Chapter VI (2)

[475] In _Le Long's Bibliothèque Historique de la France_, vol. ii.
p. 3, it is said, that the descent of the kings of France from
the Trojans was universally believed before the sixteenth
century: 'Cette descendance a été crue véritable près de huit
cents ans, et soutenue par tous les écrivains de notre histoire;
la fausseté n'en a été reconnue qu'au commencement du seizième
siècle.' Polydore Vergil, who died in the middle of the sixteenth
century, attacked this opinion in regard to England, and thereby
made his history unpopular. See _Ellis's Preface to Polydore
Vergil_, p. xx. 4to, 1844, published by the Camden Society. 'He
discarded Brute, as an unreal personage.' In 1128, Henry I., king
of England, inquired from a learned man respecting the early
history of France. The answer is preserved by an historian of the
thirteenth century: 'Regum potentissime, inquiens, sicut pleræque
gentes Europæ, ita Franci a Trojanis originem duxerunt.' _Matthæi
Paris Hist. Major_, p. 59. See also _Rog. de Hov. in Scriptores
post Bedam_, p. 274. On the descent of the Britons from Priam and
Æneas, see _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p.
66. Indeed, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, their
Trojan origin was stated as a notorious fact, in a letter written
to Pope Boniface by Edward I., and signed by the English
nobility. See _Warton's Hist. of English Poetry_, vol. i. pp.
131, 132; and _Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors_, vol. i.
p. 185.

[476] The general opinion was, that Brutus, or Brute, was the son of
Æneas; but some historians affirmed that he was the
great-grandson. See _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 63,
vol. vii. p. 220.

Touching the origin of particular places, the great historians of the Middle Ages are equally communicative. In the accounts they give of them, as well as in the lives they write of eminent men, the history usually begins at a very remote period; and the events relating to their subject are often traced back, in an unbroken series, from the moment when Noah left the ark, or even when Adam passed the gates of Paradise.[477] On other occasions, the antiquity they assign is somewhat less; but the range of their information is always extraordinary. They say, that the capital of France is called after Paris, the son of Priam, because he fled there when Troy was overthrown.[478] They also mention that Tours owed its name to being the burial-place of Turonus, one of the Trojans;[479] while the city of Troyes was actually built by the Trojans, as its etymology clearly proves.[480] It was well ascertained that Nuremberg was called after the Emperor Nero;[481] and Jerusalem after King Jebus,[482] a man of vast celebrity in the Middle Ages, but whose existence later historians have not been able to verify. The river Humber received its name because, in ancient times, a king of the Huns had been drowned in it.[483] The Gauls derived their origin, according to some, from Galathia, a female descendant of Japhet; according to others, from Gomer, the son of Japhet.[484] Prussia was called after Prussus, a brother of Augustus.[485] This was remarkably modern; but Silesia had its name from the prophet Elisha--from whom, indeed, the Silesians descended;[486] while as to the city of Zurich, its exact date was a matter of dispute, but it was unquestionably built in the time of Abraham.[487] It was likewise from Abraham and Sarah that the gipsies immediately sprung.[488] The blood of the Saracens was less pure, since they were only descended from Sarah--in what way it is not mentioned; but she probably had them by another marriage, or, may be, as the fruit of an Egyptian intrigue.[489] At all events, the Scotch certainly came from Egypt; for they were originally the issue of Scota, who was a daughter of Pharaoh, and who bequeathed to them her name.[490] On sundry similar matters, the Middle Ages possessed information equally valuable. It was well known that the city of Naples was founded on eggs;[491] and it was also known, that the order of St. Michael was instituted in person by the archangel, who was himself the first knight, and to whom, in fact, chivalry owes its origin.[492] In regard to the Tartars, that people, of course, proceeded from Tartarus; which some theologians said was an inferior kind of hell, but others declared to be hell itself.[493] However this might be, the fact of their birth-place being from below was indisputable, and was proved by many circumstances which showed the fatal and mysterious influence they were able to exercise. For the Turks were identical with the Tartars; and it was notorious, that since the Cross had fallen into Turkish hands, all Christian children had ten teeth less than formerly; a universal calamity, which there seemed to be no means of repairing.[494]

[477] In the _Notes to a Chronicle of London from 1089 to 1483_, pp.
183-187, edit. 4to, 1827, there is a pedigree, in which the
history of the bishops of London is traced back, not only to the
migration of Brutus from Troy, but also to Noah and Adam. Thus,
too, Goropius, in his history of Antwerp, written in the
sixteenth century: 'Vond zoowell de Nederlandsche taal als de
Wysbegeerte van Orpheus in de ark van Noach.' _Van Kampen_,
_Geschiedenis der Letteren_, 8vo, 1821, vol. i. p. 91; see also
p. 86. In the thirteenth century, Mathew Paris (_Historia Major_,
p. 352) says of Alfred, 'Hujus genealogia in Anglorum historiis
perducitur usque ad Adam primum parentem.' See, to the same
effect, _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. pp.
323, 324, 415. In William of Malmesbury's Chronicle (_Scriptores
post Bedam_, p. 22 rev.) the genealogy of the Saxon kings is
traced back to Adam. For other, and similar, instances, see a
note in _Lingard's History of England_, vol. i. p. 403. And Mr.
Ticknor (_History of Spanish Literature_, vol. i. p. 509)
mentions that the Spanish chroniclers present 'an uninterrupted
succession of Spanish kings from Tubal, a grandson of Noah.'

[478] Monteil, in his curious book, _Histoire des divers Etats_, vol. v.
p. 70, mentions the old belief 'que les Parisiens sont du sang
des rois des anciens Troyens, par Paris, fils de Priam.' Even in
the seventeenth century this idea was not extinct; and Coryat,
who travelled in France in 1608, gives another version of it. He
says, 'As for her name of Paris, she hath it (as some write) from
Paris, the eighteenth king of Gallia Celtica, whom some write to
have been lineally descended from Japhet, one of the three sons
of Noah, and to have founded this city.' _Coryat's Crudities_,
1611, reprinted 1776, vol. i. pp. 27, 28.

