in the temple of Jerusalem, during his apostolic\nvacation. For eight days he observed publicly all the ceremonies of the\nJewish law which he had renounced; he even added devotions and\npurifications which were superabundant; he completely Judaized. The\ngreatest apostle of the Christians did, for eight days, the very things\nfor which men are condemned to the stake among a large portion of\nChristian nations.\n\nTheudas and Judas were called Messiahs, before Jesus: Dositheus, Simon,\nMenander, called themselves Messiahs, after Jesus. From the first\ncentury of the Church, and before even the name of Christian was known,\nthere were a score of sects in Jud\u00e6a.\n\nThe contemplative Gnostics, the Dositheans, the Cerintheins, existed\nbefore the disciples of Jesus had taken the name of Christians. There\nwere soon thirty churches, each of which belonged to a different\nsociety; and by the close of the first century thirty sects of\nChristians might be reckoned in Asia Minor, in Syria, in Alexandria, and\neven in Rome.\n\nAll these sects, despised by the Roman government, and concealed in\ntheir obscurity, nevertheless persecuted each other in the hiding holes\nwhere they lurked; that is to say, they reproached one another. This is\nall they could do in their abject condition: they were almost wholly\ncomposed of the dregs of the people.\n\nWhen at length some Christians had embraced the dogmas of Plato, and\nmingled a little philosophy with their religion, which they separated\nfrom the Jewish, they insensibly became more considerable, but were\nalways divided into many sects, without there ever having been a time\nwhen the Christian church was reunited. It took its origin in the midst\nof the divisions of the Jews, the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the\nSadducees, the Essenians, the Judaites, the disciples of John, and the\nTherapeutae. It was divided in its infancy; it was divided even amid\nthe persecutions it sometimes endured under the first emperors. The\nmartyr was often regarded by his brethren as an apostate; and the\nCarpocratian Christian expired under the sword of the Roman executioner,\nexcommunicated by the Ebionite Christian, which Ebionite was\nanathematized by the Sabellian.\n\nThis horrible discord, lasting for so many centuries, is a very striking\nlesson that we ought mutually to forgive each other's errors: discord is\nthe great evil of the human species, and toleration is its only remedy.\n\nThere is nobody who does not assent to this truth, whether meditating\ncoolly in his closet, or examining the truth peaceably with his friends.\nWhy, then, do the same men who in private admit charity, beneficence,\nand justice, oppose themselves in public so furiously against these\nvirtues? Why!--it is because their interest is their god; because they\nsacrifice all to that monster whom they adore.\n\nI possess dignity and power, which ignorance and credulity have founded.\nI trample on the heads of men prostrated at my feet; if they should rise\nand look me in the face, I am lost; they must, therefore, be kept bound\ndown to the earth with chains of iron.\n\nThus have men reasoned, whom ages of fanaticism have rendered powerful.\nThey have other persons in power under them, and these latter again have\nunderlings, who enrich themselves with the spoils of the poor man,\nfatten themselves with his blood, and laugh at his imbecility. They\ndetest all toleration, as contractors enriched at the expense of the\npublic are afraid to render their accounts, and as tyrants dread the\nname of liberty. To crown all, in short, they encourage fanatics who cry\naloud: Respect the absurdities of my master; tremble, pay, and be\nsilent.\n\nSuch was the practice for a long time in a great part of the world; but\nnow, when so many sects are balanced by their power, what side must we\ntake among them? Every sect, we know, is a mere title of error; while\nthere is no sect of geometricians, of algebraists, of arithmeticians;\nbecause all the propositions of geometry, algebra, and arithmetic, are\ntrue. In all the other sciences, one may be mistaken. What Thomist or\nScotist theologian can venture to assert seriously that he goes on sure\ngrounds?\n\nIf there is any sect which reminds one of the time of the first\nChristians, it is undeniably that of the Quakers. The apostles received\nthe spirit. The Quakers receive the spirit. The apostles and disciples\nspoke three or four at once in the assembly in the third story; the\nQuakers do as much on the ground floor. Women were permitted to preach,\naccording to St. Paul, and they were forbidden according to the same St.\nPaul: the Quakeresses preach by virtue of the first permission.\n\nThe apostles and disciples swore by yea and nay; the Quakers will not\nswear in any other form. There was no rank, no difference of dress,\namong apostles and disciples; the Quakers have sleeves without buttons,\nand are all clothed alike. Jesus Christ baptized none of his apostles;\nthe Quakers are never baptized.\n\nIt would be easy to push the parallel farther; it would be still easier\nto demonstrate how much the Christian religion of our day differs from\nthe religion which Jesus practised. Jesus was a Jew, and we are not\nJews. Jesus abstained from pork, because it is uncleanly, and from\nrabbit, because it ruminates and its foot is not cloven; we fearlessly\neat pork, because it is not uncleanly for us, and we eat rabbit which\nhas the cloven foot and does not ruminate.\n\nJesus was circumcised, and we retain our foreskin. Jesus ate the Paschal\nlamb with lettuce, He celebrated the feast of the tabernacles; and we do\nnothing of this. He observed the Sabbath, and we have changed it; He\nsacrificed, and we never sacrifice.\n\nJesus always concealed the mystery of His incarnation and His dignity;\nHe never said He was equal to God. St. Paul says expressly, in his\nEpistle to the Hebrews, that God created Jesus inferior to the angels;\nand in spite of St. Paul's words, Jesus was acknowledged as God at the\nCouncil of Nice.\n\nJesus has not given the pope either the march of Ancona or the duchy of\nSpoleto; and, notwithstanding, the pope possesses them by divine right.\nJesus did not make a sacrament either of marriage or of deaconry; and,\nwith us, marriage and deaconry are sacraments. If we would attend\nclosely to the fact, the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion is, in\nall its ceremonies and in all its dogma, the reverse of the religion of\nJesus!\n\nBut what! must we all Judaize, because Jesus Judaized all His life? If\nit were allowed to reason logically in matters of religion, it is clear\nthat we ought all to become Jews, since Jesus Christ, our Saviour, was\nborn a Jew, lived a Jew and died a Jew, and since He expressly said,\nthat He accomplished and fulfilled the Jewish religion. But it is still\nmore clear that we ought mutually to tolerate one another, because we\nare all weak, irrational, and subject to change and error. A reed\nprostrated by the wind in the mire--ought it to say to a neighboring\nreed placed in a contrary direction: Creep after my fashion, wretch, or\nI will present a request for you to be seized and burned?\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nMy friends, when we have preached toleration in prose and in verse, in\nsome of our pulpits, and in all our societies--when we have made these\ntrue human voices resound in the organs of our churches--we have done\nsomething for nature, we have reestablished humanity in its rights;\nthere will no longer be an ex-Jesuit, or an ex-Jansenist, who dares to\nsay, I am intolerant.\n\nThere will always be barbarians and cheats who will foment intolerance;\nbut they will not avow it--and that is something gained. Let us always\nbear in mind, my friends, let us repeat--for we must repeat, for fear it\nshould be forgotten--the words of the bishop of Soissons, not Languet,\nbut Fitzjames-Stuart, in his mandate of 1757: \"We ought to regard the\nTurks as our brethren.\"\n\nLet us consider, that throughout English America, which constitutes\nnearly the fourth part of the known world, entire liberty of conscience\nis established; and provided a man believes in a God, every religion is\nwell received: notwithstanding which, commerce flourishes and population\nincreases. Let us always reflect, that the first law of the Empire of\nRussia, which is greater than the Roman Empire, is the toleration of\nevery sect.\n\nThe Turkish Empire, and the Persian, always allowed the same indulgence.\nMahomet II., when he took Constantinople, did not force the Greeks to\nabandon their religion, although he looked on them as idolaters. Every\nGreek father of a family got off for five or six crowns a year. Many\nprebends and bishoprics were preserved for them; and even at this day\nthe Turkish sultan makes canons and bishops, without the pope having\never made an imam or a mollah.\n\nMy friends, there are only some monks, and some Protestants as barbarous\nas those monks, who are still intolerant. We have been so infected with\nthis furor, that in our voyages of long duration, we have carried it to\nChina, to Tonquin, and Japan. We have introduced the plague to those\nbeautiful climes. The most indulgent of mankind have been taught by us\nto be the most inflexible. We said to them at the outset, in return for\ntheir kind welcome--Know that we alone on the earth are in the right,\nand that we ought to be masters everywhere. Then they drove us away\nforever. This lesson, which has cost seas of blood, ought to correct us.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nThe author of the preceding article is a worthy man who would sup with a\nQuaker, an Anabaptist, a Socinian, a Mussulman, etc. _I_ would push this\ncivility farther; I would say to my brother the Turk--Let us eat\ntogether a good hen with rice, invoking Allah; your religion seems to me\nvery respectable; you adore but one God; you are obliged to give the\nfortieth part of your revenue every day in alms, and to be reconciled\nwith your enemies on the day of the Bairam. Our bigots, who calumniate\nthe world, have said a hundred times, that your religion succeeded only\nbecause it was wholly sensual. They have lied, poor fellows! Your\nreligion is very austere; it commands prayer five times a day; it\nimposes the most rigorous fast; it denies you the wine and the liquors\nwhich our spiritual directors encourage; and if it permits only four\nwives to those who can support them--which are very few--it condemns by\nthis restriction the Jewish incontinence, which allowed eighteen wives\nto the homicide David, and seven hundred, without reckoning concubines,\nto Solomon, the assassin of his brother.\n\nI will say to my brother the Chinese: Let us sup together without\nceremony, for I dislike grimaces; but I like your law, the wisest of\nall, and perhaps the most ancient. I will say nearly as much to my\nbrother the Indian.\n\nBut what shall I say to my brother the Jew? Shall I invite him to\nsupper? Yes, on condition that, during the repast, Balaam's ass does not\ntake it into its head to bray; that Ezekiel does not mix his dinner with\nour supper; that a fish does not swallow up one of the guests, and keep\nhim three days in his belly; that a serpent does not join in the\nconversation, in order to seduce my wife; that a prophet does not think\nproper to sleep with her, as the worthy man, Hosea, did for five francs\nand a bushel of barley; above all, that no Jew parades through my house\nto the sound of the trumpet, causes the walls to fall down, and cuts the\nthroats of myself, my father, my mother, my wife, my children, my cat\nand my dog, according to the ancient practice of the Jews. Come, my\nfriends, let us have peace, and say our _benedicite_.\n\n\n\n\nTOPHET.\n\n\nTophet was, and is still, a precipice near Jerusalem, in the valley of\nHinnom, which is a frightful place, abounding only in flints. It was in\nthis dreary solitude that the Jews immolated their children to their\ngod, whom they then called Moloch; for we have observed, that they\nalways bestowed a foreign name on their god. _Shadai_ was Syrian;\n_Adonai_, Ph\u0153nician; _Jehovah_ was also Ph\u0153nician; _Eloi_,\n_Elohim_, _Eloa_, Chald\u00e6an; and in the same manner, the names of all\ntheir angels were Chald\u00e6an or Persian. This we have remarked very\nparticularly.\n\nAll these different names equally signify \"the lord,\" in the jargon of\nthe petty nations bordering on Palestine. The word _Moloch_ is evidently\nderived from _Melk_, which was the same as _Melcom_ or _Melcon_, the\ndivinity of the thousand women in the seraglio of Solomon; to-wit, seven\nhundred wives and three hundred concubines. All these names signify\n\"lord\": each village had its lord.\n\nSome sages pretend that Moloch was more particularly the god of fire;\nand that it was on that account the Jews burned their children in the\nhollow of the idol of this same Moloch. It was a large statue of copper,\nrendered as hideous as the Jews could make it. They heated the statue\nred hot, in a large fire, although they had very little fuel, and cast\ntheir children into the belly of this god, as our cooks cast living\nlobsters into the boiling water of their cauldrons. Such were the\nancient Celts and Tudescans, when they burned children in honor of\nTeutates and Hirminsule. Such the Gallic virtue, and the German\nfreedom!\n\nJeremiah wished, in vain, to detach the Jewish people from this\ndiabolical worship. In vain he reproaches them with having built a sort\nof temple to Moloch in this abominable valley. \"They have built high\nplaces in Tophet, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, in\norder to pass their sons and daughters through the fire.\"\n\nThe Jews paid so much the less regard to the reproaches of Jeremiah, as\nthey fiercely accused him of having sold himself to the king of Babylon;\nof having uniformly prophesied in his favor; and of having betrayed his\ncountry. In short, he suffered the punishment of a traitor; he was\nstoned to death.\n\nThe Book of Kings informs us, that Solomon built a temple to Moloch, but\nit does not say that it was in the valley of Tophet, but in the vicinity\nupon the Mount of Olives. The situation was fine, if anything can be\ncalled fine in the frightful neighborhood of Jerusalem.\n\nSome commentators pretend, that Ahaz, king of Judah, burned his son in\nhonor of Moloch, and that King Manasses was guilty of the same\nbarbarity. Other commentators suppose, that these kings of the chosen\npeople of God were content with casting their children into the flames,\nbut that they were not burned to death. I wish that it may have been so;\nbut it is very difficult for a child not to be burned when placed on a\nlighted pile.\n\nThis valley of Tophet was the \"Clamart\" of Paris, the place where they\ndeposited all the rubbish and carrion of the city. It was in this\nvalley that they cast loose the scape-goat; it was the place in which\nthe bodies of the two criminals were cast who suffered with the Son of\nGod; but our Saviour did not permit His body, which was given up to the\nexecutioner, to be cast in the highway of the valley of Tophet,\naccording to custom. It is true, that He might have risen again in\nTophet, as well as in Calvary; but a good Jew, named Joseph, a native of\nArimathea, who had prepared a sepulchre for himself on Mount Calvary,\nplaced the body of the Saviour therein, according to the testimony of\nSt. Matthew. No one was allowed to be buried in the towns; even the tomb\nof David was not in Jerusalem.\n\nJoseph of Arimathea was rich--\"a certain rich man of Arimathea,\"--that\nthe prophecy of Isaiah might be fulfilled: \"And he made his grave with\nthe wicked, and with the rich in his death.\"\n\n\n\n\nTORTURE.\n\n\nThough there are few articles of jurisprudence in these honest\nalphabetical reflections, we must, however, say a word or two on\ntorture, otherwise called \"the question\"; which is a strange manner of\nquestioning men. They were not, however, the simply curious who invented\nit; there is every appearance, that this part of our legislation owes\nits first origin to a highwayman. Most of these gentlemen are still in\nthe habit of screwing thumbs, burning feet, and questioning, by various\ntorments, those who refuse to tell them where they have put their money.\n\nConquerors having succeeded these thieves, found the invention very\nuseful to their interests; they made use of it when they suspected that\nthere were bad designs against them: as, for example, that of seeking\nfreedom was a crime of high treason, human and divine. The accomplices\nmust be known; and to accomplish it, those who were suspected were made\nto suffer a thousand deaths, because, according to the jurisprudence of\nthese primitive heroes, whoever was suspected of merely having a\ndisrespectful opinion of them, was worthy of death. As soon as they have\nthus merited death, it signifies little whether they had frightful\ntorments for several days, and even weeks previously--a practice which\nsavors, I know not how, of the Divinity. Providence sometimes puts us to\nthe torture by employing the stone, gravel, gout, scrofula, leprosy,\nsmallpox; by tearing the entrails, by convulsions of the nerves,-and\nother executors of the vengeance of Providence.\n\nNow, as the first despots were, in the eyes of their courtiers, images\nof the Divinity, they imitated it as much as they could. What is very\nsingular is, that the question, or torture, is never spoken of in the\nJewish books. It is a great pity that so mild, honest, and compassionate\na nation knew not this method of discovering the truth. In my opinion,\nthe reason is, that they had no need of it. God always made it known to\nthem as to His cherished people. Sometimes they played at dice to\ndiscover the truth, and the suspected culprit always had double sixes.\nSometimes they went to the high priest, who immediately consulted God by\nthe urim and thummim. Sometimes they addressed themselves to the seer\nand prophet; and you may believe that the seer and prophet discovered\nthe most hidden things, as well as the urim and thummim of the high\npriest. The people of God were not reduced, like ourselves, to\ninterrogating and conjecturing; and therefore torture could not be in\nuse among them, which was the only thing wanting to complete the manners\nof that holy people. The Romans inflicted torture on slaves alone, but\nslaves were not considered as men. Neither is there any appearance that\na counsellor of the criminal court regards as one of his\nfellow-creatures, a man who is brought to him wan, pale, distorted, with\nsunken eyes, long and dirty beard, covered with vermin with which he has\nbeen tormented in a dungeon. He gives himself the pleasure of applying\nto him the major and minor torture, in the presence of a surgeon, who\ncounts his pulse until he is in danger of death, after which they\nrecommence; and as the comedy of the \"Plaideurs\" pleasantly says, \"that\nserves to pass away an hour or two.\"\n\nThe grave magistrate, who for money has bought the right of making these\nexperiments on his neighbor, relates to his wife, at dinner, that which\nhas passed in the morning. The first time, madam shudders at it; the\nsecond, she takes some pleasure in it, because, after all, women are\ncurious; and afterwards, the first thing she says when he enters is: \"My\ndear, have you tortured anybody to-day?\" The French, who are considered,\nI know not why, a very humane people, are astonished that the English,\nwho have had the inhumanity to take all Canada from us, have renounced\nthe pleasure of putting the question.\n\nWhen the Chevalier de Barre, the grandson of a lieutenant-general of the\narmy, a young man of much sense and great expectations, but possessing\nall the giddiness of unbridled youth, was convicted of having sung\nimpious songs, and even of having dared to pass before a procession of\nCapuchins without taking his hat off, the judges of Abbeville, men\ncomparable to Roman senators, ordered not only that his tongue should be\ntorn out, that his hands should be torn off, and his body burned at a\nslow fire, but they further applied the torture, to know precisely how\nmany songs he had sung, and how many processions he had seen with his\nhat on his head.\n\nIt was not in the thirteenth or fourteenth century that this affair\nhappened; it was in the eighteenth. Foreign nations judge of France by\nits spectacles, romances, and pretty verses; by opera girls who have\nvery sweet manners, by opera dancers who posssess grace; by\nMademoiselle Clairon, who declaims delightfully. They know not that,\nunder all, there is not a more cruel nation than the French. The\nRussians were considered barbarians in 1700; this is only the year 1769;\nyet an empress has just given to this great state laws which would do\nhonor to Minos, Numa, or Solon, if they had had intelligence enough to\ninvent them. The most remarkable is universal tolerance; the second is\nthe abolition of torture. Justice and humanity have guided her pen; she\nhas reformed all. Woe to a nation which, being more civilized, is still\nled by ancient atrocious customs! \"Why should we change our\njurisprudence?\" say we. \"Europe is indebted to us for cooks, tailors,\nand wig-makers; therefore, our laws are good.\"\n\n\n\n\nTRANSUBSTANTIATION.\n\n\nProtestants, and above all, philosophical Protestants, regard\ntransubstantiation as the most signal proof of extreme impudence in\nmonks, and of imbecility in laymen. They hold no terms with this belief,\nwhich they call monstrous, and assert that it is impossible for a man of\ngood sense ever to have believed in it. It is, say they, so absurd, so\ncontrary to every physical law, and so contradictory, it would be a sort\nof annihilation of God, to suppose Him capable of such inconsistency.\nNot only a god in a wafer, but a god in the place of a wafer; a thousand\ncrumbs of bread become in an instant so many gods, which an innumerable\ncrowd of gods make only one god. Whiteness without a white substance;\nroundness without rotundity of body; wine changed into blood, retaining\nthe taste of wine; bread changed into flesh and into fibres, still\npreserving the taste of bread--all this inspires such a degree of horror\nand contempt in the enemies of the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman\nreligion, that it sometimes insensibly verges into rage.\n\nTheir horror augments when they are told that, in Catholic countries,\nare monks who rise from a bed of impurity, and with unwashed hands make\ngods by hundreds; who eat and drink these gods, and reduce them to the\nusual consequences of such an operation. But when they reflect that this\nsuperstition, a thousand times more absurd and sacrilegious than those\nof Egypt, produces for an Italian priest from fifteen to twenty millions\nof revenue, and the domination of a country containing a hundred\nthousand square leagues, they are ready to march with their arms in\ntheir hands and drive away this priest from the palace of C\u00e6sar. I know\nnot if I shall be of the party, because I love peace; but when\nestablished at Rome, I will certainly pay them a visit.--By M.\nGUILLAUME, a Protestant minister.\n\n\n\n\nTRINITY.\n\n\nThe first among the Westerns who spoke of the Trinity was Tim\u00e6us of\nLocri, in his \"Soul of the World.\" First came the Idea, the perpetual\nmodel or archetype of all things engendered; that is to say, the first\n\"Word,\" the internal and intelligible \"Word.\" Afterwards, the unformed\nmode, the second word, or the word spoken. Lastly, the \"son,\" or\nsensible world, or the spirit of the world. These three qualities\nconstitute the entire world, which world is the Son of God \"Monogenes.\"\nHe has a soul and possessed reason; he is \"_empsukos, logikos_.\"\n\nGod, wishing to make a very fine God, has engendered one: \"_Touton epoie\ntheon genaton._\"\n\nIt is difficult clearly to comprehend the system of Tim\u00e6us, which he\nperhaps derived from the Egyptians or Brahmins. I know not whether it\nwas well understood in his time. It is like decayed and rusty medals,\nthe motto of which is effaced: it could be read formerly; at present, we\nput what construction we please upon it.\n\nIt does not appear that this sublime balderdash made much progress until\nthe time of Plato. It was buried in oblivion, and Plato raised it up. He\nconstructed his edifice in the air, but on the model of Tim\u00e6us. He\nadmits three divine essences: the Father, the Supreme Creator, the\nParent of other gods, is the first essence. The second is the visible\nGod, the minister of the invisible one, the \"Word,\" the understanding,\nthe great spirit. The third is the world.\n\nIt is true, that Plato sometimes says quite different and even quite\ncontrary things; it is the privilege of the Greek philosophers; and\nPlato has made use of his right more than any of the ancients or\nmoderns. A Greek wind wafted these philosophical clouds from Athens to\nAlexandria, a town prodigiously infatuated with two things--money and\nchimeras. There were Jews in Alexandria who, having made their fortunes,\nturned philosophers.\n\nMetaphysics have this advantage, that they require no very troublesome\npreliminaries. We may know all about them without having learned\nanything; and a little to those who have at once subtle and very false\nminds, will go a great way. Philo the Jew was a philosopher of this\nkind; he was contemporary with Jesus Christ; but he has the misfortune\nof not knowing Him any more than Josephus the historian. These two\nconsiderable men, employed in the chaos of affairs of state, were too\nfar distant from the dawning light. This Philo had quite a metaphysical,\nallegorical, mystical head. It was he who said that God must have formed\nthe world in six days; he formed it, according to Zoroaster, in six\ntimes, \"because three is the half of six and two is the third of it; and\nthis number is male and female.\"\n\nThis same man, infatuated with the ideas of Plato, says, in speaking of\ndrunkenness, that God and wisdom married, and that wisdom was delivered\nof a well-beloved son, which son is the world. He calls the angels the\nwords of God, and the world the word of God--\"_logon tou Theou_.\"\n\nAs to Flavius Josephus, he was a man of war who had never heard of the\nlogos, and who held to the dogmas of the Pharisees, who were solely\nattached to their traditions. From the Jews of Alexandria, this Platonic\nphilosophy proceeded to those of Jerusalem. Soon, all the school of\nAlexandria, which was the only learned one, was Platonic; and Christians\nwho philosophized, no longer spoke of anything but the _logos_.\n\nWe know that it was in disputes of that time the same as in those of the\npresent. To one badly understood passage, was tacked another\nunintelligible one to which it had no relation. A second was inferred\nfrom them, a third was falsified, and they fabricated whole books which\nthey attributed to authors respected by the multitude. We have seen a\nhundred examples of it in the article on \"Apocrypha.\"\n\nDear reader, for heaven's sake cast your eyes on this passage of Clement\nthe Alexandrian: \"When Plato says, that it is difficult to know the\nFather of the universe, he demonstrates by that, not only that the world\nhas been engendered, but that it has been engendered as the Son of God.\"\n\nDo you understand these logomachies, these equivoques? Do you see the\nleast light in this chaos of obscure expressions? Oh, Locke! Locke! come\nand define these terms. In all these Platonic disputes I believe there\nwas not a single one understood. They distinguished two words, the\n\"_logos endiathetos_\"--the word in thought, and the word\nproduced--\"_logos prophorikos._\" They had the eternity from one word,\nand the prolation, the emanation from another word.\n\nThe book of \"Apostolic Constitutions,\" an ancient monument of fraud, but\nalso an ancient depository of these obscure times, expresses itself\nthus: \"The Father, who is anterior to all generation, all commencement,\nhaving created all by His only Son, has engendered this Son without a\nmedium, by His will and His power.\"\n\nAfterwards Origen advanced, that the Holy Spirit was created by the Son,\nby the word. After that came Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea, who taught that the\nspirit paraclete is neither of Father nor Son. The advocate Lactantius\nflourished in that time.\n\n\"The Son of God,\" says he, \"is the word, as the other angels are the\nspirits of God. The word is a spirit uttered by a significant voice, the\nspirit proceeding from the nose, and the word from the mouth. It\nfollows, that there is a difference between the Son of God and the other\nangels; those being emanated like tacit and silent spirits; while the\nSon, being a spirit proceeding from the mouth, possesses sound and voice\nto preach to the people.\"\n\nIt must be confessed, that Lactantius pleaded his cause in a strange\nmanner. It was truly reasoning a la Plato, and very powerful reasoning.\nIt was about this time that, among the very violent disputes on the\nTrinity, this famous verse was inserted in the First Epistle of St.\nJohn: \"There are three that bear witness in earth--the word or spirit,\nthe water, and the blood; and these three are one.\"\n\nThose who pretend that this verse is truly St. John's, are much more\nembarrassed than those who deny it; for they must explain it. St.\nAugustine says, that the spirit signifies the Father, water the Holy\nGhost, and by blood is meant the Word. This explanation is fine, but it\nstill leaves a little confusion.\n\nSt Iren\u00e6us goes much farther; he says, that Rahab, the prostitute of\nJericho, in concealing three spies of the people of God, concealed the\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost; which is strong, but not consistent. On the\nother hand, the great and learned Origen confounds us in a different\nway. The following is one of many of his passages: \"The Son is as much\nbelow the Father as He and the Holy Ghost are above the most noble\ncreatures.\"\n\nWhat can be said after that? How can we help confessing, with grief,\nthat nobody understands it? How can we help confessing, that from the\nfirst--from the primitive Christians, the Ebionites, those men so\nmortified and so pious, who always revered Jesus though they believed\nHim to be the son of Joseph--until the great controversy of Athanasius,\nthe Platonism of the Trinity was always a subject of quarrels. A supreme\njudge was absolutely required to decide, and he was at last found in\nthe Council of Nice, which council afterwards produced new factions and\nwars.\n\nEXPLANATION OF THE TRINITY, ACCORDING TO ABAUZIT.\n\n\"We can speak with exactness of the manner in which the union of God and\nJesus Christ exists, only by relating the three opinions which exist on\nthis subject, and by making reflections on each of them.\n\n\"_Opinion of the Orthodox._\n\n\"The first opinion is that of the orthodox. They establish, 1st--A\ndistinction of three persons in the divine essence, before the coming of\nJesus Christ into the world; 2nd--That the second of these persons is\nunited to the human nature of Jesus Christ; 3rd--That the union is so\nstrict, that by it Jesus Christ is God; that we can attribute to Him the\ncreation of the world, and all divine perfections; and that we can adore\nHim with a supreme worship.\n\n\"_Opinion of the Unitarians._\n\n\"The second is that of the Unitarians. Not conceiving the distinction of\npersons in the Divinity, they establish, 1st--That divinity is united to\nthe human nature of Jesus Christ; 2nd--That this union is such that we\ncan say, that Jesus Christ is God; that we can attribute to Him the\ncreation of the world, and all divine perfections, and adore Him with a\nsupreme worship.\n\n\"_Opinion of the Socinians._\n\n\"The third opinion is that of the Socinians, who, like the Unitarians,\nnot conceiving any distinction of persons in the Divinity, establish,\n1st--That divinity is united to the human nature of Jesus Christ;\n2nd--That this union is very strict; 3rd--That it is not such that we\ncan call Jesus Christ God, or attribute divine perfections and the\ncreation to Him, or adore Him with a supreme worship; and they think\nthat all the passages of Scripture may be explained without admitting\nany of these things.\n\n\"_Reflections on the First Opinion._\n\n\"In the distinction which is made of three persons in the Divinity, we\neither retain the common idea of persons, or we do not. If we retain the\ncommon idea of persons, we establish three gods; that is certain. If we\ndo not establish the ordinary idea of three persons, it is no longer any\nmore than a distinction of properties; which agrees with the second\nopinion. Or if we will not allow that it is a distinction of persons,\nproperly speaking, we establish a distinction of which we have no idea.\nThere is no appearance, that to imagine a distinction in God, of which\nwe can have no idea, Scripture would put men in danger of becoming\nidolaters, by multiplying the Divinity. It is besides surprising that\nthis distinction of persons having always existed, it should only be\nsince the coming of Jesus Christ that it has been revealed, and that it\nis necessary to know them.\n\n\"_Reflections on the Second Opinion._\n\n\"There is not, indeed, so great danger of precipitating men into\nidolatry in the second opinion as in the first; but it must be confessed\nthat it is not entirely exempt from it. Indeed, as by the nature of the\nunion which it establishes between divinity and the human nature of\nJesus Christ, we can call him God and worship him, but there are two\nobjects of adoration--Jesus Christ and God. I confess it may be said,\nthat it is God whom we should worship in Jesus Christ; but who knows not\nthe extreme inclination which men have to change invisible objects of\nworship into objects which fall under the senses, or at least under the\nimagination?--an inclination which they will here gratify without the\nleast scruple, since they say that divinity is personally united to the\nhumanity of Jesus Christ.\n\n\"_Reflections on the Third Opinion._\n\n\"The third opinion, besides being very simple, and conformable to the\nideas of reason, is not subject to any similar danger of throwing men\ninto idolatry. Though by this opinion Jesus Christ can be no more than a\nsimple man, it need not be feared that by that He can be confounded with\nprophets or saints of the first order. In this sentiment there always\nremains a difference between them and Him. As we can imagine, almost to\nthe utmost, the degrees of union of divinity with humanity, so we can\nconceive, that in particular the union of divinity with Jesus Christ\nhas so high a degree of knowledge, power, felicity, perfection, and\ndignity, that there is always an immense distance between him and the\ngreatest prophets. It remains only to see whether this opinion can agree\nwith Scripture, and whether it be true that the title of God, divine\nperfections, creation, and supreme worship, are not attributed to Jesus\nChrist in the Gospels.\"\n\nIt was for the philosopher Abauzit to see all this. For myself I submit,\nwith my heart and mouth and pen, to all that the Catholic church has\ndecided, and to all that it may decide on any other such dogma. I will\nadd but one word more on the Trinity, which is a decision of Calvin's\nthat we have on this mystery. This is it:\n\n\"In case any person prove heterodox, and scruples using the words\nTrinity and Person, we believe not that this can be a reason for\nrejecting him; we should support him without driving him from the\nChurch, and without exposing him to any censure as a heretic.\"\n\nIt was after such a solemn declaration as this, that John Calvin--the\naforesaid Calvin, the son of a cooper of Noyon--caused Michael Servetus\nto be burned at Geneva by a slow fire with green fagots.\n\n\n\n\nTRUTH.\n\n\n\"Pilate therefore said unto him, 'Art thou a king then?' Jesus answered,\n'Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this\ncause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto truth:\nevery one that is of the truth heareth my voice.' Pilate saith unto him,\n'What is truth?' and when he had said this, he went out,\" etc.--St.\nJohn, chap. xviii.