Chapter I (4)

[173] See the paper of instructions from Pope Gregory XV. in the
appendix to _Ranke_, _die Röm. Päpste_, vol. iii. pp. 173, 174:
'Die Hauptsache aber ist was er dem Könige von Frankreich
vorstellen soll: 1, dass er ja nicht den Verdacht auf sich laden
werde als verfolge er die Protestanten bloss aus
Staatsinteresse.' Bazin (_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 320)
says, that Richelieu attacked the Huguenots 'sans aucune idée de
persécution religieuse.' See, to the same effect, _Capefigue's
Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 274; and the candid admissions of the
Protestant Le Vassor, in his _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. v.
p. 11.

If, at this juncture, the Protestants had carried the day, the loss to France would have been immense, perhaps irreparable. For no one, who is acquainted with the temper and character of the French Calvinists, can doubt, that if they had obtained possession of the government, they would have revived those religious persecutions which, so far as their power extended, they had already attempted to enforce. Not only in their writings, but even in the edicts of their assemblies, we find ample proof of that meddling and intolerant spirit which, in every age, has characterized ecclesiastical legislation. Indeed, such a spirit is the legitimate consequence of the fundamental assumption from which theological lawgivers usually start. The clergy are taught to consider that their paramount duty is to preserve the purity of the faith, and guard it against the invasions of heresy. Whenever, therefore, they rise to power, it almost invariably happens, that they carry into politics the habits they have contracted in their profession; and having long been accustomed to consider religious error as criminal, they now naturally attempt to make it penal. And as all the European countries have, in the period of their ignorance, been once ruled by the clergy, just so do we find in the law-books of every land those traces of their power which the progress of knowledge is gradually effacing. We find the professors of the dominant creed enacting laws against the professors of other creeds: laws sometimes to burn them, sometimes to exile them, sometimes to take away their civil rights, sometimes only to take away their political rights. These are the different gradations through which persecution passes; and by observing which, we may measure, in any country, the energy of the ecclesiastical spirit. At the same time, the theory by which such measures are supported generally gives rise to other measures of a somewhat different, though of an analogous character. For, by extending the authority of law to opinions as well as to acts, the basis of legislation becomes dangerously enlarged; the individuality and independence of each man are invaded; and encouragement is given to the enactment of intrusive and vexatious regulations, which are supposed to perform for morals the service that the other class of laws performs for religion. Under pretence of favouring the practice of virtue, and maintaining the purity of society, men are troubled in their most ordinary pursuits, in the commonest occurrences of life, in their amusements, nay, even in the very dress they may be inclined to wear. That this is what has actually been done, must be known to whoever has looked into the writings of the fathers, into the canons of Christian councils, into the different systems of ecclesiastical law, or into the sermons of the earlier clergy. Indeed, all this is so natural, that regulations, conceived in the same spirit, were drawn up for the government of Geneva by the Calvinist clergy, and for the government of England by Archbishop Cranmer and his coadjutors; while a tendency, precisely identical, may be observed in the legislation of the Puritans, and to give a still later instance, in that of the Methodists. It is, therefore, not surprising that, in France, the Protestant clergy, having great power among their own party, should enforce a similar discipline. Thus, to mention only a few examples, they forbade any one to go to a theatre, or even to witness the performance of private theatricals.[174] They looked upon dancing as an ungodly amusement, and, therefore, they not only strictly prohibited it, but they ordered that all dancing-masters should be admonished by the spiritual power, and desired to abandon so unchristian a profession. If, however, the admonition failed in effecting its purpose, the dancing-masters, thus remaining obdurate, were to be excommunicated.[175] With the same pious care did the clergy superintend other matters equally important. In one of their synods, they ordered that all persons should abstain from wearing gay apparel, and should arrange their hair with becoming modesty.[176] In another synod, they forbade women to paint; and they declared that if, after this injunction, any woman persisted in painting, she should not be allowed to receive the sacrament.[177] To their own clergy, as the instructors and shepherds of the flock, there was paid an attention still more scrupulous. The ministers of the Word were permitted to teach Hebrew, because Hebrew is a sacred dialect, uncontaminated by profane writers. But the Greek language, which contains all the philosophy and nearly all the wisdom of antiquity, was to be discouraged, its study laid aside, its professorship suppressed.[178] And, in order that the mind might not be distracted from spiritual things, the study of chemistry was likewise forbidden; such a mere earthly pursuit being incompatible with the habits of the sacred profession.[179] Lest, however, in spite of these precautions, knowledge should still creep in among the Protestants, other measures were taken to prevent even its earliest approach. The clergy, entirely forgetting that right of private judgment upon which their sect was founded, became so anxious to protect the unwary from error, that they forbade any person to print or publish a work without the sanction of the church; in other words, without the sanction of the clergy themselves.[180] When, by these means, they had destroyed the possibility of free inquiry, and, so far as they were able, had put a stop to the acquisition of all real knowledge, they proceeded to guard against another circumstance to which their measures had given rise. For, several of the Protestants, seeing that under such a system, it was impossible to educate their families with advantage, sent their children to some of those celebrated Catholic colleges, where alone a sound education could then be obtained. But the clergy, so soon as they heard of this practice, put an end to it, by excommunicating the offending parents;[181] and to this there was added an order forbidding them to admit into their own private houses any tutor who professed the Catholic religion.[182] Such was the way in which the French Protestants were watched over and protected by their spiritual masters. Even the minutest matters were not beneath the notice of these great legislators. They ordered that no person should go to a ball or masquerade;[183] nor ought any Christian to look at the tricks of conjurors, or at the famous game of goblets, or at the puppet-show; neither was he to be present at morris-dances; for all such amusements should be suppressed by the magistrates, because they excite curiosity, cause expense, waste time.[184] Another thing to be attended to, is the names that are bestowed in baptism. A child may have two christian names, though one is preferable.[185] Great care, however, is to be observed in their selection. They ought to be taken from the Bible, but they ought not to be Baptist or Angel; neither should any infant receive a name which has been formerly used by the Pagans.[186] When the children are grown up, there are other regulations to which they must be subject. The clergy declared that the faithful must by no means let their hair grow long, lest by so doing they indulge in the luxury of 'lascivious curls.'[187] They are to make their garments in such a manner as to avoid 'the new-fangled fashions of the world:' they are to have no tassels to their dress: their gloves must be without silk and ribbons: they are to abstain from fardingales: they are to beware of wide sleeves.[188]

[174] _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. i. p. 62.