[479] 'Erat ibi quidam Tros nomine Turonus Bruti nepos.... De nomine
ipsius prædicta civitas Turonis vocabulum nacta est; quia ibidem
sepultus fuit.' _Galfredi Monumet. Hist. Briton._ lib. i. cap.
xv. p. 19. And Mathew of Westminster, who wrote in the fourteenth
century, says (_Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 17): 'Tros nomine
Turnus.... De nomine verò ipsius Turonorum civitas vocabulum
traxit, quia ibidem, ut testatur Homerus, sepultus fuit.'

[480] 'On convient bien que les Troyens de notre Troyes sont du sang des
anciens Troyens.' _Monteil_, _Divers Etats_, vol. v. p. 69.

[481] Monconys, who was in Nuremberg in 1663, found this opinion still
held there; and he seems himself half inclined to believe it;
for, in visiting a castle, he observes, 'Mais je ne sçai si c'est
un ouvrage de Néron, comme l'on le dit, et que même le nom de
Nuremberg en vient.' _Voyages de Monconys_, vol. iv. p. 141,
edit. Paris, 1695.

[482] 'Deinceps regnante in ea Jebusæo, dicta Jebus, et sic ex Jebus et
Salem dicta est Jebussalem. Unde post dempta _b_ littera et
addita _r_, dicta est Hierusalem.' _Matthæi Paris Historia
Major_, p. 43. This reminds me of another great writer, who was
one of the fathers, and was moreover a saint, and who, says M.
Matter, 'dérive les Samaritains du roi Samarius, fils de Canaan.'
_Matter_, _Hist. du Gnosticisme_, vol. i. p. 41.

[483] 'Humber rex Hunnorum ... ad flumen diffugiens, submersus est intra
ipsum, et nomen suum flumini reliquit.' _Matthæi Westmonast.
Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 19.

[484] These two opinions, which long divided the learned world, are
stated in _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique de la France_,
vol. ii. pp. 5, 49.

[485] See a curious allusion to this in _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._
vol. viii. p. 160; where, however, it is erroneously supposed to
be a Russian invention.

[486] 'The Silesians are not without voluminous writers upon their
antiquities; and one of them gravely derives the name and descent
of his country from the prophet Elisha.' _Adams's Letters on
Silesia_, p. 267, Lond. 8vo, 1804.

[487] In 1608, Coryat, when in Zurich, was 'told by the learned
Hospinian that their city was founded in the time of Abraham.'
_Coryat's Crudities_, vol. i. Epistle to the Reader, sig. D. I
always give the most recent instance I have met with, because, in
the history of the European intellect, it is important to know
how long the spirit of the Middle Ages survived in different
countries.

[488] They were 'seuls enfants légitimes' of Abraham and Sarah.
_Monteil_, _Divers Etats_, vol. v. p. 19.

[489] Mathew Paris, who is apprehensive lest the reputation of Sarah
should suffer, says, 'Saraceni perversé se putant ex Sara dici;
sed veriùs Agareni dicuntur ab Agar; et Ismaelitæ, ab Ismaele
filio Abrahæ.' _Hist. Major_, p. 357. Compare a similar passage
in _Mezeray_, _Histoire de France_, vol. i. p. 127: 'Sarrasins,
ou de la ville de Sarai, ou de Sara femme d'Abraham, duquel ils
se disent faussement légitimes héritiers.' After this, the idea,
or the fear of the idea, soon died away; and Beausobre (_Histoire
Critique de Manichée_, vol. i. p. 24) says: 'On dérive
vulgairement le nom de Sarrasins du mot arabe Sarah, ou Sarak,
qui signifie effectivement voleur.' A good example of a secular
turn given to a theological etymology. For a similar case in
northern history, see _Whitelocke's Journal of the Swedish
Embassy_, vol. i. pp. 190, 191.

[490] Early in the fourteenth century, this was stated, in a letter to
the Pope, as a well-known historical fact. See _Lingard's Hist.
of England_, vol. ii. p. 187: 'They are sprung from Scota the
daughter of Pharaoh, who landed in Ireland, and whose descendants
wrested, by force of arms, the northern half of Britain from the
progeny of Brute.'

[491] Mr. Wright (_Narratives of Sorcery_, 8vo, 1851, vol. i. p. 115)
says, 'The foundation of the city of Naples upon eggs, and the
egg on which its fate depended, seem to have been legends
generally current in the Middle Ages;' and he refers to
_Montfaucon_, _Monumens de la Mon. Fr._ vol. ii. p. 329, for
proof, that by the statutes of the order of the Saint Esprit, 'a
chapter of the knights was appointed to be held annually in
castello ovi incantati in mirabili periculo.'

[492] 'The order of Saint Michael, in France, pretends to the possession
of a regular descent from Michael the Archangel, who, according
to the enlightened judgment of French antiquarians, was the
premier chevalier in the world; and it was he, they say, who
established the earliest chivalric order in Paradise itself.'
_Mills's Hist. of Chivalry_, vol. i. pp. 363, 364.

[493] The etymology of Tartars from Tartarus is ascribed to the piety of
Saint Louis in _Prichard's Physical History_, vol. iv. p. 278;
but I think that I have met with it before his time, though I
cannot now recover the passage. The earliest instance I remember
is in 1241, when the saint was twenty-six years old. See a letter
from the emperor Frederick, in _Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p.
497: 'Pervenissent dicti Tartari (imo Tartarei),' &c; and on the
expression of Louis, see p. 496: 'Quos vocamus Tartaros ad suas
Tartareas sedes.' Since the thirteenth century, the subject has
attracted the attention of English divines; and the celebrated
theologian Whiston mentions 'my last famous discovery, or rather
my revival of Dr. Giles Fletcher's famous discovery, that the
Tartars are no other than the ten tribes of Israel, which have
been so long sought for in vain.' _Memoirs of the Life and
Writings of William Whiston_, p. 575. Compare, on the opinions
held respecting the Tartars, _Journal Asiatique_, I^e série, vol.
vi. p. 374, Paris, 1825.