\n\nIt is a pity for mankind that Pilate went out, without hearing the\nreply: we should then have known what truth is. Pilate was not very\ncurious. The accused, brought before him, told him that he was a king,\nthat he was born to be a king, and he informs himself not how this can\nbe. He was supreme judge in the name of C\u00e6sar, he had the power of the\nsword, his duty was to penetrate into the meaning of these words. He\nshould have said: Tell me what you understand by being king? how are you\nborn to be king, and to bear witness unto the truth? It is said that you\ncan only arrive at the ear of kings with difficulty; I, who am a judge,\nhave always had extreme trouble in reaching it. Inform me, while your\nenemies cry outside against you; and you will render me the greatest\nservice ever rendered to a judge. I would rather learn to know the\ntruth, than condescend to the tumultuous demand of the Jews, who wish me\nto hang you.\n\nWe doubtless dare not pretend to guess what the Author of all truth\nwould have said to Pilate. Would he have said: \"Truth is an abstract\nword which most men use indifferently in their books and judgments, for\nerror and falsehood\"? This definition would be wonderfully convenient to\nall makers of systems. Thus the word wisdom is often taken for folly,\nand wit for nonsense. Humanly speaking, let us define truth, to better\nunderstand that which is declared--such as it is.\n\nSuppose that six months only had been taken to teach Pilate the truths\nof logic he would doubtless have made this concluding syllogism: A man's\nlife should not have been taken away who has only preached a good\ndoctrine; now he who is brought before me, according even to his\nenemies, has often preached an excellent doctrine; therefore, he should\nnot be punished with death.\n\nHe might also have inferred this other argument: My duty is to dissipate\nthe riots of a seditious people, who demand the death of a man without\nreason or juridical form; now such are the Jews on this occasion;\ntherefore I should send them away, and break up their assembly. We take\nfor granted that Pilate knew arithmetic; we will not therefore speak of\nthese kinds of truths.\n\nAs to mathematical truths, I believe that he would have required three\nyears at least before he would have been acquainted with transcendent\ngeometry. The truths of physics, combined with those of geometry, would\nhave required more than four years. We generally consume six years in\nstudying theology; I ask twelve for Pilate, considering that he was a\nPagan, and that six years would not have been too many to root out all\nhis old errors, and six more to put him in a state worthy to receive\nthe bonnet of a doctor. If Pilate had a well organized head, I would\nonly have demanded two years to teach him metaphysical truths, and as\nthese truths are necessarily united with those of morality, I flatter\nmyself that in less than nine years Pilate would have become a truly\nlearned and perfectly honest man.\n\n_Historical Truths._\n\nI should afterwards have said to Pilate: Historical truths are but\nprobabilities. If you have fought at the battle of Philippi, it is to\nyou a truth, which you know by intuition, by sentiment; but to us who\nlive near the desert of Syria, it is merely a probable thing, which we\nknow by hearsay. How can we, from report, form a persuasion equal to\nthat of a man, who having seen the thing, can boast of feeling a kind of\ncertainty?\n\nHe who has heard the thing told by twelve thousand ocular witnesses, has\nonly twelve thousand probabilities equal to one strong one, which is not\nequal to certainty. If you have the thing from only one of these\nwitnesses, you are sure of nothing--you must doubt. If the witness is\ndead, you must doubt still more, for you can enlighten yourself no\nfurther. If from several deceased witnesses, you are in the same state.\nIf from those to whom the witnesses have only spoken, the doubt is still\naugmented. From generation to generation the doubt augments, and the\nprobability diminishes, and the probability is soon reduced to zero.\n\n_Of the Degrees of Truth, According to Which the Accused are Judged._\n\nWe can be made accountable to justice either for deeds or words. If for\ndeeds, they must be as certain as will be the punishment to which you\nwill condemn the prisoner; if, for example, you have but twenty\nprobabilities against him, these twenty probabilities cannot equal the\ncertainty of his death. If you would have as many probabilities as are\nrequired to be sure that you shed not innocent blood, they must be the\nfruit of the unanimous evidences of witnesses who have no interest in\ndeposing. From this concourse of probabilities, a strong opinion will be\nformed, which will serve to excuse your judgment; but as you will never\nhave entire certainty, you cannot flatter yourself with knowing the\ntruth perfectly. Consequently you should always lean towards mercy\nrather than towards rigor. If it concerns only facts, from which neither\nmanslaughter nor mutilation have resulted, it is evident that you should\nneither cause the accused to be put to death nor mutilated.\n\nIf the question is only of words, it is still more evident that you\nshould not cause one of your fellow-creatures to be hanged for the\nmanner in which he has used his tongue; for all the words in the world\nbeing but agitated air, at least if they have not caused murder, it is\nridiculous to condemn a man to death for having agitated the air. Put\nall the idle words which have been uttered into one scale, and into the\nother the blood of a man, and the blood will weigh down. Now, if he who\nhas been brought before you is only accused of some words which his\nenemies have taken in a certain sense, all that you can do is to repeat\nthese words to him, which he will explain in the sense he intended; but\nto deliver an innocent man to the most cruel and ignominious punishment,\nfor words that his enemies do not comprehend, is too barbarous. You make\nthe life of a man of no more importance than that of a lizard; and too\nmany judges resemble you.\n\n\n\n\nTYRANNY.\n\n\nThe sovereign is called a tyrant who knows no laws but his caprice; who\ntakes the property of his subjects, and afterwards enlists them to go\nand take that of his neighbors. We have none of these tyrants in Europe.\nWe distinguish the tyranny of one and that of many. The tyranny of\nseveral is that of a body which would invade the rights of other bodies,\nand which would exercise despotism by favor of laws which it corrupts.\nNeither are there any tyrannies of this kind in Europe.\n\nUnder what tyranny should you like best to live? Under none; but if I\nmust choose, I should less detest the tyranny of a single one, than that\nof many. A despot has always some good moments; an assemblage of\ndespots, never. If a tyrant does me an injustice, I can disarm him\nthrough his mistress, his confessor, or his page; but a company of\ntyrants is inaccessible to all seductions. When they are not unjust,\nthey are harsh, and they never dispense favors. If I have but one\ndespot, I am at liberty to set myself against a wall when I see him\npass, to prostrate myself, or to strike my forehead against the ground,\naccording to the custom of the country; but if there is a company of a\nhundred tyrants, I am liable to repeat this ceremony a hundred times a\nday, which is very tiresome to those who have not supple joints. If I\nhave a farm in the neighborhood of one of our lords, I am crushed; if I\ncomplain against a relative of the relatives of any one of our lords, I\nam ruined. How must I act? I fear that in this world we are reduced to\nbeing either the anvil or the hammer; happy at least is he who escapes\nthis alternative.\n\n\n\n\nTYRANT.\n\n\n\"Tyrannos,\" formerly \"he who had contrived to draw the principal\nauthority to himself\"; as \"king,\" \"Basileus,\" signified \"he who was\ncharged with relating affairs to the senate.\" The acceptations of words\nchange with time. \"Idiot\" at first meant only a hermit, an isolated man;\nin time it became synonymous with fool. At present the name of \"tyrant\"\nis given to a usurper, or to a king who commits violent and unjust\nactions.\n\nCromwell was a tyrant of both these kinds. A citizen who usurps the\nsupreme authority, who in spite of all laws suppresses the house of\npeers, is without doubt a usurper. A general who cuts the throat of a\nking, his prisoner of war, at once violates what is called the laws of\nnations, and those of humanity.\n\nCharles I. was not a tyrant, though the victorious faction gave him that\nname; he was, it is said, obstinate, weak, and ill-advised. I will not\nbe certain, for I did not know him; but I am certain that he was very\nunfortunate.\n\nHenry VIII. was a tyrant in his government as in his family, and alike\ncovered with the blood of two innocent wives, and that of the most\nvirtuous citizens; he merits the execrations of posterity. Yet he was\nnot punished, and Charles I. died on a scaffold.\n\nElizabeth committed an act of tyranny, and her parliament one of\ninfamous weakness, in causing Queen Mary Stuart to be assassinated by an\nexecutioner; but in the rest of her government she was not tyrannical;\nshe was clever and man\u0153uvering, but prudent and strong.\n\nRichard III. was a barbarous tyrant; but he was punished. Pope Alexander\nVI. was a more execrable tyrant than any of these, and he was fortunate\nin all his undertakings. Christian II. was as wicked a tyrant as\nAlexander VI., and was punished, but not sufficiently so.\n\nIf we were to reckon Turkish, Greek, and Roman tyrants, we should find\nas many fortunate as the contrary. When I say fortunate, I speak\naccording to the vulgar prejudice, the ordinary acceptation of the\nword, according to appearances; for that they can be really happy, that\ntheir minds can be contented and tranquil, appears to me to be\nimpossible.\n\nConstantine the Great was evidently a tyrant in a double sense. In the\nnorth of England he usurped the crown of the Roman Empire, at the head\nof some foreign legions, notwithstanding all the laws, and in spite of\nthe senate and the people, who legitimately elected Maxentius. He passed\nall his life in crime, voluptuousness, fraud, and imposture. He was not\npunished, but was he happy? God knows; but I know that his subjects were\nnot so.\n\nThe great Theodosius was the most abominable of tyrants, when, under\npretence of giving a feast, he caused fifteen thousand Roman citizens to\nbe murdered in the circus, with their wives and children, and when he\nadded to this horror the facetiousness of passing some months without\ngoing to tire himself at high mass. This Theodosius has almost been\nplaced in the ranks of the blessed; but I should be very sorry if he\nwere happy on earth. In all cases it would be well to assure tyrants\nthat they will never be happy in this world, as it is well to make our\nstewards and cooks believe that they will be eternally damned if they\nrob us.\n\nThe tyrants of the Lower Greek Empire were almost all dethroned or\nassassinated by one another. All these great offenders were by turns the\nexecutioners of human and divine vengeance. Among the Turkish tyrants,\nwe see as many deposed as those who die in possession of the throne.\nWith regard to subaltern tyrants, or the lower order of monsters who\nburden their masters with the execration with which they are loaded, the\nnumber of these Hamans, these Sejanuses, is infinite.\n\n\n\n\nUNIVERSITY.\n\n\nDu Boulay, in his \"History of the University of Paris,\" adopts the old,\nuncertain, not to say fabulous tradition, which carries its origin to\nthe time of Charlemagne. It is true that such is the opinion of Guagin\nand of Gilles de Beauvais; but in addition to the fact that contemporary\nauthors, as Eginhard, Almon, Reginon, and Sigebert make no mention of\nthis establishment; Pasquier and Du Tillet expressly assert that it\ncommenced in the twelfth century under the reigns of Louis the Young and\nof Philip Augustus.\n\nMoreover, the first statutes of the university were drawn up by Robert\nde Coceon, legate of the pope, in the year 1215, which proves that it\nreceived from the first the form it retains at present; because a bull\nof Gregory IX., of the year 1231, makes mention of masters of theology,\nmasters of law, physicians, and lastly, artists. The name \"university\"\noriginated in the supposition that these four bodies, termed faculties,\nconstituted a universality of studies; that is to say, that they\ncomprehended all which could be cultivated.\n\nThe popes, by the means of these establishments, of the decisions of\nwhich they made themselves judges, became masters of the instruction of\nthe people; and the same spirit which made the permission granted to the\nmembers of the Parliament of Paris to inter themselves in the habits of\nCordeliers, be regarded as an especial favor--as related in the article\non \"Qu\u00eate\"--dictated the decrees pronounced by that sovereign court\nagainst all who dared to oppose an unintelligible scholastic system,\nwhich, according to the confession of the abb\u00e9 Triteme, was only a false\nscience that had vitiated religion. In fact, that which Constantine had\nonly insinuated with respect to the Cum\u00e6an Sibyl, has been expressly\nasserted of Aristotle. Cardinal Pallavicini supported the maxim of I\nknow not what monk Paul, who pleasantly observed, that without Aristotle\nthe Church would have been deficient in some of her articles of faith.\n\nThus the celebrated Ramus, having composed two works in which he opposed\nthe doctrine of Aristotle taught in the universities, would have been\nsacrificed to the fury of his ignorant rival, had not King Francis I.\nreferred to his own judgment the process commenced in Paris between\nRamus and Anthony Govea. One of the principal complaints against Ramus\nrelated to the manner in which he taught his disciples to pronounce the\nletter Q.\n\nRamus was not the only disputant persecuted for these grave absurdities.\nIn the year 1624, the Parliament of Paris banished from its district\nthree persons who wished to maintain theses openly against Aristotle.\nEvery person was forbidden to sell or to circulate the propositions\ncontained in these theses, on pain of corporal punishment, or to teach\nany opinion against ancient and approved authors, on pain of death.\n\nThe remonstrances of the Sorbonne, in consequence of which the same\nparliament issued a decision against the chemists, in the year 1629,\ntestified that it was impossible to impeach the principles of Aristotle,\nwithout at the same time impeaching those of the scholastic theology\nreceived by the Church. In the meantime, the faculty having issued, in\n1566, a decree forbidding the use of antimony, and the parliament having\nconfirmed the said decree, Paumier de Caen, a great chemist and\ncelebrated physician of Paris, for not conforming to it, was degraded in\nthe year 1609. Lastly, antimony being afterwards inserted in the books\nof medicines, composed by order of the faculty in the year 1637, the\nsaid faculty permitted the use of it in 1666, a century after having\nforbidden it, which decision the parliament confirmed by a new decree.\nThus the university followed the example of the Church, which finally\nproscribed the doctrine of Arius, under pain of death, and approved the\nword \"consubstantial,\" which it had previously condemned--as we have\nseen in the article on \"Councils.\"\n\nWhat we have observed of the university of Paris, may serve to give us\nan idea of other universities, of which it was regarded as the model. In\nfact, in imitation of it, eighty universities passed the same decree as\nthe Sorbonne in the fourteenth century; to wit, that when the cap of a\ndoctor was bestowed, the candidate should be made to swear that he will\nmaintain the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary; which he did not\nregard, however, as an article of faith, but as a Catholic and pious\nopinion.\n\n\n\n\nUSAGES.\n\n_Contemptible Customs do not Always Imply a Contemptible Nation._\n\nThere are cases in which we must not judge of a nation by its usages and\npopular superstitions. Suppose C\u00e6sar, after having conquered Egypt,\nwishing to make commerce flourish in the Roman Empire, had sent an\nembassy to China by the port of Arsino\u00eb, the Red Sea and Indian Ocean.\nThe emperor Yventi, the first of the name, then reigned in China; the\nChinese annals represent him to us as a very wise and learned prince.\nAfter receiving the ambassadors of C\u00e6sar with all Chinese politeness, he\nsecretly informs himself through his interpreter of the customs, the\nusages, sciences, and religion of the Roman people, as celebrated in the\nWest as the Chinese people are in the East. He first learns that their\npriests have regulated their years in so absurd a manner, that the sun\nhas already entered the celestial signs of Spring when the Romans\ncelebrate the first feasts of Winter. He learns that this nation at a\ngreat expense supports a college of priests, who know exactly the time\nin which they must embark, and when they should give battle, by the\ninspection of a bullock's liver, or the manner in which fowls eat grain.\nThis sacred science was formerly taught to the Romans by a little god\nnamed Tages, who came out of the earth in Tuscany. These people adore a\nsupreme and only God, whom they always call a very great and very good\nGod; yet they have built a temple to a courtesan named Flora, and the\ngood women of Rome have almost all little gods--Penates--in their\nhouses, about four or five inches high. One of these little divinities\nis the goddess of bosoms, another that of posteriors. They have even a\ndivinity whom they call the god _Pet_. The emperor Yventi began to\nlaugh; and the tribunals of Nankin at first think with him that the\nRoman ambassadors are knaves or impostors, who have taken the title of\nenvoys of the Roman Republic; but as the emperor is as just as he is\npolite, he has particular conversations with them. He then learns that\nthe Roman priests were very ignorant, but that C\u00e6sar actually reformed\nthe calendar. They confess to him that the college of augurs was\nestablished in the time of their early barbarity, that they have allowed\nthis ridiculous institution, become dear to a people long ignorant, to\nexist, but that all sensible people laugh at the augurs; that C\u00e6sar\nnever consulted them; that, according to the account of a very great man\nnamed Cato, no augur could ever look another in the face without\nlaughing; and finally, that Cicero, the greatest orator and best\nphilosopher of Rome, wrote a little work against the augurs, entitled\n\"Of Divination,\" in which he delivers up to eternal ridicule all the\npredictions and sorceries of soothsayers with which the earth is\ninfatuated. The emperor of China has the curiosity to read this book of\nCicero; the interpreters translate it; and in consequence he admires at\nonce the book and the Roman Republic.\n\n\n\n\nVAMPIRES.\n\n\nWhat! is it in our eighteenth century that vampires exist? Is it after\nthe reigns of Locke, Shaftesbury, Trenchard, and Collins? Is it under\nthose of d'Alembert, Diderot, St. Lambert, and Duclos that we believe in\nvampires, and that the reverend father Dom Calmet, Benedictine priest of\nthe congregation of St. Vannes, and St. Hidulphe, abb\u00e9 of Senon--an\nabbey of a hundred thousand livres a year, in the neighborhood of two\nother abbeys of the same revenue--has printed and reprinted the history\nof vampires, with the approbation of the Sorbonne, signed Marcilli?\n\nThese vampires were corpses, who went out of their graves at night to\nsuck the blood of the living, either at their throats or stomachs,\nafter which they returned to their cemeteries. The persons so sucked\nwaned, grew pale, and fell into consumption; while the sucking corpses\ngrew fat, got rosy, and enjoyed an excellent appetite. It was in Poland,\nHungary, Silesia, Moravia, Austria, and Lorraine, that the dead made\nthis good cheer. We never heard a word of vampires in London, nor even\nat Paris. I confess that in both these cities there were stock-jobbers,\nbrokers, and men of business, who sucked the blood of the people in\nbroad daylight; but they were not dead, though corrupted. These true\nsuckers lived not in cemeteries, but in very agreeable palaces.\n\nWho would believe that we derive the idea of vampires from Greece? Not\nfrom the Greece of Alexander, Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, and\nDemosthenes; but from Christian Greece, unfortunately schismatic. For a\nlong time Christians of the Greek rite have imagined that the bodies of\nChristians of the Latin church, buried in Greece, do not decay, because\nthey are excommunicated. This is precisely the contrary to that of us\nChristians of the Latin church, who believe that corpses which do not\ncorrupt are marked with the seal of eternal beatitude. So much so,\nindeed, that when we have paid a hundred thousand crowns to Rome, to\ngive them a saint's brevet, we adore them with the worship of \"_dulia_.\"\n\nThe Greeks are persuaded that these dead are sorcerers; they call them\n\"_broucolacas_,\" or \"_vroucolacas_,\" according as they pronounce the\nsecond letter of the alphabet. The Greek corpses go into houses to suck\nthe blood of little children, to eat the supper of the fathers and\nmothers, drink their wine, and break all the furniture. They can only be\nput to rights by burning them when they are caught. But the precaution\nmust be taken of not putting them into the fire until after their hearts\nare torn out, which must be burned separately. The celebrated\nTournefort, sent into the Levant by Louis XIV., as well as so many other\nvirtuosi, was witness of all the acts attributed to one of these\n\"_broucolacas_,\" and to this ceremony.\n\nAfter slander, nothing is communicated more promptly than superstition,\nfanaticism, sorcery, and tales of those raised from the dead. There were\n\"_broucolacas_\" in Wallachia, Moldavia, and some among the Polanders,\nwho are of the Romish church. This superstition being absent, they\nacquired it, and it went through all the east of Germany. Nothing was\nspoken of but vampires, from 1730 to 1735; they were laid in wait for,\ntheir hearts torn out and burned. They resembled the ancient\nmartyrs--the more they were burned, the more they abounded.\n\nFinally, Calmet became their historian, and treated vampires as he\ntreated the Old and New Testaments, by relating faithfully all that has\nbeen said before him.\n\nThe most curious things, in my opinion, were the verbal suits\njuridically conducted, concerning the dead who went from their tombs to\nsuck the little boys and girls of their neighborhood. Calmet relates\nthat in Hungary two officers, delegated by the emperor Charles VI.,\nassisted by the bailiff of the place and an executioner, held an inquest\non a vampire, who had been dead six weeks, and who had sucked all the\nneighborhood. They found him in his coffin, fresh and jolly, with his\neyes open, and asking for food. The bailiff passed his sentence; the\nexecutioner tore out the vampire's heart, and burned it, after which he\nfeasted no more.\n\nWho, after this, dares to doubt of the resuscitated dead, with which our\nancient legends are filled, and of all the miracles related by\nBollandus, and the sincere and revered Dom Ruinart? You will find\nstories of vampires in the \"Jewish Letters\" of d'Argens, whom the Jesuit\nauthors of the \"Journal of Tr\u00e9voux\" have accused of believing nothing.\nIt should be observed how they triumph in the history of the vampire of\nHungary; how they thanked God and the Virgin for having at last\nconverted this poor d'Argens, the chamberlain of a king who did not\nbelieve in vampires. \"Behold,\" said they, \"this famous unbeliever, who\ndared to throw doubts on the appearance of the angel to the Holy Virgin;\non the star which conducted the magi; on the cure of the possessed; on\nthe immersion of two thousand swine in a lake; on an eclipse of the sun\nat the full moon; on the resurrection of the dead who walked in\nJerusalem--his heart is softened, his mind is enlightened; he believes\nin vampires.\"\n\nThere no longer remained any question, but to examine whether all these\ndead were raised by their own virtue, by the power of God, or by that of\nthe devil. Several great theologians of Lorraine, of Moravia, and\nHungary, displayed their opinions and their science. They related all\nthat St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and so many other saints, had most\nunintelligibly said on the living and the dead. They related all the\nmiracles of St. Stephen, which are found in the seventh book of the\nworks of St. Augustine. This is one of the most curious of them: In the\ncity of Aubzal in Africa, a young man was crushed to death by the ruins\nof a wall; the widow immediately invoked St. Stephen, to whom she was\nvery much devoted. St. Stephen raised him. He was asked what he had seen\nin the other world. \"Sirs,\" said he, \"when my soul quitted my body, it\nmet an infinity of souls, who asked it more questions about this world\nthan you do of the other. I went I know not whither, when I met St.\nStephen, who said to me, 'Give back that which thou hast received.' I\nanswered, 'What should I give back? you have given me nothing.' He\nrepeated three times, 'Give back that which thou hast received.' Then I\ncomprehended that he spoke of the credo; I repeated my credo to him, and\nsuddenly he raised me.\" Above all, they quoted the stories related by\nSulpicius Severus, in the life of St. Martin. They proved that St.\nMartin, with some others, raised up a condemned soul.\n\nBut all these stories, however true they might be, had nothing in common\nwith the vampires who rose to suck the blood of their neighbors, and\nafterwards replaced themselves in their coffins. They looked if they\ncould not find in the Old Testament, or in the mythology, some vampire\nwhom they could quote as an example; but they found none. It was proved,\nhowever, that the dead drank and ate, since in so many ancient nations\nfood was placed on their tombs.\n\nThe difficulty was to know whether it was the soul or the body of the\ndead which ate. It was decided that it was both. Delicate and\nunsubstantial things, as sweetmeats, whipped cream, and melting fruits,\nwere for the soul, and roast beef and the like were for the body.\n\nThe kings of Persia were, said they, the first who caused themselves to\nbe served with viands after their death. Almost all the kings of the\npresent day imitate them; but they are the monks who eat their dinner\nand supper, and drink their wine. Thus, properly speaking, kings are not\nvampires; the true vampires are the monks, who eat at the expense of\nboth kings and people.\n\nIt is very true that St. Stanislaus, who had bought a considerable\nestate from a Polish gentleman, and not paid him for it, being brought\nbefore King Boleslaus by his heirs, raised up the gentleman; but this\nwas solely to get quittance. It is not said that he gave a single glass\nof wine to the seller, who returned to the other world without having\neaten or drunk. They afterwards treated of the grand question, whether a\nvampire could be absolved who died excommunicated, which comes more to\nthe point.\n\nI am not profound enough in theology to give my opinion on this subject;\nbut I would willingly be for absolution, because in all doubtful affairs\nwe should take the mildest part. \"_Odia restringenda, favores\nampliandi_.\"\n\nThe result of all this is that a great part of Europe has been infested\nwith vampires for five or six years, and that there are now no more;\nthat we have had Convulsionaries in France for twenty years, and that we\nhave them no longer; that we have had demoniacs for seventeen hundred\nyears, but have them no longer; that the dead have been raised ever\nsince the days of Hippolytus, but that they are raised no longer; and,\nlastly, that we have had Jesuits in Spain, Portugal, France, and the two\nSicilies, but that we have them no longer.\n\n\n\n\nVELETRI.\n\n\n_A Small Town of Umbria, Nine Leagues from Rome; and, Incidentally, of\nthe Divinity of Augustus._\n\nThose who love the study of history are glad to understand by what title\na citizen of Veletri governed an empire, which extended from Mount\nTaurus to Mount Atlas, and from the Euphrates to the Western Ocean. It\nwas not as perpetual dictator; this title had been too fatal to Julius\nC\u00e6sar, and Augustus bore it only eleven days. The fear of perishing like\nhis predecessor, and the counsels of Agrippa, induced him to take other\nmeasures; he insensibly concentrated in his own person all the dignities\nof the republic. Thirteen consulates, the tribunate renewed in his favor\nevery ten years, the name of prince of the senate, that of imperator,\nwhich at first signified only the general of an army, but to which it\nwas known how to bestow a more extensive signification--such were the\ntitles which appeared to legitimate his power.\n\nThe senate lost nothing by his honors, but preserved even its most\nextensive rights. Augustus divided with it all the provinces of the\nempire, but retained the principal for himself; finally, he was master\nof the public treasury and the soldiery, and in fact sovereign.\n\nWhat is more strange, Julius C\u00e6sar having been enrolled among the gods\nafter his death, Augustus was ordained god while living. It is true he\nwas not altogether a god in Rome, but he was so in the provinces, where\nhe had temples and priests. The abbey of Ainai at Lyons was a fine\ntemple of Augustus. Horace says to him: \"_Jurandasque tuum per nomen\nponimus aras._\" That is to say, among the Romans existed courtiers so\nfinished as to have small altars in their houses dedicated to Augustus.\nHe was therefore _canonized_ during his life, and the name of\ngod--_divus_--became the title or nickname of all the succeeding\nemperors. Caligula constituted himself a god without difficulty, and was\nworshipped in the temple of Castor and Pollux; his statue was placed\nbetween those of the twins, and they sacrificed to him peacocks,\npheasants, and Numidian fowls, until he ended by immolating himself.\nNero bore the name of god, before he was condemned by the senate to\nsuffer the punishment of a slave.\n\nWe are not to imagine that the name of \"god\" signified, in regard to\nthese monsters, that which we understand by it; the blasphemy could not\nbe carried quite so far. \"Divus\" precisely answers to \"sanctus.\" The\nAugustan list of proscriptions and the filthy epigram against Fulvia,\nare not the productions of a divinity.\n\nThere were twelve conspiracies against this god, if we include the\npretended plot of Cinna; but none of them succeeded; and of all the\nwretches who have usurped divine honors, Augustus was doubtless the most\nunfortunate. It was he, indeed, who actually terminated the Roman\nRepublic; for C\u00e6sar was dictator only six months, and Augustus reigned\nforty years. It was during his reign that manners changed with the\ngovernment. The armies, formerly composed of the Roman legions and\npeople of Italy, were in the end made up from all the barbarians, who\nnaturally enough placed emperors of their own country on the throne.\n\nIn the third century they raised up thirty tyrants at one time, of whom\nsome were natives of Transylvania, others of Gaul, Britain, and Germany.\nDiocletian was the son of a Dalmatian slave; Maximian Hercules, a\npeasant of Sirmik; and Theodosius, a native of Spain--not then\ncivilized.\n\nWe know how the Roman Empire was finally destroyed; how the Turks have\nsubjugated one half, and how the name of the other still subsists among\nthe Marcomans on the shores of the Danube. The most singular of all its\nrevolutions, however, and the most astonishing of all spectacles, is the\nmanner in which its capital is governed and inhabited at this moment.\n\n\n\n\nVENALITY.\n\n\nThe forger of whom we have spoken so much, who made the testament of\nCardinal Richelieu, says in chapter iv.: \"That it would be much better\nto allow venality and the '_droit annuel_' to continue to exist, than to\nabolish these two establishments, which are not to be changed suddenly\nwithout shaking the state.\"\n\nAll France repeated, and believed they repeated after Cardinal\nRichelieu, that the sale of offices of judicature was very advantageous.\nThe abb\u00e9 de St. Pierre was the first who, still believing that the\npretended testament was the cardinal's, dared to say in his observation\non chapter iv.: \"The cardinal engaged himself on a bad subject, in\nmaintaining that the sale of places can be advantageous to the state. It\nis true that it is not possible to otherwise reimburse all the charges.\"\n\nThus this abuse appeared to everybody, not only unreformable, but\nuseful. They were so accustomed to this opprobrium that they did not\nfeel it; it seemed eternal; yet a single man in a few months has\noverthrown it. Let us therefore repeat, that all may be done, all may be\ncorrected; that the great fault of almost all who govern, is having but\nhalf wills and half means. If Peter the Great had not willed strongly,\ntwo thousand leagues of country would still be barbarous.\n\nHow can we give water in Paris to thirty thousand houses which want it?\nHow can we pay the debts of the state? How can we throw off the dreaded\ntyranny of a foreign power, which is not a power, and to which we pay\nthe first fruits as a tribute? Dare to wish it, and you will arrive at\nyour object more easily than you extirpated the Jesuits, and purged the\ntheatre of _petits-ma\u00eetres_.\n\n\n\n\nVENICE.\n\n\n_And, Incidentally, of Liberty._\n\nNo power can reproach the Venetians with having acquired their liberty\nby revolt; none can say to them, I have freed you--here is the diploma\nof your manumission.\n\nThey have not usurped their rights, as C\u00e6sar usurped empire, or as so\nmany bishops, commencing with that of Rome, have usurped royal rights.\nThey are lords of Venice--if we dare use the audacious comparison--as\nGod is Lord of the earth, because He founded it.\n\nAttila, who never took the title of the scourge of God, ravaged Italy.\nHe had as much right to do so, as Charlemagne the Austrasian, Arnold the\nCorinthian Bastard, Guy, duke of Spoleto, Berenger, marquis of Friuli,\nor the bishops who wished to make themselves sovereigns of it.\n\nIn this time of military and ecclesiastical robberies, Attila passed as\na vulture, and the Venetians saved themselves in the sea as kingfishers,\nwhich none assist or protect; they make their nest in the midst of the\nwaters, they enlarge it, they people it, they defend it, they enrich it.\nI ask if it is possible to imagine a more just possession? Our father\nAdam, who is supposed to have lived in that fine country of Mesopotamia,\nwas not more justly lord and gardener of terrestrial paradise.\n\nI have read the \"_Squittinio della libert\u00e0 di Venezia_,\" and I am\nindignant at it. What! Venice could not be originally free, because the\nGreek emperors, superstitious, weak, wicked, and barbarous, said--This\nnew town has been built on our ancient territory; and because a German,\nhaving the title of Emperor of the West, says: This town being in the\nWest, is of our domain?\n\nIt seems to me like a flying-fish, pursued at once by a falcon and a\nshark, but which escapes both. Sannazarius was very right in saying, in\ncomparing Rome and Venice: _\"Illam homines dices, hanc posuisse deos.\"_\nRome lost, by C\u00e6sar, at the end of five hundred years, its liberty\nacquired by Brutus. Venice has preserved hers for eleven centuries, and\nI hope she will always do so.\n\nGenoa! why dost thou boast of showing the grant of a Berenger, who gave\nthee privileges in the year 958? We know that concessions of privileges\nare but titles of servitude. And this is a fine title! the charter of a\npassing tyrant, who was never properly acknowledged in Italy, and who\nwas driven from it two years after the date of the charter!\n\nThe true charter of liberty is independence, maintained by force. It is\nwith the point of the sword that diplomas should be signed securing this\nnatural prerogative. Thou hast lost, more than once, thy privilege and\nthy strong box, since 1748: it is necessary to take care of both. Happy\nHelvetia! to what charter owest thou thy liberty? To thy courage, thy\nfirmness, and thy mountains. But I am thy emperor. But I will have thee\nbe so no longer. Thy fathers have been the slaves of my fathers. It is\nfor that reason that their children will not serve thee. But I have the\nright attached to my dignity. And we have the right of nature.\n\nWhen had the Seven United Provinces this incontestable right? At the\nmoment in which they were united; and from that time Philip II. was the\nrebel. What a great man was William, prince of Orange: he found them\nslaves, and he made them free men! Why is liberty so rare? Because it is\nthe first of blessings.\n\n\n\n\nVERSE.