[175] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. lvii. 17, 131, vol. ii. p. 174.

[176] 'And both sexes are required to keep modesty in their hair,' &c.
_Ibid._ vol. i. p. 119.

[177] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. p. 165.

[178] The synod of Alez, in 1620, says, 'A minister may at the same time
be professor in divinity and of the Hebrew tongue. But it is not
seemly for him to profess the Greek also, because the most of his
employment will be taken up in the exposition of Pagan and
profane authors, unless he be discharged from the ministry.'
_Quick's Synodicon_, vol. ii. p. 57. Three years later, the synod
of Charenton suppressed altogether the Greek professorships, 'as
being superfluous and of small profit.' _Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 115.

[179] The synod of St. Maixant, in 1609, orders that 'colloquies and
synods shall have a watchful eye over those ministers who study
chemistry, and grievously reprove and censure them.' _Ibid._ vol.
i. p. 314.

[180] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. 140, 194, vol. ii. p. 110.

[181] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. pp. lv. 235, 419, vol. ii. pp. 201,
509, 515. Compare _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii.
p. 473.

[182] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. ii. p. 81.

[183] _Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 174.

[184] 'All Christian magistrates are advised not in the least to suffer
them, because it feeds foolish curiosity, puts upon unnecessary
expenses, and wastes time,' _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 194.

[185] This was a very knotty question for the theologians; but it was at
length decided in the affirmative by the synod of Saumur: 'On the
13th article of the same chapter, the deputies of Poicton
demanded, whether two names might be given a child at baptism? To
which it was replied: The thing was indifferent; however, parents
were advised to observe herein Christian simplicity.' _Ibid._
vol. i. p. 178.

[186] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. xlvi. 25.

[187] I quote the language of the synod of Castres, in 1626. _Ibid._
vol. ii. p. 174.

[188] _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. p. 165, vol. ii. pp. 7, 174, 574,
583. In the same way, the Spanish clergy, early in the present
century, attempted to regulate the dress of women. See _Doblado's
Letters from Spain_, pp. 202-205: a good illustration of the
identity of the ecclesiastical spirit, whether it be Catholic or
Protestant.

Those readers who have not studied the history of ecclesiastical legislation, will perhaps be surprised to find, that men of gravity, men who had reached the years of discretion, and were assembled together in solemn council, should evince such a prying and puerile spirit; that they should display such miserable and childish imbecility. But, whoever will take a wider survey of human affairs, will be inclined to blame, not so much the legislators, as the system of which the legislators formed a part. For as to the men themselves, they merely acted after their kind. They only followed the traditions in which they were bred. By virtue of their profession, they had been accustomed to hold certain views, and, when they rose to power, it was natural that they should carry those views into effect; thus transplanting into the law-book the maxims they had already preached in the pulpit. Whenever, therefore, we read of meddling, inquisitive, and vexatious regulations imposed by ecclesiastical authority, we should remember, that they are but the legitimate result of the ecclesiastical spirit; and that the way to remedy such grievances, or to prevent their occurrence, is not by vainly labouring to change the tendencies of that class from whence they proceed, but rather by confining the class within its proper limits, by jealously guarding against its earliest encroachments, by taking every opportunity of lessening its influence, and finally, when the progress of society will justify so great a step, by depriving it of that political and legislative power which, though gradually falling from its hands, it is, even in the most civilized countries, still allowed in some degree to retain.

But, setting aside these general considerations, it will, at all events, be admitted, that I have collected sufficient evidence to indicate what would have happened to France, if the Protestants had obtained the upper hand. After the facts which I have brought forward, no one can possibly doubt, that if such a misfortune had occurred, the liberal, and, considering the age, the enlightened policy of Henry IV. and Louis XIII. would have been destroyed, in order to make way for that gloomy and austere system, which, in every age and in every country, has been found to be the natural fruit of ecclesiastical power. To put, therefore, the question in its proper form, instead of saying that there was a war between hostile creeds, we should rather say that there was a war between rival classes. It was a contest, not so much between the Catholic religion and the Protestant religion, as between Catholic laymen and Protestant clergy. It was a struggle between temporal interests and theological interests,--between the spirit of the present and the spirit of the past. And the point now at issue was, whether France should be governed by the civil power or by the spiritual power,--whether she should be ruled according to the large views of secular statesmen, or according to the narrow notions of a factious and intolerant priesthood.