[494] Peignot (_Dict. des Livres_, vol. ii. p. 69, Paris, 1806) says,
that Rigord, in his history of Philip Augustus, assures his
readers 'que depuis que la vraie croix a été prise par les Turcs,
les enfans n'ont plus que 20 ou 23 dents, au lieu qu'ils en
avaient 30 ou 32 auparavant.' Even in the fifteenth century, it
was believed that the number of teeth had diminished from 32 to
22, or at most 24. See _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol.
ii. pp. 481, 482, Paris, 1815. Compare _Hecker on the Black
Death_, pp. 31, 32, in his learned work, _Epidemics of the Middle
Ages_, published by the Sydenham Society.

Other points relating to the history of past events were cleared up with equal facility. In Europe during many centuries, the only animal food in general use was pork; beef, veal, and mutton, being comparatively unknown.[495] It was, therefore, with no small astonishment that the crusaders, on returning from the East, told their countrymen that they had been among a people who, like the Jews, thought pork unclean, and refused to eat it. But the feelings of lively wonder which this intelligence excited, were destroyed as soon as the cause of the fact was explained. The subject was taken up by Mathew Paris, the most eminent historian during the thirteenth century, and one of the most eminent during the Middle Ages.[496] This celebrated writer informs us, that the Mohammedans refuse to eat pork on account of a singular circumstance which happened to their prophet. It appears that Mohammed, having, on one occasion, gorged himself with food and drink till he was in a state of insensibility, fell asleep on a dunghill, and, in this disgraceful condition, was seen by a litter of pigs. The pigs attacked the fallen prophet, and suffocated him to death; for which reason his followers abominate pigs, and refuse to partake of their flesh.[497] This striking fact explains one great peculiarity of the Mohammedans;[498] and another fact, equally striking, explains how it was that their sect came into existence. For it was well known, that Mohammed was originally a cardinal, and only became a heretic because he failed in his design of being elected pope.[499]

[495] In the sacred books of the Scandinavians, pork is represented as
the principal food, even in heaven. See _Mallet's Northern
Antiquities_, p. 105. It was the chief food of the Irish in the
twelfth century: _Ledwich_, _Antiquities of Ireland_, Dublin,
1804, p. 370; and also of the Anglo-Saxons at an earlier period:
_Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. iii. p. 22. In France it was
equally common, and Charlemagne kept in his forests immense
droves of pigs. _Note in Esprit des Lois_, in _[OE]uvres de
Montesquieu_, p. 513. In Spain those who did not like pork were
tried by the Inquisition as suspected Jews: _Llorente_, _Hist. de
l'Inquisition_, vol. i. pp. 269, 442, 445. Late in the sixteenth
century, there was a particular disease, said to be caused by the
quantity of it eaten in Hungary. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la
Médecine_, vol. iii. p. 93; and even at present, the barbarous
Lettes are passionately fond of it. _Kohl's Russia_, pp. 386,
387. In the middle of the sixteenth century, I find that Philip
II., when in England, generally dined on bacon; of which he ate
so much, as frequently to make himself very ill. See _Ambassades
de Messieurs de Noailles en Angleterre_, vol. v. pp. 240, 241,
edit. 1763. The ambassador writes, that Philip was 'grand mangeur
oultre mesure,' and used to consume large quantities 'de lard,
dont il faict le plus souvent son principal repas.' In the Middle
Ages, 'les Thuringiens payaient leur tribut en porcs, la denrée
la plus précieuse de leur pays.' _[OE]uvres de Michelet_, vol.
ii. p. 389.

[496] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. vii. pp. 325, 326) passes a
high eulogy upon him; and Mosheim (_Ecclesiast. History_, vol. i.
p. 313) says: 'Among the historians (of the thirteenth century),
the first place is due to Mathew Paris; a writer of the highest
merit, both in point of knowledge and prudence.'

[497] _Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 362. He concludes his account
by saying, 'Unde adhuc Saraceni sues præ cæteris animalibus
exosas habent et abominabiles.' Mathew Paris obtained his
information from a clergyman, 'quendam magni nominis celebrem
prædicatorem,' p. 360. According to Mathew of Westminster, the
pigs not only suffocated Mohammed, but actually ate the greater
part of him: 'In maxima parte a porcis corrosum invenerunt.'
_Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 215.

[498] By a singular contradiction, the African Mohammedans now 'believe
that a great enmity subsists between hogs and Christians.' _Mungo
Park's Travels_, vol. i. p. 185. Many medical authors have
supposed that pork is peculiarly unwholesome in hot countries;
but this requires confirmation: and it is certain, that it is
recommended by Arabian physicians, and is more generally eaten
both in Asia and in Africa than is usually believed. Comp.
_Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 323; _Volney_,
_Voyage en Syrie_, vol. i. p. 449; _Buchanan's Journey through
the Mysore_, vol. ii. p. 88, vol. iii. p. 57; _Raffles' Hist. of
Java_, vol. ii. p. 5; _Ellis's Hist. of Madagascar_, vol. i. pp.
201, 403, 416; _Cook's Voyages_, vol. ii. p. 265; _Burnes's
Travels into Bokhara_, vol. iii. p. 141. As facts of this sort
are important physiologically and socially, it is advisable that
they should be collected; and I therefore add, that the
North-American Indians are said to have 'a disgust for pork.'
_Journal of the Geog. Society_, vol. xv. p. 30; and that Dobell
(_Travels_, vol. ii. p. 260, 8vo, 1830) says, 'I believe there is
more pork eaten in China than in all the rest of the world put
together.'

[499] This idea, which was a favourite one in the Middle Ages, is said
to have been a Rabbinical invention. See _Lettres de Gui Patin_,
vol. iii. p. 127: 'que Mahomet, le faux prophète, avait été
cardinal; et que, par dépit de n'avoir été pape, il s'étoit fait
hérésiarque.'