\n\n\nIt is easy to write in prose, but very difficult to be a poet. More than\none \"_prosateur_\" has affected to despise poetry; in reference to which\npropensity, we may call to mind the bon-mot of Montaigne: \"We cannot\nattain to poetry; let us revenge ourselves by abusing it.\"\n\nWe have already remarked, that Montesquieu, being unable to succeed in\nverse, professed, in his \"Persian Letters,\" to discover no merit in\nVirgil or Horace. The eloquent Bossuet endeavored to make verses, but\nthey were detestable; he took care, however, not to declaim against\ngreat poets.\n\nF\u00e9nelon scarcely made better verses than Bossuet, but knew by heart all\nthe fine poetry of antiquity. His mind was full of it, and he\ncontinually quotes it in his letters.\n\nIt appears to me, that there never existed a truly eloquent man who did\nnot love poetry. I will simply cite, for example, C\u00e6sar and Cicero; the\none composed a tragedy on \u0152dipus, and we have pieces of poetry by the\nlatter which might pass among the best that preceded Lucretius, Virgil,\nand Horace.\n\nA certain Abb\u00e9 Trublet has printed, that he cannot read a poem at once\nfrom beginning to end. Indeed, Air. Abb\u00e9! but what can we read, what can\nwe understand, what can we do, for a long time together, any more than\npoetry?\n\n\n\n\nVIANDS.\n\n\n_Forbidden Viands, Dangerous Viands.--A short Examination of Jewish and\nChristian Precepts, and of those of the Ancient Philosophers._\n\n\n\"Viand\" comes no doubt from \"_victus_\"--that which nourishes and\nsustains life: from victus was formed _viventia_; from _viventa_,\n\"viand.\" This word should be applied to all that is eaten, but by the\ncaprice of all languages, the custom has prevailed of refusing this\ndenomination to bread, milk, rice, pulses, fruits, and fish, and of\ngiving it only to terrestrial animals. This seems contrary to reason,\nbut it is the fancy of all languages, and of those who formed them.\n\nSome of the first Christians made a scruple of eating that which had\nbeen offered to the gods, of whatever nature it might be. St. Paul\napproved not of this scruple. He writes to the Corinthians: \"Meat\ncommendeth us not to God: for neither if we eat are we the better;\nneither if we eat not, are we the worse.\" He merely exhorts them not to\neat viands immolated to the gods, before those brothers who might be\nscandalized at it. We see not, after that, why he so ill-treats St.\nPeter, and reproaches him with having eaten forbidden viands with the\nGentiles. We see elsewhere, in the Acts of the Apostles, that Simon\nPeter was authorized to eat of all indifferently; for he one day saw the\nfirmament open, and a great sheet descending by the four corners from\nheaven to earth; it was covered with all kinds of four-footed beasts,\nwith all kinds of birds and reptiles--or animals which swim--and a voice\ncried to him: \"Kill and eat.\"\n\nYou will remark, that Lent and fast-days were not then instituted.\nNothing is ever done, except by degrees. We can here say, for the\nconsolation of the weak, that the quarrel of St. Peter and St. Paul\nshould not alarm us: saints are men. Paul commenced by being the jailer,\nand even the executioner, of the disciples of Jesus; Peter had denied\nJesus; and we have seen that the dawning, suffering, militant,\ntriumphant church has always been divided, from the Ebionites to the\nJesuits.\n\nI think that the Brahmins, so anterior to the Jews, might well have been\ndivided also; but they were the first who imposed on themselves the law\nof not eating any animal. As they believed that souls passed and\nrepassed from human bodies to those of beasts, they would not eat their\nrelatives. Perhaps their best reason was the fear of accustoming men to\ncarnage, and inspiring them with ferocious manners.\n\nWe know that Pythagoras, who studied geometry and morals among them,\nembraced this humane doctrine, and brought it into Italy. His disciples\nfollowed it a very long time: the celebrated philosophers, Plotinus,\nJamblicus, and Porphyry, recommended and even practised it--though it is\nvery rare to practise what is preached. The work of Porphyry on\nabstinence from meat, written in the middle of our third century, and\nvery well translated into our language by M. de Burigni, is very much\nesteemed by the learned; but it has not made more disciples among us\nthan the book of the physician H\u00e9quet. It is in vain that Porphyry\nproposes, as models, the Brahmins and Persian magi of the first class,\nwho had a horror of the custom of burying the entrails of other\ncreatures in our own; he is not now followed by the fathers of La\nTrappe. The work of Porphyry is addressed to one of his ancient\ndisciples, named Firmus, who, it is said, turned Christian, to have the\nliberty of eating meat and drinking wine.\n\nHe shows Firmus, that in abstaining from meat and strong liquors, we\npreserve the health of the soul and body; that we live longer, and more\ninnocently. All his reflections are those of a scrupulous theologian, of\na rigid philosopher, and of a mild and sensible mind. We might think, in\nreading his work, that this great enemy of the church was one of its\nfathers.\n\nHe speaks not of metempsychosis, but he regards animals as our brethren,\nbecause they are animated like ourselves; they have the same principles\nof life; they have, as well as ourselves, ideas, sentiment, memory, and\nindustry. They want but speech; if they had it, should we dare to kill\nand eat them; should we dare to commit these fratricides? Where is the\nbarbarian who would roast a lamb, if it conjured him by an affecting\nspeech not to become at once an assassin, an anthropophagus?\n\nThis book proves, at least, that among the Gentiles there were\nphilosophers of the most austere virtue; but they could not prevail\nagainst butchers and gluttons. It is to be remarked, that Porphyry makes\na very fine eulogium on the Essenians: he is filled with veneration for\nthem, although they sometimes eat meat. He was for whoever was the most\nvirtuous, whether Essenians, Pythagoreans, Stoics, or Christians. When\nsects are formed of a small number, their manners are pure; and they\ndegenerate in proportion as they become powerful. Lust, gaming, and\nluxury then prevail, and all the virtues fly away:\n\n     La gola, il dado e l'otiose piume\n     Hanno dal' mondo ogni virt\u00f9 sbandita.\n\n\n\n\nVIRTUE.\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nIt is said of Marcus Brutus, that before killing himself, he pronounced\nthese words: \"Oh, Virtue! I believed that thou wert something, but thou\nart only a vile phantom!\"\n\nThou wast right, Brutus, if thou madest virtue consist in being the\nchief of a party, and the assassin of thy benefactor, of thy father,\nJulius C\u00e6sar. Hadst thou made virtue to consist only in doing good to\nthose who depended on thee, thou wouldst not have called it a phantom,\nor have killed thyself in despair.\n\nI am very virtuous, says a miserable excrement of theology. I possess\nthe four cardinal virtues, and the three theological ones. An honest man\nasks him: What are the cardinal virtues? The other answers: They are\nfortitude, prudence, temperance, and justice.\n\nHONEST MAN.\n\nIf thou art just, thou hast said all. Thy fortitude, prudence, and\ntemperance are useful qualities: if thou possessest them, so much the\nbetter for thee; but if thou art just, so much the better for others. It\nis not sufficient to be just, thou shouldst be beneficent; this is being\ntruly cardinal. And thy theological virtues, what are they?\n\nTHEOLOGIAN.\n\nFaith, hope, and charity.\n\nHONEST MAN.\n\nIs there virtue in believing? If that which thou believest seems to thee\nto be true, there is no merit in believing it; if it seems to thee to be\nfalse, it is impossible for thee to believe it.\n\nHope should no more be a virtue than fear; we fear and we hope,\naccording to what is promised or threatened us. As to charity, is it not\nthat which the Greeks and Romans understood by humanity--love of your\nneighbor? This love is nothing, if it does not act; beneficence is\ntherefore the only true virtue.\n\nTHEOLOGIAN.\n\nWhat a fool! Yes, truly, I shall trouble myself to serve men, if I get\nnothing in return! Every trouble merits payment. I pretend to do no good\naction, except to insure myself paradise.\n\n     _Quis enim virtutem amplectitur, ipsam_\n     _Pr\u0153mia si tolias? _        --JUVENAL, _sat._ x.\n\n     For, if the gain you take away,\n     To virtue who will homage pay!\n\nHONEST MAN.\n\nAh, good sir, that is to say, that if you did not hope for paradise, or\nfear hell, you would never do a good action. You quote me lines from\nJuvenal, to prove to me that you have only your interest in view. Racine\ncould at least show you, that even in this world we might find our\nrecompense, while waiting for a better:\n\n     _Quel plaisir de penser, et de dire en vous-m\u00eame,_\n     _Partout en ce moment on me b\u00e9nit, on m'aime!_\n     _On ne voit point le peuple \u00e0 mon nom s'alarmer;_\n     _Le ciel dans tous leurs pleurs ne m'entend point nommer,_\n     _Leur sombre inimitie ne fuit point mon visage;_\n     _Je vois voler partout les c\u0153urs a mon passage._\n     _Tels \u00e9taient vos plaisirs._\n                      --RACINE, _Britannicus_, act iv, sc. ii.\n\n     How great his pleasure who can justly say,\n     All at this moment either bless or love me;\n     The people at my name betray no fear,\n     Nor in their plaints does heaven e'er hear of me!\n     Their enmity ne'er makes them fly my presence,\n     But every heart springs out at my approach!\n     Such were your pleasures!\n\nBelieve me, doctor, there are two things which deserve to be loved for\nthemselves--God and Virtue.\n\nTHEOLOGIAN.\n\nAh, sir! you are a F\u00e9nelonist.\n\nHONEST MAN.\n\nYes, doctor.\n\nTHEOLOGIAN.\n\nI will inform against you at the tribunal of Meaux.\n\nHONEST MAN.\n\nGo, and inform!\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nWhat is virtue? Beneficence towards your neighbor. Can I call virtue\nanything but that which does good! I am indigent, thou art liberal. I am\nin danger, thou succorest me. I am deceived, thou tellest me the truth.\nI am neglected, thou consolest me. I am ignorant, thou teachest me. I\ncan easily call thee virtuous, but what will become of the cardinal and\ntheological virtues? Some will remain in the schools.\n\nWhat signifies it to me whether thou art temperate? It is a precept of\nhealth which thou observest; thou art the better for it; I congratulate\nthee on it. Thou hast faith and hope; I congratulate thee still more;\nthey will procure thee eternal life. Thy theological virtues are\ncelestial gifts; thy cardinal ones are excellent qualities, which serve\nto guide thee; but they are not virtues in relation to thy neighbor.\nThe prudent man does himself good; the virtuous one does it to other\nmen. St. Paul was right in telling thee, that charity ranks above faith\nand hope.\n\nBut how! wilt thou admit of no other virtues than those which are useful\nto thy neighbor? How can I admit any others? We live in society; there\nis therefore nothing truly good for us but that which does good to\nsociety. An hermit will be sober, pious, and dressed in sackcloth: very\nwell; he will be holy; but I will not call him virtuous until he shall\nhave done some act of virtue by which men may have profited. While he is\nalone, he is neither beneficent nor the contrary; he is nobody to us. If\nSt. Bruno had made peace in families, if he had assisted the indigent,\nhe had been virtuous; having fasted and prayed in solitude, he is only a\nsaint. Virtue between men is a commerce of good actions: he who has no\npart in this commerce, must not be reckoned. If this saint were in the\nworld, he would doubtless do good, but while he is not in the world, we\nhave no reason to give him the name of virtuous: he will be good for\nhimself, and not for us.\n\nBut, say you, if an hermit is gluttonous, drunken, given up to a secret\ndebauch with himself, he is vicious; he is therefore virtuous, if he has\nthe contrary qualities. I cannot agree to this: he is a very vile man,\nif he has the faults of which you speak; but he is not vicious, wicked,\nor punishable by society, to which his infamies do no harm. It may be\npresumed, that if he re-enters society, he will do evil to it; he then\nwill be very vicious; and it is even more probable that he will be a\nwicked man, than it is certain that the other temperate and chaste\nhermit will be a good man; for in society faults augment, and good\nqualities diminish.\n\nA much stronger objection is made to me: Nero, Pope Alexander VI., and\nother monsters of the kind, have performed good actions. I reply boldly,\nthat they were virtuous at the time. Some theologians say, that the\ndivine Emperor Antoninus was not virtuous; that he was an infatuated\nStoic, who, not content with commanding men, would further be esteemed\nby them; that he gave himself credit for the good which he did to\nmankind; that he was all his life just, laborious, beneficent, through\nvanity; and that he only deceived men by his virtues. To which I\nexclaim: My God! often send us such knaves!\n\n\n\n\nVISION.\n\n\nWhen I speak of vision, I do not mean the admirable manner in which our\neyes perceive objects, and in which the pictures of all that we see are\npainted on the retina--a divine picture designed according to all the\nlaws of mathematics, which is, consequently, like everything else from\nthe hand of the Eternal geometrician; in spite of those who explain it,\nand who pretend to believe, that the eye is not intended to see, the\near to hear, or the feet to walk. This matter has been so learnedly\ntreated by so many great geniuses, that there is no further remnant to\nglean after their harvests.\n\nI do not pretend to speak of the heresy of which Pope John XXII. was\naccused, who pretended that saints will not enjoy beatific vision until\nafter the last judgment. I give up this vision. My subject is the\ninnumerable multitude of visions with which so many holy personages have\nbeen favored or tormented; which so many idiots are believed to have\nseen; with which so many knavish men and women have duped the world,\neither to get the reputation of being favored by heaven, which is very\nflattering, or to gain money, which is still more so to rogues in\ngeneral.\n\nCalmet and Langlet have made ample collections of these visions. The\nmost interesting in my opinion is the one which has produced the\ngreatest effects, since it has tended to reform three parts of the\nSwiss--that of the young Jacobin Yetzer, with which I have already\namused my dear reader. This Yetzer, as you know, saw the Holy Virgin and\nSt. Barbara several times, who informed him of the marks of Jesus\nChrist. You are not ignorant of how he received, from a Jacobin\nconfessor, a host powdered with arsenic, and how the bishop of Lausanne\nwould have had him burned for complaining that he was poisoned. You have\nseen, that these abominations were one of the causes of the misfortune\nwhich happened to the Bernese, of ceasing to be Catholic,\nApostolical, and Roman.\n\n\n[Illustration: The Vision.]\n\n\nI am sorry that I have no visions of this consequence to tell you of.\nYet you will confess, that the vision of the reverend father Cordeliers\nof Orleans, in 1534, approaches the nearest to it, though still very\ndistant. The criminal process which it occasioned is still in manuscript\nin the library of the king of France, No. 1770.\n\nThe illustrious house of St. Memin did great good to the convent of the\nCordeliers, and had their vault in the church. The wife of a lord of St.\nMemin, provost of Orleans, being dead, her husband, believing that his\nancestors had sufficiently impoverished themselves by giving to the\nmonks, gave the brothers a present which did not appear to them\nconsiderable enough. These good Franciscans conceived a plan for\ndisinterring the deceased, to force the widower to have her buried again\nin their holy ground, and to pay them better. The project was not\nclever, for the lord of St. Memin would not have failed to bury her\nelsewhere. But folly often mixes with knavery.\n\nAt first, the soul of the lady of St. Memin appeared only to two\nbrothers. She said to them: \"I am damned, like Judas, because my husband\nhas not given sufficient.\" The two knaves who related these words\nperceived not, that they must do more harm to the convent than good. The\naim of the convent was to extort money from the lord of St. Memin, for\nthe repose of his wife's soul. Now, if Madame de St. Memin was damned,\nall the money in the world could not save her. They got no more; the\nCordeliers lost their labor.\n\nAt this time there was very little good sense in France: the nation had\nbeen brutalized by the invasion of the Franks, and afterwards by the\ninvasion of scholastic theology; but in Orleans there were some persons\nwho reasoned. If the Great Being permitted the soul of Madame de St.\nMemin to appear to two Franciscans, it was not natural, they thought,\nfor this soul to declare itself damned like Judas. This comparison\nappeared to them to be unnatural. This lady had not sold our Lord Jesus\nChrist for thirty deniers; she was not hanged; her intestines had not\nobtruded themselves; and there was not the slightest pretext for\ncomparing her to Judas.\n\nThis caused suspicion; and the rumor was still greater in Orleans,\nbecause there were already heretics there who believed not in certain\nvisions, and who, in admitting absurd principles, did not always fail to\ndraw good conclusions. The Cordeliers, therefore, changed their battery,\nand put the lady in purgatory.\n\nShe therefore appeared again, and declared that purgatory was her lot;\nbut she demanded to be disinterred. It was not the custom to disinter\nthose in purgatory; but they hoped that M. de St. Memin would prevent\nthis extraordinary affront, by giving money. This demand of being\nthrown out of the church augmented the suspicions. It was well known,\nthat souls often appeared, but they never demanded to be disinterred.\n\nFrom this time the soul spoke no more, but it haunted everybody in the\nconvent and church. The brother Cordeliers exorcised it. Brother Peter\nof Arras adopted a very awkward manner of conjuring it. He said to it:\n\"If thou art the soul of the late Madame de St. Memin, strike four\nknocks;\" and the four knocks were struck. \"If thou are damned, strike\nsix knocks;\" and the six knocks were struck. \"If thou art still\ntormented in hell, because thy body is buried in holy ground, knock six\nmore times;\" and the other six knocks were heard still more distinctly.\n\"If we disinter thy body, and cease praying to God for thee, wilt thou\nbe the less damned? Strike five knocks to certify it to us;\" and the\nsoul certified it by five knocks.\n\nThis interrogation of the soul, made by Peter of Arras, was signed by\ntwenty-two Cordeliers, at the head of which was the reverend father\nprovincial. This father provincial the next day asked it the same\nquestions, and received the same answers.\n\nIt will be said, that the soul having declared that it was in purgatory,\nthe Cordeliers should not have supposed that it was in hell; but it is\nnot my fault if theologians contradict one another.\n\nThe lord of St. Memin presented a request to the king against the father\nCordeliers. They presented a request on their sides; the king appointed\njudges, at the head of whom was Adrian Fum\u00e9e, master of requests.\n\nThe procureur-general of the commission required that the said\nCordeliers should be burned, but the sentence only condemned them to\nmake the \"amende honorable\" with a torch in their bosom, and to be\nbanished from the kingdom. This sentence is of February 18, 1535.\n\nAfter such a vision, it is useless to relate any others: they are all a\nspecies either of knavery or folly. Visions of the first kind are under\nthe province of justice; those of the second are either visions of\ndiseased fools, or of fools in good health. The first belong to\nmedicine, the second to Bedlam.\n\n\n\n\nVISION OF CONSTANTINE.\n\n\nGrave theologians have not failed to allege a specious reason to\nmaintain the truth of the appearance of the cross in heaven; but we are\ngoing to show that these arguments are not sufficiently convincing to\nexclude doubt; the evidences which they quote being neither persuasive\nnor according with one another.\n\nFirst, they produce no witnesses but Christians, the deposition of whom\nmay be suspected in the treatment of a fact which tended to prove the\ndivinity of their religion. How is it that no Pagan author has made\nmention of this miracle, which was seen equally by all the army of\nConstantine? That Zosimus, who seems to have endeavored to diminish the\nglory of Constantine, has said nothing of it, is not surprising; but the\nsilence appears very strange in the author of the panegyric of\nConstantine, pronounced in his presence at Trier; in which oration the\npanegyrist expresses himself in magnificent terms on all the war against\nMaxentius, whom this emperor had conquered.\n\nAnother orator, who, in his panegyric, treats so eloquently of the war\nagainst Maxentius, of the clemency which Constantine showed after the\nvictory, and of the deliverance of Rome, says not a word on this\napparition; while he assures us, that celestial armies were seen by all\nthe Gauls, which armies, it was pretended, were sent to aid Constantine.\n\nThis surprising vision has not only been unknown to Pagan authors, but\nto three Christian writers, who had the finest occasion to speak of\nthem. Optatianus Porphyrius mentions more than once the monogram of\nChrist, which he calls the celestial sign, in the panegyric of\nConstantine which he wrote in Latin verse, but not a word on the\nappearance of the cross in the sky.\n\nLactantius says nothing of it in his treatise on the \"Death of\nPersecutors,\" which he composed towards the year 314, two years after\nthe vision of which we speak; yet he must have been perfectly informed\nof all that regards Constantine, having been tutor to Crispus, the son\nof this prince. He merely relates, that Constantine was commanded, in a\ndream, to put the divine image of the cross on the bucklers of his\nsoldiers, and to give up war: but in relating a dream, the truth of\nwhich had no other support than the evidence of the emperor, he passes,\nin silence over a prodigy to which all the army were witnesses.\n\nFurther, Eusebius of C\u00e6sarea himself, who has given the example to all\nother Christian historians on the subject, speaks not of this wonder, in\nthe whole course of his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" though he enlarges\nmuch on the exploits of Constantine against Maxentius. It is only in his\nlife of this emperor that he expresses himself in these terms:\n\"Constantine resolved to adore the god of Constantius; his father\nimplored the protection of this god against Maxentius. Whilst he was\npraying, he had a wonderful vision, which would appear incredible, if\nrelated by another; but since the victorious emperor has himself related\nit to us, who wrote this history; and that, after having been long known\nto this prince, and enjoying a share in his good graces, the emperor\nconfirming what he said by oath--who could doubt it? particularly since\nthe event has confirmed the truth of it.\n\n\"He affirmed, that in the afternoon, when the sun set, he saw a luminous\ncross above it, with this inscription in Greek--'By this sign, conquer:'\nthat this appearance astonished him extremely, as well as all the\nsoldiers who followed him, who were witnesses of the miracle; that while\nhis mind was fully occupied with this vision, and he sought to penetrate\nthe sense of it, the night being come, Jesus Christ appeared to him\nduring his sleep, with the same sign which He had shown to him in the\nair in the day-time, and commanded him to make a standard of the same\nform, and to bear it in his battles, to secure him from danger.\nConstantine, rising at break of day, related to his friends the vision\nwhich he had beheld; and, sending for goldsmiths and lapidaries, he sat\nin the midst of them, explained to them the figure of the sign which he\nhad seen, and commanded them to make a similar one of gold and jewels;\nand we remember having sometimes seen it.\"\n\nEusebius afterwards adds, that Constantine, astonished at so admirable a\nvision, sent for Christian priests; and that, instructed by them, he\napplied himself to reading our sacred books, and concluded that he ought\nto adore with a profound respect the God who appeared to him.\n\nHow can we conceive that so admirable a vision, seen by so many millions\nof people, and so calculated to justify the truth of the Christian\nreligion, could be unknown to Eusebius, an historian so careful in\nseeking all that could contribute to do honor to Christianity, as even\nto quote profane monuments falsely, as we have seen in the article on\n\"Eclipse?\" And how can we persuade ourselves that he was not informed\nof it, until several years after, by the sole evidence of Constantine?\nWere there no Christians in the army, who publicly made a glory of\nhaving seen such a prodigy? Had they so little interest in their cause\nas to keep silence on so great a miracle? Ought we to be astonished,\nafter that, that Gelasius, one of the successors of Eusebius, in the\nsiege of C\u00e6sarea in the fifth century, has said that many people\nsuspected that it was only a fable, invented in favor of the Christian\nreligion?\n\nThis suspicion will become much stronger, if we take notice how little\nthe witnesses agree on the circumstances of this marvellous appearance.\nAlmost all affirm, that the cross was seen by Constantine and all his\narmy; and Gelasius speaks of Constantine alone. They differ on the time\nof the vision. Philostorgius, in his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" of which\nPhotius has preserved us the extract, says, that it was when Constantine\ngained the victory over Maxentius; others pretend that it was before,\nwhen Constantine was making preparations for attacking the tyrant, and\nwas on his march with his army. Arthemius, quoted by Metaphrastus and\nSurius, mentions the 20th of October, and says that it was at noon;\nothers speak of the afternoon at sunset.\n\nAuthors do not agree better even on the vision: the greatest number\nacknowledged but one, and that in a dream. There is only Eusebius,\nfollowed by Philostorgius and Socrates, who speaks of two; the one that\nConstantine saw in the day-time, and the other which he saw in a dream,\ntending to confirm the first. Nicephorus Callistus reckons three.\n\nThe inscription offers new differences: Eusebius says that it was in\nGreek characters, while others do not speak of it. According to\nPhilostorgius and Nicephorus, it was in Latin characters; others say\nnothing about it, and seem by their relation to suppose that the\ncharacters were Greek. Philostorgius affirms, that the inscription was\nformed by an assemblage of stars; Arthemius says that the letters were\ngolden. The author quoted by Photius, represents them as composed of the\nsame luminous matter as the cross; and according to Sosomenes, it had no\ninscription, and they were angels who said to Constantine: \"By this\nsign, gain the victory.\"\n\nFinally, the relation of historians is opposed on the consequences of\nthis vision. If we take that of Eusebius, Constantine, aided by God,\neasily gained the victory over Maxentius; but according to Lactantius,\nthe victory was much disputed. He even says that the troops of Maxentius\nhad some advantage, before Constantine made his army approach the gates\nof Rome. If we may believe Eusebius and Sosomenes, from this epoch\nConstantine was always victorious, and opposed the salutary sign of the\ncross to his enemies, as an impenetrable rampart. However, a Christian\nauthor, of whom M. de Valois has collected some fragments, at the end of\nAmmianus Marcellinus--relates, that in the two battles given to Licinius\nby Constantine, the victory was doubtful, and that Constantine was even\nslightly wounded in the thigh; and Nicephorus says, that after the first\napparition, he twice combated the Byzantines, without opposing the cross\nto them, and would not even have remembered it, if he had not lost nine\nthousand men, and had the same vision twice more. In the first, the\nstars were so arranged that they formed these words of a psalm: \"Call on\nme in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify\nme;\" and the last, much clearer and more brilliant still, bore: \"By this\nsign, thou shalt vanquish all thy enemies.\"\n\nPhilostorgius affirms, that the vision of the cross, and the victory\ngained over Maxentius, determined Constantine to embrace the Christian\nfaith; but Rufinus, who has translated the \"Ecclesiastical History\" of\nEusebius into Latin, says that he already favored Christianity, and\nhonored the true God. It is however known, that he did not receive\nbaptism until a few days before his death, as is expressly said by\nPhilostorgius, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, Socrates,\nTheodoret, and the author of the Chronicle of Alexandria. This custom,\nthen common, was founded on the belief that, baptism effacing all the\nsins of him who received it, he died certain of his salvation.\n\nWe might confine ourselves to these general reflections, but by\nsuperabundance of right we will discuss the authority of Eusebius, as an\nhistorian, and that of Constantine and Arthemius, as ocular witnesses.\n\nAs to Arthemius, we think that he ought not to be placed in the rank of\nocular witnesses; his discourse being founded only on his \"Acts,\"\nrelated by Metaphrastus, a fabulous author: \"Acts\" which Baronius\npretends it was wrong to impeach, at the same time that he confesses\nthat they are interpolated.\n\nAs to the speech of Constantine, related by Eusebius, it is indisputably\nan astonishing thing, that this emperor feared that he should not be\nbelieved unless he made oath; and that Eusebius has not supported his\nevidence by that of any of the officers or soldiers of the army. But\nwithout here adopting the opinion of some scholars, who doubt whether\nEusebius is the author of the life of Constantine, is he not an author\nwho, in this work, bears throughout the character of a panegyrist,\nrather than that of a historian? Is he not a writer who has carefully\nsuppressed all which could be disadvantageous to his hero? In a word,\ndoes he not show his partiality, when he says, in his \"Ecclesiastical\nHistory,\" speaking of Maxentius, that having usurped the sovereign power\nat Rome, to flatter the people he feigned at first to profess the\nChristian religion? As if it was impossible for Constantine to make use\nof such a feint, and to pretend this vision, just as Licinius, some time\nafter, to encourage his soldiers against Maximin, pretended that an\nangel in a dream had dictated a prayer to him, which he must repeat with\nhis army.\n\nHow could Eusebius really have the effrontery to call a prince a\nChristian who caused the temple of Concord to be rebuilt at his own\nexpense, as is proved by an inscription, which was read in the time of\nLelio Geraldi, in the temple of Latran? A prince who caused his son\nCrispus, already honored with the title of C\u00e6sar, to perish on a slight\nsuspicion of having commerce with Fausta, his stepmother; who caused\nthis same Fausta, to whom he was indebted for the preservation of his\nlife, to be suffocated in an overheated bath; who caused the emperor\nMaximian Hercules, his adopted father, to be strangled; who took away\nthe life of the young Licinius, his nephew, who had already displayed\nvery good qualities; and, in short, who dishonored himself by so many\nmurders, that the consul Ablavius called his times Neronian? We might\nadd, that much dependence should not be placed on the oath of\nConstantine, since he had not the least scruple in perjuring himself, by\ncausing Licinius to be strangled, to whom he had promised his life on\noath. Eusebius passes in silence over all the actions of Constantine\nwhich are related by Eutropius, Zosimus, Orosius, St. Jerome, and\nAurelius Victor.\n\nAfter this, have we not reason to conclude that the pretended appearance\nof the cross in the sky is only a fraud which Constantine imagined to\nfavor the success of his ambitious enterprises? The medals of this\nprince and of his family, which are found in Banduri, and in the work\nentitled, \"_Numismata Imperatorum Romanorum_\"; the triumphal arch of\nwhich Baronius speaks, in the inscription of which the senate and the\nRoman people said that Constantine, by the direction of the Divinity,\nhad rid the republic of the tyrant Maxentius, and of all his faction;\nfinally, the statue which Constantine himself caused to be erected at\nRome, holding a lance terminating in the form of a cross, with this\ninscription--as related by Eusebius: \"By this saving sign, I have\ndelivered your city from the yoke of tyranny\"--all this, I say, only\nproves the immoderate pride of this artificial prince, who would\neverywhere spread the noise of his pretended dream, and perpetuate the\nrecollection of it.\n\nYet, to excuse Eusebius, we must compare him to a bishop of the\nseventeenth century, whom La Bruy\u00e8re hesitated not to call a father of\nthe Church. Bossuet, at the same time that he fell so unmercifully on\nthe visions of the elegant and sensible F\u00e9nelon, commented himself, in\nthe funeral oration of Anne of Gonzaga of Cleves, on the two visions\nwhich worked the conversion of the Princess Palatine. It was an\nadmirable dream, says this prelate; she thought that, walking alone in a\nforest, she met with a blind man in a small cell. She comprehended that\na sense is wanting to the incredulous as well as to the blind; and at\nthe same time, in the midst of so mysterious a dream, she applied the\nfine comparison of the blind man to the truths of religion and of the\nother life.\n\nIn the second vision, God continued to instruct her, as He did Joseph\nand Solomon; and during the drowsiness which the trouble caused her, He\nput this parable into her mind, so similar to that in the gospel: She\nsaw that appear which Jesus Christ has not disdained to give us as an\nimage of His tenderness--a hen become a mother, anxious round the little\nones which she conducted. One of them having strayed, our invalid saw it\nswallowed by a hungry dog. She ran and tore the innocent animal away\nfrom him. At the same time, a voice cried from the other side that she\nmust give it back to the ravisher. \"No,\" said she, \"I will never give it\nback.\" At this moment she awakened, and the explanation of the figure\nwhich had been shown to her presented itself to her mind in an instant.\n\n\n\n\nVOWS.\n\n\nTo make a vow for life, is to make oneself a slave. How can this worst\nof all slavery be allowed in a country in which slavery is proscribed?\nTo promise to God by an oath, that from the age of fifteen until death\nwe will be a Jesuit, Jacobin, or Capuchin, is to affirm that we will\nalways think like a Capuchin, a Jacobin, or a Jesuit. It is very\npleasant to promise, for a whole life, that which no man can certainly\ninsure from night to morning!\n\nHow can governments have been such enemies to themselves, and so absurd,\nas to authorize citizens to alienate their liberty at an age when they\nare not allowed to dispose of the least portion of their fortunes? How,\nbeing convinced of the extent of this stupidity, have not the whole of\nthe magistracy united to put an end to it?\n\nIs it not alarming to reflect that there are more monks than soldiers?\nIs it possible not to be affected by the discovery of the secrets of\ncloisters; the turpitudes, the horrors, and the torments to which so\nmany unhappy children are subjected, who detest the state which they\nhave been forced to adopt, when they become men, and who beat with\nuseless despair the chains which their weakness has imposed upon them?\n\nI knew a young man whose parents engaged to make a Capuchin of him at\nfifteen years and a half old, when he desperately loved a girl very\nnearly of his own age. As soon as the unhappy youth had made his vow to\nSt. Francis, the devil reminded him of the vows which he had made to his\nmistress, to whom he had signed a promise of marriage. At last, the\ndevil being stronger than St. Francis, the young Capuchin left his\ncloister, repaired to the house of his mistress, and was told that she\nhad entered a convent and made profession.\n\nHe flew to the convent, and asked to see her, when he was told that she\nhad died of grief. This news deprived him of all sense, and he fell to\nthe ground nearly lifeless. He was immediately transported to a\nneighboring monastery, not to afford him the necessary medical aid, but\nin order to procure him the blessing of extreme unction before his\ndeath, which infallibly saves the soul.