The Protestants having the great advantage of being the aggressive party, and being, moreover, inflamed by a religious zeal unknown to their opponents, might, under ordinary circumstances, have succeeded in their hazardous attempt; or, at all events, they might have protracted the struggle for an indefinite period. But, fortunately for France, in 1624, only three years after the war began, Richelieu assumed the direction of the government. He had for some years been the secret adviser of the queen-mother, into whose mind he had always inculcated the necessity of complete toleration.[189] When placed at the head of affairs, he pursued the same policy, and attempted in every way to conciliate the Protestants. The clergy of his own party were constantly urging him to exterminate the heretics, whose presence they thought polluted France.[190] But Richelieu, having only secular objects, refused to embitter the contest by turning it into a religious war. He was determined to chastise the rebellion, but he would not punish the heresy. Even while the war was raging, he would not revoke those edicts of toleration by which the full liberty of religious worship was granted to the Protestants. And when they, in 1626, showed signs of compunction, or at all events of fear, he publicly confirmed the Edict of Nantes,[191] and he granted them peace; although, as he says, he knew that by doing so he should fall under the suspicion of those 'who so greatly affected the name of zealous Catholics.'[192] A few months afterwards, war again broke out; and then it was that Richelieu determined on that celebrated siege of Rochelle, which, if brought to a successful issue, was sure to be a decisive blow against the French Protestants. That he was moved to this hazardous undertaking solely by secular considerations is evident, not only from the general spirit of his preceding policy, but also from his subsequent conduct. With the details of this famous siege history is not concerned, as such matters have no value except to military readers. It is enough to say that, in 1628, Rochelle was taken; and the Protestants, who had been induced by their clergy[193] to continue to resist long after relief was hopeless, and who, in consequence, had suffered the most dreadful hardships, were obliged to surrender at discretion.[194] The privileges of the town were revoked, and its magistrates removed; but the great minister by whom these things were effected, still abstained from that religious persecution to which he was urged.[195] He granted to the Protestants the toleration which he had offered at an earlier period, and he formally conceded the free exercise of their public worship.[196] But, such was their infatuation, that because he likewise restored the exercise of the Catholic religion, and thus gave to the conquerors the same liberty that he had granted to the conquered, the Protestants murmured at the indulgence; they could not bear the idea that their eyes should be offended by the performance of Popish rites.[197] And their indignation waxed so high, that in the next year they, in another part of France, again rose in arms. As, however, they were now stripped of their principal resources, they were easily defeated; and, their existence as a political faction being destroyed, they were, in reference to their religion, treated by Richelieu in the same manner as before.[198] To the Protestants generally, he confirmed the privilege of preaching and of performing the other ceremonies of their creed.[199] To their leader, Rohan, he granted an amnesty, and, a few years afterwards, employed him in important public services. After this, the hopes of the party were destroyed; they never again rose in arms, nor do we find any mention of them until a much later period, when they were barbarously persecuted by Louis XIV.[200] But from all such intolerance Richelieu sedulously abstained; and having now cleared the land from rebellion, he embarked in that vast scheme of foreign policy, of which I have already given some account, and in which he clearly showed that his proceedings against the Protestants had not been caused by hatred of their religious tenets. For, the same party which he attacked at home, he supported abroad. He put down the French Protestants, because they were a turbulent faction that troubled the state, and wished to suppress the exercise of all opinions unfavourable to themselves. But so far from carrying on a crusade against their religion, he, as I have already observed, encouraged it in other countries; and, though a bishop of the Catholic church, he did not hesitate, by treaties, by money, and by force of arms, to support the Protestants against the House of Austria, maintain the Lutherans against the Emperor of Germany, and uphold the Calvinists against the King of Spain.

[189] On his influence over her in and after 1616, see _Le Vassor_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 508; _Mém. de Pontchartrain_,
vol. ii. p. 240; _Mém. de Montglat_, vol. i. p. 23; and compare,
in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. ii. pp. 198-200, the curious
arguments which he put in her mouth respecting the impolicy of
making war on the Protestants.

[190] In 1625, the Archbishop of Lyons wrote to Richelieu, urging him
'assiéger la Rochelle, et châtier ou, pour mieux dire, exterminer
les huguenots, toute autre affaire cessante.' _Bazin_, _Hist. de
Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 276. See also, on the anxiety of the
clergy in the reign of Louis XIII. to destroy the Protestants,
_Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. pp. 155, 166,
232, 245, 338, 378, 379, 427; _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxii. p. 485.

[191] He confirmed it in March 1626; _Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie
Française_, vol. ii. p. 399; and also in the preceding January.
See _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. appendix,
pp. 77, 81.

[192] 'Ceux qui affectent autant le nom de zélés catholiques.' _Mém. de
Richelieu_, vol. iii. p. 16; and at p. 2, he, in the same year
(1626), says, that he was opposed by those who had 'un trop
ardent et précipité désir de ruiner les huguenots.'

[193] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 66.

[194] On the sufferings of the inhabitants, see extract from the Dupuis
Mss., in _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 351. Fontenay
Mareuil, who was an eye-witness, says, that the besieged, in some
instances, ate their own children; and that the burial-grounds
were guarded, to prevent the corpses from being dug up and turned
into food. _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. p. 119.

[195] And in which he would most assuredly have been supported by Louis
XIII.; of whom an intelligent writer says 'Il étoit plein de
piété et de zèle pour le service de Dieu et pour la grandeur de
l'église; et sa plus sensible joie, en prenant La Rochelle et les
autres places qu'il prit, fut de penser qu'il chasseroit de son
royaume les hérétiques, et qu'il le purgeroit par cette voie des
différentes religions qui gâtent et infectent l'église de Dieu.'
_Mém. de Motteville_, vol. i. p. 425, edit. Petitot, 1824.

[196] _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. ii. p. 423; _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. p. 77; _Capefigue's Richelieu_,
vol. i. p. 357; _Mém. de Fontenay Mareuil_, vol. ii. p. 122.

[197] 'Les huguenots murmuraient de voir le rétablissement de l'église
romaine au sein de leur ville.' _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i.
p. 359.

[198] 'Dès qu'il ne s'agit plus d'un parti politique, il concéda, comme
à la Rochelle, la liberté de conscience et la faculté de prêche.'
_Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 381. Compare _Smedley's Hist.
of the Reformed Religion in France_, vol. iii. p. 201, with
_Mémoires de Richelieu_, vol. iv. p. 484.