In regard to the early history of Christianity, the great writers of the Middle Ages were particularly inquisitive; and they preserved the memory of events, of which otherwise we should have been entirely ignorant. After Froissart, the most celebrated historian of the fourteenth century, was certainly Mathew of Westminster, with whose name, at least, most readers are familiar. This eminent man directed his attention, among other matters, to the history of Judas, in order to discover the circumstances under which the character of that arch-apostate was formed. His researches seem to have been very extensive; but their principal results were, that Judas, when an infant, was deserted by his parents, and exposed on an island called Scarioth, from whence he received the name of Judas Iscariot. To this the historian adds, that after Judas grew up, he, among other enormities, slew his own father, and then married his own mother.[500] The same writer, in another part of his history, mentions a fact interesting to those who study the antiquities of the Holy See. Some questions had been raised as to the propriety of kissing the pope's toe, and even theologians had their doubts touching so singular a ceremony. But this difficulty also was set at rest by Mathew of Westminster, who explains the true origin of the custom. He says, that formerly it was usual to kiss the hand of his holiness; but that towards the end of the eighth century, a certain lewd woman, in making an offering to the pope, not only kissed his hand, but also pressed it. The pope--his name was Leo--seeing the danger, cut off his hand, and thus escaped the contamination to which he had been exposed. Since that time, the precaution has been taken of kissing the pope's toe instead of his hand; and lest any one should doubt the accuracy of this account, the historian assures us that the hand, which had been cut off five or six hundred years before, still existed in Rome, and was indeed a standing miracle, since it was preserved in the Lateran in its original state, free from corruption.[501] And as some readers might wish to be informed respecting the Lateran itself, where the hand was kept, this also is considered by the historian, in another part of his great work, where he traces it back to the emperor Nero. For it is said that this wicked persecutor of the faith, on one occasion, vomited a frog covered with blood, which he believed to be his own progeny, and therefore caused to be shut up in a vault, where it remained hidden for some time. Now, in the Latin language, _latente_ means hidden, and _rana_ means a frog; so that, by putting these two words together, we have the origin of the Lateran, which, in fact, was built where the frog was found.[502]

[500] See the ample details in _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_,
part i. pp. 86, 87; and at p. 88, 'Judas matrem suam uxorem
duxerat, et quòd patrem suum occiderat.'

[501] This took place in the year 798. _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores
Historiarum_, part i. p. 293. The historian thus concludes his
relation: 'Et statutum est nunc quòd numquam extunc manus Papæ ab
offerentibus deoscularetur, sed pes. Cùm ante fuerat consuetudo
quòd manus, non pes, deoscularetur. In hujus miraculi memoriam
reservatur adhuc manus abscissa in thesauro lateranensi, quam
dominus custodit incorruptam ad laudem matris suæ.'

[502] '... Ita ut Nero se puero gravidum existimaret.... Tandem dolore
nimio vexatus, medicis ait: Accelerate tempus partus, quia
languore vix anhelitum habeo respirandi. Tunc ipsum ad vomitum
impotionaverunt, et ranam visu terribilem, humoribus infectam, et
sanguine edidit cruentatam.... Unde et pars illa civitatis, ut
aliqui dicunt, ubi rana latuerat, Lateranum, à latente rana,
nomen accepit.' _Matthæi Westmonast._ part i. p. 98. Compare the
account given by Roger of Hoveden, of a woman who vomited two
toads. _Script. post Bedam_, p. 457 rev. In the Middle Ages there
were many superstitions respecting these animals, and they appear
to have been used by heralds as marks of degradation. See
_Lankester's Memorials of Ray_, p. 197.

It would be easy to fill volumes with similar notions, all of which were devoutly believed in those ages of darkness, or, as they have been well called, Ages of Faith. Those, indeed, were golden days for the ecclesiastical profession, since the credulity of men had reached a height which seemed to ensure to the clergy a long and universal dominion. How the prospects of the church were subsequently darkened, and how the human reason began to rebel, will be related in another part of this Introduction, where I shall endeavour to trace the rise of that secular and sceptical spirit to which European civilization owes its origin. But, before closing the present chapter, it may be well to give a few more illustrations of the opinions held in the Middle Ages; and, for this purpose, I will select the two historical accounts, which, of all others, were the most popular, exercised most influence, and were most universally believed.

The histories to which I refer, are those of Arthur and Charlemagne; both of which bear the names of dignitaries of the church, and were received with the respect due to their illustrious authors. That concerning Charlemagne is called the Chronicle of Turpin, and purports to be written by Turpin, archbishop of Rheims, a friend of the emperor and his companion in war.[503] From some passages it contains, there is reason to think that it was really composed at the beginning of the twelfth century;[504] but, in the Middle Ages, men were not nice in these matters, and no one was likely to dispute its authenticity. Indeed, the name of an archbishop of Rheims was sufficient recommendation; and we find accordingly, that in the year 1122 it received the formal approbation of the pope;[505] and that Vincent de Beauvais, one of the most celebrated writers in the thirteenth century, and tutor to the sons of Louis IX., mentions it as a work of value, and as being the principal authority for the reign of Charlemagne.[506]

[503] '... Ego Turpinus in valle Caroli loco præfato, astante rege,' &c.
_De Vita Caroli Magni_, p. 74, edit. Ciampi.

[504] Turner (_History of England_, vol. vii. pp. 250-268) has attempted
to prove that it was written by Calixtus II.; but his arguments,
though ingenious and learned, are not decisive. Warton (_Hist.
Eng. Poetry_, vol. i. p. 128) says it was composed about 1110.

[505] The pope 'statuit historiam Sancti Caroli descriptam a beato
Turpino Remensi Archiepiscopo esse authenticam.' _Note in
Turner_, vol. vii. p. 250.

[506] In his famous Speculum, 'il recommande spécialement les études
historiques, dont il paraît que la plupart de ses contemporains
méconnaissaient l'utilité; mais lorsqu'il indique les sources où
il puisera ce genre d'instruction, c'est Turpin qu'il désigne
comme le principal historien de Charlemagne.' _Histoire
Littéraire de la France_, vol. xviii. p. 474, Paris, 1835, 4to;
see also p. 517; and on its influence in Spain, see _Ticknor's
History of Spanish Literature_, vol. i. pp. 222, 223.

A book thus generally read, and sanctioned by such competent judges, must be a tolerable standard for testing the knowledge and opinions of those times. On this account, a short notice of it will be useful for our present purpose, as it will enable us to understand the extreme slowness with which history has improved, and the almost imperceptible steps by which it advanced, until fresh life was breathed into it by the great thinkers of the eighteenth century.