\n\nThe house to which the poor fainting boy was carried, happened to be a\nconvent of Capuchins, who charitably let him remain at the door for\nthree hours; but at last he was recognized by one of the venerable\nbrothers, who had seen him in the monastery to which he belonged. On\nthis discovery, he was carried into a cell, and attention paid to\nrecover him, in order that he might expiate, by a salutary penitence,\nthe errors of which he had been guilty.\n\nAs soon as he had recovered strength, he was conducted, well bound, to\nhis convent, and the following is precisely the manner in which he was\ntreated. In the first place he was placed in a dungeon under ground, at\nthe bottom of which was an enormous stone, to which a chain of iron was\nattached. To this chain he was fastened by one leg, and near him was\nplaced a loaf of barley bread and a jug of water; after which they\nclosed the entrance of the dungeon with a large block of stone, which\ncovered the opening by which they had descended.\n\nAt the end of three days they withdrew him from the dungeon, in order to\nbring him before the criminal court of the Capuchins. They wished to\nknow if he had any accomplices in his flight, and to oblige him to\nconfess, applied the mode of torture employed in the convent. This\npreparatory torture was inflicted by cords, which bound the limbs of the\npatient, and made him endure a sort of rack.\n\nAfter having undergone these torments, he was condemned to be imprisoned\nfor two years in his cell, from which he was to be brought out thrice a\nweek, in order to receive upon his naked body the discipline with iron\nchains.\n\nFor six months his constitution endured this punishment, from which he\nwas at length so fortunate as to escape in consequence of a quarrel\namong the Capuchins, who fought with one another, and allowed the\nprisoner to escape during the fray.\n\nAfter hiding himself for some hours, he ventured to go abroad at the\ndecline of day, almost worn out by hunger, and scarcely able to support\nhimself. A passing Samaritan took pity upon the poor, famished spectre,\nconducted him to his house, and gave him assistance. The unhappy youth\nhimself related to me his story in the presence of his liberator. Behold\nhere the consequence of vows!\n\nIt would be a nice point to decide, whether the horrors of passing every\nday among the mendicant friars are more revolting than the pernicious\nriches of the other orders, which reduce so many families into\nmendicants.\n\nAll of them have made a vow to live at our expense, and to be a burden\nto their country; to injure its population, and to betray both their\ncontemporaries and posterity; and shall we suffer it?\n\nHere is another interesting question for officers of the army: Why are\nmonks allowed to recover one of their brethren who has enlisted for a\nsoldier, while a captain is prevented from recovering a deserter who has\nturned monk?\n\n\n\n\nVOYAGE OF ST. PETER TO ROME.\n\n\nOf the famous dispute, whether Peter made the journey to Rome, is it not\nin the main as frivolous as most other grand disputes? The revenues of\nthe abbey of St. Denis, in France, depend neither on the truth of the\njourney of St. Dionysius the Areopagite from Athens to the midst of\nGaul; his martyrdom at Montmartre; nor the other journey which he made\nafter his death, from Montmartre to St. Denis, carrying his head in his\narms, and kissing it at every step.\n\nThe Carthusians have great riches, without there being the least truth\nin the history of the canon of Paris, who rose from his coffin three\nsuccessive days, to inform the assistants that he was damned.\n\nIn like manner it is very certain that the rights and revenues of the\nRoman pontiff can exist, whether Simon Barjonas, surnamed Cephas, went\nto Rome or not. All the rights of the archbishops of Rome and\nConstantinople were established at the Council of Chalcedon, in the\nyear 451 of our vulgar era, and there was no mention in this council of\nany journey made by an apostle to Byzantium or to Rome.\n\nThe patriarchs of Alexander and Constantinople followed the lot of their\nprovinces. The ecclesiastical chiefs of these two imperial cities, and\nof opulent Egypt, must necessarily have more authority, privileges, and\nriches, than bishops of little towns.\n\nIf the residence of an apostle in a city decided so many rights, the\nbishop of Jerusalem would have been, without contradiction, the first\nbishop of Christendom. He was evidently the successor of St. James, the\nbrother of Jesus Christ, acknowledged as the founder of this church, and\nafterwards called the first of all bishops. We should add by the same\nreasoning, that all the patriarchs of Jerusalem should be circumcised,\nsince the fifteen first bishops of Jerusalem--the cradle of Christianity\nand tomb of Jesus Christ--had all received circumcision. It is\nindisputable that the first largesses made to the church of Rome by\nConstantine, have not the least relation to the journey of St. Peter.\n\n1. The first church raised at Rome was that of St. John; it is still the\ntrue cathedral. It is evident that it would have been dedicated to St.\nPeter, if he had been the first bishop of it. It is the strongest of all\npresumptions, and that alone might have ended the dispute.\n\n2. To this powerful conjecture are joined convincing negative proofs. If\nPeter had been at Rome with Paul, the Acts of the Apostles would have\nmentioned it; and they say not a word about it.\n\n3. If St. Peter went to preach the gospel at Rome, St. Paul would not\nhave said, in his Epistle to the Galatians: \"When they saw that the\ngospel of the uncircumcisions was committed unto me, as the gospel of\nthe circumcision was unto Peter; and when James, Cephas, and John, who\nseemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they\ngave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go\nunto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.\"\n\n4. In the letters which Paul writes from Rome, he never speaks of Peter;\ntherefore, it is evident that Peter was not there.\n\n5. In the letters which Paul writes to his brethren of Rome, there is\nnot the least compliment to Peter, nor the least mention of him;\ntherefore, Peter neither made a journey to Rome when Paul was in prison,\nnor when he was free.\n\n6. We have never known any letter of St. Peter's dated from Rome.\n\n7. Some, like Paul Orosius, a Spaniard of the fifth century, say that he\nwas at Rome in the first years of the reign of Claudius. The Acts of the\nApostles say that he was then at Jerusalem; and the Epistles of Paul,\nthat he was at Antioch.\n\n8. I do not pretend to bring forward any proof, but speaking humanly,\nand according to the rules of profane criticism, Peter could scarcely go\nfrom Jerusalem to Rome, knowing neither the Latin nor even the Greek\nlanguage, which St. Paul spoke, though very badly. It is said that the\napostles spoke all the languages of the universe; therefore, I am\nsilenced.\n\n9. Finally, the first mention which we ever had of the journey of St.\nPeter to Rome, came from one named Papias, who lived about a hundred\nyears after St. Peter. This Papias was a Phrygian; he wrote in Phrygia;\nand he pretended that St. Peter went to Rome, because in one of his\nletters he speaks of Babylon. We have, indeed, a letter, attributed to\nSt. Peter, written in these obscure times, in which it is said: \"The\nChurch which is at Babylon, my wife, and my son Mark, salute you.\" It\nhas pleased some translators to translate the word meaning my wife, by\n\"chosen vessel\": \"Babylon, the chosen vessel.\" This is translating\ncomprehensively.\n\nPapias, who was, it must be confessed, one of the great visionaries of\nthese ages, imagined that Babylon signified Rome. It was, however, very\nnatural for Peter to depart from Antioch to visit the brethren at\nBabylon. There were always Jews at Babylon; and they continually carried\non the trade of brokers and peddlers; it is very likely that several\ndisciples sought refuge there, and that Peter went to encourage them.\nThere is not more reason in supposing that Babylon signifies Rome, than\nin supposing that Rome means Babylon. What an extravagant idea, to\nsuppose that Peter wrote an exhortation to his comrades, as we write at\npresent, in ciphers! Did he fear that his letter should be opened at the\npost? Why should Peter fear that his Jewish letters should be known--so\nuseless in a worldly sense, and to which it was impossible for the\nRomans to pay the least attention? Who engaged him to lie so vainly?\nWhat could have possessed people to think, that when he wrote Babylon,\nhe intended Rome?\n\nIt was after similar convincing proofs that the judicious Calmet\nconcludes that the journey of St. Peter to Rome is proved by St. Peter\nhimself, who says expressly, that he has written his letter from\nBabylon; that is to say, from Rome, as we interpret with the ancients.\nOnce more, this is powerful reasoning! He has probably learned this\nlogic among the vampires!\n\nThe learned archbishop of Paris, Marca, Dupin, Blondel, and Spanheim,\nare not of this opinion; but it was that of Calmet, who reasoned like\nCalmet, and who was followed by a multitude of writers so attached to\nthe sublimity of their principles that they sometimes neglected\nwholesome criticism and reason. It is a very poor pretence of the\npartisans of the voyage to say that the Acts of the Apostles are\nintended for the history of Paul, and not for that of Peter; and that if\nthey pass in silence over the sojourn of Simon Barjonas at Rome, it is\nthat the actions and exploits of Paul were the sole object of the\nwriter.\n\nThe Acts speak much of Simon Barjonas, surnamed Peter; it is he who\nproposes to give a successor to Judas. We see him strike Ananias and his\nwife with sudden death, who had given him their property, but\nunfortunately not all of it. We see him raise his sempstress Dorcas, at\nthe house of the tanner Simon at Joppa. He has a quarrel in Samaria with\nSimon, surnamed the Magician; he goes to Lippa, C\u00e6sarea, and Jerusalem;\nwhat would it have cost him to go to Rome?\n\nIt is very difficult to decide whether Peter went to Rome under\nTiberius, Caligula, Claudius, or Nero. The journey in the time of\nTiberius is only founded on the pretended apocryphal fasti of Italy.\n\nAnother apocrypha, entitled \"Catalogues of Bishops,\" makes Peter bishop\nof Rome immediately after the death of his master. I know not what\nArabian tale sent him to Rome under Caligula. Eusebius, three hundred\nyears after, makes him to be conducted to Rome under Claudius by a\ndivine hand, without saying in what year.\n\nLactantius, who wrote in the time of Constantine, is the first veracious\nauthor who has said that Peter went to Rome under Nero, and that he was\ncrucified there.\n\nWe must avow, that if such claims alone were brought forward by a party\nin a lawsuit, he would not gain his cause, and he would be advised to\nkeep to the maxim of \"_uti possedetis_\"; and this is the part which Rome\nhas taken.\n\nBut it is said that before Eusebius and Lactantius, the exact Papias had\nalready related the adventure of Peter and Simon; the virtue of God\nwhich removed him into the presence of Nero; the kinsman of Nero half\nraised from the dead, in the name of God, by Simon, and wholly raised by\nPeter; the compliments of their dogs; the bread given by Peter to\nSimon's dogs; the magician who flew into the air; the Christian who\ncaused him to fall by a sign of the cross, by which he broke both his\nlegs; Nero, who cut off Peter's head to pay for the legs of his\nmagician, etc. The grave Marcellus repeats this authentic history, and\nthe grave Hegesippus again repeats it, and others repeat it after them;\nand I repeat to you, that if ever you plead for a meadow before the\njudge of Vaugirard, you will never gain your suit by such claims.\n\nI doubt not that the episcopal chair of St. Peter is still at Rome in\nthe fine church. I doubt not but that St. Peter enjoyed the bishopric of\nRome twenty-nine years, a month, and nine days, as it is said. But I may\nventure to say that that is not demonstratively proved; and I say that\nit is to be thought that the Roman bishops of the present time are more\nat their ease than those of times past--obscure times, which it is very\ndifficult to penetrate.\n\n\n\n\nWALLER.\n\n\nThe celebrated Waller has been much spoken of in France; he has been\npraised by La Fontaine, St. \u00c9vremond, and Bayle, who, however, knew\nlittle of him beyond his name.\n\nHe had pretty nearly the same reputation in London as Voiture enjoyed in\nParis, but I believe that he more deserved it. Voiture existed at a time\nwhen we were first emerging from literary ignorance, and when wit was\naimed at, but scarcely attained. Turns of expression were sought for\ninstead of thoughts, and false stones were more easily discovered than\ngenuine diamonds. Voiture, who possessed an easy and trifling turn of\nmind, was the first who shone in this aurora of French literature. Had\nhe come after the great men who have thrown so much lustre on the age of\nLouis XIV., he would have been forced to have had something more than\nmere wit, which was enough for the hotel de Rambouillet, but not enough\nfor posterity. Boileau praises him, but it was in his first satires, and\nbefore his taste was formed. He was young, and of that age in which men\njudge rather by reputation than from themselves; and, besides, Boileau\nwas often unjust in his praise as well as his censure. He praised\nSegrais, whom nobody read; insulted Quinault, who everybody repeated by\nheart; and said nothing of La Fontaine.\n\nWaller, although superior to Voiture, was not perfect. His poems of\ngallantry are very graceful, but they are frequently languid from\nnegligence, and they are often disfigured by conceits. In his days, the\nEnglish had not learned to write correctly. His serious pieces are\nreplete with vigor, and exhibit none of the softness of his gallant\neffusions. He composed a monody on the death of Cromwell, which, with\nseveral faults, passes for a masterpiece; and it was in reference to\nthis eulogy that Waller made the reply to Charles II., which is inserted\nin \"Bayle's Dictionary.\" The king--to whom Waller, after the manner of\nkings and poets, presented a poem stuffed with panegyric--told him that\nhe had written more finely on Cromwell. Waller immediately replied:\n\"Sire, we poets always succeed better in fiction than in truth.\" This\nreply was not so sincere as that of the Dutch ambassador, who, when the\nsame king complained to him that his masters had less regard for him\nthan for Cromwell, replied: \"Ah, sire! that Cromwell was quite another\nthing.\" There are courtiers in England, as elsewhere, and Waller was one\nof them; but after their death, I consider men only by their works; all\nthe rest is annihilated. I simply observe that Waller, born to an estate\nof the annual value of sixty thousand livres, had never the silly pride\nor carelessness to neglect his talent. The earls of Dorset and\nRoscommon, the two dukes of Buckingham, the earl of Halifax, and a great\nmany others, have not thought it below them to become celebrated poets\nand illustrious writers; and their works do them more honor than their\ntitles. They have cultivated letters as if their fortunes depended on\ntheir success, and have rendered literature respectable in the eyes of\nthe people, who in all things require leaders from among the great--who,\nhowever, have less influence of this kind in England than in any other\nplace in the world.\n\n\n\n\nWAR.\n\n\nAll animals are perpetually at war; every species is born to devour\nanother. There are none, even to sheep and doves, who do not swallow a\nprodigious number of imperceptible animals. Males of the same species\nmake war for the females, like Menelaus and Paris. Air, earth, and the\nwaters, are fields of destruction.\n\nIt seems that God having given reason to men, this reason should teach\nthem not to debase themselves by imitating animals, particularly when\nnature has given them neither arms to kill their fellow-creatures, nor\ninstinct which leads them to suck their blood.\n\nYet murderous war is so much the dreadful lot of man, that except two or\nthree nations, there are none but what their ancient histories represent\nas armed against one another. Towards Canada, man and warrior are\nsynonymous; and we have seen, in our hemisphere, that thief and soldier\nwere the same thing. Manich\u00e6ans! behold your excuse.\n\nThe most determined of flatterers will easily agree, that war always\nbrings pestilence and famine in its train, from the little that he may\nhave seen in the hospitals of the armies of Germany, or the few villages\nhe may have passed through in which some great exploit of war has been\nperformed.\n\nThat is doubtless a very fine art which desolates countries, destroys\nhabitations, and in a common year causes the death of from forty to a\nhundred thousand men. This invention was first cultivated by nations\nassembled for their common good; for instance, the diet of the Greeks\ndeclared to the diet of Phrygia and neighboring nations, that they\nintended to depart on a thousand fishers' barks, to exterminate them if\nthey could.\n\nThe assembled Roman people judged that it was to their interest to go\nand fight, before harvest, against the people of Veii or the Volscians.\nAnd some years after, all the Romans, being exasperated against all the\nCarthaginians, fought them a long time on sea and land. It is not\nexactly the same at present.\n\nA genealogist proves to a prince that he descends in a right line from a\ncount, whose parents made a family compact, three or four hundred years\nago, with a house the recollection of which does not even exist. This\nhouse had distant pretensions to a province, of which the last possessor\ndied of apoplexy. The prince and his council see his right at once. This\nprovince, which is some hundred leagues distant from him, in vain\nprotests that it knows him not; that it has no desire to be governed by\nhim; that to give laws to its people, he must at least have their\nconsent; these discourses only reach as far as the ears of the prince,\nwhose right is incontestable. He immediately assembles a great number of\nmen who have nothing to lose, dresses them in coarse blue cloth, borders\ntheir hats with broad white binding, makes them turn to the right and\nleft, and marches to glory.\n\nOther princes who hear of this equipment, take part in it, each\naccording to his power, and cover a small extent of country with more\nmercenary murderers than Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, and Bajazet employed\nin their train. Distant people hear that they are going to fight, and\nthat they may gain five or six sous a day, if they will be of the party;\nthey divide themselves into two bands, like reapers, and offer their\nservices to whoever will employ them.\n\nThese multitudes fall upon one another, not only without having any\ninterest in the affair, but without knowing the reason of it. We see at\nonce five or six belligerent powers, sometimes three against three,\nsometimes two against four, and sometimes one against five; all equally\ndetesting one another, uniting with and attacking by turns; all agree in\na single point, that of doing all the harm possible.\n\nThe most wonderful part of this infernal enterprise is that each chief\nof the murderers causes his colors to be blessed, and solemnly invokes\nGod before he goes to exterminate his neighbors. If a chief has only the\nfortune to kill two or three thousand men, he does not thank God for it;\nbut when he has exterminated about ten thousand by fire and sword, and,\nto complete the work, some town has been levelled with the ground, they\nthen sing a long song in four parts, composed in a language unknown to\nall who have fought, and moreover replete with barbarism. The same song\nserves for marriages and births, as well as for murders; which is\nunpardonable, particularly in a nation the most famous for new songs.\n\nNatural religion has a thousand times prevented citizens from committing\ncrimes. A well-trained mind has not the inclination for it; a tender one\nis alarmed at it, representing to itself a just and avenging God; but\nartificial religion encourages all cruelties which are exercised by\ntroops--conspiracies, seditions, pillages, ambuscades, surprises of\ntowns, robberies, and murder. Each marches gaily to crime, under the\nbanner of his saint.\n\nA certain number of orators are everywhere paid to celebrate these\nmurderous days; some are dressed in a long black close coat, with a\nshort cloak; others have a shirt above a gown; some wear two variegated\nstuff streamers over their shirts. All of them speak for a long time,\nand quote that which was done of old in Palestine, as applicable to a\ncombat in Veteravia.\n\nThe rest of the year these people declaim against vices. They prove, in\nthree points and by antitheses, that ladies who lay a little carmine\nupon their cheeks, will be the eternal objects of the eternal vengeances\nof the Eternal; that Polyeuctus and Athalia are works of the demon; that\na man who, for two hundred crowns a day, causes his table to be\nfurnished with fresh sea-fish during Lent, infallibly works his\nsalvation; and that a poor man who eats two sous and a half worth of\nmutton, will go forever to all the devils.\n\nOf five or six thousand declamations of this kind, there are three or\nfour at most, composed by a Gaul named Massillon, which an honest man\nmay read without disgust; but in all these discourses, you will scarcely\nfind two in which the orator dares to say a word against the scourge and\ncrime of war, which contains all other scourges and crimes. The\nunfortunate orators speak incessantly against love, which is the only\nconsolation of mankind, and the only mode of making amends for it; they\nsay nothing of the abominable efforts which we make to destroy it.\n\nYou have made a very bad sermon on impurity--oh, Bourdaloue!--but none\non these murders, varied in so many ways; on these rapines and\nrobberies; on this universal rage which devours the world. All the\nunited vices of all ages and places will never equal the evils produced\nby a single campaign.\n\nMiserable physicians of souls! you exclaim, for five quarters of an\nhour, on some pricks of a pin, and say nothing on the malady which tears\nus into a thousand pieces! Philosophers! moralists! burn all your books.\nWhile the caprice of a few men makes that part of mankind consecrated to\nheroism, to murder loyally millions of our brethren, can there be\nanything more horrible throughout nature?\n\nWhat becomes of, and what signifies to me, humanity, beneficence,\nmodesty, temperance, mildness, wisdom, and piety, while half a pound of\nlead, sent from the distance of a hundred steps, pierces my body, and I\ndie at twenty years of age, in inexpressible torments, in the midst of\nfive or six thousand dying men, while my eyes which open for the last\ntime, see the town in which I was born destroyed by fire and sword, and\nthe last sounds which reach my ears are the cries of women and children\nexpiring under the ruins, all for the pretended interests of a man whom\nI know not?\n\nWhat is worse, war is an inevitable scourge. If we take notice, all men\nhave worshipped Mars. Sabaoth, among the Jews, signifies the god of\narms; but Minerva, in Homer, calls Mars a furious, mad, and infernal\ngod.\n\nThe celebrated Montesquieu, who was called humane, has said, however,'\nthat it is just to bear fire and sword against our neighbors, when we\nfear that they are doing too well. If this is the spirit of laws, At is\nalso that of Borgia and of Machiavelli. If unfortunately he says true,\nwe must write against this truth, though it may be proved by facts.\n\nThis is what Montesquieu says: \"Between societies, the right of natural\ndefence sometimes induces the necessity of attacking, when one people\nsees that a longer peace puts another in a situation to destroy it, and\nthat attack at the given moment is the only way of preventing this\ndestruction.\"\n\nHow can attack in peace be the only means of preventing this\ndestruction? You must be sure that this neighbor will destroy you, if he\nbecome powerful. To be sure of it, he must already have made\npreparations for your overthrow. In this case, it is he who commences\nthe war; it is not you: your supposition is false and contradictory.\n\nIf ever war is evidently unjust, it is that which you propose: it is\ngoing to kill your neighbor, who does not attack you, lest he should\never be in a state to do so. To hazard the ruin of your country, in the\nhope of ruining without reason that of another, is assuredly neither\nhonest nor useful; for we are never sure of success, as you well know.\n\nIf your neighbor becomes too powerful during peace, what prevents you\nfrom rendering yourself equally powerful? If he has made alliances, make\nthem on your side. If, having fewer monks, he has more soldiers and\nmanufacturers, imitate him in this wise economy. If he employs his\nsailors better, employ yours in the same manner: all that is very just.\nBut to expose your people to the most horrible misery, in the so often\nfalse idea of overturning your dear brother, the most serene neighboring\nprince!--it was not for the honorary president of a pacific society to\ngive you such advice.\n\n\n\n\nWEAKNESS ON BOTH SIDES.\n\n\nWeakness on both sides is, as we know, the motto of all quarrels. I\nspeak not here of those which have caused blood to be shed--the\nAnabaptists, who ravaged Westphalia; the Calvinists, who kindled so many\nwars in France; the sanguinary factions of the Armagnacs and\nBurgundians; the punishment of the Maid of Orleans, whom one-half of\nFrance regarded as a celestial heroine, and the other as a sorceress;\nthe Sorbonne, which presented a request to have her burned; the\nassassination of the duke of Orleans, justified by the doctors; subjects\nexcused from the oath of fidelity by a decree of the sacred faculty; the\nexecutioners so often employed to enforce opinions; the piles lighted\nfor unfortunates who persuaded others that they were sorcerers and\nheretics--all that is more than weakness. Yet these abominations were\ncommitted in the good times of honest Germanic faith and Gallic naivete!\nI would send back to them all honest people who regret times past.\n\nI will make here, simply for my own particular edification, a little\ninstructive memoir of the fine things which divided the minds of our\ngrandfathers. In the eleventh century--in that good time in which we\nknew not the art of war, which however we have always practised; nor\nthat of governing towns, nor commerce, nor society, and in which we\ncould neither read nor write--men of much mind disputed solemnly, at\nmuch length, and with great vivacity, on what happened at the\nwater-closet, after having fulfilled a sacred duty, of which we must\nspeak only with the most profound respect. This was called the dispute\nof the stercorists; and, not ending in a war, was in consequence one of\nthe mildest impertinences of the human mind.\n\nThe dispute which divided learned Spain, in the same century, on the\nMosarabic version, also terminated without ravaging provinces or\nshedding human blood. The spirit of chivalry, which then prevailed,\npermitted not the difficulty to be enlightened otherwise than in leaving\nthe decision to two noble knights. As in that of the two Don Quixotes,\nwhichever overthrew his adversary caused his own party to triumph. Don\nRuis de Martanza, knight of the Mosarabic ritual, overthrew the Don\nQuixote of the Latin ritual; but as the laws of chivalry decided not\npositively that a ritual must be proscribed because its knight was\nunhorsed, a more certain and established secret was made use of, to know\nwhich of the books should be preferred. The expedient alluded to was\nthat of throwing them both into the fire, it not being possible for the\nsound ritual to perish in the flames. I know not how it happened,\nhowever, but they were both burned, and the dispute remained undecided,\nto the great astonishment of the Spaniards. By degrees, the Latin ritual\ngot the preference; and if any knight afterwards presented himself to\nmaintain the Mosarabic, it was the knight and not the ritual which was\nthrown into the fire.\n\nIn these fine times, we and other polished people, when we were ill,\nwere obliged to have recourse to an Arabian physician. When we would\nknow what day of the moon it was, we referred to the Arabs. If we would\nbuy a piece of cloth, we must pay a Jew for it; and when a farmer wanted\nrain, he addressed himself to a sorcerer. At last, however, when some of\nus learned Latin, and had a bad translation of Aristotle, we figured in\nthe world with honor, passing three or four hundred years in deciphering\nsome pages of the Stagyrite, and in adoring and condemning them. Some\nsaid that without him we should want articles of faith; others, that he\nwas an atheist. A Spaniard proved that Aristotle was a saint, and that\nwe should celebrate his anniversary; while a council in France caused\nhis divine writings to be burned. Colleges, universities, whole orders\nof monks, were reciprocally anathematized, on the subject of some\npassages of this great man--which neither themselves, the judges who\ninterposed their authority, nor the author himself, ever understood.\nThere were many fisticuffs given in Germany in these grave quarrels, but\nthere was not much bloodshed. It is a pity, for the glory of Aristotle,\nthat they did not make civil war, and have some regular battles in favor\nof quiddities, and of the \"universal of the part of the thing.\" Our\nancestors cut the throats of each other in disputes upon points which\nthey understood very little better.\n\nIt is true that a much celebrated madman named Occam, surnamed the\n\"invincible doctor,\" chief of those who stood up for the \"universal of\nthe part of thought,\" demanded from the emperor Louis of Bavaria, that\nhe should defend his pen with his imperial sword against Scott, another\nScottish madman, surnamed the \"subtle doctor,\" who fought for the\n\"universal of the part of the thing.\" Happily, the sword of Louis of\nBavaria remained in its scabbard. Who would believe that these disputes\nhave lasted until our days, and that the Parliament of Paris, in 1624,\ngave a fine sentence in favor of Aristotle?\n\nTowards the time of the brave Occam and the intrepid Scott, a much more\nserious quarrel arose, into which the reverend father Cordeliers\ninveigled all the Christian world. This was to know if their kitchen\ngarden belonged to themselves, or if they were merely simple tenants of\nit. The form of the cowls, and the size of the sleeves, were further\nsubjects of this holy war. Pope John XXII., who interfered, found out to\nwhom he was speaking. The Cordeliers quitted his party for that of Louis\nof Bavaria, who then drew his sword.\n\nThere were, moreover, three or four Cordeliers burned as heretics, which\nis rather strong; but after all, this affair having neither shaken\nthrones nor ruined provinces, we may place it in the rank of peaceable\nfollies.\n\nThere have been always some of this kind, the greater part of whom have\nfallen into the most profound oblivion; and of four or five hundred\nsects which have appeared, there remain in the memory of men those only\nwhich have produced either extreme disorder or extreme folly--two things\nwhich they willingly retain. Who knows, in the present day, that there\nwere Orebites, Osmites, and Insdorfians? Who is now acquainted with the\nAnointed, the Cornacians, or the Iscariots?\n\nDining one day at the house of a Dutch lady, I was charitably warned by\none of the guests, to take care of myself, and not to praise Voetius. \"I\nhave no desire,\" said I, \"to say either good or evil of your Voetius;\nbut why do you give me this advice?\" \"Because madam is a Cocceian,\" said\nmy neighbor. \"With all my heart,\" said I. She added, that there were\nstill four Cocceians in Holland, and that it was a great pity that the\nsect perished. A time will come in which the Jansenists, who have made\nso much noise among us, and who are unknown everywhere else, will have\nthe fate of the Cocceians. An old doctor said to me: \"Sir, in my youth,\nI have debated on the _'mandata impossibilia volentibus et conantibus.'_\nI have written against the formulary and the pope, and I thought myself\na confessor. I have been put in prison, and I thought myself a martyr. I\nnow no longer interfere in anything, and I believe myself to be\nreasonable.\" \"What are your occupations?\" said I to him. \"Sir,\" replied\nhe, \"I am very fond of money.\" It is thus that almost all men in their\nold age inwardly laugh at the follies which they ardently embraced in\ntheir youth. Sects grow old, like men. Those which have not been\nsupported by great princes, which have not caused great mischief, grow\nold much sooner than others. They are epidemic maladies, which pass over\nlike the sweating sickness and the whooping-cough.\n\nThere is no longer any question on the pious reveries of Madame Guyon.\nWe no longer read the most unintelligible book of Maxims of the Saints,\nbut Telemachus. We no longer remember what the eloquent Bossuet wrote\nagainst the elegant and amiable F\u00e9nelon; we give the preference to his\nfuneral orations. In all the dispute on what is called quietism, there\nhas been nothing good but the old tale revived of the honest woman who\nbrought a torch to burn paradise, and a cruse of water to extinguish the\nfire of hell, that God should no longer be served either through hope or\nfear.\n\nI will only remark one singularity in this proceeding, which is not\nequal to the story of the good woman; it is, that the Jesuits, who were\nso much accused in France by the Jansenists of having been founded by\nSt. Ignatius, expressly to destroy the love of God, warmly interfered\nat Rome in favor of the pure love of F\u00e9nelon. It happened to them as to\nM. de Langeais, who was pursued by his wife to the Parliament of Paris,\non account of his impotence, and by a girl to the Parliament of Rennes,\nfor having rendered her pregnant. He ought to have gained one of these\ntwo causes; he lost them both. Pure love, for which the Jesuits made so\nmuch stir, was condemned at Rome, and they were always supposed at Paris\nto be against loving God. This opinion was so rooted in the public mind\nthat when, some years ago, an engraving was sold representing our Lord\nJesus Christ dressed as a Jesuit, a wit--apparently the _loustic_ of the\nJansenist party--wrote lines under the print intimating that the\ningenious fathers had habited God like themselves, as the surest means\nof preventing the love of him:\n\n     _Admirez l'artifice extr\u00eame_\n     _Les ces p\u00e8res ing\u00e9nieux:_\n     _Ils vous ont habill\u00e9 comme eux,_\n     _Mon Dieu, de peur qu'on ne vous aime._\n\nAt Rome, where such disputes never arise, and where they judge those\nthat take place elsewhere, they were much annoyed with quarrels on pure\nlove. Cardinal Carpegne, who was the reporter of the affairs of the\narchbishop of Cambray, was ill, and suffered much in a part which is not\nmore spared in cardinals than in other men. His surgeon bandaged him\nwith fine linen, which is called cambrai (cambric) in Italy as in many\nother places. The cardinal cried out, when the surgeon pleaded that it\nwas the finest cambrai: \"What! more cambrai still? Is it not enough to\nhave one's head fatigued with it?\" Happy the disputes which end thus!\nHappy would man be if all the disputers of the world, if heresiarchs,\nsubmitted with so much moderation, such magnanimous mildness, as the\ngreat archbishop of Cambray, who had no desire to be an heresiarch! I\nknow not whether he was right in wishing God to be loved for himself\nalone, but M. de F\u00e9nelon certainly deserved to be loved thus.\n\nIn purely literary disputes there is often as much snarling and party\nspirit as in more interesting quarrels. We should, if we could, renew\nthe factions of the circus, which agitated the Roman Empire. Two rival\nactresses are capable of dividing a town. Men have all a secret\nfascination for faction. If we cannot cabal, pursue, and destroy one\nanother for crowns, tiaras, and mitres, we fall upon one another for a\ndancer or a musician. Rameau had a violent party against him, who would\nhave exterminated him; and he knew nothing of it. I had a violent party\nagainst me, and I knew it well.\n\n\n\n\nWHYS (THE).\n\n\nWhy do we scarcely ever know the tenth part of the good we might do?