[199] The Edict of Nismes, in 1629, an important document, will be
found in _Quick's Synodicon_, vol. i. pp. xcvi.-ciii., and in
_Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. appendix, pp.
92-98; and a commentary on it in _Bazin_, _Hist. de Louis XIII_,
vol. iii. pp. 36-38. M. Bazin, unfortunately for the reputation
of this otherwise valuable work, never quotes his authorities.

[200] In 1633, their own historian says: 'les Réformez ne faisoient plus
de party.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p.
532. Compare Sir Thomas Hanmer's account of France in 1648, in
_Bunbury's Correspond. of Hanmer_, p. 309, Lond. 1838.

I have thus endeavoured to draw a slight, though, I trust, a clear outline, of the events which took place in France during the reign of Louis XIII., and particularly during that part of it which included the administration of Richelieu. But such occurrences, important as they are, only formed a single phase of that larger development which was now displaying itself in nearly every branch of the national intellect. They were the mere political expression of that bold and sceptical spirit which cried havoc to the prejudices and superstitions of men. For, the government of Richelieu was successful, as well as progressive; and no government can unite these two qualities, unless its measures harmonize with the feelings and temper of the age. Such an administration, though it facilitates progress, is not the cause of it, but is rather its measure and symptom. The cause of the progress lies far deeper, and is governed by the general tendency of the time. And as the different tendencies observable in successive generations depend on the difference in their knowledge, it is evident, that we can only understand the working of the tendencies, by taking a wide view of the amount and character of the knowledge. To comprehend, therefore, the real nature of the great advance made during the reign of Louis XIII., it becomes necessary that I should lay before the reader some evidence respecting those higher and more important facts, which historians are apt to neglect, but without which the study of the past is an idle and trivial pursuit, and history itself a barren field, which, bearing no fruit, is unworthy of the labour that is wasted on the cultivation of so ungrateful a soil.

It is, indeed, a very observable fact, that while Richelieu, with such extraordinary boldness, was secularizing the whole system of French politics, and by his disregard of ancient interests, was setting at naught the most ancient traditions, a course precisely similar was being pursued, in a still higher department, by a man greater than he; by one, who, if I may express my own opinion, is the most profound among the many eminent thinkers France has produced. I speak of Réné Descartes, of whom the least that can be said is, that he effected a revolution more decisive than has ever been brought about by any other single mind. With his mere physical discoveries we are not now concerned, because in this Introduction I do not pretend to trace the progress of science, except in those epochs which indicate a new turn in the habits of national thought. But I may remind the reader, that he was the first who successfully applied algebra to geometry;[201] that he pointed out the important law of the sines;[202] that in an age in which optical instruments were extremely imperfect, he discovered the changes to which light is subjected in the eye by the crystalline lens;[203] that he directed attention to the consequences resulting from the weight of the atmosphere;[204] and that he, moreover, detected the causes of the rainbow,[205] that singular phenomenon, with which, in the eyes of the vulgar, some theological superstitions are still connected.[206] At the same time, and as if to combine the most varied forms of excellence, he is not only allowed to be the first geometrician of the age,[207] but by the clearness and admirable precision of his style, he became one of the founders of French prose.[208] And although he was constantly engaged in those lofty inquiries into the nature of the human mind, which can never be studied without wonder, I had almost said can never be read without awe, he combined with them a long course of laborious experiment upon the animal frame, which raised him to the highest rank among the anatomists of his time.[209] The great discovery made by Harvey of the circulation of the blood, was neglected by most of his contemporaries;[210] but it was at once recognized by Descartes, who made it the basis of the physiological part of his work on Man.[211] He likewise adopted the discovery of the lacteals by Aselli,[212] which, like every great truth yet laid before the world, was, at its first appearance, not only disbelieved, but covered with ridicule.[213]

[201] Thomas (_Eloge_, in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. p. 32) says,
'cet instrument, c'est Descartes qui l'a créé; c'est
l'application de l'algèbre à la géométrie.' And this, in the
highest sense, is strictly true; for although Vieta and two or
three others in the sixteenth century had anticipated this step,
we owe entirely to Descartes the magnificent discovery of the
possibility of applying algebra to the geometry of curves, he
being undoubtedly the first who expressed them by algebraic
equations. See _Montucla_, _Hist. des Mathémat._ vol. i. pp. 704,
705, vol. ii. p. 120, vol. iii. p. 64.

[202] The statements of Huygens and of Isaac Vossius to the effect that
Descartes had seen the papers of Snell before publishing his
discovery, are unsupported by any direct evidence; at least none
of the historians of science, so far as I am aware, have brought
forward any. So strong, however, is the disposition of mankind at
large to depreciate great men, and so general is the desire to
convict them of plagiarism, that this charge, improbable in
itself, and only resting on the testimony of two envious rivals,
has been not only revived by modern writers, but has been, even
in our own time, spoken of as a well-established and notorious
fact! The flimsy basis of this accusation is clearly exposed by
M. Bordas Demoulin, in his valuable work _Le Cartesianisme_,
Paris, 1843, vol. ii. pp. 9-12; while, on the other side of the
question, I refer with regret to _Sir D. Brewster on the Progress
of Optics, Second Report of British Association_, pp. 309, 310;
and to _Whewell's Hist. of the Inductive Sciences_, vol. ii. pp.
379, 502, 503.