In the Chronicle of Turpin, we are informed that the invasion of Spain by Charlemagne took place in consequence of the direct instigation of St. James, the brother of St. John.[507] The apostle, being the cause of the attack, adopted measures to secure its success. When Charlemagne besieged Pamplona, that city made an obstinate resistance; but as soon as prayers were offered up by the invaders, the walls suddenly fell to the ground.[508] After this, the emperor rapidly overran the whole country, almost annihilated the Mohammedans, and built innumerable churches.[509] But, the resources of Satan are inexhaustible. On the side of the enemy, a giant now appeared, whose name was Fenacute, and who was descended from Goliath of old.[510] This Fenacute was the most formidable opponent the Christians had yet encountered. His strength was equal to that of forty men;[511] his face measured one cubit; his arms and legs four cubits; his total height was twenty cubits. Against him Charlemagne sent the most eminent warriors; but they were easily discomfited by the giant; of whose prodigious force some idea may be formed from the fact, that the length even of his fingers was three palms.[512] The Christians were filled with consternation. In vain did more than twenty chosen men advance against the giant; not one returned from the field; Fenacute took them all under his arms, and carried them off into captivity.[513] At length the celebrated Orlando came forward, and challenged him to mortal combat. An obstinate fight ensued; and the Christian, not meeting with the success he expected, engaged his adversary in a theological discussion.[514] Here the pagan was easily defeated; and Orlando, warmed by the controversy, pressed on his enemy, smote the giant with his sword, and dealt him a fatal wound. After this, the last hope of the Mohammedans was extinct; the Christian arms had finally triumphed, and Charlemagne divided Spain among those gallant followers who had aided him in effecting its conquest.[515]

[507] _Caroli Magni Historia_, edit. Ciampi, pp. 3-5.

[508] '... Muri collapsi funditus corruerunt.' _De Vita Caroli_, p. 5.
On this, Ciampi, in his notes on Turpin, gravely says (pp. 94,
95): 'Questo fatto della presa di Pamplona è reso maraviglioso
per la subitanea caduta delle mura, a somiglianza delle mura di
Gerico.' This reminds me of a circumstance mentioned by Monconys,
who, on visiting Oxford in 1663, was shown a horn which was
preserved in that ancient city, because it was said to be made in
the same way as that by which the walls of Jericho were blown
down: 'Les Juifs tiennent que leurs ancêtres se servirent de
pareilles pour abbattre les murailles de Jérico.' _Voyages de
Monconys_, vol. iii. p. 95, edit. Paris, 1695.

[509] _De Vita Caroli_, cap. v. pp. 11, 12; is headed 'De ecclesiis quas
Carolus fecit.'

[510] 'Gigas nomine Fenacutus, qui fuit de genere Goliat.' _De Vita
Caroli_, p. 39.

[511] 'Vim xl. fortium possidebat.' p. 39.

[512] 'Erat enim statura ejus quasi cubitis xx., facies erat longa quasi
unius cubiti, et nasus illius unius palmi mensurati, et brachia
et crura ejus quatuor cubitorum erant, et digiti ejus tribus
palmis,' p. 40.

[513] _De Vita Caroli_, p. 40.

[514] Ibid. pp. 43-47.

[515] _De Vita Caroli_, p. 52. On the twelve peers of Charlemagne, in
connexion with Turpin, see _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol.
v. pp. 246, 537, 538, vol. vi. p. 534.

On the history of Arthur, the Middle Ages possessed information equally authentic. Different accounts had been circulated respecting this celebrated king;[516] but their comparative value was still unsettled, when, early in the twelfth century, the subject attracted the attention of Geoffrey, the well-known Archdeacon of Monmouth. This eminent man, in A.D. 1147, published the result of his inquiries, in a work which he called _History of the Britons_.[517] In this book, he takes a comprehensive view of the whole question; and not only relates the life of Arthur, but also traces the circumstances which prepared the way for the appearance of that great conqueror. In regard to the actions of Arthur, the historian was singularly fortunate, inasmuch as the materials necessary for that part of his subject were collected by Walter Archdeacon of Oxford, who was a friend of Geoffrey, and who, like him, took great interest in the study of history.[518] The work is, therefore, the joint composition of the two archdeacons; and is entitled to respect, not only on this account, but also because it was one of the most popular of all the productions of the Middle Ages.

[516] The Welsh, however, accused Gildas of having thrown his history
'into the sea.' _Palgrave's Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth_, vol. i. p.
453. The industrious Sharon Turner (_Hist. of England_, vol. i.
pp. 282-295) has collected a great deal of evidence respecting
Arthur; of whose existence he, of course, entertains no doubt.
Indeed, at p. 292, he gives us an account of the discovery, in
the twelfth century, of Arthur's body!

[517] In _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. vii. pp. 269, 270, it is said
to have appeared in 1128; but Mr. Wright (_Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol.
ii. p. 144) seems to have proved that the real date is 1147.

[518] Geoffrey says, 'A Gualtero Oxinefordensi in multis historiis
peritissimo viro audivit' (_i.e. ille_ Geoffrey) 'vili licet
stylo, breviter tamen propalabit, quæ pr[oe]lia inclytus ille rex
post victoriam istam, in Britanniam reversus, cum nepote suo
commiserit.' _Galfredi Monumetensis Historia Britonum_, lib. xi.
sec. i. p. 200. And in the dedication to the Earl of Gloucester,
p. 1, he says, 'Walterus Oxinefordensis archidiaconus, vir in
oratoria arte atque in exoticis historiis eruditus.' Compare
_Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 248.

The earlier part of this great history is occupied with the result of those researches which the Archdeacon of Monmouth had made into the state of Britain before the accession of Arthur. With this we are not so much concerned; though it may be mentioned, that the archdeacon ascertained that, after the capture of Troy, Ascanius fled from the city, and begat a son, who became father to Brutus.[519] In those days, England was peopled by giants, all of whom were slain by Brutus; who, having extirpated the entire race, built London, settled the affairs of the country, and called it, after himself, by the name of Britain.[520] The archdeacon proceeds to relate the actions of a long line of kings who succeeded Brutus, most of whom were remarkable for their abilities, and some were famous for the prodigies which occurred in their time. Thus, during the government of Rivallo, it rained blood for three consecutive days;[521] and when Morvidus was on the throne, the coasts were infested by a horrid sea-monster, which, having devoured innumerable persons, at length swallowed the king himself.[522]

[519] _Galfredi Historia Britonum_, pp. 3, 4.