\nIris clear, that if a nation living between the Alps, the Pyrenees, and\nthe sea, had employed, in ameliorating and embellishing the country, a\ntenth part of the money it lost in the war of 1741, and one-half of the\nmen killed to no purpose in Germany, the state would have been more\nflourishing. Why was not this done? Why prefer a war, which Europe\nconsidered unjust, to the happy labors of peace, which would have\nproduced the useful and the agreeable?\n\nWhy did Louis XIV., who had so much taste for great monuments, for new\nfoundations, for the fine arts, lose eight hundred millions of our money\nin seeing his cuirassiers and his household swim across the Rhine in\n_not_ taking Amsterdam; in stirring up nearly all Europe against him?\nWhat could he not have done with his eight hundred millions?\n\nWhy, when he reformed jurisprudence, did he reform it only by halves?\nOught the numerous ancient customs, founded on the decretals and the\ncanon law, to be still suffered to exist? Was it necessary that in the\nmany causes called ecclesiastical, but which are in reality civil,\nappeal should be made to the bishop; from the bishop to the\nmetropolitan; from the metropolitan to the primate; and from the primate\nto Rome, \"_ad apostolos_\"?--as if the apostles had of old been the\njudges of the Gauls \"_en dernier ressort_.\"\n\nWhy, when Louis XIV. was outrageously insulted by Pope Alexander\nVII.--Chigi--did he amuse himself with sending into France for a legate,\nto make frivolous excuses, and with having a pyramid erected at Rome,\nthe inscriptions over which concerned none but the watchmen of Rome--a\npyramid which he soon after had abolished? Had it not been better to\nhave abolished forever the simony by which every bishop and every abbot\nin Gaul pays to the Italian apostolic chamber the half of his revenue?\n\nWhy did the same monarch, when still more grievously insulted by\nInnocent XI.--Odescalchi--who took the part of the prince of Orange\nagainst him, content himself with having four propositions maintained in\nhis universities, and refuse the prayers of the whole magistracy, who\nsolicited an eternal rupture with the court of Rome?\n\nWhy, in making the laws, was it forgotten to place all the provinces of\nthe kingdom under one uniform law, leaving in existence a hundred\ndifferent customs, and a hundred and forty-four different measures?\n\nWhy were the provinces of this kingdom still reputed foreign to one\nanother, so that the merchandise of Normandy, on being conveyed by land\ninto Brittany, pays duty, as if it came from England?\n\nWhy was not corn grown in Champagne allowed to be sold in Picardy\nwithout an express permission--as at Rome permission is obtained for\nthree giuli to read forbidden books?\n\nWhy was France left so long under the reproach of venality? It seemed to\nbe reserved for Louis XIV. to abolish the custom of buying the right to\nsit as judges over men, as you buy a country house; and making pleaders\npay fees to the judge, as tickets for the play are paid for at the\ndoor.\n\nWhy institute in a kingdom the offices and dignities of king's\ncounsellors: Inspectors of drink, inspectors of the shambles, registrars\nof inventories, controllers of fines, inspectors of hogs, p\u00e9r\u00e9quateurs\nof tailles, fuel-measurers, assistant-measurers, fuel-pilers, unloaders\nof green wood, controllers of timber, markers of timber, coal-measurers,\ncorn-sifters, inspectors of calves, controllers of poultry, gaugers,\nassayers of brandy, assayers of beer, rollers of casks, unloaders of\nhay, floor-clearers, inspectors of ells, inspectors of wigs?\n\nThese offices; in which doubtless consist the prosperity and splendor of\nan empire, formed numerous communities, which had each their syndics.\nThis was all suppressed in 1719; but it was to make room for others of a\nsimilar kind, in the course of time. Would it not be better to retrench\nall the pomp and luxury of greatness, than miserably to support them by\nmeans so low and shameful?\n\nWhy has a nation, often reduced to extremity and to some degree of\nhumiliation, still supported itself in spite of all the efforts made to\ncrush it? Because that nation is active and industrious. The people are\nlike the bees: you take from them wax and honey, and they forthwith set\nto work to produce more.\n\nWhy, in half of Europe, do the girls pray to God in Latin, which they do\nnot understand? Why, in the sixteenth century, when nearly all the popes\nand bishops notoriously had bastards, did they persist in prohibiting\nthe marriage of priests; while the Greek Church has constantly ordained\nthat curates should have wives?\n\nWhy, in all antiquity, was there no theological dispute, nor any people\ndistinguished by a sectarian appellation? The Egyptians were not called\nIsiacs or Osiriacs. The people of Syria were not named Cybelians. The\nCretans had a particular devotion for Jupiter, but were not called\nJupiterians. The ancient Latins were much attached to Saturn, but there\nwas not a village in all Latium called Saturnian. The disciples of the\nGod of Truth, on the contrary, taking the title of their master himself,\nand calling themselves, like him, \"anointed,\" declared, as soon as they\nwere able, eternal war against all nations that were not \"anointed,\" and\nmade war upon one another for upwards of fourteen hundred years, taking\nthe names of Arians, Manich\u00e6ans, Donatists, Hussites, Papists,\nLutherans, Calvinists, etc. Even the Jansenists and Molinists have\nexperienced no mortification so acute as that of not having it in their\npower to cut one another's throats in pitched battle. Whence is this?\n\nWhy does a bookseller publicly sell the \"Course of Atheism,\" by the\ngreat Lucretius, printed for the dauphin, only son of Louis XIV., by\norder and under the direction of the wise duke of Montausier, and of the\neloquent Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, and of the learned Huet, bishop of\nAvranches? There you find those sublime impieties, those admirable\nlines against Providence and the immortality of the soul, which pass\nfrom mouth to mouth, through all after-ages:\n\n     _Ex nihilo, nihil; in nihilum nil posse reverti._\n     From nothing, nought; to nothing nought returns.\n\n     _Tangere enim ac tangi nisi corpus nulla protest res._\n     Matter alone can touch and govern matter.\n\n     _Nec bene pro meretis capitur, nec tangitur ira (Deus)._\n     Nothing can flatter God, or cause his anger.\n\n     _Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum._\n     How great the evil by religion caused!\n\n     _Desipire est mortale eterno jungere et una_\n     _Consentire putare, et fungi mutua posse._\n     'Tis weak in mortals to attempt to join\n     To transient being that which lasts forever.\n\n     _Nil igitur mors est, ad nos neque pertinet hilum._\n     When death is, we are not; the body dies, and with it all.\n\n     _Mortalem tamen esse animam fatere necesse est._\n     There is no future; mortal is the soul.\n\n     _Hinc Acherusia fit stultorum denique vita._\n     Hence ancient fools are superstition's prey.\n\nAnd a hundred other lines which charm all nations--the immortal\nproductions of a mind which believed itself to be mortal. Not only are\nthese Latin verses sold in the Rue St. Jacques and on the Quai des\nAugustins, but you fearlessly purchase the translations made into all\nthe patois derived from the Latin tongue--translations decorated with\nlearned notes, which elucidate the doctrine of materialism, collect all\nthe proofs against the Divinity, and would annihilate it, if it could be\ndestroyed. You find this book, bound in morocco, in the fine library of\na great and devout prince, of a cardinal, of a chancellor, of an\narchbishop, of a round-capped president: but the first eighteen books of\nde Thou were condemned as soon as they appeared. A poor Gallic\nphilosopher ventures to publish, in his own name, that if men had been\nborn without fingers, they would never have been able to work tapestry;\nand immediately another Gaul, who for his money has obtained a robe of\noffice, requires that the book and the author be burned.\n\nWhy are scenic exhibitions anathematized by certain persons who call\nthemselves of the first order in the state, seeing that such exhibitions\nare necessary to all the orders of the state, and that the laws of the\nstate uphold them with equal splendor and regularity?\n\nWhy do we abandon to contempt, debasement, oppression, and rapine, the\ngreat mass of those laborious and harmless men who cultivate the earth\nevery day of the year, that we may eat of all its fruits? And why, on\nthe contrary, do we pay respect, attention, and court, to the useless\nand often very wicked man who lives only by their labor, and is rich\nonly by their misery?\n\nWhy, during so many ages, among so many men who sow the corn with which\nwe are fed, has there been no one to discover that ridiculous error\nwhich teaches that the grain must rot in order to germinate, and die to\nspring up again--an error which has led to many impertinent assertions,\nto many false comparisons, and to many ridiculous opinions?\n\nWhy, since the fruits of the earth are so necessary for the preservation\nof men and animals, do we find so many years, and so many centuries, in\nwhich these fruits are absolutely wanting? why is the earth covered with\npoisons in the half of Africa and of America? why is there no tract of\nland where there are not more insects than men? why does a little\nwhitish and offensive secretion form a being which will have hard bones,\ndesires, and thoughts? and why shall those beings be constantly\npersecuting one another? why does there exist so much evil, everything\nbeing formed by a God whom all Theists agree in calling good? why, since\nwe are always complaining of our ills, are we constantly employed in\nredoubling them? why, since we are so miserable, has it been imagined\nthat to die is an evil--when it is clear that not to have been, before\nour birth, was no evil? why does it rain every day into the sea, while\nso many deserts demand rain, yet are constantly arid? why and how have\nwe dreams in our sleep, if we have no soul? and if we have one, how is\nit that these dreams are always so incoherent and so extravagant? why do\nthe heavens revolve from east to west, rather than the contrary way? why\ndo we exist? why does anything exist?\n\n\n\n\nWICKED.\n\n\nWe are told that human nature is essentially perverse; that man is born\na child of the devil, and wicked. Nothing can be more injudicious; for\nthou, my friend, who preachest to me that all the world is born\nperverse, warnest me that thou art born such also, and that I must\nmistrust thee as I would a fox or a crocodile. Oh, no! sayest thou; I am\nregenerated; I am neither a heretic nor an infidel; you may trust in me.\nBut the rest of mankind, which are either heretic, or what thou callest\ninfidel, will be an assemblage of monsters, and every time that thou\nspeakest to a Lutheran or a Turk, thou mayest be sure that they will rob\nand murder thee, for they are children of the devil, they are born\nwicked; the one is not regenerated, the other is degenerated. It would\nbe much more reasonable, much more noble, to say to men: \"You are all\nborn good; see how dreadful it is to corrupt the purity of your being.\nAll mankind should be dealt with as are all men individually.\" If a\ncanon leads a scandalous life, we say to him: \"Is it possible that you\nwould dishonor the dignity of canon?\" We remind a lawyer that he has the\nhonor of being a counsellor to the king, and that he should set an\nexample. We say to a soldier to encourage him: \"Remember that thou art\nof the regiment of Champagne.\" We should say to every individual:\n\"Remember thy dignity as a man.\"\n\nAnd indeed, notwithstanding the contrary theory, we always return to\nthat; for what else signifies the expression, so frequently used in all\nnations: \"Be yourself again?\" If we are born of the devil, if our origin\nwas criminal, if our blood was formed of an infernal liquor, this\nexpression: \"Be yourself again,\" would signify: \"Consult, follow your\ndiabolical nature; be an impostor, thief, and assassin; it is the law of\nyour nature.\"\n\nMan is not born wicked; he becomes so, as he becomes sick. Physicians\npresent themselves and say to him: \"You are born sick.\" It is very\ncertain these doctors, whatever they may say or do, will not cure him,\nif the malady is inherent in his nature; besides, these reasoners are\noften very ailing themselves.\n\nAssemble all the children of the universe; you will see in them only\ninnocence, mildness, and fear; if they were born wicked, mischievous,\nand cruel, they would show some signs of it, as little serpents try to\nbite, and little tigers to tear. But nature not having given to men more\noffensive arms than to pigeons and rabbits, she cannot have given them\nan instinct leading them to destroy.\n\nMan, therefore, is not born bad; why, therefore, are several infected\nwith the plague of wickedness? It is, that those who are at their head\nbeing taken with the malady, communicate it to the rest of men: as a\nwoman attacked with the distemper which Christopher Columbus brought\nfrom America, spreads the venom from one end of Europe to the other.\n\nThe first ambitious man corrupted the earth. You will tell me that this\nfirst monster has sowed the seed of pride, rapine, fraud, and cruelty,\nwhich is in all men. I confess, that in general most of our brethren can\nacquire these qualities; but has everybody the putrid fever, the stone\nand gravel, because everybody is exposed to it?\n\nThere are whole nations which are not wicked: the Philadelphians, the\nBanians, have never killed any one. The Chinese, the people of Tonquin,\nLao, Siam, and even Japan, for more than a hundred years have not been\nacquainted with war. In ten years we scarcely see one of those great\ncrimes which astonish human nature in the cities of Rome, Venice, Paris,\nLondon, and Amsterdam; towns in which cupidity, the mother of all\ncrimes, is extreme.\n\nIf men were essentially wicked--if they were all born submissive to a\nbeing as mischievous as unfortunate, who, to revenge himself for his\npunishment, inspired them with all his passions--we should every morning\nsee husbands assassinated by their wives, and fathers by their children;\nas at break of day we see fowls strangled by a weasel who comes to suck\ntheir blood.\n\nIf there be a thousand millions of men on the earth, that is much; that\ngives about five hundred millions of women, who sew, spin, nourish their\nlittle ones, keep their houses or cabins in order, and slander their\nneighbors a little. I see not what great harm these poor innocents do on\nearth. Of this number of inhabitants of the globe, there are at least\ntwo hundred millions of children, who certainly neither kill nor steal,\nand about as many old people and invalids, who have not the power of\ndoing so. There will remain, at most, a hundred millions of robust young\npeople capable of crime. Of this hundred millions, there are ninety\ncontinually occupied in forcing the earth, by prodigious labor, to\nfurnish them with food and clothing; these have scarcely time. In the\nten remaining millions will be comprised idle people and good company,\nwho would enjoy themselves at their ease; men of talent occupied in\ntheir professions; magistrates, priests, visibly interested in leading a\npure life, at least in appearance. Therefore, of truly wicked people,\nthere will only remain a few politicians, either secular or regular, who\nwill always trouble the world, and some thousand vagabonds who hire\ntheir services to these politicians. Now, there is never a million of\nthese ferocious beasts employed at once, and in this number I reckon\nhighwaymen. You have therefore on the earth, in the most stormy times,\nonly one man in a thousand whom we can call wicked, and he is not always\nso.\n\nThere is, therefore infinitely less wickedness on the earth than we are\ntold and believe there is. There is still too much, no doubt; we see\nmisfortunes and horrible crimes; but the pleasure of complaining of and\nexaggerating them is so great, that at the least scratch we say that the\nearth flows with blood. Have you been deceived?--all men are perjured. A\nmelancholy mind which has suffered injustice, sees the earth covered\nwith damned people: as a young rake, supping with his lady, on coming\nfrom the opera, imagines that there are no unfortunates.\n\n\n\n\nWILL.\n\n\nSome very subtle Greeks formerly consulted Pope Honorius I., to know\nwhether Jesus, when He was in the world, had one will or two, when He\nwould sleep or watch, eat or repair to the water-closet, walk or sit.\n\n\"What signifies it to you?\" answered the very wise bishop of Rome,\nHonorius. \"He has certainly at present the will for you to be\nwell-disposed people--that should satisfy you; He has no will for you to\nbe babbling sophists, to fight continually for the bishop's mitre and\nthe ass's shadow. I advise you to live in peace, and not to lose in\nuseless disputes the time which you might employ in good works.\"\n\n\"Holy father, you have said well; this is the most important affair in\nthe world. We have already set Europe, Asia, and Africa on fire, to know\nwhether Jesus had two persons and one nature, or one nature and two\npersons, or rather two persons and two natures, or rather one person and\none nature.\"\n\n\"My dear brethren, you have acted wrongly; we should give broth to the\nsick and bread to the poor. It is doubtless right to help the poor! but\nis not the patriarch Sergius about to decide in a council at\nConstantinople, that Jesus had two natures and one will? And the\nemperor, who knows nothing about it, is of this opinion.\"\n\n\"Well, be it so! but above all defend yourself from the Mahometans, who\nbox your ears every day, and who have a very bad will towards you. It is\nwell said! But behold the bishops of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, and\nMorocco, all declare firmly for the two wills. We must have an opinion;\nwhat is yours?\"\n\n\"My opinion is, that you are madmen, who will lose the Christian\nreligion which we have established with so much trouble. You will do so\nmuch mischief with your folly, that Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers, and\nMorocco, of which you speak to me, will become Mahometan, and there will\nnot be a Christian chapel in Africa. Meantime, I am for the emperor and\nthe council, until you have another council and another emperor.\"\n\n\"This does not satisfy us. Do you believe in two wills or one?\"\n\n\"Listen: if these two wills are alike, it is as if there was but one; if\nthey are contrary, he who has two wills at once will do two contrary\nthings at once, which is absurd: consequently, I am for a single will.\"\n\n\"Ah, holy father, you are a monothelite! Heresy! the devil!\nExcommunicate him! depose him! A council, quick! another council!\nanother emperor! another bishop of Rome! another patriarch!\"\n\n\"My God! how mad these poor Greeks are with all their vain and\ninterminable disputes! My successor will do well to dream of being\npowerful and rich.\"\n\nScarcely had Honorius uttered these words when he learned that the\nemperor Heraclius was dead, after having been beaten by the Mahometans.\nHis widow, Martina, poisoned her son-in-law; the senate caused Martina's\ntongue to be cut out, and the nose of another son of the emperor to be\nslit: all the Greek Empire flowed in blood. Would it not be better not\nto have disputed on the two wills? And this Pope Honorius, against whom\nthe Jansenists have written so much--was he not a very sensible man?\n\n\n\n\nWIT, SPIRIT, INTELLECT.\n\n\nA man who had some knowledge of the human heart, was consulted upon a\ntragedy which was to be represented; and he answered, there was so much\nwit in the piece, that he doubted of its success. What! you will\nexclaim, is that a fault, at a time when every one is in search of\nwit--when each one writes but to show that he has it--when the public\neven applaud the falsest thoughts, if they are brilliant?--Yes,\ndoubtless, they will applaud the first day, and be wearied the second.\n\nWhat is called wit, is sometimes a new comparison, sometimes a subtle\nallusion; here, it is the abuse of a word, which is presented in one\nsense, and left to be understood in another; there, a delicate relation\nbetween two ideas not very common. It is a singular metaphor; it is the\ndiscovery of something in an object which does not at first strike the\nobservation, but which is really in it; it is the art either of bringing\ntogether two things apparently remote, or of dividing two things which\nseem to be united, or of opposing them to each other. It is that of\nexpressing only one-half of what you think, and leaving the other to be\nguessed. In short, I would tell you of all the different ways of showing\nwit, if I had more; but all these gems--and I do not here include the\ncounterfeits--are very rarely suited to a serious work--to one which is\nto interest the reader. The reason is, that then the author appears, and\nthe public desire to see only the hero; for the hero is constantly\neither in passion or in danger. Danger and the passions do not go in\nsearch of wit. Priam and Hecuba do not compose epigrams while their\nchildren are butchered in flaming Troy; Dido does not sigh out her soul\nin madrigals, while rushing to the pile on which she is about to\nimmolate herself; Demosthenes makes no display of pretty thoughts while\nhe is inciting the Athenians to war. If he had, he would be a\nrhetorician; whereas he is a statesman.\n\nThe art of the admirable Racine is far above what is called wit; but if\nPyrrhus had always expressed himself in this style:\n\n     _Vaincu, charg\u00e9 de fers, de regrets consum\u00e9,_\n     _Br\u00fbl\u00e9 de plus de feux que je n'en allumai...._\n     _H\u00e9las! fus-je jamais si cruel que vous l'\u00eates?_\n\n     Conquered and chained, worn out by vain desire,\n     Scorched by more flames than I have ever lighted....\n     Alas! my cruelty ne'er equalled yours!\n\n--if Orestes had been continually saying that the \"Scythians are less\ncruel than Hermione,\" these two personages would excite no emotion at\nall; it would be perceived that true passion rarely occupies itself with\nsuch comparisons; and that there is some disproportion between the real\nflames by which Troy was consumed and the flames of Pyrrhus'\nlove--between the Scythians immolating men, and Hermione not loving\nOrestes. Cinna says, speaking of Pompey:\n\n     _Le ciel choisit sa mort, pour servir dignement_\n     _D'une marque \u00e9ternelle \u00e0 ce grand changement;_\n     _Et devait cette gloire aux manes d'un tel homme,_\n     _D'emporter avec eux la libert\u00e9 de Rome._\n\n     Heaven chose the death of such a man, to be\n     Th' eternal landmark of this mighty change.\n     His manes called for no less offering\n     Than Roman liberty.\n\nThis thought is very brilliant; there is much wit in it, as also an air\nof imposing grandeur. I am sure that these lines, pronounced with all\nthe enthusiasm and art of a great actor, will be applauded; but I am\nalso sure that the play of \"Cinna,\" had it been written entirely in this\ntaste, would never have been long played. Why, indeed, was heaven bound\nto do Pompey the honor of making the Romans slaves after his death? The\ncontrary would be truer: the manes of Pompey should rather have\nobtained from heaven the everlasting maintenance of that liberty for\nwhich he is supposed to have fought and died.\n\nWhat, then, would any work be which should be full of such far-fetched\nand questionable thoughts? How much superior to all these brilliant\nideas are those simple and natural lines:\n\n     _Cinna, tu t'en souviens, et veux m'assassiner!_\n                                  --CINNA, act v, scene i.\n     Thou dost remember, Cinna, yet wouldst kill me!\n\n     _Soyons amis, Cinna; c'est moi qui t'en convie._\n                                  --ID., act v, scene iii.\n     Let us be friends, Cinna; 'tis I who ask it.\n\nTrue beauty consists, not in what is called wit, but in sublimity and\nsimplicity. Let Antiochus, in \"Rodogune,\" say of his mistress, who quits\nhim, after disgracefully proposing to him to kill his mother:\n\n     _Elle fuit, mais en Parthe, en nous per\u00e7ant le c\u0153ur._\n\n     She flies, but, like the Parthian, flying, wounds.\n\nAntiochus has wit; he makes an epigram against Rodogune; he ingeniously\nlikens her last words in going away, to the arrows which the Parthians\nused to discharge in their flight. But it is not because his mistress\ngoes away, that the proposal to kill his mother is revolting: whether\nshe goes or stays, the heart of Antiochus is equally wounded. The\nepigram, therefore, is false; and if Rodogune did not go away, this bad\nepigram could not be retained.\n\nI select these examples expressly from the best authors, in order that\nthey may be the more striking. I do not lay hold of those puns which\nplay upon words, the false taste of which is felt by all. There is no\none that does not laugh when, in the tragedy of the \"Golden Fleece,\"\nHypsipyle says to Medea, alluding to her sorceries:\n\n     _Je n'ai que des attraits, et vous avez des charmes._\n\n     I have attractions only, you have charms.\n\nCorneille found the stage and every other department of literature\ninfested with these puerilities, into which he rarely fell.\n\nI wish here to speak only of such strokes of wit as would be admitted\nelsewhere, and as the serious style rejects. To their authors might be\napplied the sentence of Plutarch, translated with the happy naivete of\nAmiot: \"_Tu tiens sans propos beaucoup de bons propos_.\"\n\nThere occurs to my recollection one of those brilliant passages, which I\nhave seen quoted as a model in many works of taste, and even in the\ntreatise on studies by the late M. Rollin. This piece is taken from the\nfine funeral oration on the great Turenne, composed by Fl\u00e9chier. It is\ntrue, that in this oration Fl\u00e9chier almost equalled the sublime Bossuet,\nwhom I have called and still call the only eloquent man among so many\nelegant writers; but it appears to me that the passage of which I am\nspeaking would not have been employed by the bishop of Meaux. Here it\nis:\n\n\"Ye powers hostile to France, you live; and the spirit of Christian\ncharity forbids me to wish your death.... but you live; and I mourn in\nthis pulpit over a virtuous leader, whose intentions were pure....\"\n\nAn apostrophe in this taste would have been suitable to Rome in the\ncivil war, after the assassination of Pompey; or to London, after the\nmurder of Charles I.; because the interests of Pompey and Charles I.\nwere really in question. But is it decent to insinuate in the pulpit a\nwish for the death of the emperor, the king of Spain, and the electors,\nand put in the balance against them the commander-in-chief employed by a\nking who was their enemy? Should the intentions of a leader--which can\nonly be to serve his prince--be compared with the political interests of\nthe crowned heads against whom he served? What would be said of a German\nwho should have wished for the death of the king of France, on the\noccasion of the death of General Merci, \"whose intentions were pure\"?\nWhy, then, has this passage always been praised by the rhetoricians?\nBecause the figure is in itself beautiful and pathetic; but they do not\nthoroughly investigate the fitness of the thought.\n\nI now return to my paradox; that none of those glittering ornaments, to\nwhich we give the name of wit, should find a place in great works\ndesigned to instruct or to move the passions. I will even say that they\nought to be banished from the opera. Music expresses passions,\nsentiments, images; but where are the notes that can render an epigram?\nQuinault was sometimes negligent, but he was always natural.\n\nOf all our operas, that which is the most ornamented, or rather the most\noverloaded, with this epigrammatic spirit, is the ballet of the \"Triumph\nof the Arts,\" composed by an amiable man, who always thought with\nsubtlety, and expressed himself with delicacy; but who, by the abuse of\nthis talent, contributed a little to the decline of letters after the\nglorious era of Louis XIV. In this ballet, in which Pygmalion animates\nhis statue, he says to it:\n\n     _Vos premiers mouvemens ont \u00e9t\u00e9 de m'aimer._\n\n     And love for me your earliest movements showed.\n\nI remember to have heard this line admired by some persons in my youth.\nBut who does not perceive that the movements of the body of the statue\nare here confounded with the movements of the heart, and that in any\nsense the phrase is not French--that it is, in fact, a pun, a jest? How\ncould it be that a man who had so much wit, had not enough to retrench\nthese egregious faults? This same man--who, despising Homer, translated\nhim; who, in translating him, thought to correct him, and by abridging\nhim, thought to make him read--had a mind to make Homer a wit. It is he\nwho, when Achilles reappears, reconciled to the Greeks who are ready to\navenge him, makes the whole camp exclaim:\n\n     _Que ne vaincra-t-il point? Il s'est vaincu lui-m\u00eame._\n\n       What shall oppose him, conqueror of himself?\n\nA man must indeed be fond of witticisms, when he makes fifty thousand\nmen pun all at once upon the same word.\n\nThis play of the imagination, these quips, these cranks, these random\nshafts, these gayeties, these little broken sentences, these ingenious\nfamiliarities, which it is now the fashion to lavish so profusely, are\nbefitting no works but those of pure amusement. The front of the Louvre,\nby Perrault, is simple and majestic; minute ornaments may appear with\ngrace in a cabinet. Have as much wit as you will, or as you can, in a\nmadrigal, in light verses, in a scene of a comedy, when it is to be\nneither impassioned nor simple, in a compliment, in a \"novellette,\" or\nin a letter, where you assume gayety yourself in order to communicate it\nto your friends.\n\nFar from having reproached Voiture with having wit in his letters, I\nfound, on the contrary, that he had not enough, although he was\nconstantly seeking it. It is said that dancing-masters make their bow\nill, because they are anxious to make it too well. I thought this was\noften the case with Voiture; his best letters are studied; you feel that\nhe is fatiguing himself to find that which presents itself so naturally\nto Count Anthony Hamilton, to Madame de S\u00e9vign\u00e9, and to so many other\nwomen, who write these trifles without an effort, better than Voiture\nwrote them with labor. Despr\u00e9aux, who in his first satires had ventured\nto compare Voiture to Horace, changed his opinion when his taste was\nripened by age. I know that it matters very little, in the affairs of\nthis world, whether Voiture was or was not a great genius; whether he\nwrote only a few pretty letters, or that all his pieces of pleasantry\nwere models. But we, who cultivate and love the liberal arts, cast an\nattentive eye on what is quite indifferent to the rest of the world.\nGood taste is to us in literature what it is to women in dress; and\nprovided that one's opinions shall not be made a party matter, it\nappears to me that one may boldly say, that there are but few excellent\nthings in Voiture, and that Marot might easily be reduced to a few\npages.\n\nNot that we wish to take from them their reputation; on the contrary, we\nwish to ascertain precisely what that reputation cost them, and what are\nthe real beauties for which their defects have been tolerated. We must\nknow what we are to follow, and what we are to avoid; this is the real\nfruit of the profound study of the belles-lettres; this is what Horace\ndid when he examined Lucilius critically. Horace made himself enemies\nthereby; but he enlightened his enemies themselves.\n\nThis desire of shining and of saying in a novel manner what has been\nsaid by others, is a source of new expressions as well as far-fetched\nthoughts. He who cannot shine by thought, seeks to bring himself into\nnotice by a word. Hence it has at last been thought proper to\nsubstitute \"_amabilit\u00e9s_,\" for \"_agr\u00e9mens_\"; \"_n\u00e9gligemment_\" for \"_avec\nn\u00e9gligence_\"; \"_badiner les amours_,\" for \"_badiner avec les amours_.\"\nThere are numberless other affectations of this kind; and if this be\ncontinued, the language of Bossuet, of Racine, of Corneille, of Boileau,\nof F\u00e9nelon, will soon be obsolete. Why avoid an expression which is in\nuse, to introduce another which says precisely the same thing? A new\nword is pardonable only when it is absolutely necessary, intelligible,\nand sonorous. In physical science, we are obliged to make them; a new\ndiscovery, a new machine, requires a new word. But do we make any new\ndiscoveries in the human heart? Is there any other greatness than that\nof Corneille and Bossuet? Are there any other passions than those which\nhave been delineated by Racine, and sketched by Quinault? Is there any\nother gospel morality than that of Bourdaloue?\n\nThey who charge our language with not being sufficiently copious, must\nindeed have found sterility somewhere, but it is in themselves. \"_Rem\nverba sequuntur_.\" When an idea is forcibly impressed on the mind--when\na clear and vigorous head is in full possession of its thought--it\nissues from the brain, arrayed in suitable expressions, as Minerva came\nforth in full armor to wait upon Jupiter. In fine, the conclusion from\nthis is that neither thoughts nor expressions should be far-fetched; and\nthat the art, in all great works, is to reason well, without entering\ninto too many arguments; to paint well, without striving to paint\neverything; and to be affecting, without striving constantly to excite\npassions. Certes, I am here giving fine counsel. Have I taken it myself?\nAlas! no!\n\n              _Pauci quos \u00e6quus amavit_\n     _Jupiter, aut ardens evexit ad \u00e6thera virtus,_\n     _Dis geniti potuere. _        --\u00c6NEID, b. vi, v. 129.\n\n     To few great Jupiter imparts this grace,\n     And those of shining worth and heavenly race.\n                                        --DRYDEN.\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\n_Spirit--Wit._\n\nThe word \"spirit,\" when it signifies \"a quality of the mind,\" is one of\nthose vague terms to which almost every one who pronounces it attaches a\ndifferent sense; it expresses some other thing than judgment, genius,\ntaste, talent, penetration, comprehensiveness, grace, or subtlety, yet\nis akin to all these merits; it might be defined to be \"ingenious\nreason.\"\n\nIt is a generic word, which always needs another word to determine it;\nand when we hear it said: \"This is a work of spirit,\" or \"He is a man of\nspirit,\" we have very good reason to ask: \"Spirit of what?\" The sublime\nspirit of Corneille is neither the exact spirit of Boileau, nor the\nsimple spirit of La Fontaine; and the spirit of La Bruy\u00e8re, which is the\nart of portraying singularity, is not that of Malebranche, which is\nimaginative and profound.\n\nWhen a man is said to have \"a judicious spirit,\" the meaning is, not so\nmuch that he has what is called spirit, as that he has an enlightened\nreason. A spirit firm, masculine, courageous, great, little, weak,\nlight, mild, hasty, etc., signifies the character and temper of the\nmind, and has no relation to what is understood in society by the\nexpression \"spirited.\"\n\nSpirit, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, is much akin to wit;\nyet does not signify precisely the same thing; for the term, \"man of\nspirit,\" can never be taken in a bad sense; but that of \"a wit,\" is\nsometimes pronounced ironically.\n\nWhence this difference? It is that \"a man of spirit\" does not signify\n\"superior wit,\" \"marked talent\"; and \"a wit\" does. This expression, \"man\nof spirit,\" announces no pretensions; but \"wit\" is a sort of\nadvertisement; it is an art which requires cultivation; it is a sort of\nprofession; and thereby exposes to envy and ridicule.\n\nIn this sense, Father Bouhours would have been right in giving us to\nunderstand that the Germans had no pretensions to wit; for at that time\ntheir learned men occupied themselves in scarcely any works but those of\nlabor and painful research, which did not admit of their scattering\nflowers, of their striving to shine, and mixing up wit with learning.