[203] See the interesting remarks of Sprengel (_Hist. de la Médecine_,
vol. iv. pp. 271, 272), and _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. iv.
pp. 371 seq. What makes this the more observable is this: that
the study of the crystalline lens was neglected long after the
death of Descartes, and no attempt made for more than a hundred
years to complete his views by ascertaining its intimate
structure. Indeed, it is said (_Thomson's Animal Chemistry_, p.
512) that the crystalline lens and the two humours were first
analyzed in 1802. Compare _Simon's Animal Chemistry_, vol. ii.
pp. 419-421; _Henle_, _Traité d'Anatomie_, vol. i. p. 357;
_Lepelletier_, _Physiologie Médicale_, vol. iii. p. 160; _Mayo's
Human Physiol._, p. 279; _Blainville_, _Physiol. comparée_, vol.
iii. pp. 325-328; none of whom refer to any analysis earlier than
the nineteenth century. I notice this partly as a contribution to
the history of our knowledge, and partly as proving how slow men
have been in following Descartes, and in completing his views;
for, as M. Blanville justly observes, the chemical laws of the
lens must be understood, before we can exhaustively generalize
the optical laws of its refraction; so that, in fact, the
researches of Berzelius on the eye are complemental to those of
Descartes. The theory of the limitation of the crystalline lens
according to the descending scale of the animal kingdom, and the
connexion between its development and a general increase of
sensuous perception, seem to have been little studied; but Dr.
Grant (_Comparative Anatomy_, p. 252) thinks that the lens exists
in some of the rotifera; while in regard to its origin, I find a
curious statement in _Müller's Physiology_, vol. i. p. 450, that
after its removal in mammals, it has been reproduced by its
matrix, the capsule. (If this can be relied on, it will tell
against the suggestion of Schwann, who supposes, in his
_Microscopical Researches_, 1847, pp. 87, 88, that its mode of
life is vegetable, and that it is not 'a secretion of its
capsule'). As to its probable existence in the hydrozoa, see
_Rymer Jones's Animal Kingdom_, 1855, p. 96, 'regarded either as
a crystalline lens, or an otolithe;' and as to its embryonic
development, see _Burdach_, _Traité de Physiologie_, vol. iii.
pp. 435-438.

[204] Torricelli first weighed the air in 1643. _Brande's Chemistry_,
vol. i. p. 360; _Leslie's Natural Philosophy_, p. 419: but there
is a letter from Descartes, written as early as 1631, 'où il
explique le phénomène de la suspension du mercure dans un tuyau
fermé par en haut, en l'attribuant au poids de la colonne d'air
élevée jusqu'au delà des nues.' _Bordas Demoulin_, _le
Cartésianisme_, vol. i. p. 311. And Montucla (_Hist. des
Mathémat._ vol. ii. p. 205) says of Descartes, 'nous avons des
preuves que ce philosophe reconnut avant Torricelli la pesanteur
de l'air.' Descartes himself says, that he suggested the
subsequent experiment of Pascal. _[OE]uvres de Descartes_,
vol. x. pp. 344, 351.

[205] Dr. Whewell, who has treated Descartes with marked injustice, does
nevertheless allow that he is 'the genuine author of the
explanation of the rainbow.' _Hist. of the Induc. Sciences_, vol.
ii. pp. 380, 384. See also _Boyle's Works_, vol. iii. p. 189;
_Thomson's Hist. of the Royal Society_, p. 364; _Hallam's Lit. of
Europe_, vol. iii. p. 205; _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. pp.
47, 48, vol. v. pp. 265-284. On the theory of the rainbow as
known in the present century, see _Kaemtz_, _Course of
Meteorology_, pp. 440-445; and _Forbes on Meteorology_, pp.
125-130, in _Report of British Association_ for 1840. Compare
_Leslie's Natural Philosophy_, p. 531; _Pouillet_, _Elémens de
Physique_, vol. ii. p. 788.

[206] The Hebrew notion of the rainbow is well known; and for the ideas
of other nations on this subject, see _Prichard's Physical
History of Mankind_, vol. v. pp. 154, 176; _Kame's Sketches of
the History of Man_, vol. iv. p. 252, Edinb. 1788; and
_Burdache's Physiologie_, vol. v. pp. 546, 547, Paris, 1839.

[207] Thomas calls him 'le plus grand géomètre de son siècle.'
_[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. p. 89. Sir W. Hamilton
(_Discussions on Philosophy_, p. 271) says, 'the greatest
mathematician of the age;' and Montucla can find no one but Plato
to compare with him: 'On ne sauroit donner une idée plus juste de
ce qu'a été l'époque de Descartes dans la géométrie ancienne....
De même enfin que Platon prépara par sa découverte celles des
Archimède, des Apollonius, &c., on peut dire que Descartes a
jetté les fondemens de celles qui illustrent aujourd'hui les
Newton, les Leibnitz, &c.' _Montucla_, _Hist. des Mathémat._
vol. ii. p. 112.

[208] 'Descartes joint encore à ses autres titres, celui d'avoir été un
des créateurs de notre langue.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xi. p. 154.
Sir James Mackintosh (_Dissert. on Ethical Philos._ p. 186) has
also noticed the influence of Descartes in forming the style of
French writers; and I think that M. Cousin has somewhere made a
similar remark.

[209] Thomas says, 'Descartes eut aussi la gloire d'être un des premiers
anatomistes de son siècle.' _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. p.
55; see also p. 101. In 1639, Descartes writes to Mersenne
(_[OE]uvres_, vol. viii. p. 100) that he had been engaged 'depuis
onze ans' in studying comparative anatomy by dissection. Compare
p. 174, and vol. i. pp. 175-184.