[520] 'Erat tunc nomen insulæ Albion, quæ a nemine, exceptis paucis
gigantibus, inhabitabatur.... Denique Brutus de nomine suo
insulam Britanniam, sociosque suos Britones appellat.' _Galf.
Hist. Britonum_, p. 20.

[521] 'In tempore ejus tribus diebus cecidit pluvia sanguinea, et
muscarum affluentia; quibus homines moriebantur.' _Hist. Brit._
p. 36.

[522] 'Advenerat namque ex partibus Hibernici maris inauditæ feritatis
bellua, quæ incolas maritimos sine intermissione devorabat.
Cumque fama aures ejus attigisset, accossit ipse ad illam, et
solus cum sola congressus est. At cum omnia tela sua in illam in
vanum consumpsisset, acceleravit monstrum illud, et apertis
faucibus ipsum velut pisciculum devoravit.' _Hist. Brit._ p. 51.

These and similar matters are related by the Archdeacon of Monmouth as the fruit of his own inquiries; but in the subsequent account of Arthur, he was aided by his friend the Archdeacon of Oxford. The two archdeacons inform their readers, that King Arthur owed his existence to a magical contrivance of Merlin, the celebrated wizard; the particulars of which they relate with a minuteness which, considering the sacred character of the historians, is rather remarkable.[523] The subsequent actions of Arthur did not belie his supernatural origin. His might nothing was able to withstand. He slew an immense number of Saxons; he overran Norway, invaded Gaul, fixed his court at Paris, and made preparations to effect the conquest of all Europe.[524] He engaged two giants in single combat, and killed them both. One of these giants, who inhabited the Mount of St. Michael, was the terror of the whole country, and destroyed all the soldiers sent against him, except those he took prisoners, in order to eat them while they were yet alive.[525] But he fell a victim to the prowess of Arthur; as also did another giant, named Ritho, who was, if possible, still more formidable. For Ritho, not content with warring on men of the meaner sort, actually clothed himself in furs which were entirely made of the beards of the kings he had killed.[526]

[523] The particulars of the intrigue are in _Galf. Hist. Brit._
pp. 151, 152. For information respecting Merlin, see also
_Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. pp. 161, 162;
and _Naudé_, _Apologie pour les Grands Hommes_, pp. 308, 309,
318, 319, edit. Amsterdam, 1712.

[524] _Hist. Britonum_, pp. 167-170; a brilliant chapter.

[525] 'Sed et plures capiebat quos semivivos devorabat.' _Hist. Brit._
p. 181.

[526] 'Hic namque ex barbis regum quos peremerat, fecerat sibi pelles,
et mandaverat Arturo ut barbam suam diligenter excoriaret, atque
excoriatam sibi dirigeret: ut quemadmodum ipse ceteris præerat
regibus, ita quoque in honorem ejus ceteris barbis ipsam
superponeret.' _Galf. Hist. Brit._ p. 184.

Such were the statements which, under the name of history, were laid before the world in the twelfth century; and that, too, not by obscure writers, but by high dignitaries of the church. Nor was anything wanting by which the success of the work might be ensured. Its vouchers were the Archdeacon of Monmouth, and the Archdeacon of Oxford; it was dedicated to Robert Earl of Gloucester, the son of Henry I.; and it was considered so important a contribution to the national literature, that its principal author was raised to the bishopric of Asaph,--a preferment which he is said to owe to his success in investigating the annals of English history.[527] A book thus stamped with every possible mark of approbation, is surely no bad measure of the age in which it was admired. Indeed, the feeling was so universal, that, during several centuries, there are not more than two or three instances of any critic suspecting its accuracy.[528] A Latin abridgment of it was published by the well-known historian, Alfred of Beverley;[529] and, in order that it might be more generally known, it was translated into English by Layamon,[530] and into Anglo-Norman, first by Gaimar, and afterwards by Wace;[531] zealous men, who were anxious that the important truths it contained should be diffused as widely as circumstances would allow.

[527] 'It was partly, perhaps, the reputation of this book, which
procured its author the bishopric of St. Asaph.' _Life of
Geoffrey of Monmouth_, in _Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. p.
144, 8vo, 1846. According to the Welsh writers, he was Bishop of
Llandaff. See _Stephens's Literature of the Kymry_, 8vo, 1849, p.
323.

[528] Mr. Wright (_Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 146) says: 'Within a
century after its first publication, it was generally adopted by
writers on English history; and during several centuries, only
one or two rare instances occur of persons who ventured to speak
against its veracity.' And Sir Henry Ellis says of Polydore
Vergil, who wrote early in the sixteenth century, 'For the
repudiation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's history, Polydore Vergil
was considered almost as a man deprived of reason. Such were the
prejudices of the time.' _Polydore Vergil's English Hist._ vol.
i. p. x. edit. Ellis, 1846, 4to. See also, on its popularity,
_Lappenberg's Hist. of the Anglo-Saxon Kings_, vol. i. p. 102. In
the seventeenth century, which was the first sceptical century in
Europe, men began to open their eyes on these matters; and Boyle,
for example, classes together 'the fabulous labours of Hercules,
and exploits of Arthur of Britain.' _Boyle's Works_, vol. iv. p.
425.

[529] _Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 156; _Turner's Hist. of
England_, vol. vii. p. 282.

[530] According to Mr. Wright (_Biog. Brit._ vol. ii. p. 439), it was
translated through the medium of Wace. But it would be more
correct to say, that Layamon made the absurdities of Geoffrey the
basis of his work, rather than translated them; for he amplifies
15,000 lines of Wace's _Brut_ into 32,000 of his own jargon. See
_Sir F. Madden's Preface to Layamon's Brut_, 8vo, 1847, vol. i.
p. xiii. I cannot refrain from bearing testimony to the great
philological value of this work of Layamon's, by the publication
of which its accomplished editor has made an important
contribution towards the study of the history of the English
language. So far, however, as Layamon is concerned, we can only
contemplate with wonder an age of which he was considered an
ornament.