\n\nThey who despise the genius of Aristotle should, instead of contenting\nthemselves with condemning his physics--which could not be good,\ninasmuch as they wanted experiments--be much astonished to find that\nAristotle, in his rhetoric, taught perfectly the art of saying things\nwith spirit. He states that this art consists in not merely using the\nproper word, which says nothing new; but that a metaphor must be\nemployed--a figure, the sense of which is clear, and its expression\nenergetic. Of this, he adduces several instances; and, among others,\nwhat Pericles said of a battle in which the flower of the Athenian youth\nhad perished: \"The year has been stripped of its spring.\"\n\nAristotle is very right in saying that novelty is necessary. The first\nperson who, to express that pleasures are mingled with bitterness,\nlikened them to roses accompanied by thorns, had wit; they who repeated\nit had none.\n\nSpirited expression does not always consist in a metaphor; but also in a\nnew term--in leaving one half of one's thoughts to be easily divined;\nthis is called \"subtleness,\" \"delicacy\"; and this manner is the more\npleasing, as it exercises and gives scope for the wit of others.\n\nAllusions, allegories, and comparisons, open a vast field for ingenious\nthoughts. The effects of nature, fable, history, presented to the\nmemory, furnish a happy imagination with materials of which it makes a\nsuitable use.\n\nIt will not be useless to give examples in these different kinds. The\nfollowing is a madrigal by M. de la Sabli\u00e8re, which has always been held\nin high estimation by people of taste:\n\n       _\u00c9gl\u00e9 tremble que, dans ce jour,_\n       _L'Hymen, plus puissant que l'Amour,_\n     _N'enl\u00e8ve ses tr\u00e9sors, sans quelle ose s'en plaindre_\n       _Elle a n\u00e9glig\u00e9 mes avis;_\n       _Si la belle les e\u00fbt suivis,_\n     _Elle n'aurait plus rien \u00e0 craindre._\n\n     Weeping, murmuring, complaining,\n       Lost to every gay delight,\n     Mira, too sincere for feigning,\n       Fears th' approaching bridal night.\n\n     Yet why impair thy bright perfection,\n       Or dim thy beauty with a tear?\n     Had Mira followed my direction,\n       She long had wanted cause of fear.--GOLDSMITH.\n\nIt does not appear that the author could either better have masked, or\nbetter have conveyed, the meaning which he was afraid to express. The\nfollowing madrigal seems more brilliant and more pleasing; it is an\nallusion to fable:\n\n     _Vous \u00eates belle, et votre s\u0153ur est belle;_\n     _Entre vous deux tout choix serait bien doux_\n       _L'Amour \u00e9tait blonde comme vous,_\n     _Mais il amait une brune comme elle._\n\n     You are a beauty, and your sister, too;\n     In choosing 'twixt you, then, we cannot err;\n       Love, to be sure, was fair like you;\n     But, then, he courted a brunette like her.\n\nThere is another, and a very old one. It is by Bertaut, bishop of S\u00e9ez,\nand seems superior to the two former; it unites wit and feeling:\n\n     _Quand je revis ce que j'ai tant aim\u00e9,_\n     _Pen s'en fallut que mon coeur rallum\u00e9_\n     _N'en f\u00eet le charme en mon \u00e2me rena\u00eetre;_\n     _Et que mon c\u0153ur, autrefois son captif,_\n     _Ne ressembl\u00e2t l'esclave fugitif,_\n     _\u00c0 qui le sort fit recontrer son ma\u00eetre._\n\n     When I beheld again the once-loved form,\n     Again within my heart the rising storm\n     Had nearly cast the spell around my soul,\n     Which erst had bound me captive at her feet,\n     As some poor slave, escaped from rude control,\n     His master's dreaded face may haply meet.\n\nStrokes like these please every one, and characterize the delicate\nspirit of an ingenious nation. The great point is to know how far this\nspirit is admissible. It is clear that, in great works, it should be\nemployed with moderation, for this very reason, that it is an ornament.\nThe great art consists in propriety.\n\nA subtle, ingenious thought, a just and flowery comparison, is a defect\nwhen only reason or passion should speak, or when great interests are to\nbe discussed. This is not false wit, but misplaced; and every beauty,\nwhen out of its place, is a beauty no longer.\n\nThis is a fault of which Virgil was never guilty, and with which Tasso\nmay now and then be charged, admirable as he otherwise is. The cause of\nit is that the author, too full of his own ideas, wishes to show\nhimself, when he should only show his personages.\n\nThe best way of learning the use that should be made of wit, is to read\nthe few good works of genius which are to be found in the learned\nlanguages and in our own. False wit is not the same as misplaced wit. It\nis not merely a false thought, for a thought might be false without\nbeing ingenious; it is a thought at once false and elaborate.\n\nIt has already been remarked that a man of great wit, who translated, or\nrather abridged Homer into French verse, thought to embellish that poet,\nwhose simplicity forms his character, by loading him with ornaments. On\nthe subject of the reconciliation of Achilles, he says:\n\n     _Tout le camp s'\u00e9cria dans une joie extr\u00eame,_\n     _Que ne vaincra-t-il point? Il s'est vaincu lui-m\u00eame._\n\n     Cried the whole camp, with overflowing joy--\n     What still resist him? He's o'ercome himself.\n\nIn the first place it does not at all follow, because one has overcome\none's anger, that one shall not be beaten. Secondly, is it possible that\na whole army should, by some sudden inspiration, make instantaneously\nthe same pun?\n\nIf this fault shocks all judges of severe taste, how revolting must be\nall those forced witticisms, those intricate and puzzling thoughts,\nwhich abound in otherwise valuable writings! Is it to be endured, that\nin a work of mathematics it should be said: \"If Saturn should one day be\nmissing, his place would be taken by one of the remotest of his\nsatellites; for great lords always keep their successors at a distance?\"\nIs it endurable to talk of Hercules being acquainted with physics, and\nthat it is impossible to resist a philosopher of such force? Such are\nthe excesses into which we are led by the thirst for shining and\nsurprising by novelty. This petty vanity has produced verbal witticisms\nin all languages, which is the worst species of false wit.\n\nFalse taste differs from false wit, for the latter is always an\naffectation--an effort to do wrong; whereas the former is often a habit\nof doing wrong without effort, and following instinctively an\nestablished bad example.\n\nThe intemperance and incoherence of the imaginations of the Orientals,\nis a false taste; but it is rather a want of wit than an abuse of it.\nStars falling, mountains opening, rivers rolling back, sun and moon\ndissolving, false and gigantic similes, continual violence to nature,\nare the characteristics of these writers; because in those countries\nwhere there has never been any public speaking, true eloquence cannot\nhave been cultivated; and because it is much easier to write fustian\nthan to write that which is just, refined, and delicate.\n\nFalse wit is precisely the reverse of these trivial and inflated ideas;\nit is a tiresome search after subtleties, an affectation of saying\nenigmatically what others have said naturally; or bringing together\nideas which appear incompatible; of dividing what ought to be united; of\nlaying hold on false affinities; of mixing, contrary to decency, the\ntrifling with the serious, and the petty with the grand.\n\nIt were here a superfluous task to string together quotations in which\nthe word spirit is to be found. We shall content ourselves with\nexamining one from Boileau, which is given in the great dictionary of\nTr\u00e9voux: \"It is a property of great spirits, when they begin to grow old\nand decay, to be pleased with stories and fables.\" This reflection is\nnot just. A great spirit may fall into this weakness, but it is no\nproperty of great spirits. Nothing is more calculated to mislead the\nyoung than the quoting of faults of good writers as examples.\n\nWe must not here forget to mention in how many different senses the word\n\"spirit\" is employed. This is not a defect of language; on the contrary,\nit is an advantage to have roots which ramify into so many branches.\n\n\"Spirit of a body,\" \"of a society,\" is used to express the customs, the\npeculiar language and conduct, the prejudices of a body. \"Spirit of\nparty,\" is to the \"spirit of a body,\" what the passions are to ordinary\nsentiments.\n\n\"Spirit of a law,\" is used to designate its intention; in this sense it\nhas been said: \"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.\" \"Spirit\nof a work,\" to denote its character and object. \"Spirit of revenge,\" to\nsignify desire and intention of taking revenge. \"Spirit of discord,\"\n\"spirit of revolt,\" etc.\n\nIn one dictionary has been quoted \"spirit of politeness\"; but from an\nauthor named Bellegarde, who is no authority. Both authors and examples\nshould be selected with scrupulous caution. We cannot say \"spirit of\npoliteness,\" as we say \"spirit of revenge,\" of \"dissension,\" of\n\"faction\"; for politeness is not a passion animated by a powerful motive\nwhich prompts it, and which is metaphorically called spirit.\n\n\"Familiar spirit,\" is used in another sense, and signifies those\nintermediate beings, those genii, those demons, believed in by the\nancients; as the \"spirit of Socrates,\" etc.\n\nSpirit sometimes denotes the more subtle part of matter; we say,\n\"animal spirits,\" \"vital spirits,\" to signify that which has never been\nseen, but which gives motion and life. These spirits, which are thought\nto flow rapidly through the nerves, are probably a subtile fire. Dr.\nMead is the first who seems to have given proofs of this, in his\ntreatise on poisons. Spirit, in chemistry, too, is a term which receives\nvarious acceptations, but always denotes the more subtile part of\nmatter.\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\n_Spirit._\n\nIs not this word a striking proof of the imperfection of languages; of\nthe chaos in which they still are, and the chance which has directed\nalmost all our conceptions? It pleased the Greeks, as well as other\nnations, to give the name of wind, breath--\"_pneuma_\"--to that which\nthey vaguely understand by respiration, life, soul. So that, among the\nancients, soul and wind were, in one sense, the same thing; and if we\nwere to say that man is a pneumatic machine, we should only translate\nthe language of the Greeks. The Latins imitated them, and used the word\n\"_spiritus_,\" spirit, breath. \"_Anima_\" and \"_spiritus_\" were the same\nthing.\n\nThe \"_rouhak_\" of the Ph\u0153nicians, and, as it is said, of the\nChald\u00e6ans likewise, signified breath and wind. When the Bible was\ntranslated into Latin, the words, breath, spirit, wind, soul, were\nalways used differently. \"_Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas_\"--the\nbreath of God--the spirit of God--was borne on the waters.\n\n\"_Spiritus vit\u00e6_\"--the breath of life--the soul of life. \"_Inspiravit in\nfaciem ejus spiraculum_\" or \"_spiritum vit\u00e6_\"--And he breathed upon his\nface the breath of life; and, according to the Hebrew, he breathed into\nhis nostrils the breath, the spirit, of life.\n\n\"_H\u00e6c quum dixisset, insufflavit et dixit eis, accipite spiritum\nsanctum_\"--Having spoken these words, he breathed on them, and said:\nReceive ye the holy breath--the holy spirit.\n\n\"_Spiritus ubi vult spirat, et vocem ejus audis; sed nescis unde\nveniat_\"--The spirit, the wind, breathes where it will, and thou hearest\nits voice (sound); but thou knowest not whence it comes.\n\nThe distance is somewhat considerable between this and our pamphlets of\nthe Quay des Augustins and the Pont-neuf, entitled, \"Spirit of\nMarivaux,\" \"Spirit of Desfontaines,\" etc.\n\nWhat we commonly understand in French by \"_esprit_,\" \"_bel-esprit_,\"\n\"_trait d'esprit_,\" are--ingenious thoughts. No other nation has made\nthe same use of the word \"_spiritus_.\" The Latins said \"_ingenium_\"; the\nGreeks, \"_eupheuia_\"; or they employed adjectives. The Spaniards say\n\"_agudo_,\" \"_agudeza_.\" The Italians commonly use the term \"_ingegno_.\"\n\nThe English make use of the words \"wit,\" \"witty,\" the etymology of which\nis good; for \"witty\" formerly signified \"wise.\" The Germans say\n\"_verst\u00e4ndig_\"; and when they mean to express ingenious, lively,\nagreeable thoughts, they say \"rich in sensations\"--\"_sinnreich_.\" Hence\nit is that the English, who have retained many of the expressions of the\nancient Germanic and French tongue, say, \"sensible man.\" Thus almost all\nthe words that express ideas of the understanding are metaphors.\n\n\"_Ingegno_,\" \"_ingenium_,\" comes from \"that which generates\";\n\"_agudeza_,\" from \"that which is pointed\"; \"_sinnreich_,\" from\n\"sensations\"; \"spirit,\" from \"wind\"; and \"wit,\" from \"wisdom.\"\n\nIn every language, the word that answers to spirit in general is of\nseveral kinds; and when you are told that such a one is a \"man of\nspirit,\" you have a right to ask: Of what spirit?\n\nGirard, in his useful book of definitions, entitled \"French Synonymes,\"\nthus concludes: \"In our intercourse with women, it is necessary to have\nwit, or a jargon which has the appearance of it. (This is not doing them\nhonor; they deserve better.) Understanding is in demand with politicians\nand courtiers.\" It seems to me that understanding is necessary\neverywhere, and that it is very extraordinary to hear of understanding\nin demand.\n\n\"Genius is proper with people of project and expense.\" Either I am\nmistaken, or the genius of Corneille was made for all spectators--the\ngenius of Bossuet for all auditors--yet more than for people of\nexpense.\n\nThe wind, which answers to \"_Spiritus_,\"--spirit, wind,\nbreath--necessarily giving to all nations the idea of air, they all\nsupposed that our faculty of thinking and acting--that which animates\nus--is air; whence our \"souls are a subtile air.\" Hence, manes, spirits,\nghosts, shades, are composed of air.\n\nHence we used to say, not long ago, \"A 'spirit' has appeared to him; he\nhas a 'familiar spirit;' that castle is haunted by 'spirits;'\" and the\npopulace say so still.\n\nThe word \"_spiritus_\" has hardly ever been used in this sense, except in\nthe translations of the Hebrew books into bad Latin.\n\n\"_Manes_,\" \"_umbra_,\" \"_simulacra_,\" are the expressions of Cicero and\nVirgil. The Germans say, \"_geist_\"; the English, \"ghost\"; the Spaniards,\n\"_duende_,\" \"_trasgo_\"; the Italians appear to have no term signifying\nghost. The French alone have made use of the word \"spirit\" (esprit). The\nwords for all nations should be, \"phantom,\" \"imagination,\" \"reverie,\"\n\"folly,\" \"knavery.\"\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\n_Wit._\n\nWhen a nation is beginning to emerge from barbarism, it strives to show\nwhat we call wit. Thus, in the first attempts made in the time of\nFrancis I., we find in Marot such puns, plays on words, as would now be\nintolerable.\n\n     _Remorentin la parte rememore:_\n     _Cognac s'en cogne en sa poitrine bl\u00eame,_\n     _Anjou faict jou, Angoul\u00eame est de m\u00eame._\n\nThese fine ideas are not such as at once present themselves to express\nthe grief of nations. Many instances of this depraved taste might be\nadduced; but we shall content ourselves with this, which is the most\nstriking of all.\n\nIn the second era of the human mind in France--in the time of Balzac,\nMairet, Rotrou, Corneille--applause was given to every thought that\nsurprised by new images, which were called \"wit.\" These lines of the\ntragedy of \"Pyramus\" were very well received:\n\n     _Ah! voici le poignard qui du sang de son ma\u00eetre_\n     _Sest souill\u00e9 l\u00e2chement; il en rougit, le tra\u00eetre!_\n\n     Behold the dagger which has basely drunk\n     Its master's blood! See how the traitor blushes!\n\nThere was thought to be great art in giving feeling to this dagger, in\nmaking it red with shame at being stained with the blood of Pyramus, as\nmuch as with the blood itself. No one exclaimed against Corneille, when,\nin his tragedy of \"Andromeda,\" Phineus says to the sun:\n\n     _Tu luis, soleil, et ta lumi\u00e8re_\n       _Semble se plaire \u00e0 m'affliger._\n     _Ah! mon amour te va bien obliger_\n       _\u00c0 quitter soudain ta carri\u00e8re._\n     _Viens, soleil, viens voir la beaut\u00e9,_\n     _Dont le divin \u00e9clat me dompte,_\n       _Et tu fuiras de honte_\n       _D'avoir moins de clart\u00e9._\n\n     O sun, thou shinest, and thy light\n       Seems to take pleasure in my woe;\n     But soon my love shall shame thee quite,\n       And be thy glory's overthrow.\n     Come, come, O sun, and view the face\n     Whose heavenly splendor I adore;\n       Then wilt thou flee apace,\n       And show thy own no more.\n\nThe sun flying because he is not so bright as Andromeda's face, is not\nat all inferior to the blushing dagger. If such foolish sallies as these\nfound favor with a public whose taste it has been so difficult to form,\nwe cannot be surprised that strokes of wit, in which some glimmering of\nbeauty is discernible, should have had these charms.\n\nNot only was this translation from the Spanish admired:\n\n     _Ce sang qui, tout vers\u00e9, fume encor de courroux,_\n     _De se voir r\u00e9pandu pour d'autres que pour vous._\n                                  --CID, act ii, sc. 9.\n\n     This blood, still foaming with indignant rage,\n     That it was shed for others, not for you;--\n\nnot only was there thought to be a very spirited refinement in the line\nof Hypsipyle to Medea, in the \"Golden Fleece\": \"I have attractions only;\nyou have charms;\" but it was not perceived--and few connoisseurs\nperceive it yet--that in the imposing part of Cornelia, the author\nalmost continually puts wit where grief alone was required. This woman,\nwhose husband has just been assassinated, begins her studied speech to\nC\u00e6sar with a \"for\":\n\n     _C\u00e9sar, car le destin que dans tes fers je brave_\n     _M'a fait ta prisonni\u00e8re, et non pas ton esclave;_\n     _Et tu ne pr\u00e9tends pas qu'il m'abatte le c\u0153ur._\n     _Jusqu'\u00e0 te rendre hommage et te nommer seigneur._\n                        --MORT DE POMP\u00c9E, act iii, sc. 4.\n\n     C\u00e6sar,\n     For the hard fate that binds me in thy chains,\n     Makes me thy prisoner, but not thy slave;\n     Nor wouldst thou have it so subdue my heart\n     That I should call thee lord and do thee homage.\n\nThus she breaks off, at the very first word, in order to say that\nwhich is at once far-fetched and false. Never was the wife of one Roman\ncitizen the slave of another Roman citizen: never was any Roman called\nlord; and this word \"lord\" is, with us, nothing more than a term of\nhonor and ceremony, used on the stage.\n\n     _Fille de Scipion, et, pour dire encor plus,_\n     _Romaine, mon courage est encore au-dessus._--ID.\n\n     Daughter of Scipio, and, yet more, of Rome,\n     Still does my courage rise above my fate.\n\n\n[Illustration: Pierre Corneille.]\n\n\nBesides the defect so common to all Corneille's heroes, of thus\nannouncing themselves--of saying, I am great, I am courageous, admire\nme--here is the very reprehensible affectation of talking of her birth,\nwhen the head of Pompey has just been presented to C\u00e6sar. Real\naffliction expresses itself otherwise. Grief does not seek after a \"yet\nmore.\" And what is worse, while she is striving to say \"yet more,\" she\nsays much less. To be a daughter of Rome is indubitably less than to be\ndaughter of Scipio and wife of Pompey. The infamous Septimius, who\nassassinated Pompey, was Roman as well as she. Thousands of Romans were\nvery ordinary men: but to be daughter and wife to the greatest of\nRomans, was a real superiority. In this speech, then, there is false and\nmisplaced wit, as well as false and misplaced greatness.\n\nShe then says, after Lucan, that she ought to blush that she is alive:\n\n     _Je dois rougir, partout, apr\u00e8s un tel malheur,_\n     _De n'avoir pu mourir d'un exc\u00e8s de douleur._--ID.\n\n     However, after such a great calamity,\n     I ought to blush I am not dead of grief.\n\nLucan, after the brilliant Augustan age, went in search of wit, because\ndecay was commencing; and the writers of the age of Louis XIV. at first\nsought to display wit, because good taste was not then completely found,\nas it afterwards was.\n\n     _C\u00e9sar, de ta victoire \u00e9coute moins le bruit;_\n     _Elle n'est que l'effet du malheur qui me suit._--ID.\n\n     C\u00e6sar, rejoice not in thy victory;\n     For my misfortune was its only cause.\n\nWhat a poor artifice! what a false as well as impudent notion! C\u00e6sar\nconquered at Pharsalia only because Pompey married Cornelia! What labor\nto say that which is neither true, nor likely, nor fit, nor interesting!\n\n     _Deux fois du monde entier j'ai caus\u00e9 la disgr\u00e2ce._--ID.\n\n     Twice have I caused the living world's disgrace.\n\nThis is the \"_bis nocui mundo_\" of Lucan. This\nline presents us with a very great idea; it cannot\nfail to surprise; it is wanting in nothing but truth.\nBut it must be observed, that if this line had but\nthe smallest ray of verisimilitude--had it really its\nbirth in the pangs of grief, it would then have all\nthe truth, all the beauty, of theatrical fitness:\n\n     _Heureuse en mes malheurs, si ce triste hym\u00e9n\u00e9e_\n     _Pour le bonheur du monde \u00e0 Rome m'e\u00fbt donn\u00e9e_\n     _Et si j'eusse avec moi port\u00e9 dans ta maison._\n     _D'un astre envenim\u00e9 l'invincible poison!_\n     _Car enfin n'attends pas que j'abaisse ma haine:_\n     _Je te l'ai d\u00e9j\u00e0 dit, C\u00e9sar, je suis Romaine;_\n     _Et, quoique ta captive, un c\u0153ur tel que le mien,_\n     _De peur de s'oublier, ne te demande rien._--ID.\n\n     Yet happy in my woes, had these sad nuptials\n     Given me to C\u00e6sar for the good of Rome;\n     Had I but carried with me to thy house\n     The mortal venom of a noxious star!\n     For think not, after all, my hate is less:\n     Already have I told thee I am a Roman;\n     And, though thy captive, such a heart as mine,\n     Lest it forget itself, will sue for nothing.\n\nThis is Lucan again. She wishes, in the \"Pharsalia,\" that she had\nmarried C\u00e6sar.\n\n     _Atque utinam in thalamis invisi C\u00e6saris essem_\n     _Infelix conjux, et nulli l\u00e6ta marito!_\n                                    --_Lib._, viii, v. 88, 89.\n\n     Ah! wherefore was I not much rather led\n     A fatal bride to C\u00e6sar's hated bed, etc.\n                                          --ROWE.\n\n\nThis sentiment is not in nature; it is at once gigantic and puerile: but\nat least it is not to C\u00e6sar that Cornelia talks thus in Lucan.\nCorneille, on the contrary, makes Cornelia speak to C\u00e6sar himself: he\nmakes her say that she wishes to be his wife, in order that she may\ncarry into his house \"the mortal poison of a noxious star\"; for, adds\nshe, my hatred cannot be abated, and I have told thee already that I am\na Roman, and I sue for nothing. Here is odd reasoning: I would fain have\nmarried thee, to cause thy death; and I sue for nothing. Be it also\nobserved, that this widow heaps reproaches on C\u00e6sar, just after C\u00e6sar\nweeps for the death of Pompey and promises to avenge it.\n\nIt is certain, that if the author had not striven to make Cornelia\nwitty, he would not have been guilty of the faults which, after being so\nlong applauded, are now perceived. The actresses can scarcely longer\npalliate them, by a studied loftiness of demeanor and an imposing\nelevation of voice.\n\nThe better to feel how much mere wit is below natural sentiment, let us\ncompare Cornelia with herself, where, in the same tirade, she says\nthings quite opposite:\n\n     _Je dois toutefois rendre gr\u00e2ce aux dieux_\n     _De ce qu'en arrivant je trouve en ces lieux,_\n     _Que C\u00e9sar y commande, et non pas Ptolem\u00e9e._\n     _H\u00e9las! et sous quel astre, \u00f3 ciel, m'as-tu form\u00e9e,_\n     _Si je leur dois des v\u0153ux, de ce qu'ils ont permis,_\n     _Que je recontre ici mes plus grands ennemis,_\n     _Et tombe entre leurs mains, plut\u00f4t qu'aux mains d'un prince_\n     _Qui doit \u00e0 mon \u00e9poux son tr\u00f4ne et sa province._--ID.\n\n     Yet have I cause to thank the gracious gods,\n     That C\u00e6sar here commands--not Ptolemy.\n     Alas! beneath what planet was I formed,\n     If I owe thanks for being thus permitted\n     Here to encounter my worst enemies\n     And fall into their hands, rather than those\n     Of him who to my husband owes his throne?\n\nLet us overlook the slight defects of style, and consider how mournful\nand becoming is this speech; it goes to the heart: all the rest dazzles\nfor a moment, and then disgusts. The following natural lines charm all\nreaders:\n\n     _O vous! \u00e0 ma douleur objet terrible et tendre,_\n     _\u00c9ternel entretien de haine et de piti\u00e9,_\n     _Restes de grand Pomp\u00e9e, \u00e9coutez sa moiti\u00e9, etc._\n\n     O dreadful, tender object of my grief,\n     Eternal source of pity and of hate,\n     Ye relics of great Pompey, hear me now--\n     Hear his yet living half.\n\nIt is by such comparisons that our taste is formed, and that we learn to\nadmire nothing but truth in its proper place. In the same tragedy,\nCleopatra thus expresses herself to her confidante, Charmion:\n\n     _Apprends qu'une princesse aimant sa renomm\u00e9e,_\n     _Quand elle dit qu'elle aime, est sure d'\u00eatre aim\u00e9e;_\n     _Et que les plus beaux feux dont son c\u0153ur soit \u00e9pris_\n     _N'oseraient l'exposer aux hontes d'un m\u00e9pris._\n                                          --Act ii, sc. 1.\n\n     Know, that a princess jealous of her fame,\n     When she owns love, is sure of a return;\n     And that the noblest flame her heart can feel,\n     Dares not expose her to rejection's shame.\n\nCharmion might answer: Madam, I know not what the noble flame of a\nprincess is, which dares not expose her to shame; and as for princesses\nwho never say they are in love, but when they are sure of being loved--I\nalways enact the part of confidante at the play: and at least twenty\nprincesses have confessed their noble flames to me, without being at all\nsure of the matter, and especially the infanta in \"The Cid.\"\n\nNay, we may go further: C\u00e6sar--C\u00e6sar himself--addresses Cleopatra, only\nto show off double-refined wit:\n\n     _Mais, \u00f4 Dieux! ce moment que je vous ai quitt\u00e9e_\n     _D'un trouble bien plus grand a mon \u00e2me agit\u00e9e;_\n     _Et ces soins importans qui m'arrachaient de vous,_\n     _Contre ma grandeur m\u00eame allumaient mon courroux;_\n     _Je lui voulais du mal de m'\u00eatre si contraire;_\n     _Mais je lui pardonnais, au simple souvenir_\n     _Du bonheur qu'\u00e0 ma flamme elle fait obtenir._\n     _C'est elle, dont je tiens cette haute esp\u00e9rance,_\n     _Qui flatte mes d\u00e9sirs d'une illustre apparence...._\n     _C'\u00e9tait, pour acqu\u00e9rir un droit si pr\u00e9cieux;_\n     _Que combattait partout mon bras ambitieux;_\n     _Et dans Pharsale m\u00eame il a tir\u00e9 l'\u00e9p\u00e9e_\n     _Plus pour le conserver que pour vaincre Pomp\u00e9e._\n                                         --Act iv, sc. 3.\n\n     But, O the moment that I quitted you,\n     A greater trouble came upon my soul;\n     And those important cares that snatched me from you\n     Against my very greatness moved my ire;\n     I hated it for thwarting my desires....\n     But I have pardoned it--remembering how\n     At last it crowns my passion with success:\n     To it I owe the lofty hope which now\n     Flatters my view with an illustrious prospect.\n     'Twas but to gain this dearest privilege,\n     That my ambitious arm was raised in battle;\n     Nor did it at Pharsalia draw the sword,\n     So much to conquer Pompey, as to keep\n     This glorious hope.\n\nHere, then, we have C\u00e6sar hating his greatness for having taken him away\na little while from Cleopatra; but forgiving his greatness when he\nremembers that this greatness has procured him the success of his\npassion. He has the lofty hope of an illustrious probability; and it was\nonly to acquire the dear privilege of this illustrious probability, that\nhis ambitious arm fought the battle of Pharsalia.\n\nIt is said that this sort of wit, which it must be confessed is no other\nthan nonsense, was then the wit of the age. It is an intolerable abuse,\nwhich Moli\u00e8re proscribed in his \"_Pr\u00e9cieuses Ridicules_.\"\n\nIt was of these defects, too frequent in Corneille, that La Bruy\u00e8re\nsaid: \"I thought, in my early youth, that these passages were clear and\nintelligible, to the actors, to the pit, and to the boxes; that their\nauthors themselves understood them, and that I was wrong in not\nunderstanding them: I am undeceived.\"\n\n\nSECTION V.\n\nIn England, to express that a man has a deal of wit, they say that he\nhas \"great parts.\" Whence can this phrase, which is now the astonishment\nof the French, have come? From themselves. Formerly, we very commonly\nused the word \"parties\" in this sense. \"Clelia,\" \"Cassandra,\" and our\nother old romances, are continually telling us of the \"parts\" of their\nheroes and heroines, which parts are their wit. And, indeed, who can\nhave _all_? Each of us has but his own small portion of intelligence, of\nmemory, of sagacity, of depth and extent of ideas, of vivacity, and of\nsubtlety. The word \"parts\" is that most fitting for a being so limited\nas man. The French have let an expression escape from their dictionaries\nwhich the English have laid hold of: the English have more than once\nenriched themselves at our expense. Many philosophical writers have been\nastonished that, since every one pretends to wit, no one should dare to\nboast of possessing it.\n\n\"Envy,\" it has been said, \"permits every one to be the panegyrist of his\nown probity, but not of his own wit.\" It allows us to be the apologists\nof the one, but not of the other. And why? Because it is very necessary\nto pass for an honest man, but not at all necessary to have the\nreputation of a man of wit.\n\nThe question has been started, whether all men are born with the same\nmind, the same disposition for science, and if all depends on their\neducation, and the circumstances in which they are placed? One\nphilosopher, who had a right to think himself born with some\nsuperiority, asserted that minds are equal; yet the contrary has always\nbeen evident. Of four hundred children brought up together, under the\nsame masters and the same discipline, there are scarcely five or six\nthat make any remarkable progress. A great majority never rise above\nmediocrity, and among them there are many shades of distinction. In\nshort, minds differ still more than faces.\n\n\nSECTION VI.\n\n_Crooked or Distorted Intellect._\n\nWe have blind, one-eyed, cross-eyed, and squinting people--visions long,\nshort, clear, confused, weak, or indefatigable. All this is a faithful\nimage of our understanding; but we know scarcely any _false_ vision:\nthere are not many men who always take a cock for a horse, or a\ncoffeepot for a church. How is it that we often meet with minds,\notherwise judicious, which are absolutely wrong in some things of\nimportance? How is it that the Siamese, who will take care never to be\noverreached when he has to receive three rupees, firmly believes in the\nmetamorphoses of Sammonocodom? By what strange whim do men of sense\nresemble Don Quixote, who beheld giants where other men saw nothing but\nwindmills? Yet was Don Quixote more excusable than the Siamese, who\nbelieves that Sammonocodom came several times upon earth--and the Turk,\nwho is persuaded that Mahomet put one-half of the moon into his sleeve?\nDon Quixote, impressed with the idea that he is to fight with a giant,\nmay imagine that a giant must have a body as big as a mill, and arms as\nlong as the sails; but from what supposition can a man of sense set out\nto arrive at a conclusion, that half the moon went into a sleeve, and\nthat a Sammonocodom came down from heaven to fly kites at Siam, to cut\ndown a forest, and to exhibit sleight-of-hand?\n\nThe greatest geniuses may have their minds warped, on a principle which\nthey have received without examination. Newton was very wrong-headed\nwhen he was commenting on the Apocalypse.\n\nAll that certain tyrants of souls desire, is that the men whom they\nteach may have their intellects distorted. A fakir brings up a child of\ngreat promise; he employs five or six years in driving it into his head,\nthat the god Fo appeared to men in the form of a white elephant; and\npersuades the child, that if he does not believe in these metamorphoses,\nhe will be flogged after death for five hundred thousand years. He adds,\nthat at the end of the world, the enemy of the god Fo will come and\nfight against that divinity.\n\nThe child studies, and becomes a prodigy; he finds that Fo could not\nchange himself into anything but a white elephant, because that is the\nmost beautiful of animals. The kings of Siam and Pegu, say he, went to\nwar with one another for a white elephant: certainly, had not Fo been\nconcealed in that elephant, these two kings would not have been so mad\nas to fight for the possession of a mere animal.\n\nFo's enemy will come and challenge him at the end of the world: this\nenemy will certainly be a rhinoceros; for the rhinoceros fights the\nelephant. Thus does the fakir's learned pupil reason in mature age, and\nhe becomes one of the lights of the Indies: the more subtle his\nintellect, the more crooked; and he, in his turn, forms other intellects\nas distorted as his own.\n\nShow these besotted beings a little geometry, and they learn it easily\nenough; but, strange to say, this does not set them right. They perceive\nthe truths of geometry; but it does not teach them to weigh\nprobabilities: they have taken their bent; they will reason against\nreason all their lives; and I am sorry for them.\n\nUnfortunately, there are many ways of being wrong-headed, 1. Not to\nexamine whether the principle is true, even when just consequences are\ndrawn from it; and this is very common.\n\n2. To draw false consequences from a principle acknowledged to be true.\nFor instance: a servant is asked whether his master be at home, by\npersons whom he suspects of having a design against his master's life.\nIf he were blockhead enough to tell them the truth, on pretence that it\nis wrong to tell a lie, it is clear that he would draw an absurd\nconsequence from a very true principle.\n\nThe judge who should condemn a man for killing his assassin, would be\nalike iniquitous, and a bad reasoner. Cases like these are subdivided\ninto a thousand different shades. The good mind, the judicious mind, is\nthat which distinguishes them. Hence it is, that there have been so many\niniquitous judgments; not because the judges were wicked in heart, but\nbecause they were not sufficiently enlightened.\n\n\n\n\nWOMEN.\n\n_Physical and Moral._\n\nWoman is in general less strong than man, smaller, and less capable of\nlasting labor. Her blood is more aqueous; her flesh less firm; her hair\nlonger; her limbs more rounded; her arms less muscular; her mouth\nsmaller; her hips more prominent; and her belly larger. These physical\npoints distinguish women all over the earth, and of all races, from\nLapland unto the coast of Guinea, and from America to China.\n\nPlutarch, in the third book of his \"_Symposiacs_,\" pretends that wine\nwill not intoxicate them so easily as men; and the following is the\nreason which he gives for this falsehood:\n\n\"The temperament of women is very moist; this, with their courses,\nrenders their flesh so soft, smooth, and clear. When wine encounters so\nmuch humidity, it is overcome, and it loses its color and its strength,\nbecoming discolored and weak. Something also may be gathered from the\nreasoning of Aristotle, who observes, that they who drink great draughts\nwithout drawing their breath, which the ancients call '_amusisein_' are\nnot intoxicated so soon as others; because the wine does not remain\nwithin the body, but being forcibly taken down, passes rapidly off. Now\nwe generally perceive that women drink in this manner; and it is\nprobable that their bodies, in consequence of the continual attraction\nof the humors, which are carried off in their periodical visitations,\nare filled with many conduits, and furnished with numerous pipes and\nchannels, into which the wine disperses rapidly and easily, without\nhaving time to affect the noble and principal parts, by the disorder of\nwhich intoxication is produced.