[210] Dr. Whewell (_Hist. of the Inductive Sciences_, vol. iii. p. 440)
says: 'It was for the most part readily accepted by his
countrymen; but that abroad it had to encounter considerable
opposition.' For this no authority is quoted; and yet one would
be glad to know who told Dr. Whewell that the discovery was
readily accepted. So far from meeting in England with ready
acceptance, it was during many years most universally denied.
Aubrey was assured by Harvey that, in consequence of his book on
the Circulation of the Blood, he lost much of his practice, was
believed to be crackbrained, and was opposed by 'all the
physicians.' _Aubrey's Letters and Lives_, vol. ii. p. 383. Dr.
Willis (_Life of Harvey_, p. xli., in _Harvey's Works_, edit.
Sydenham Society, 1847) says 'Harvey's views were at first
rejected almost universally.' Dr. Elliotson (_Human Physiology_,
p. 194) says, 'His immediate reward was general ridicule and
abuse, and a great diminution of his practice.' Broussais
(_Examen des Doctrines Médicales_, vol. i. p. vii.) says, 'Harvey
passa pour fou quand il annonça la découverte de la circulation.'
Finally, Sir William Temple, who belongs to the generation
subsequent to Harvey, and who, indeed, was not born until some
years after the discovery was made, mentions it in his works in
such a manner as to show that even then it was not universally
received by educated men. See two curious passages, which have
escaped the notice of the historians of physiology, in _Works of
Sir W. Temple_, vol. iii. pp. 293, 469, 8vo., 1814.

[211] 'Taken by Descartes as the basis of his physiology, in his work on
Man.' _Whewell's Hist. of the Induc. Sciences_, vol. iii. p. 441.
'Réné Descartes se déclara un des premiers en faveur de la
doctrine de la circulation.' _Renourd_, _Hist. de la Médecine_,
vol. ii. p. 163. See also _Bordas Demoulin_, _le Cartésianisme_,
vol. ii. p. 324; and _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. pp. 68,
179, vol. iv. pp. 42, 449, vol. ix. pp. 159, 332. Compare
_Willis's Life of Harvey_, p. xlv., in _Harvey's Works_.

[212] 'Les veines blanches, dites lactées, qu'Asellius a découvertes
depuis peu dans le mésentère.' _De la Formation du F[oe]tus_,
sec. 49, in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. iv. p. 483.

[213] Even Harvey denied it to the last. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Méd._
vol. iv. pp. 203, 204. Compare _Harvey's Works_, edit. Sydenham
Soc. pp. 605, 614.

These things might have been sufficient to rescue even the physical labours of Descartes from the attacks constantly made on them by men who either have not studied his works, or else, having studied them, are unable to understand their merit. But the glory of Descartes, and the influence he exercised over his age, do not depend even on such claims as these. Putting them aside, he is the author of what is emphatically called Modern Philosophy.[214] He is the originator of that great system and method of metaphysics, which, notwithstanding its errors, has the undoubted merit of having given a wonderful impulse to the European mind, and communicated to it an activity which has been made available for other purposes of a different character. Besides this, and superior to it, there is another obligation which we are under to the memory of Descartes. He deserves the gratitude of posterity, not so much on account of what he built up, as on account of what he pulled down. His life was one great and successful warfare against the prejudices and traditions of men. He was great as a creator, but he was far greater as a destroyer. In this respect he was the true successor of Luther, to whose labours his own were the fitting supplement. He completed what the great German reformer had left undone.[215] He bore to the old systems of philosophy precisely the same relation that Luther bore to the old systems of religion. He was the great reformer and liberator of the European intellect. To prefer, therefore, even the most successful discoverers of physical laws to this great innovator and disturber of tradition, is just as if we should prefer knowledge to freedom, and believe that science is better than liberty. We must, indeed, always be grateful to those eminent thinkers, to whose labours we are indebted for that vast body of physical truths which we now possess. But, let us reserve the full measure of our homage for those far greater men, who have not hesitated to attack and destroy the most inveterate prejudices: men who, by removing the pressure of tradition, have purified the very source and fountain of our knowledge, and secured its future progress, by casting off obstacles in the presence of which progress was impossible.[216]

[214] M. Cousin (_Hist. de la Philos._ II. série, vol. i. p. 39) says of
Descartes, 'Son premier ouvrage écrit en français est de 1637.
C'est donc de 1637 que date la philosophie moderne.' See the same
work, I. série, vol. iii. p. 77; and compare _Stewart's Philos.
of the Mind_, vol. i. pp. 14, 529, with _Eloge de Parent_, in
_[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_, Paris, 1766, vol. v. p. 444, and vol.
vi. p. 318: 'Cartésien, ou, si l'on veut, philosophe moderne.'

[215] 'Descartes avait établi dans le domaine de la pensée
l'indépendance absolue de la raison; il avait déclaré à la
scholastique et à la théologie que l'esprit de l'homme ne pouvait
plus relever que de l'évidence qu'il aurait obtenue par lui-même.
Ce que Luther avait commencé dans la religion, le génie français
si actif et si prompt l'importait dans la philosophie, et l'on
peut dire à la double gloire de l'Allemagne et de la France que
Descartes est le fils aîné de Luther.' _Lerminier_, _Philos. du
Droit_, vol. ii. p. 141. See also, on the philosophy of Descartes
as a product of the Reformation. _Ward's Ideal of a Christian
Church_, p. 498.

[216] For, as Turgot finely says, 'ce n'est pas l'erreur qui s'oppose
aux progrès de la vérité. Ce sont la mollesse, l'entêtement,
l'esprit de routine, tout ce qui porte à l'inaction,' _Pensées_
in _[OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. ii. p. 343.

It will not be expected, perhaps it will hardly be desired, that I should enter into a complete detail of the philosophy of Descartes: a philosophy which, in England at least, is rarely studied, and therefore, is often attacked. But it will be necessary to give such an account of it as will show its analogy with the anti-theological policy of Richelieu, and will thus enable us to see the full extent of that vast movement which took place in France before the accession of Louis XIV. By this means, we shall be able to understand how the daring innovations of the great minister were so successful, since they were accompanied and reinforced by corresponding innovations in the national intellect; thus affording an additional instance of the way in which the political history of every country is to be explained by the history of its intellectual progress.