[531] _Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. pp. 151, 207; _Hallam's
Literature of Europe_, vol. i. p. 35.

It will hardly be necessary that I should adduce further evidence of the way in which history was written during the Middle Ages; for the preceding specimens have not been taken at random, but have been selected from the ablest and most celebrated authors; and as such present a very favourable type of the knowledge and judgment of Europe in those days. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there appeared, for the first time, faint signs of an approaching change;[532] but this improvement was not very marked until late in the sixteenth century, or even early in the seventeenth. The principal steps of this interesting movement will be traced in another part of the Introduction, when I shall show, that although in the seventeenth century the progress was unmistakable, there was no attempt to take a comprehensive view of history until nearly the middle of the eighteenth century; when the subject was studied, first by the great French thinkers, then by one or two of the Scotch, and, some years later, by the Germans. This reformation of history was connected, as I shall point out, with other intellectual changes, which corresponded to it, and which affected the social relations of all the principal countries of Europe. But, without anticipating what will be found in another part of this volume, it is sufficient to say, that not only was no history written before the end of the sixteenth century, but that the state of society was such as to make it impossible for one to be written. The knowledge of Europe was not yet ripe enough to enable it to be successfully applied to the study of past events. For we are not to suppose that the deficiencies of the early historians were caused by a lack of natural abilities. The average intellect of men is probably always the same; but the pressure exercised on them by society is constantly varying. It was, therefore, the general condition of society, which, in former days, compelled even the ablest writers to believe the most childish absurdities. Until that condition was altered, the existence of history was impossible, because it was impossible to find any one who knew what was most important to relate, what to reject, and what to believe.

[532] Of which Froissart is the earliest instance; since he is the
first who took a secular view of affairs, all the preceding
historians being essentially theological. In Spain, too, we find,
late in the fourteenth century, a political spirit beginning to
appear among historians. See the remarks on Ayala, in _Ticknor's
Hist. of Spanish Lit._ vol. i. pp. 165, 166; where, however, Mr.
Ticknor represents Froissart as more unworldly than he really
was.

The consequence was, that even when history was studied by men of such eminent abilities as Macchiavelli and Bodin, they could turn it to no better account than to use it as a vehicle for political speculations; and in none of their works do we find the least attempt to rise to generalizations large enough to include all the social phenomena. The same remark applies to Comines, who, though inferior to Macchiavelli and Bodin, was an observer of no ordinary acuteness, and certainly displays a rare sagacity in his estimation of particular characters. But this was due to his own intellect; while the age in which he lived made him superstitious, and, for the larger purposes of history, miserably shortsighted. His shortsightedness is strikingly shown in his utter ignorance of that great intellectual movement, which, in his own time, was rapidly overthrowing the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; but to which he never once alludes, reserving his attention for those trivial political intrigues in the relation of which he believed history to consist.[533] As to his superstition, it would be idle to give many instances of that; since no man could live in the fifteenth century without having his mind enfeebled by the universal credulity. It may, however, be observed, that though he was personally acquainted with statesmen and diplomatists, and had, therefore, the fullest opportunity of seeing how enterprises of the fairest promise are constantly ruined, merely by the incapacity of those who undertake them, he, on all important occasions, ascribes such failure, not to the real cause, but to the immediate interference of the Deity. So marked, and so irresistible, was the tendency of the fifteenth century, that this eminent politician, a man of the world, and well skilled in the arts of life, deliberately asserts that battles are lost, not because the army is ill supplied, nor because the campaign is ill conceived, nor because the general is incompetent; but because the people or their prince are wicked, and Providence seeks to punish them. For, says Comines, war is a great mystery; and being used by God as the means of accomplishing his wishes, He gives victory, sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other.[534] Hence, too, disturbances occur in the state, solely by divine disposition; and they never would happen, except that princes or kingdoms, having become prosperous, forget the source from which their prosperity proceeded.[535]

[533] On this, Arnold says, truly enough, 'Comines's Memoirs are
striking from their perfect unconsciousness: the knell of the
Middle Ages had been already sounded, yet Comines has no other
notions than such as they had tended to foster; he describes
their events, their characters, their relations, as if they were
to continue for centuries.' _Arnold's Lectures on Modern
History_, p. 118. To this I may add, that whenever Comines has
occasion to mention the lower classes, which is very rarely the
case, he speaks of them with great contempt. See two striking
instances in _Mémoires de Philippe de Comines_, vol. ii. pp. 277,
287, edit. Paris, 1826.

[534] He says, that a field of battle is 'un des accomplissemens des
[oe]uvres que Dieu a commencées aucunes fois par petites mouvetez
et occasions, et en donnant la victoire aucunes fois à l'un, et
aucunes fois à l'autre: et est cecy mystère si grand, que les
royaumes et grandes seigneuries en prennent aucunes fois fins et
désolations, et les autres accroissement, et commencement de
régner.' _Mém. de Comines_, vol. i. pp. 361, 362. Respecting the
wanton invasion of Italy, he says, that the expedition might have
been easily ruined if the enemy had thought of poisoning the
wells or the food: 'mais ils n'y eussent point failly, s'ils y
eussent voulu essayer; mais il est de croire que nostre sauveur
et rédempteur Jésus-Christ leur ostoit leur vouloir.' vol. iii.
p. 154. So, he adds, p. 155, 'pour conclure l'article, semble que
nostre seigneur Jésus-Christ ait voulu que toute la gloire du
voyage ait esté attribuée à luy.' Compare the _Institutes of
Timour_, p. 7; an instructive combination of superstition and
ferocity.