\" These physics are altogether worthy of\nthe ancients.\n\nWomen live somewhat longer than men; that is to say, in a generation we\ncount more aged women than aged men. This fact has been observed by all\nwho have taken accurate accounts of births and deaths in Europe; and it\nis thought that it is the same in Asia, and among the negresses, the\ncopper-colored, and olive-complexioned, as among the white. _\"Natura est\nsemper sibi consona.\"_\n\nWe have elsewhere adverted to an extract from a Chinese journal, which\nstates, that in the year 1725, the wife of the emperor Yontchin made a\ndistribution among the poor women of China who had passed their\nseventieth year; and that, in the province of Canton alone, there were\n98,222 females aged more than seventy, 40,893 beyond eighty, and 3,453\nof about the age of a hundred. Those who advocate final causes say, that\nnature grants them a longer life than men, in order to recompense them\nfor the trouble they take in bringing children into the world and\nrearing them. It is scarcely to be imagined that nature bestows\nrecompenses, but it is probable that the blood of women being milder,\ntheir fibres harden less quickly.\n\nNo anatomist or physician has ever been able to trace the secret of\nconception. Sanchez has curiously remarked: _\"Mariam et spiritum sanctum\nemisisse semen in copulatione, et ex semine amborum natum esse Jesum.\"_\nThis abominable impertinence of the most knowing Sanchez is not adopted\nat present by any naturalist.\n\nThe periodical visitations which weaken females, while they endure the\nmaladies which arise out of their suppression, the times of gestation,\nthe necessity of suckling children, and of watching continually over\nthem, and the delicacy of their organization, render them unfit for the\nfatigue of war, and the fury of the combat. It is true, as we have\nalready observed, that in almost all times and countries women have been\nfound on whom nature has bestowed extraordinary strength and courage,\nwho combat with men, and undergo prodigious labor; but, after all, these\nexamples are rare. On this point we refer to the article on \"Amazons.\"\n\nPhysics always govern morals. Women being weaker of body than we are,\nthere is more skill in their fingers, which are more supple than ours.\nLittle able to labor at the heavy work of masonry, carpentering,\nmetalling, or the plough, they are necessarily intrusted with the\nlighter labors of the interior of the house, and, above all, with the\ncare of children. Leading a more sedentary life, they possess more\ngentleness of character than men, and are less addicted to the\ncommission of enormous crimes--a fact so undeniable, that in all\ncivilized countries there are always fifty men at least executed to one\nwoman.\n\nMontesquieu, in his \"Spirit of Laws,\" undertaking to speak of the\ncondition of women under divers governments, observes that \"among the\nGreeks women were not regarded as worthy of having any share in genuine\nlove; but that with them love assumed a form which is not to be named.\"\nHe cites Plutarch as his authority.\n\nThis mistake is pardonable only in a wit like Montesquieu, always led\naway by the rapidity of his ideas, which are often very indistinct.\nPlutarch, in his chapter on love, introduces many interlocutors; and he\nhimself, in the character of Daphneus, refutes, with great animation,\nthe arguments of Protagenes in favor of the commerce alluded to.\n\nIt is in the same dialogue that he goes so far as to say, that in the\nlove of woman there is something divine; which love he compares to the\nsun, that animates nature. He places the highest happiness in conjugal\nlove, and concludes by an eloquent eulogium on the virtue of Epponina.\nThis memorable adventure passed before the eyes of Plutarch, who lived\nsome time in the house of Vespasian. The above heroine, learning that\nher husband Sabinus, vanquished by the troops of the emperor, was\nconcealed in a deep cavern between Franche-Comt\u00e9 and Champagne, shut\nherself up with him, attended on him for many years, and bore children\nin that situation. Being at length taken with her husband, and brought\nbefore Vespasian, who was astonished at her greatness of soul, she said\nto him: \"I have lived more happily under ground than thou in the light\nof the sun, and in the enjoyment of power.\" Plutarch therefore asserts\ndirectly the contrary to that which is attributed to him by Montesquieu,\nand declares in favor of woman with an enthusiasm which is even\naffecting.\n\nIt is not astonishing, that in every country man has rendered himself\nthe master of woman, dominion being founded on strength. He has\nordinarily, too, a superiority both in body and mind. Very learned women\nare to be found in the same manner as female warriors, but they are\nseldom or ever inventors.\n\nA social and agreeable spirit usually falls to their lot; and, generally\nspeaking, they are adapted to soften the manners of men. In no republic\nhave they ever been allowed to take the least part in government; they\nhave never reigned in monarchies purely elective; but they may reign in\nalmost all the hereditary kingdoms of Europe--in Spain, Naples, and\nEngland, in many states of the North, and in many grand fiefs which are\ncalled \"feminines.\"\n\nCustom, entitled the Salic law, has excluded them from the crown of\nFrance; but it is not, as M\u00e9zeray remarks, in consequence of their\nunfitness for governing, since they are almost always intrusted with the\nregency.\n\nIt is pretended, that Cardinal Mazarin confessed that many women were\nworthy of governing a kingdom; but he added, that it was always to be\nfeared they would allow themselves to be subdued by lovers who were not\ncapable of governing a dozen pullets. Isabella in Castile, Elizabeth in\nEngland, and Maria Theresa in Hungary, have, however, proved the falsity\nof this pretended bon-mot, attributed to Cardinal Mazarin; and at this\nmoment we behold a legislatrix in the North as much respected as the\nsovereign of Greece, of Asia Minor, of Syria, and of Egypt, is\ndisesteemed.\n\nIt has been for a long time ignorantly assumed, that women are slaves\nduring life among the Mahometans; and that, after their death, they do\nnot enter paradise. These are two great errors, of a kind which popes\nare continually repeating in regard to Mahometanism. Married women are\nnot at all slaves; and the Sura, or fourth chapter of the Koran, assigns\nthem a dowry. A girl is entitled to inherit one-half as much as her\nbrother; and if there are girls only, they divide among them two-thirds\nof the inheritance; and the remainder belongs to the relations of the\ndeceased, whose mother also is entitled to a certain share. So little\nare married women slaves, they are entitled to demand a divorce, which\nis granted when their complaints are deemed lawful.\n\nA Mahometan is not allowed to marry his sister-in-law, his niece, his\nfoster-sister, or his daughter-in-law brought up under the care of his\nwife. Neither is he permitted to marry two sisters; in which particular\nthe Mahometan law is more rigid than the Christian, as people are every\nday purchasing from the court of Rome the right of contracting such\nmarriages, which they might as well contract gratis.\n\n_Polygamy._\n\nMahomet has limited the number of wives to four; but as a man must be\nrich in order to maintain four wives, according to his condition, few\nexcept great lords avail themselves of this privilege. Therefore, a\nplurality of wives produces not so much injury to the Mahometan states\nas we are in the habit of supposing; nor does it produce the\ndepopulation which so many books, written at random, are in the habit of\nasserting.\n\nThe Jews, agreeable to an ancient usage, established, according to their\nbooks, ever since the age of Lameth, have always been allowed several\nwives at a time. David had eighteen; and it is from his time that they\nallow that number to kings; although it is said that Solomon had as\nmany as seven hundred.\n\nThe Mahometans will not publicly allow the Jews to have more than one\nwife; they do not deem them worthy of that advantage; but money, which\nis always more powerful than law, procures to rich Jews, in Asia and\nAfrica, that permission which the law refuses.\n\nIt is seriously related, that Lelius Cinna, tribune of the people,\nproclaimed, after the death of C\u00e6sar, that the dictator had intended to\npromulgate a law allowing women to take as many husbands as they\npleased. What sensible man can doubt, that this was a popular story\ninvented to render C\u00e6sar odious? It resembles another story, which\nstates that a senator in full senate formally professed to give C\u00e6sar\npermission to cohabit with any woman he pleased. Such silly tales\ndishonor history, and injure the minds of those who credit them. It is a\nsad thing, that Montesquieu should give credit to this fable.\n\nIt is not, however, a fable that the emperor Valentinian, calling\nhimself a Christian, married Justinian during the life of Severa, his\nfirst wife, mother of the emperor Gratian; but he was rich enough to\nsupport many wives.\n\nAmong the first race of the kings of the Franks, Gontran, Cherebert,\nSigebert, and Chilperic, had several wives at a time. Gontran had within\nhis palace Venerande, Mercatrude, and Ostregilda, acknowledged for\nlegitimate wives; Cherebert had Merflida, Marcovesa, and Theodogilda.\n\nIt is difficult to conceive how the ex-Jesuit Nonnotte has been able, in\nhis ignorance, to push his boldness so far as to deny these facts, and\nto say that the kings of the first race were not polygamists, and\nthereby, in a libel in two volumes, throw discredit on more than a\nhundred historical truths, with the confidence of a pedant who dictates\nlessons in a college. Books of this kind still continue to be sold in\nthe provinces, where the Jesuits have yet a party, and seduce and\nmislead uneducated people.\n\nFather Daniel, more learned and judicious, confesses the polygamy of the\nFrench kings without difficulty. He denies not the three wives of\nDagobert I., and asserts expressly that Theodoret espoused Deutery,\nalthough she had a husband, and himself another wife called Visigalde.\nHe adds, that in this he imitated his uncle Clothaire, who espoused the\nwidow of Cleodomir, his brother, although he had three wives already.\n\nAll historians admit the same thing; why, therefore, after so many\ntestimonies, allow an ignorant writer to speak like a dictator, and say,\nwhile uttering a thousand follies, that it is in defence of religion? as\nif our sacred and venerable religion had anything to do with an\nhistorical point, although made serviceable by miserable calumniators to\ntheir stupid impostures.\n\n_Of the Polygamy Allowed by Certain Popes and Reformers._\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 Fleury, author of the \"Ecclesiastical History,\" pays more\nrespect to truth in all which concerns the laws and usages of the\nChurch. He avows that Boniface, confessor of Lower Germany, having\nconsulted Pope Gregory, in the year 726, in order to know in what cases\na husband might be allowed to have two wives, Gregory replied to him, on\nthe 22nd of November, of the same year, in these words: \"If a wife be\nattacked by a malady which renders her unfit for conjugal intercourse,\nthe husband may marry another; but in that case he must allow his sick\nwife all necessary support and assistance.\" This decision appears\nconformable to reason and policy; and favors population, which is the\nobject of marriage.\n\nBut that which appears opposed at once to reason, policy, and nature, is\nthe law which ordains that a woman, separated from her husband both in\nperson and estate, cannot take another husband, nor the husband another\nwife. It is evident that a race is thereby lost; and if the separated\nparties are both of a certain temperament, they are necessarily exposed\nand rendered liable to sins for which the legislators ought to be\nresponsible to God, if--\n\nThe decretals of the popes have not always had in view what was suitable\nto the good of estates, and of individuals. This same decretal of Pope\nGregory II., which permits bigamy in certain cases, denies conjugal\nrights forever to the boys and girls, whom their parents have devoted to\nthe Church in their infancy. This law seems as barbarous as it is\nunjust; at once annihilating posterity, and forcing the will of men\nbefore they even possess a will. It is rendering the children the slaves\nof a vow which they never made; it is to destroy natural liberty, and to\noffend God and mankind.\n\nThe polygamy of Philip, landgrave of Hesse, in the Lutheran community,\nin 1539, is well known. I knew a sovereign in Germany, who, after having\nmarried a Lutheran, had permission from the pope to marry a Catholic,\nand retained both his wives.\n\nIt is well known in England, that the chancellor Cowper married two\nwives, who lived together in the same house in a state of concord which\ndid honor to all three. Many of the curious still possess the little\nbook which he composed in favor of polygamy.\n\nWe must distrust authors who relate, that in certain countries women are\nallowed several husbands. Those who make laws everywhere are born with\ntoo much self-love, are too jealous of their authority, and generally\npossess a temperament too ardent in comparison with that of women, to\nhave instituted a jurisprudence of this nature. That which is opposed to\nthe general course of nature is very rarely true; but it is very common\nfor the more early travellers to mistake an abuse for a law.\n\nThe author of the \"Spirit of Laws\" asserts, that in the caste of Nairs,\non the coast of Malabar, a man can have only one wife, while a woman may\nhave several husbands. He cites doubtful authors, and above all Picard;\nbut it is impossible to speak of strange customs without having long\nwitnessed them; and if they are mentioned, it ought to be doubtingly;\nbut what lively spirit knows how to doubt?\n\n\"The lubricity of women,\" he observes, \"is so great at Patan, the men\nare constrained to adopt certain garniture, in order to be safe against\ntheir amorous enterprises.\"\n\nThe president Montesquieu was never at Patan. Is not the remark of M.\nLinguet judicious, who observes, that this story has been told by\ntravellers who were either deceived themselves, or who wished to laugh\nat their readers? Let us be just, love truth, and judge by facts, not by\nnames.\n\n_End of the Reflections on Polygamy._\n\nIt appears that power, rather than agreement, makes laws everywhere, but\nespecially in the East. We there beheld the first slaves, the first\neunuchs, and the treasury of the prince directly composed of that which\nis taken from the people.\n\nHe who can clothe, support, and amuse a number of women, shuts them up\nin a menagerie, and commands them despotically. Ben Aboul Kiba, in his\n\"Mirror of the Faithful,\" relates that one of the viziers of the great\nSolyman addressed the following discourse to an agent of Charles V.:\n\n\"Dog of a Christian!--for whom, however, I have a particular\nesteem--canst thou reproach me with possessing four wives, according to\nour holy laws, whilst thou emptiest a dozen barrels a year, and I drink\nnot a single glass of wine? What good dost thou effect by passing more\nhours at table than I do in bed? I may get four children a year for the\nservice of my august master, whilst thou canst scarcely produce one, and\nthat only the child of a drunkard, whose brain will be obscured by the\nvapors of the wine which has been drunk by his father. What, moreover,\nwouldst thou have me do, when two of my wives are in child-bed? Must I\nnot attend to the other two, as my law commands me? What becomes of\nthem? what part dost thou perform, in the latter months of the pregnancy\nof thy only wife, and during her lyings-in and sexual maladies? Thou\neither remainest idle, or thou repairest to another woman. Behold\nthyself between two mortal sins, which will infallibly cause thee to\nfall headlong from the narrow bridge into the pit of hell.\n\n\"I will suppose, that in our wars against the dogs of Christians we lose\na hundred thousand soldiers; behold a hundred thousand girls to provide\nfor. Is it not for the wealthy to take care of them? Evil betide every\nMussulman so cold-hearted as not to give shelter to four pretty girls,\nin the character of legitimate wives, or to treat them according to\ntheir merits!\n\n\"What is done in thy country by the trumpeter of day, which thou callest\nthe cock; the honest ram, the leader of the flock; the bull, sovereign\nof the heifers; has not every one of them his seraglio? It becomes thee,\ntruly, to reproach me with my four wives, whilst our great prophet had\neighteen, the Jew David, as many, and the Jew Solomon, seven hundred,\nall told, with three hundred concubines! Thou perceivest that I am\nmodest. Cease, then, to reproach a sage with luxury, who is content with\nso moderate a repast. I permit thee to drink; allow me to love. Thou\nchangest thy wines; permit me to change my females. Let every one suffer\nothers to live according to the customs of their country. Thy hat was\nnot made to give laws to my turban; thy ruff and thy curtailed doublets\nare not to command my doliman. Make an end of thy coffee, and go and\ncaress thy German spouse, since thou art allowed to have no other.\"\n\n_Reply of the German._\n\n\"Dog of a Mussulman! for whom I retain a profound veneration; before I\nfinish my coffee I will confute all thy arguments. He who possesses four\nwives, possesses four harpies, always ready to calumniate, to annoy, and\nto fight one another. Thy house is the den of discord, and none of them\ncan love thee. Each has only a quarter of thy person, and in return can\nbestow only a quarter of her heart. None of them can serve to render thy\nlife agreeable; they are prisoners who, never having seen anything, have\nnothing to say; and, knowing only thee, are in consequence thy enemies.\nThou art their absolute master; they therefore hate thee. Thou art\nobliged to guard them with eunuchs, who whip them when they are too\nhappy. Thou pretendest to compare thyself to a cock, but a cock never\nhas his pullets whipped by a capon. Take animals for thy examples, and\ncopy them as much as thou pleasest; for my part, I love like a man; I\nwould give all my heart, and receive an entire heart in return. I will\ngive an account of this conversation to my wife to-night, and I hope she\nwill be satisfied. As to the wine with which thou reproachest me, if it\nis an evil to drink it in Arabia, it is a very praiseworthy habit in\nGermany.--Adieu!\"\n\n\n\n\nXENOPHANES.\n\n\nBayle has made the article \"Xenophanes\" a pretext for making a panegyric\non the devil; as Simonides, formerly, seized the occasion of a wrestler\nwinning the prize of boxing in the Olympic games, to form a fine ode in\npraise of Castor and Pollux. But, at the bottom, of what consequence to\nus are the reveries of Xenophanes? What do we gain by knowing that he\nregarded nature as an infinite being, immovable, composed of an infinite\nnumber of small corpuscles, soft little mounds, and small organic\nmolecules? That he, moreover, thought pretty nearly as Spinoza has since\nthought? or rather endeavored to think, for he contradicts himself\nfrequently--a thing very common to ancient philosophers.\n\nIf Anaximenes taught that the atmosphere was God; if Thales attributed\nto water the foundation of all things, because Egypt was rendered\nfertile by inundation; if Pherecides and Heraclitus give to fire all\nwhich Thales attributes to water--to what purpose return to these\nchimerical reveries?\n\nI wish that Pythagoras had expressed, by numbers, certain relations,\nvery insufficiently understood, by which he infers, that the world was\nbuilt by the rules of arithmetic. I allow, that Ocellus Lucanus and\nEmpedocles have arranged everything by moving antagonist forces, but\nwhat shall I gather from it? What clear notion will it convey to my\nfeeble mind?\n\nCome, divine Plato! with your archetypal ideas, your androgynes, and\nyour word; establish all these fine things in poetical prose, in your\nnew republic, in which I no more aspire to have a house, than in the\nSalentum of Telemachus; but in lieu of becoming one of your citizens, I\nwill send you an order to build your town with all the subtle manner of\nDescartes, all his globular and diffusive matter; and they shall be\nbrought to you by Cyrano de Bergerac.\n\nBayle, however, has exercised all the sagacity of his logic on these\nancient fancies; but it is always by rendering them ridiculous that he\ninstructs and entertains.\n\nO philosophers! Physical experiments, ably conducted, arts and\nhandicraft--these are the true philosophy. My sage is the conductor of\nmy windmill, which dexterously catches the wind, and receives my corn,\ndeposits it in the hopper, and grinds it equally, for the nourishment of\nmyself and family. My sage is he who, with his shuttle, covers my walls\nwith pictures of linen or of silk, brilliant with the finest colors; or\nhe who puts into my pocket a chronometer of silver or of gold. My sage\nis the investigator of natural history. We learn more from the single\nexperiments of the Abb\u00e9 Nollet than from all the philosophical works of\nantiquity.\n\n\n\n\nXENOPHON,\n\nAND THE RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND.\n\n\nIf Xenophon had no other merit than that of being the friend of the\nmartyr Socrates, he would be interesting; but he was a warrior,\nphilosopher, poet, historian, agriculturist, and amiable in society.\nThere were many Greeks who united these qualities.\n\nBut why had this free man a Greek company in the pay of the young\nChosroes, named Cyrus by the Greeks? This Cyrus was the younger brother\nand subject of the emperor of Persia, Artaxerxes Mnemon, of whom it was\nsaid that he never forgot anything but injuries. Cyrus had already\nattempted to assassinate his brother, even in the temple in which the\nceremony of his consecration took place--for the kings of Persia were\nthe first who were consecrated. Artaxerxes had not only the clemency to\npardon this villain, but he had the weakness to allow him the absolute\ngovernment of a great part of Asia Minor, which he held from their\nfather, and of which he at least deserved to be despoiled.\n\nAs a return for such surprising mercy, as soon as he could excite his\nsatrapy to revolt against his brother, Cyrus added this second crime to\nthe first. He declared by a manifesto, \"that he was more worthy of the\nthrone of Persia than his brother, because he was a better magus, and\ndrank more wine.\" I do not believe that these were the reasons which\ngained him the Greeks as allies. He took thirteen thousand into his pay,\namong whom was the young Xenophon, who was then only an adventurer. Each\nsoldier had a daric a month for pay. The daric is equal to about a\nguinea or a louis d'or of our time, as the Chevalier de Jaucourt very\nwell observes, and not ten francs, as Rollin says.\n\nWhen Cyrus proposed to march them with his other troops to fight his\nbrother towards the Euphrates, they demanded a daric and a half, which\nhe was obliged to grant them. This was thirty-six livres a month, and\nconsequently the highest pay which was ever given. The soldiers of\nC\u00e6sar and Pompey had but twenty sous per day in the civil wars. Besides\nthis exorbitant pay, of which they obliged him to pay four months in\nadvance, Cyrus furnished them four hundred chariots, laden with wine and\nmeal.\n\nThe Greeks were then precisely what the Swiss are at present, who hire\ntheir service and courage to neighboring princes, but for a pay three\ntimes less than was that of the Greeks. It is evident, though they say\nthe contrary, that they did not inform themselves whether the cause for\nwhich they fought was just; it was sufficient that Cyrus paid well.\n\nThe greatest part of these troops was composed of Laced\u00e6monians, by\nwhich they violated their solemn treaties with the king of Persia. What\nwas become of the ancient aversion of the Spartans for gold and silver?\nWhere was their sincerity in treaties? Where was their high and\nincorruptible virtue? Clearchus, a Spartan, commanded the principal body\nof these brave mercenaries.\n\nI understand not the military manoeuvres of Artaxerxes and Cyrus; I see\nnot why Artaxerxes, who came to his enemy with twelve hundred thousand\nsoldiers, should begin by causing lines of twelve leagues in extent to\nbe drawn between Cyrus and himself; and I comprehend nothing of the\norder of battle. I understand still less how Cyrus, followed only by six\nhundred horse, broke into the midst of six thousand horse-guards of the\nemperor, followed by an innumerable army. Finally, he was killed by the\nhand of Artaxerxes, who, having apparently drunk less wine than the\nrebel, fought with more coolness and address than this drunkard. It is\nclear that he completely gained the battle, notwithstanding the valor\nand resistance of thirteen thousand Greeks--since Greek vanity is\nobliged to confess that Artaxerxes told them to put down their arms.\nThey replied that they would do nothing of the kind; but that if the\nemperor would pay them they would enter his service. It was very\nindifferent to them for whom they fought, so long as they were paid; in\nfact, they were only hired murderers.\n\nBesides the Swiss, there are some provinces of Germany which follow this\ncustom. It signifies not to these good Christians whether they are paid\nto kill English, French, or Dutch, or to be killed by them. You see them\nsay their prayers, and go to the carnage like laborers to their\nworkshop. As to myself, I confess I would rather observe those who go\ninto Pennsylvania, to cultivate the land with the simple and equitable\nQuakers, and form colonies in the retreat of peace and industry. There\nis no great skill in killing and being killed for six sous per day, but\nthere is much in causing the republic of Dunkers to flourish--these new\nTherapeut\u00e6 on the frontier of a country the most savage.\n\nArtaxerxes regarded the Greeks only as accomplices in the revolt of his\nbrother, and indeed they were nothing else. He betrayed himself to be\nbetrayed by them, and he betrayed them, as Xenophon pretends; for after\none of his captains had sworn in his name to allow them a free retreat,\nand to furnish them with food, after Clearchus and five other commanders\nof the Greeks were put into his hands, to regulate the march, he caused\ntheir heads to be cut off, and slew all the Greeks who accompanied them\nin this interview, if we may trust Xenophon's account.\n\nThis royal act shows us that Machiavellism is not new; but is it true\nthat Artaxerxes promised not to make an example of the chief mercenaries\nwho sold themselves to his brother? Was it not permitted him to punish\nthose whom he thought so guilty? It is here that the famous retreat of\nthe ten thousand commences. If I comprehend nothing of the battle, I\nunderstand no more of the retreat.\n\nThe emperor, before he cut off the heads of six Greek generals and their\nsuite, had sworn to allow the little army, reduced to ten thousand men,\nto return to Greece. The battle was fought on the road to the Euphrates;\nhe must therefore have caused the Greeks to return by Western\nMesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor, and Ionia. Not at all; they were made to\npass by the East; they were obliged to traverse the Tigris in boats\nwhich were furnished to them; they returned afterwards by the Armenian\nroads, while their commanders were punished. If any person comprehends\nthis march, in which they turn their backs on Greece, they will oblige\nme much by explaining it to me.\n\nOne of two things: either the Greeks chose their route themselves--and\nin this case they neither knew where they went, or what they wished--or\nArtaxerxes made them march against their will--which is much more\nprobable--and in this case, why did he not exterminate them?\n\nWe may extricate ourselves from these difficulties, by supposing that\nthe Persian emperor only half revenged himself; that he contented\nhimself with punishing the principal mercenary chiefs who sold the Greek\ntroops to Cyrus; that having made a treaty with the fugitive troops, he\nwould not descend to the meanness of violating it; that being sure that\na third of these wandering Greeks would perish on the road, he abandoned\nthem to their fate. I see no other manner of enlightening the mind of\nthe reader on the obscurities of this march.\n\nWe are astonished at the retreat of the ten thousand; but we should be\nmuch more so, if Artaxerxes, a conqueror, at the head of a hundred\nthousand men--at least it is said so--had allowed ten thousand fugitives\nto travel in the north of his vast states, whom he could crush in every\nvillage, every bridge, every defile, or whom he could have made perish\nwith hunger and misery.\n\nHowever, they were furnished, as we have seen, with twenty-seven great\nboats, to enable them to pass the Tigris, as if they were conducted to\nthe Indies. Thence they were escorted towards the North for several\ndays, into the desert in which Bagdad is now situated. They further\npassed the river Zabata, and it was there that the emperor sent his\norders to punish the chiefs. It is clear that they could have\nexterminated the army as easily as they inflicted punishment on the\ngenerals. It is therefore very likely that they did not choose to do so.\nWe should, therefore, rather regard the Greek wanderers in these savage\ncountries as wayward travellers, whom the bounty of the emperor allowed\nto finish their journey as they could.\n\nWe may make another observation, which appears not very honorable to the\nPersian government. It was impossible for the Greeks not to have\ncontinual quarrels for food with the people whom they met. Pillages,\ndesolations, and murders, were the inevitable consequence of these\ndisorders; and that is so true, that in a road of six hundred leagues,\nduring which the Greeks always marched irregularly, being neither\nescorted nor pursued by any great body of Persian troops, they lost four\nthousand men, either killed by peasants or by sickness. How did it\nhappen, therefore, that Artaxerxes did not cause them to be escorted\nfrom their passage of the river Zabata, as he had done from the field of\nbattle to the river?\n\nHow could so wise and good a sovereign commit so great a fault? Perhaps\nhe did command the escort; perhaps Xenophon, who exaggerates a little\nelsewhere, passes it over in silence, not to diminish the wonder of the\n\"retreat of the ten thousand\"; perhaps the escort was always obliged to\nmarch at a great distance from the Greek troop, on account of the\ndifficulty of procuring provisions. However it might be, it appears\ncertain that Artaxerxes used extreme indulgence, and that the Greeks\nowed their lives to him, since they were not exterminated.\n\nIn the article on \"Retreat,\" in the \"Encyclop\u00e6dical Dictionary,\" it is\nsaid that the retreat of the ten thousand took place under the command\nof Xenophon. This is a mistake; he never commanded; he was merely at the\nhead of a division of fourteen hundred men, at the end of the march.\n\nI see that these heroes scarcely arrived, after so many fatigues, on the\nborders of the Pontus Euxinus, before they indifferently pillaged\nfriends and enemies to re-establish themselves. Xenophon embarked his\nlittle troop at Heraclea, and went to make a new bargain with a king of\nThrace, to whom he was a stranger. This Athenian, instead of succoring\nhis country, then overcome by the Spartans, sold himself once more to a\npetty foreign despot. He was ill paid, I confess, which is another\nreason why we may conclude that he would have done better in assisting\nhis country.\n\nThe sum of all this, we have already remarked, is that the Athenian\nXenophon, being only a young volunteer, enlisted himself under a\nLaced\u00e6monian captain, one of the tyrants of Athens, in the service of a\nrebel and an assassin; and that, becoming chief of fourteen hundred men,\nhe put himself into the pay of a barbarian.\n\nWhat is worse, necessity did not constrain him to this servitude. He\nsays himself that he deposited a great part of the gold gained in the\nservice of Cyrus in the temple of the famous Diana of Ephesus.\n\nLet us remark, that in receiving the pay of a king, he exposed himself\nto be condemned to death, if the foreigner was not contented with him,\nwhich happened to Major-General Doxat, a man born free. He sold himself\nto the emperor Charles VI., who commanded his head to be cut off, for\nhaving given up to the Turks a place which he could not defend.\n\nRollin, in speaking of the return of the ten thousand, says, \"that this\nfortunate retreat filled the people of Greece with contempt for\nArtaxerxes, by showing them that gold, silver, delicacies, luxury, and a\nnumerous seraglio, composed all the merit of a great king.\"\n\nRollin should consider that the Greeks ought not to despise a sovereign\nwho had gained a complete battle; who, having pardoned as a brother,\nconquered as a hero; who, having the power of exterminating ten thousand\nGreeks, suffered them to live and to return to their country; and who,\nbeing able to have them in his pay, disdained to make use of them. Add,\nthat this prince afterwards conquered the Laced\u00e6monians and their\nallies, and imposed on them humiliating laws; add also that in a war\nwith the Scythians, called Caducians, towards the Caspian Sea, he\nsupported all fatigues and dangers like the lowest soldier. He lived and\ndied full of glory; it is true that he had a seraglio, but his courage\nwas only the more estimable. We must be careful of college declamations.\n\nIf I dared to attack prejudice I would venture to prefer the retreat of\nMarshal Belle-Isle to that of the ten thousand. He was blocked up in\nPrague by sixty thousand men, when he had not thirteen thousand. He took\nhis measures with so much ability that he got out of Prague, in the most\nsevere cold, with his army, provisions, baggage, and thirty pieces of\ncannon, without the besiegers having the least idea of it. He gained two\ndays' march without their perceiving it. An army of thirteen thousand\nmen pursued him for the space of thirty leagues. He faced them\neverywhere--he was never cast down; but sick as he was, he braved the\nseason, scarcity and his enemies. He only lost those soldiers who could\nnot resist the extreme rigor of the season. What more was wanting? A\nlonger course and Grecian exaggeration.\n\n\n\n\nYVETOT.\n\n\nThis is the name of a town in France, six leagues from Rouen, in\nNormandy, which, according to Robert Gaguin, a historian of the\nsixteenth century, has long been entitled a kingdom.\n\nThis writer relates that Gautier, or Vautier, lord of Yvetot, and grand\nchamberlain to King Clotaire I., having lost the favor of his master by\ncalumny, in which courtiers deal rather liberally, went into voluntary\nexile, and visited distant countries, where, for ten years, he fought\nagainst the enemies of the faith; that at the expiration of this term,\nflattering himself that the king's anger would be appeased, he went back\nto France; that he passed through Rome, where he saw Pope Agapetus, from\nwhom he obtained a letter of recommendation to the king, who was then at\nSoissons, the capital of his dominions. The lord of Yvetot repaired\nthither one Good Friday, and chose the time when Clotaire was at church,\nto fall at his feet, and implore his forgiveness through the merits of\nHim who, on that day, had shed His blood for the salvation of men; but\nClotaire, ferocious and cruel, having recognized him, ran him through\nthe body.\n\nGaguin adds that Pope Agapetus, being informed of this disgraceful act,\nthreatened the king with the thunders of the Church, if he did not make\nreparation for his offence; and that Clotaire, justly intimidated, and\nin satisfaction for the murder of his subject, erected the lordship of\nYvetot into a kingdom, in favor of Gautier's heirs and successors; that\nhe despatched letters to that effect signed by himself, and sealed with\nhis seal; that ever since then the lords of Yvetot have borne the title\nof kings; and--continues Gaguin--I find from established and\nindisputable authority, that this extraordinary event happened in the\nyear of grace 539.