In 1637, when Richelieu was at the height of his power, Descartes published that great work which he had long been meditating, and which was the first open announcement of the new tendencies of the French mind. To this work he gave the name of a 'Method;' and, assuredly, the method is the most alien to what is commonly called theology that can possibly be conceived. Indeed, so far from being theological, it is essentially and exclusively psychological. The theological method rests on ancient records, on tradition, on the voice of antiquity. The method of Descartes rests solely on the consciousness each man has of the operations of his own mind, and lest anyone should mistake the meaning of this, he, in subsequent works, developed it at great length, and with unrivalled clearness. For his main object was to popularize the views which he put forward. Therefore, says Descartes, 'I write in French rather than in Latin, because I trust that they who only employ their simple and native reason will estimate my opinions more fairly than they who only believe in ancient books.'[217] So strongly does he insist upon this, that, almost at the beginning of his first work, he cautions his readers against the common error of looking to antiquity for knowledge; and he reminds them that 'when men are too curious to know the practices of past ages, they generally remain very ignorant of their own.'[218]

[217] 'Et si j'écris en français, qui est la langue de mon pays, plutôt
qu'en latin, qui est celle de mes précepteurs, c'est à cause que
j'espère que ceux qui ne se servent que de leur raison naturelle
toute pure, jugeront mieux de mes opinions que ceux qui ne
croient qu'aux livres anciens.' _Discours de la Méthode_, in
_[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. pp. 210, 211.

[218] _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 127.

Indeed, so far from following the old plan of searching for truths in the records of the past, the great essential of this new philosophy is to wean ourselves from all such associations, and, beginning the acquisition of knowledge by the work of destruction, first pull down, in order that afterwards we may build up.[219] When I, says Descartes, set forth in the pursuit of truth, I found that the best way was to reject every thing I had hitherto received, and pluck out all my old opinions, in order that I might lay the foundation of them afresh: believing that, by this means, I should more easily accomplish the great scheme of life, than by building on an old basis, and supporting myself by principles which I had learned in my youth, without examining if they were really true.[220] 'I, therefore, will occupy myself freely and earnestly in effecting a general destruction of all my old opinions.'[221] For, if we would know all the truths that can be known, we must, in the first place, free ourselves from our prejudices, and make a point of rejecting those things which we have received, until we have subjected them to a new examination.[222] We, therefore, must derive our opinions, not from tradition, but from ourselves. We must not pass judgment upon any subject which we do not clearly and distinctly understand; for, even if such a judgment is correct, it can only be so by accident, not having solid ground on which to support itself.[223] But, so far are we from this state of indifference, that our memory is full of prejudices:[224] we pay attention to words rather than to things;[225] and being thus slaves to form, there are too many of us 'who believe themselves religious, when, in fact, they are bigoted and superstitious; who think themselves perfect because they go much to church, because they often repeat prayers, because they wear short hair, because they fast, because they give alms. These are the men who imagine themselves such friends of God, that nothing they do displeases Him; men who, under pretence of zeal, gratify their passions by committing the greatest crimes, such as betraying towns, killing princes, exterminating nations: and all this they do to those who will not change their opinions.'[226]

[219] 'Er fing also vom Zweifel an, und ging durch denselben zur
Gewissheit über.' _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. x. p.
218. Compare _Second Discours en Sorbonne_, in _[OE]uvres de
Turgot_, vol. ii. p. 89.

[220] _Disc. de la Méthode_, in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i.
p. 136.

[221] 'Je m'appliquerai sérieusement et avec liberté à détruire
généralement toutes mes anciennes opinions.' _Méditations_ in
_[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. p. 236.

[222] _Principes de la Philosophie_, part i. sec. 75, in _[OE]uvres de
Descartes_, vol. iii. pp. 117, 118; and compare vol. ii. p. 417,
where he gives a striking illustration of this view.

[223] _Méditations_, in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. pp. 303, 304.

[224] 'Nous avons rempli notre mémoire de beaucoup de préjugés.'
_Principes de la Philos._ part i. sec. 47, in _[OE]uvres_,
vol. iii. p. 91.

[225] _[OE]uvres_, vol. iii. p. 117.

[226] 'Ce qu'on peut particulièrement remarquer en ceux qui, croyant
être dévots, sont seulement bigots et superstitieux, c'est à dire
qui, sous ombre qu'ils vont souvent à l'église, qu'ils récitent
force prières, qu'ils portent les cheveux courts, qu'ils jeûnent,
qu'ils donnent l'aumône, pensent être entièrement parfaits, et
s'imaginent qu'ils sont si grands amis de Dieu, qu'ils ne
sauroient rien faire qui lui déplaise, et que tout ce que leur
dicte leur passion est un bon zèle, bien qu'elle leur dicte
quelquefois les plus grands crimes qui puissent être commis par
des hommes, comme de trahir des villes, de tuer des princes,
d'exterminer des peuples entiers, pour cela seul qu'ils ne
suivent pas leurs opinions.' _Les Passions de l'Ame_, in
_[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. iv. pp. 194, 195.