[535] 'Mais mon advis est que cela ne se fait que par disposition
divine; car quand les princes ou royaumes out esté en grande
prospérité ou richesses, et ils ont mesconnoissance dont procède
telle grâce, Dieu leur dresse un ennemi ou ennemie, dont nul ne
se douteroit, comme vous pouvez voir par les rois nommez en la
Bible, et par ce que puis peu d'années en avez veu en cette
Angleterre, et en cette maison de Bourgogne et autres lieux que
avez veu et voyez tous les jours.' _Mém. de Comines_, vol. i. pp.
388, 389. See also his remarks on the Duke of Burgundy, vol. ii.
p. 179; and in particular, his extraordinary digression, livre v.
chap. xviii. vol. ii. pp. 290-298.

Such attempts as these, to make politics a mere branch of theology,[536] are characteristic of the time; and they are the more interesting, as the work of a man of great ability, and of one, too, who had grown old in the experience of public life. When views of this sort were advocated, not by a monk in his cloister, but by a distinguished statesman, well versed in public affairs, we may easily imagine what was the average intellectual condition of those who were every way his inferiors. It is but too evident, that from them nothing could be expected; and that many steps had yet to be taken, before Europe could emerge from the superstition in which it was sunk, and break through those grievous impediments which hindered its future progress.

[536] Dr. Lingard (_Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 357) says, 'From the
doctrine of a superintending providence, the piety of our
ancestors had drawn a rash but very convenient inference, that
success is an indication of the Divine will, and that, of course,
to resist a victorious competitor, is to resist the judgment of
heaven:' see also p. 114. The last vestige of this once universal
opinion is the expression, which is gradually falling into
disuse, of 'appealing to the God of Battles.'

But, though much remained to be done, there can be no doubt that the movement onward was uninterrupted, and that, even while Comines was writing, there were unequivocal symptoms of a great and decisive change. Still, they were only indications of what was approaching; and about a hundred years elapsed, after his death, before the progress was apparent in the whole of its results. For, though the Protestant Reformation was a consequence of this progress, it was for some time unfavourable to it, by encouraging the ablest men in the discussion of questions inaccessible to human reason, and thus diverting them from subjects in which their efforts would have been available for the general purposes of civilization. Hence we find, that little was really accomplished until the end of the sixteenth century, when, as we shall see in the next two chapters, the theological fervour began to subside in England and France, and the way was prepared for that purely secular philosophy, of which Bacon and Descartes were the exponents, but by no means the creators.[537] This epoch belongs to the seventeenth century, and from it we may date the intellectual regeneration of Europe; just as from the eighteenth century we may date its social regeneration. But during the greater part of the sixteenth century, the credulity was still universal, since it affected not merely the lowest and most ignorant classes, but even those who were best educated. Of this innumerable proofs might be given; though, for the sake of brevity, I will confine myself to two instances, which are particularly striking, from the circumstances attending them, and from the influence they exercised over men who might be supposed little liable to similar delusions.

[537] See _Guizot_, _Civilisation en Europe_, p. 166; the best passage
in that able, but rather unequal work: 'Parcourez l'histoire du
v^e au xvi^e siècle; c'est la théologie qui possède et dirige
l'esprit humain; toutes les opinions sont empreintes de
théologie; les questions philosophiques, politiques, historiques,
sont toujours considérées sous un point de vue théologique.
L'église est tellement souveraine dans l'ordre intellectuel, que
même les sciences mathématiques et physiques sont tenues de se
soumettre à ses doctrines. L'esprit théologique est en quelque
sort le sang qui a coulé dans les veines du monde européen
jusqu'à Bacon et Descartes. Pour la première fois, Bacon en
Angleterre, et Descartes en France, ont jeté l'intelligence hors
des voies de la théologie.' A noble passage, and perfectly true:
but what would have been the effect produced by Bacon and
Descartes, if, instead of living in the seventeenth century, they
had lived in the seventh? Would their philosophy have been
equally secular; or, being equally secular, would it have been
equally successful?

At the end of the fifteenth, and early in the sixteenth century, St[oe]ffler, the celebrated astronomer, was professor of mathematics at Tübingen. This eminent man rendered great services to astronomy, and was one of the first who pointed out the way of remedying the errors in the Julian calendar, according to which time was then computed.[538] But neither his abilities nor his knowledge could protect him against the spirit of his age. In 1524, he published the result of some abstruse calculations, in which he had been long engaged, and by which he had ascertained the remarkable fact, that in that same year the world would again be destroyed by a deluge. This announcement, made by a man of such eminence, and made, too, with the utmost confidence, caused a lively and universal alarm.[539] News of the approaching event was rapidly circulated, and Europe was filled with consternation. To avoid the first shock, those who had houses by the sea, or on rivers, abandoned them;[540] while others, perceiving that such measures could only be temporary, adopted more active precautions. It was suggested that, as a preliminary step, the Emperor Charles V. should appoint inspectors to survey the country, and mark those places which, being least exposed to the coming flood, would be most likely to afford a shelter. That this should be done, was the wish of the imperial general, who was then stationed at Florence, and by whose desire a work was written recommending it.[541] But the minds of men were too distracted for so deliberate a plan; and besides, as the height of the flood was uncertain, it was impossible to say whether it would not reach the top of the most elevated mountains. In the midst of these and similar schemes, the fatal day drew near, and nothing had yet been contrived on a scale large enough to meet the evil. To enumerate the different proposals which were made and rejected, would fill a long chapter. One proposal is, however, worth noticing, because it was carried into effect with great zeal, and is, moreover, very characteristic of the age. An ecclesiastic of the name of Auriol, who was then professor of canon law at the University of Toulouse, revolved in his own mind various expedients by which this universal disaster might be mitigated. At length it occurred to him that it was practicable to imitate the course which, on a similar emergency, Noah had adopted with eminent success. Scarcely was the idea conceived, when it was put into execution. The inhabitants of Toulouse lent their aid; and an ark was built, in the hope that some part, at least, of the human species might be preserved, to continue their race, and repeople the earth, after the waters should have subsided, and the land again become dry.[542]

[538] Compare _Biog. Univ._ vol. xliii. p. 577, with _Montucla_, _Hist.
des Mathématiques_, vol. i. p. 678.

[539] Naudé mentions, that in France it drove many persons almost mad:
'In Gallia parum afuit quin ad insaniam homines non paucos
periculi metu (diluvium) adegerit.' _Bayle_, in voce
_Stofflerus_, note B.