\n\nOn this story of Gaguin's we have the same remark to make that we have\nalready made on what he says of the establishment of the Paris\nuniversity--that not one of the contemporary historians makes any\nmention of the singular event, which, as he tells us, caused the\nlordship of Yvetot to be erected into a kingdom; and, as Claude Malingre\nand the abb\u00e9 Vertot have well observed, Clotaire I., who is here\nsupposed to have been sovereign of the town of Yvetot, did not reign\nover that part of the country; fiefs were not then hereditary; acts were\nnot, as Robert Gaguin relates, dated from the year of grace; and lastly,\nPope Agapetus was then dead; to this it may be added that the right of\nerecting a fief into a kingdom belonged exclusively to the emperor.\n\nIt is not, however, to be said that the thunders of the Church were not\nalready made use of, in the time of Agapetus. We know that St. Paul\nexcommunicated the incestuous man of Corinth. We also find in the\nletters of St. Basil, some instances of general censure in the fourth\ncentury. One of these letters is against a ravisher. The holy prelate\nthere orders the young woman to be restored to her parents, the ravisher\nto be excluded from prayers, and declared to be excommunicated, together\nwith his accomplices and all his household, for three years; he also\norders that all the people of the village where the ravished person was\nreceived, shall be excommunicated.\n\nAuxilius, a young bishop, excommunicated the whole family of Clacitien;\nalthough St. Augustine disapproved of this conduct, and Pope St. Leo\nlaid down the same maxims as Augustine, in one of his letters to the\nbishop of the province of Vienne--yet, confining ourselves here to\nFrance--Pretextatus, bishop of Rouen, having been assassinated in the\nyear 586 in his own church, Leudovalde, bishop of Bayeux, did not fail\nto lay all the churches in Rouen under an interdict, forbidding divine\nservice to be celebrated in them until the author of the crime should be\ndiscovered.\n\nIn 1141, Louis the Young having refused his consent to the election of\nPeter de la Ch\u00e2tre, whom the pope caused to be appointed in the room of\nAlberic, archbishop of Bourges, who had died the year preceding,\nInnocent II. laid all France under interdict.\n\nIn the year 1200, Peter of Capua, commissioned to compel Philip Augustus\nto put away Agnes, and take back Ingeburga, and not succeeding,\npublished the sentence of interdict on the whole kingdom, which had been\npronounced by Pope Innocent III. This interdict was observed with\nextreme rigor. The English chronicle, quoted by the Benedictine\nMartenne, says that every Christian act, excepting the baptism of\ninfants, was interdicted in France; the churches were closed, and\nChristians driven out of them like dogs; there was no more divine\noffice, no more sacrifice of the mass, no ecclesiastical sepulture for\nthe deceased; the dead bodies, left to chance, spread the most frightful\ninfections, and filled the survivors with horror.\n\nThe chronicle of Tours gives the same description, adding only one\nremarkable particular, confirmed by the abb\u00e9 Fleury and the abb\u00e9 de\nVertot--that the holy viaticum was excepted, like the baptism of\ninfants, from the privation of holy things. The kingdom was in this\nsituation for nine months; it was some time before Innocent III.\npermitted the preaching of sermons and the sacrament of confirmation.\nThe king was so much enraged that he drove the bishops and all the other\necclesiastics from their abodes, and confiscated their property.\n\nBut it is singular that the bishops were sometimes solicited by\nsovereigns themselves to pronounce an interdict upon lands of their\nvassals. By letters dated February, 1356, confirming those of Guy, count\nof Nevers, and his wife Matilda, in favor of the citizens of Nevers,\nCharles V., regent of the kingdom, prays the archbishops of Lyons,\nBourges, and Sens, and the bishops of Autun, Langres, Auxerre, and\nNevers, to pronounce an excommunication against the count of Nevers, and\nan interdict upon his lands, if he does not fulfil the agreement he has\nmade with the inhabitants. We also find in the collection of the\nordinances of the third line of kings, many letters like that of King\nJohn, authorizing the bishops to put under interdict those places whose\nprivileges their lords would seek to infringe.\n\nAnd to conclude, though it appears incredible, the Jesuit Daniel relates\nthat, in the year 998, King Robert was excommunicated by Gregory V., for\nhaving married his kinswoman in the fourth degree. All the bishops who\nhad assisted at this marriage were interdicted from the communion, until\nthey had been to Rome, and rendered satisfaction to the holy see. The\npeople, and even the court, separated from the king; he had only two\ndomestics left, who purified by fire whatever he had touched. Cardinal\nDamien and Romualde also add, that Robert being gone one morning, as was\nhis custom, to say his prayers at the door of St. Bartholomew's church,\nfor he dared not enter it, Abbon, abbot of Fleury, followed by two women\nof the palace, carrying a large gilt dish covered with a napkin,\naccosted him, announced that Bertha was just brought to bed; and\nuncovering the dish, said: \"Behold the effects of your disobedience to\nthe decrees of the Church, and the seal of anathema on the fruit of your\nlove!\" Robert looked, and saw a monster with the head and neck of a\nduck! Bertha was repudiated; and the excommunication was at last taken\noff.\n\nUrban II., on the contrary, excommunicated Robert's grandson, Philip I.,\nfor having put away his kinswoman. This pope pronounced the sentence of\nexcommunication in the king's own dominions, at Clermont, in Auvergne,\nwhere his holiness was come to seek an asylum, in the same council in\nwhich the crusade was preached, and in which, for the first time, the\nname of pope (papa) was given to the bishop of Rome, to the exclusion of\nthe other bishops, who had formerly taken it.\n\nIt will be seen that these canonical pains were medicinal rather than\nmortal; but Gregory VII. and some of his successors ventured to assert,\nthat an excommunicated sovereign was deprived of his dominions, and that\nhis subjects were not obliged to obey him. However, supposing that a\nking can be excommunicated in certain serious cases, excommunication,\nbeing a penalty purely spiritual, cannot dispense with the obedience\nwhich his subjects owe to him, as holding his authority from God\nHimself. This was constantly acknowledged by the parliaments, and also\nby the clergy of France, in the excommunications pronounced by Boniface\nVII., against Philip the Fair; by Julius II., against Louis XII.; by\nSixtus V., against Henry III.; by Gregory XIII., against Henry IV.; and\nit is likewise the doctrine of the celebrated assembly of the clergy in\n1682.\n\n\n\n\nZEAL.\n\n\nThis, in religion, is a pure and enlightened attachment to the\nmaintenance and progress of the worship which is due to the Divinity;\nbut when this zeal is persecuting, blind, and false, it becomes the\ngreatest scourge of humanity.\n\nSee what the emperor Julian says of the Christians of his time: \"The\nGalileans,\" he observes, \"have suffered exile and imprisonment under my\npredecessor; those who are by turns called heretics, have been mutually\nmassacred. I have recalled the banished, liberated the prisoners; I have\nrestored their property to the proscribed; I have forced them to live in\npeace; but such is the restless rage of the Galileans, that they\ncomplain of being no longer able to devour each other.\"\n\nThis picture will not appear extravagant if we attend to the atrocious\ncalumnies with which the Christians reciprocally blackened each other.\nFor instance, St. Augustine accuses the Manich\u00e6ans of forcing their\nelect to receive the eucharist, after having obscenely polluted it.\nAfter him, St. Cyril of Jerusalem has accused them of the same infamy in\nthese terms: \"I dare not mention in what these sacrilegious wretches wet\ntheir ischas, which they give to their unhappy votaries, and exhibit in\nthe midst of their altar, and with which the Manich\u00e6an soils his mouth\nand tongue. Let the men call to mind what they are accustomed to\nexperience in dreaming, and the women in their periodical affections.\"\nPope St. Leo, in one of his sermons, also calls the sacrifice of the\nManich\u00e6ans the same turpitude. Finally, Suidas and Cedrenus have still\nfurther improved on the calumny, in asserting that the Manich\u00e6ans held\nnocturnal assemblies, in which, after extinguishing the flambeaux, they\ncommitted the most enormous indecencies.\n\nLet us first observe that the primitive Christians were themselves\naccused of the same horrors which they afterwards imputed to the\nManich\u00e6ans; and that the justification of these equally applies to the\nothers. \"In order to have pretexts for persecuting us,\" said\nAthenagoras, in his \"Apology for the Christians,\" \"they accuse us of\nmaking detestable banquets, and of committing incest in our assemblies.\nIt is an old trick, which has been employed from all time to extinguish\nvirtue. Thus was Pythagoras burned, with three hundred of his disciples;\nHeraclitus expelled by the Ephesians; Democritus by the Abderitans; and\nSocrates condemned by the Athenians.\"\n\nAthenagoras subsequently points out that the principles and manners of\nthe Christians were sufficient of themselves to destroy the calumnies\nspread against them. The same reasons apply in favor of the Manich\u00e6ans.\nWhy else is St. Augustine, who is positive in his book on heresies,\nreduced in that on the morals of the Manich\u00e6ans, when speaking of the\nhorrible ceremony in question, to say simply: \"They are suspected\nof--the world has this opinion of them--if they do not commit what is\nimputed to them--rumor proclaims much ill of them; but they maintain\nthat it is false?\"\n\nWhy not sustain openly this accusation in his dispute with Fortunatus,\nwho publicly challenged him in these terms: \"We are accused of false\ncrimes, and as Augustine has assisted in our worship, I beg him to\ndeclare before the whole people, whether these crimes are true or not.\"\nSt. Augustine replied: \"It is true that I have assisted in your worship;\nbut the question of faith is one thing, the question of morals another;\nand it is that of faith which I brought forward. However, if the persons\npresent prefer that we should discuss that of your morals, I shall not\noppose myself to them.\"\n\nFortunatus, addressing the assembly, said: \"I wish, above all things, to\nbe justified in the minds of those who believe us guilty; and that\nAugustine should now testify before you, and one day before the tribunal\nof Jesus Christ, if he has ever seen, or if he knows, in any way\nwhatever, that the things imputed have been committed by us?\" St.\nAugustine still replies: \"You depart from the question; what I have\nadvanced turns upon faith, not upon morals.\" At length, Fortunatus\ncontinuing to press St. Augustine to explain himself, he does so in\nthese terms: \"I acknowledge that in the prayer at which I assisted I did\nnot see you commit anything impure.\"\n\nThe same St. Augustine, in his work on the \"Utility of Faith,\" still\njustifies the Manich\u00e6ans. \"At this time,\" he says, to his friend\nHonoratus, \"when I was occupied with Manich\u00e6ism, I was yet full of the\ndesire and the hope of marrying a handsome woman, and of acquiring\nriches; of attaining honors, and of enjoying the other pernicious\npleasures of life. For when I listened with attention to the Manich\u00e6an\ndoctors, I had not renounced the desire and hope of all these things. I\ndo not attribute that to their doctrine; for I am bound to render this\ntestimony--that they sedulously exhorted men to preserve themselves from\nthose things. That is, indeed, what hindered me from attaching myself\naltogether to the sect, and kept me in the rank of those who are called\nauditors. I did not wish to renounce secular hopes and affairs.\" And in\nthe last chapter of this book, where he represents the Manich\u00e6an doctors\nas proud men, who had as gross minds as they had meagre and skinny\nbodies, he does not say a word of their pretended infamies.\n\nBut on what proofs were these imputations founded? The first which\nAugustine alleges is, that these indecencies were a consequence of the\nManich\u00e6an system, regarding the means which God makes use of to wrest\nfrom the prince of darkness the portion of his substance. We have spoken\nof this in the article on \"Genealogy,\" and these are horrors which one\nmay dispense with repeating. It is enough to say here, that the passage\nfrom the seventh book of the \"Treasure of Manes,\" which Augustine cites\nin many places, is evidently falsified. The arch heretic says, if we can\nbelieve it, that these celestial virtues, which are transformed\nsometimes into beautiful boys, and sometimes into beautiful girls, are\nGod the Father Himself. This is false; Manes has never confounded the\ncelestial virtues with God the Father. St. Augustine, not having\nunderstood the Syriac phrase of a \"virgin of light\" to mean a virgin\nlight, supposes that God shows a beautiful maiden to the princes of\ndarkness, in order to excite their brutal lust; there is nothing of all\nthis talked of in ancient authors; the question concerns the cause of\nrain.\n\n\"The great prince,\" says Tirbon, cited by St. Epiphanius, \"sends out for\nhimself, in his passion, black clouds, which darken all the world; he\nchafes, worries himself, throws himself into a perspiration, and that it\nis which makes the rain, which is no other than the sweat of the great\nprince.\" St. Augustine must have been deceived by a mistranslation, or\nrather by a garbled, unfaithful extract from the \"Treasure of Manes,\"\nfrom which he only cites two or three passages. The Manich\u00e6an Secundums\nalso reproaches him with comprehending nothing of the mysteries of\nManich\u00e6ism, and with attacking them only by mere paralogisms. \"How,\notherwise,\" says the learned M. de Beausobre--whom we here\nabridge--\"would St. Augustine have been able to live so many years among\na sect in which such abominations were publicly taught? And how would he\nhave had the face to defend it against the Catholics?\"\n\nFrom this proof by reasoning, let us pass to the proofs of fact and\nevidence alleged by St. Augustine and see if they are more substantial.\n\"It is said,\" proceeds this father, \"that some of them have confessed\nthis fact in public pleadings, not only in Paphlagonia, but also in the\nGauls, as I have heard said at Rome by a certain Catholic.\"\n\nSuch hearsay deserves so little attention that St. Augustine dared not\nmake use of it in his conference with Fortunatus, although it was seven\nor eight years after he had quitted Rome; he seems even to have\nforgotten the name of the Catholic from whom he learned them. It is\ntrue, that in his book of \"Heresies,\" he speaks of the confessions of\ntwo girls, the one named Margaret, the other Eusebia, and of some\nManich\u00e6ans who, having been discovered at Carthage, and taken to the\nchurch, avowed, it is said, the horrible fact in question.\n\nHe adds that a certain Viator declared that they who committed these\nscandals were called Catharistes, or purgators; and that, when\ninterrogated on what scripture they founded this frightful practice,\nthey produced the passage from the \"Treasure of Manes,\" the falsehood of\nwhich has been demonstrated. But our heretics, far from availing\nthemselves of it, have openly disavowed it, as the work of some impostor\nwho wished to ruin them. That alone casts suspicion on all these acts of\nCarthage, which \"_Quod-vult-Deus_\" had sent to St. Augustine; and these\nwretches who were discovered and taken to the church, have very much the\nair of persons suborned to confess all they were wanted to confess.\n\nIn the 47th chapter on the \"Nature of Good,\" St. Augustine admits that\nwhen our heretics were reproached with the crimes in question, they\nreplied that one of their elect, a seceder from the sect, and become\ntheir enemy, had introduced this enormity. Without inquiring whether\nthis was a real sect whom Viator calls Catharistes, it is sufficient to\nobserve here, that the first Christians likewise imputed to the Gnostics\nthe horrible mysteries of which they were themselves accused by the Jews\nand Pagans; and if this defence is good on their behalf, why should it\nnot be so on that of the Manich\u00e6ans?\n\nIt is, however, these vulgar rumors which M. de Tillemont, who piques\nhimself on his exactness and fidelity, ventures to convert into positive\nfacts. He asserts that the Manich\u00e6ans had been made to confess these\ndisgraceful doings in public judgments, in Paphlagonia, in the Gauls,\nand several times at Carthage.\n\nLet us also weigh the testimony of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, whose\nnarrative is altogether different from that of St. Augustine; and let us\nconsider that the fact is so incredible and so absurd that it could\nscarcely be credited, even if attested by five or six witnesses who had\nseen and would affirm it on oath. St. Cyril stands alone; he had never\nseen it; he advances it in a popular declamation, wherein he gives\nhimself a licence to put into the mouth of Manes, in the conference of\nCascar, a discourse, not one word of which is in the \"Acts of\nArch\u00e6laus,\" as M. Zaccagni is obliged to allow; and it cannot be alleged\nin defence of St. Cyril that he has taken only the sense of Arch\u00e6laus,\nand not the words; for neither the sense nor the words can be found\nthere. Besides, the style which this father adopts is that of a\nhistorian who cites the actual words of his author.\n\nNevertheless, to save the honor and good faith of St. Cyril, M.\nZaccagni, and after him M. de Tillemont, suppose, without any proof,\nthat the translator or copyist has omitted the passage in the \"Acts\"\nquoted by this father; and the journalists of Tr\u00e9voux have imagined two\nsorts of \"Acts of Arch\u00e6laus\"--the authentic ones which Cyril has copied,\nand others invented in the fifth century by some historian. When they\nshall have proved this conjecture, we will examine their reasons.\n\nFinally, let us come to the testimony of Pope Leo touching these\nManich\u00e6an abominations. He says, in his sermons, that the sudden\ntroubles in other countries had brought into Italy some Manich\u00e6ans,\nwhose mysteries were so abominable that he could not expose them to the\npublic view without sacrificing modesty. That, in order to ascertain\nthem, he had introduced male and female elect into an assembly composed\nof bishops, priests, and some lay noblemen. That these heretics had\ndisclosed many things respecting their dogmas and the ceremonies of\ntheir feast, and had confessed a crime which could not be named, but in\nregard to which there could be no doubt, after the confession of the\nguilty parties--that is to say, of a young girl of only ten years of\nage; of two women who had prepared her for the horrible ceremony of the\nsect; of a young man who had been an accomplice; of the bishop who had\nordered and presided over it. He refers those among his auditors who\ndesire to know more, to the informations which had been taken, and which\nhe communicated to the bishops of Italy, in his second letter.\n\nThis testimony appears more precise and more decisive than that of St.\nAugustine; but it is anything but conclusive in regard to a fact belied\nby the protestations of the accused, and by the ascertained principles\nof their morality. In effect, what proofs have we that the infamous\npersons interrogated by Leo were not bribed to depose against their\nsect?\n\nIt will be replied that the piety and sincerity of this pope will not\npermit us to believe that he has contrived such a fraud. But if--as we\nhave said in the article on \"Relics\"--the same St. Leo was capable of\nsupposing that pieces of linen and ribbons, which were put in a box, and\nmade to descend into the tombs of some saints, shed blood when they were\ncut--ought this pope to make any scruple in bribing, or causing to be\nbribed, some abandoned women, and I know not what Manich\u00e6an bishop,\nwho, being assured of pardon, would make confessions of crimes which\nmight be true as regarded themselves, but not as regarded their sect,\nfrom whose seduction St. Leo wished to protect his people? At all times,\nbishops have considered themselves authorized to employ those pious\nfrauds which tend to the salvation of souls. The conjectural and\napocryphal scriptures are a proof of this; and the readiness with which\nthe fathers have put faith in those bad works, shows that, if they were\nnot accomplices in the fraud, they were not scrupulous in taking\nadvantage of it.\n\nIn conclusion, St. Leo pretends to confirm the secret crimes of the\nManich\u00e6ans by an argument which destroys them. \"These execrable\nmysteries,\" he says, \"which the more impure they are, the more carefully\nthey are hid, are common to the Manich\u00e6ans and to the Priscillianists.\nThere is in all respects the same sacrilege, the same obscenity, the\nsame turpitude. These crimes, these infamies, are the same which were\nformerly discovered among the Priscillianists, and of which the whole\nworld is informed.\"\n\nThe Priscillianists were never guilty of the crimes for which they were\nput to death. In the works of St. Augustine is contained the\ninstructional remarks which were transmitted to that father by Orosius,\nand in which this Spanish priest protests that he has plucked out all\nthe plants of perdition which sprang up in the sect of the\nPriscillianists; that he had not forgotten the smallest branch or root;\nthat he exposed to the surgeon all the diseases of the sect, in order\nthat he might labor in their cure. Orosius does not say a word of the\nabominable mysteries of which Leo speaks; an unanswerable proof that he\nhad no doubt they were pure calumnies. St. Jerome also says that\nPriscillian was oppressed by faction, and by the intrigues of the\nbishops Ithacus and Idacus. Would a man be thus spoken of who was guilty\nof profaning religion by the most infamous ceremonies? Nevertheless,\nOrosius and St. Jerome could not be ignorant of crimes of which all the\nworld had been informed.\n\nSt. Martin of Tours, and St. Ambrosius, who were at Trier when\nPriscillian was sentenced, would have been equally informed of them.\nThey, however, instantly solicited a pardon for him; and, not being able\nto obtain it, they refused to hold intercourse with his accusers and\ntheir faction. Sulpicius Severus relates the history of the misfortunes\nof Priscillian. Latronian, Euphrosyne, widow of the poet Delphidius, his\ndaughter, and some other persons, were executed with him at Trier, by\norder of the tyrant Maximus, and at the instigation of Ithacus and\nIdacus, two wicked bishops, who, in reward for their injustice, died in\nexcommunication, loaded with the hatred of God and man.\n\nThe Priscillianists were accused, like the Manich\u00e6ans, of obscene\ndoctrines, of religious nakedness and immodesty. How were they\nconvicted? Priscillian and his accomplices confessed, as is said, under\nthe torture. Three degraded persons, Tertullus, Potamius, and John,\nconfessed without awaiting the question. But the suit instituted against\nthe Priscillianists would have been founded on other depositions, which\nhad been made against them in Spain. Nevertheless, these latter\ninformations were rejected by a great number of bishops and esteemed\necclesiastics; and the good old man Higimis, bishop of Cordova, who had\nbeen the denouncer of the Priscillianists, afterwards believed them so\ninnocent of the crimes imputed to them that he received them into his\ncommunion, and found himself involved thereby in the persecution which\nthey endured.\n\nThese horrible calumnies, dictated by a blind zeal, would seem to\njustify the reflection which Ammianus Marcellinus reports of the emperor\nJulian. \"The savage beasts,\" he said, \"are not more formidable to men\nthan the Christians are to each other, when they are divided by creed\nand opinion.\"\n\nIt is still more deplorable when zeal is false and hypocritical,\nexamples of which are not rare. It is told of a doctor of the Sorbonne,\nthat in departing from a sitting of the faculty, Tourn\u00e9ly, with whom he\nwas strictly connected, said to him: \"You see that for two hours I have\nmaintained a certain opinion with warmth; well, I assure you, there is\nnot one word of truth in all I have said!\"\n\nThe answer of a Jesuit is also known, who was employed for twenty years\nin the Canada missions, and who himself not believing in a God, as he\nconfessed in the ear of a friend, had faced death twenty times for the\nsake of a religion which he preached to the savages. This friend\nrepresenting to him the inconsistency of his zeal: \"Ah!\" replied the\nJesuit missionary, \"you have no idea of the pleasure a man enjoys in\nmaking himself heard by twenty thousand men, and in persuading them of\nwhat he does not himself believe.\"\n\nIt is frightful to observe how many abuses and disorders arise from the\nprofound ignorance in which Europe has been so long plunged. Those\nmonarchs who are at last sensible of the importance of enlightenment,\nbecome the benefactors of mankind in favoring the progress of knowledge,\nwhich is the foundation of the tranquillity and happiness of nations,\nand the finest bulwark against the inroads of fanaticism.\n\n\n\n\nZOROASTER.\n\n\nIf it is Zoroaster who first announced to mankind that fine maxim: \"In\nthe doubt whether an action be good or bad, abstain from it,\" Zoroaster\nwas the first of men after Confucius.\n\nIf this beautiful lesson of morality is found only in the hundred gates\nof the \"Sadder,\" let us bless the author of the \"Sadder.\" There may be\nvery ridiculous dogmas and rites united with an excellent morality.\n\nWho was this Zoroaster? The name has something of Greek in it, and it is\nsaid he was a Mede. The Parsees of the present day call him Zerdust, or\nZerdast, or Zaradast, or Zarathrust. He is not reckoned to have been the\nfirst of the name. We are told of two other Zoroasters, the former of\nwhom has an antiquity of nine thousand years--which is much for us, but\nmay be very little for the world. We are acquainted with only the latest\nZoroaster.\n\nThe French travellers, Chardin and Tavernier, have given us some\ninformation respecting this great prophet, by means of the Guebers or\nParsees, who are still scattered through India and Persia, and who are\nexcessively ignorant. Dr. Hyde, Arabic professor of Oxford, has given us\na hundred times more without leaving home. Living in the west of\nEngland, he must have conjectured the language which the Persians spoke\nin the time of Cyrus, and must have compared it with the modern language\nof the worshippers of fire. It is to him, moreover, that we owe those\nhundred gates of the \"Sadder,\" which contain all the principal precepts\nof the pious fire-worshippers.\n\nFor my own part, I confess I have found nothing in their ancient rites\nmore curious than the two Persian verses of Sadi, as given by Hyde;\nsignifying that, although a person may preserve the sacred fire for a\nhundred years, he is burned when he falls into it.\n\nThe learned researches of Hyde kindled, a few years ago in the breast of\na young Frenchman, the desire to learn for himself the dogmas of the\nGuebers. He traversed the Great Indies, in order to learn at Surat,\namong the poor modern Parsees, the language of the ancient Persians, and\nto read in that language the books of the so-much celebrated Zoroaster,\nsupposing that he has in fact written any.\n\nThe Pythagorases, the Platos, the Appolloniuses of Thyana, went in\nformer times to seek in the East wisdom that was not there; but no one\nhas run after this hidden divinity through so many sufferings and perils\nas this new French translator of the books attributed to Zoroaster.\nNeither disease nor war, nor obstacles renewed at every step, nor\npoverty itself, the first and greatest of obstacles, could repel his\ncourage.\n\nIt is glorious for Zoroaster that an Englishman wrote his life, at the\nend of so many centuries, and that afterwards a Frenchman wrote it in an\nentirely different manner. But it is still finer, that among the ancient\nbiographers of the poet we have two principal Arabian authors, each of\nwhom had previously written his history; and all these four histories\ncontradict one another marvellously. This is not done by concert; and\nnothing is more conducive to the knowledge of the truth.\n\nThe first Arabian historian, Abu-Mohammed Mustapha, allows that the\nfather of Zoroaster was called Espintaman; but he also says that\nEspintaman was not his father, but his great-great-grandfather. In\nregard to his mother, there are not two opinions; she was named Dogdu,\nor Dodo, or Dodu--that is, a very fine turkey hen; she is very well\nportrayed in Doctor Hyde.\n\nBundari, the second historian, relates that Zoroaster was a Jew, and\nthat he had been valet to Jeremiah; that he told lies to his master;\nthat, in order to punish him, Jeremiah gave him the leprosy; that the\nvalet, to purify himself, went to preach a new religion in Persia, and\ncaused the sun to be adored instead of the stars.\n\nAttend now to what the third historian relates, and what the Englishman,\nHyde, has recorded somewhat at length: The prophet Zoroaster having come\nfrom Paradise to preach his religion to the king of Persia, Gustaph, the\nking said to the prophet: \"Give me a sign.\" Upon this, the prophet\ncaused a cedar to grow up before the gate of the palace, so large and so\ntall, that no cord could either go round it or reach its top. Upon the\ncedar he placed a fine cabinet, to which no man could ascend. Struck\nwith this miracle, Gustaph believed in Zoroaster.\n\nFour magi, or four sages--it is the same thing--envious and wicked\npersons, borrowed from the royal porter the key of the prophet's chamber\nduring his absence, and threw among his books the bones of dogs and\ncats, the nails and hair of dead bodies--such being, as is well known,\nthe drugs with which magicians at all times have operated. Afterwards,\nthey went and accused the prophet of being a sorcerer and a poisoner;\nand the king, causing the chamber to be opened by his porter, the\ninstruments of witchcraft were found there--and behold the envoy from\nheaven condemned to be hanged!\n\nJust as they are going to hang Zoroaster, the king's finest horse falls\nill; his four legs enter his body, so as to be no longer visible.\nZoroaster hears of it; he promises to cure the horse, provided they will\nnot hang him. The bargain being made, he causes one leg to issue out of\nthe belly, and says: \"Sire, I will not restore you the second leg unless\nyou embrace my religion.\" \"Let it be so,\" says the monarch. The prophet,\nafter having made the second leg appear, wished the king's children to\nbecome Zoroastrians, and they became so. The other legs made proselytes\nof the whole court. The four envious sages were hanged in place of the\nprophet, and all Persia received the faith.\n\nThe French traveller relates nearly the same miracles, supported and\nembellished, however, by many others. For instance, the infancy of\nZoroaster could not fail to be miraculous; Zoroaster fell to laughing as\nsoon as he was born, at least according to Pliny and Solinus. There\nwere, in those days, as all the world knows, a great number of very\npowerful magicians; they were well aware that one day Zoroaster would be\ngreater than themselves, and that he would triumph over their magic. The\nprince of magicians caused the infant to be brought to him, and tried to\ncut him in two; but his hand instantly withered. They threw him into the\nfire, which was turned for him into a bath of rose water. They wished to\nhave him trampled on by the feet of wild bulls; but a still more\npowerful bull protected him. He was cast among the wolves; these wolves\nwent incontinently and sought two ewes, who gave him suck all night. At\nlast, he was restored to his mother Dogdu, or Dodo, or Dodu, a wife\nexcellent above all wives, or a daughter above all daughters.\n\nSuch, throughout the world, have been all the histories of ancient\ntimes. It proves what we have often remarked, that Fable is the elder\nsister of History. I could wish that, for our amusement and instruction,\nall these great prophets of antiquity, the Zoroasters, the Mercurys\nTrismegistus, the Abarises, and even the Numas, and others, should now\nreturn to the earth, and converse with Locke, Newton, Bacon,\nShaftesbury, Pascal, Arnaud, Bayle--what do I say?--even with those\nphilosophers of our day who are the least learned, provided they are not\nthe less rational. I ask pardon of antiquity, but I think they would cut\na sorry figure.\n\nAlas, poor charlatans! they could not sell their drugs on the\nPont-neuf. In the meantime, however, their morality is still good,\nbecause morality is not a drug. How could it be that Zoroaster joined so\nmany egregious fooleries to the fine precept of \"abstaining when it is\ndoubtful whether one is about to do right or wrong?\" It is because men\nare always compounded of contradictions.\n\nIt is added that Zoroaster, having established his religion, became a\npersecutor. Alas! there is not a sexton, or a sweeper of a church, who\nwould not persecute, if he had the power.\n\nOne cannot read two pages of the abominable trash attributed to\nZoroaster, without pitying human nature. Nostradamus and the urine\ndoctor are reasonable compared with this inspired personage; and yet he\nstill is and will continue to be talked of.\n\nWhat appears singular is, that there existed, in the time of the\nZoroaster with whom we are acquainted, and probably before, prescribed\nformulas of public and private prayer. We are indebted to the French\ntraveller for a translation of them. There were such formulas in India;\nwe know of none such in the Pentateuch.\n\nWhat is still stranger, the magi, as well as the Brahmins, admitted a\nparadise, a hell, a resurrection, and a devil. It is demonstrated that\nthe law of the Jews knew nothing of all this; they were behindhand with\neverything--a truth of which we are convinced, however little the\nprogress we have made in Oriental knowledge.\n\n\n\n\nDECLARATION OF THE AMATEURS, INQUIRERS, AND DOUBTERS,\n\nWHO HAVE AMUSED THEMSELVES WITH PROPOSING TO THE LEARNED THE PRECEDING\nQUESTIONS IN THESE VOLUMES.\n\n\nWe declare to the learned that being, like themselves, prodigiously\nignorant of the first principles of all things, and of the natural,\ntypical, mystical, allegorical sense of many things, we acquiesce, in\nregard to them, in the infallible decision of the holy Inquisition of\nRome, Milan, Florence, Madrid, Lisbon, and in the decrees of the\nSorbonne, the perpetual council of the French.\n\nOur errors not proceeding from malice, but being the natural consequence\nof human weakness, we hope we shall be pardoned for them both in this\nworld and the next.\n\nWe entreat the small number of celestial spirits who are still shut up\nin the mortal bodies in France, and who thence enlighten the universe at\nthirty sous per sheet, to communicate their gifts to us for the next\nvolume, which we calculate on publishing at the end of the Lent of 1772,\nor in the Advent of 1773; and we will pay _forty_ sous per sheet for\ntheir lucubrations.\n\nWe entreat the few great men who still remain to us, such as the author\nof the \"Ecclesiastical Gazette\"; the Abb\u00e9 Guyon; with the Abb\u00e9 Caveirac,\nauthor of the \"Apology for St. Bartholomew\"; and he who took the name\nof Chiniac; and the agreeable Larcher; and the virtuous, wise, and\nlearned Langleviel, called La Beaumelle; the profound and exact\nNonnotte; and the moderate, the compassionate, the tender Patouillet--to\nassist us in our undertaking. We shall profit by their instructive\ncriticisms, and we shall experience a real pleasure in rendering to all\nthese gentlemen the justice which is their due.\n\nThe next volume will contain very curious articles, which, under the\nfavor of God, will be likely to give new piquancy to the wit which we\nshall endeavor to infuse into the thanks we return to all these\ngentlemen.\n\nGiven at Mount Krapak, the 30th of the month of Janus, in the year of\nthe world, according to\n\n  Scaliger...............................     5,022\n\n  According to Les Etrennes Mignonnes....     5,776\n\n  According to Riccioli..................     5,956\n\n  According to Eusebius..................     6,972\n\n  According to the Alphosine Tables......     8,707\n\n  According to the Egyptians.............   370,000\n\n  According to the Chald\u00e6ans.............   465,102\n\n  According to the Brahmins..............   780,000\n\n  According to the Philosophers..........     ----\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 10","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":74215}