These were the words of wisdom which this great teacher addressed to his countrymen only a few years after they had brought to a close the last religious war that has ever been waged in France. The similarity of those views to those which, about the same time, were put forth by Chillingworth, must strike every reader, but ought not to excite surprise; for they were but the natural products of a state of society in which the right of private judgment, and the independence of the human reason, were first solidly established. If we examine this matter a little closer, we shall find still further proof of the analogy between France and England. So identical are the steps of the progress, that the relation which Montaigne bears to Descartes is just the same as that which Hooker bears to Chillingworth; the same in reference to the difference of time, and also in reference to the difference of opinions. The mind of Hooker was essentially sceptical; but his genius was so restrained by the prejudices of his age, that, unable to discern the supreme authority of private judgment, he hampered it by appeals to councils and to the general voice of ecclesiastical antiquity: impediments which Chillingworth, thirty years later, effectually removed. In precisely the same way, Montaigne, like Hooker, was sceptical; but, like him, he lived at a period when the spirit of doubt was yet young, and when the mind still trembled before the authority of the Church. It is, therefore, no wonder that even Montaigne, who did so much for his age, should have hesitated respecting the capacity of men to work out for themselves great truths; and that, pausing in the course that lay before him, his scepticism should often have assumed the form of a distrust of the human faculties.[227] Such shortcomings, and such imperfections, are merely an evidence of the slow growth of society, and of the impossibility for even the greatest thinkers to outstrip their contemporaries beyond a certain point. But, with the advance of knowledge, this deficiency was at length supplied; and, as the generation after Hooker brought forth Chillingworth, just so did the generation after Montaigne bring forth Descartes. Both Chillingworth and Descartes were eminently sceptical; but their scepticism was directed, not against the human intellect, but against those appeals to authority and tradition without which it had hitherto been supposed that the intellect could not safely proceed. That this was the case with Chillingworth, we have already seen. That it was likewise the case with Descartes, is, if possible, still more apparent; for that profound thinker believed, not only that the mind, by its own efforts, could root out its most ancient opinions, but that it could, without fresh aid, build up a new and solid system in place of the one which it had thrown down.[228]

[227] As is particularly evident in his long chapter, headed 'Apologie
de Raimond Sebond.' _Essais de Montaigne_, livre ii. chap. xii.
Paris, 1843, pp. 270-382, and see _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der
Philos._ vol. ix. p. 455.

[228] He very clearly separates himself from men like Montaigne: 'Non
que j'imitasse pour cela les sceptiques, qui ne doutent que pour
douter, et affectent d'être toujours irrésolus; car, au
contraire, tout mon dessein ne tendoit qu'à m'assurer, et à
rejeter la terre mouvante et le sable pour trouver le roc ou
l'argile.' _Discours de la Méthode_, in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_,
vol. i. pp. 153, 154.

It is this extraordinary confidence in the power of the human intellect, which eminently characterizes Descartes, and has given to his philosophy that peculiar sublimity which distinguishes it from all other systems. So far from thinking that a knowledge of the external world is essential to the discovery of truth, he laid it down as a fundamental principle, that we must begin by ignoring such knowledge;[229] that the first step is to separate ourselves from the delusions of nature, and reject the evidence presented to our senses.[230] For, says Descartes, nothing is certain but thought; nor are there any truths except those which necessarily follow from the operation of our own consciousness. We have no knowledge of our soul except as a thinking substance:[231] and it were easier for us to believe that the soul should cease to exist, than that it should cease to think.[232] And, as to man himself, what is he but the incarnation of thought? For that which constitutes the man, is not his bones, nor his flesh, nor his blood. These are the accidents, the incumbrances, the impediments of his nature. But the man himself is the thought. The invisible me, the ultimate fact of existence, the mystery of life, is this: 'I am a thing that thinks.' This, therefore, is the beginning and the basis of our knowledge. The thought of each man is the last element to which analysis can carry us; it is the supreme judge of every doubt; it is the starting-point for all wisdom.[233]

[229] According to the view of Descartes, it was to be ignored, not
denied. There is no instance to be found in his works of a denial
of the existence of the external world; nor does the passage
quoted from him by Mr. Jobert (_New System of Philos._ vol. ii.
pp. 161, 162, Lond. 1849) at all justify the interpretation of
that ingenious writer, who confuses certainty in the ordinary
sense of the word with certainty in the Cartesian sense. A
similar error is made by those who suppose that his 'Je pense,
donc je suis,' is an enthymeme; and having taken this for
granted, they turn on the great philosopher, and accuse him of
begging the question! Such critics overlook the difference
between a logical process and a psychological one; and therefore
they do not see that this famous sentence was the description of
a mental fact, and not the statement of a mutilated syllogism.
The student of the philosophy of Descartes must always
distinguish between these two processes, and remember that each
process has an order of proof peculiar to itself; or at all
events he must remember that such was the opinion of Descartes.
Compare, on the Cartesian enthymeme, _Cousin_, _Hist. de la
Philos._ I. série, vol. iv. pp. 512, 513, with a note in _Kritik
der reinen Vernunft, Kant's Werke_, vol. ii. pp. 323, 324.

[230] _Méditations_, in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. pp. 220, 226;
and again in the _Objections et Réponses_, _[OE]uvres_, vol. ii.
pp. 245, 246.

[231] 'Au lieu que, lorsque nous tâchons à connoître plus distinctement
notre nature, nous pouvons voir que notre âme, en tant qu'elle
est une substance distincte du corps, ne nous est connue que par
cela seul qu'elle pense.' _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. iv. p.
432. Compare vol. iii. p. 96, _Principes de la Philosophie_, part
i. sec. 53.

[232] 'En sorte qu'il me seroit bien plus aisé de croire que l'âme
cesseroit d'être quand on dit qu'elle cesse de penser, que non
pas de concevoir qu'elle soit sans pensée.' _[OE]uvres de
Descartes_, vol. viii. p. 574. That 'the soul always thinks,' is
a conclusion also arrived at by Berkeley by a different process.
See his subtle argument, _Principles of Human Knowledge_, part i.
sec. 98, in _Berkeley's Works_, vol. i. p. 123; and for a curious
application of this to the theory of dreaming, see _Burdach_,
_Physiologie comme Science d'Observation_, vol. v. pp. 205, 230.

[233] _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. pp. 251, 252, 279, 293, vol. ii.
pp. 252, 283.