Chapter I (5)

Taking our stand on this ground, we rise, says Descartes, to the perception of the existence of the Deity. For, our belief in His existence is an irrefragable proof that He exists. Otherwise, whence does the belief arise? Since nothing can come out of nothing, and since no effect can be without a cause, it follows that the idea we have of God must have an origin; and this origin, whatever name we give it, is no other than God.[234] Thus, the ultimate proof of His existence is our idea of it. Instead, therefore, of saying that we know ourselves because we believe in God, we should rather say that we believe in God because we know ourselves.[235] This is the order and precedence of things. The thought of each man is sufficient to prove His existence, and it is the only proof we can ever possess. Such, therefore, is the dignity and supremacy of the human intellect, that even this, the highest of all matters, flows from it, as from its sole source.[236] Hence, our religion should not be acquired by the teaching of others, but should be worked out by ourselves: it is not to be borrowed from antiquity, but it is to be discovered by each man's mind; it is not traditional, but personal. It is because this great truth has been neglected, that impiety has arisen. If each man were to content himself with that idea of God which is suggested by his own mind, he would attain to a true knowledge of the Divine Nature. But when, instead of confining himself to this, he mixes up with it the notions of others, his ideas become perplexed; they contradict themselves; and the composition being thus confused, he often ends by denying the existence, not, indeed, of God, but of such a God as that in whom he has been taught to believe.[237]

[234] _Ibid._ vol. i. p. 419; and at p. 420: 'Or de tout cela on conclut
très-manifestement que Dieu existe.' See also pp. 159-162, 280,
290, 291. But the simplest statement is in a letter to Mersenne
(vol. viii. p. 529): 'J'ai tiré la preuve de l'existence de Dieu
de l'idée que je trouve en moi d'un être souverainement parfait.'

[235] 'Ainsi, quoique, de ce que je suis, je conclue avec certitude que
Dieu est, je ne puis réciproquement affirmer, de ce que Dieu est,
que j'existe.' _Règles pour la Direction de l'Esprit_, in
_[OE]uvres_, vol. xi. p. 274. See also _Principes de la
Philosophie_, part i. sec. 7, vol. iii. p. 66.

[236] On this famous argument, which it is said was also broached by
Anselm, see _King's Life of Locke_, vol. ii. p. 133; the
Benedictine _Hist. Lit. de la France_, vol. ix. pp. 417, 418;
_Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. i. p. 239; and _Cudworth's
Intellect. Syst._ vol. iii. p. 383.

[237] 'Et certes jamais les hommes ne pourroient s'éloigner de la vraie
connoissance de cette nature divine, s'ils vouloient seulement
porter leur attention sur l'idée qu'ils ont de l'être
souverainement parfait. Mais ceux qui mêlent quelques autres
idées avec celle-là composent par ce moyen un dieu chimérique, en
la nature duquel il y a des choses qui se contrarient; et, après
l'avoir ainsi composé, ce n'est pas merveille s'ils nient qu'un
tel dieu, qui leur est représenté par une fausse idée, existe.'
_[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. i. pp. 423, 424.

The mischief which these principles must have done to the old theology is very obvious.[238] Not only were they fatal, in the minds of those who received them, to many of the common dogmas--such, for instance, as that of transubstantiation,[239]--but they were likewise directly opposed to other opinions, equally indefensible, and far more dangerous. For Descartes, by founding a philosophy which rejected all authority except that of the human reason,[240] was, of course, led to abandon the study of final causes,[241]--an old and natural superstition, by which, as we shall hereafter see, the German philosophers were long impeded, and which still hangs, though somewhat loosely, about the minds of men.[242] At the same time, by superseding the geometry of the ancients, he aided in weakening that inordinate respect with which antiquity was then regarded. In another matter, still more important, he displayed the same spirit, and met with the same success. With such energy did he attack the influence, or rather the tyranny of Aristotle, that although the opinions of that philosopher were intimately interwoven with the Christian theology,[243] his authority was entirely overthrown by Descartes; and with it there perished those scholastic prejudices, for which Aristotle, indeed, was not responsible, but which, under the shelter of his mighty name, had, during several centuries, perplexed the understandings of men, and retarded the progress of their knowledge.[244]

[238] This is delicately but clearly indicated in an able letter from
Arnaud, printed in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. ii. pp. 1-36:
see in particular pp. 31, 34. And Duclos bluntly says: 'Si,
depuis la révolution que Descartes a commencée, les théologiens
se sont éloignés des philosophes, c'est que ceux-ci ont paru ne
pas respecter infiniment les théologiens. Une philosophie qui
prenoit pour base le doute et l'examen devoit les effaroucher.'
_Duclos_, _Mémoires_, vol. i. p. 109.

[239] On the relation of the Cartesian philosophy to the doctrine of
transubstantiation, compare _Palmer's Treatise on the Church_,
vol. ii. pp. 169, 170, with _Hallam's Lit. of Europe_, vol. ii.
p. 453; and the remark ascribed to Hobbes, in _Aubrey's Letters
and Lives_, vol. ii. p. 626. But Hobbes, if he really made this
observation, had no right to expect Descartes to become a martyr.

[240] 'Le caractère de la philosophie du moyen âge est la soumission à
une autorité autre que la raison. La philosophie moderne ne
reconnaît que l'autorité de la raison. C'est le cartésianisme qui
a opéré cette révolution décisive.' _Cousin_, _Hist. de la
Philos._ II. série, vol. i. pp. 258, 259.

[241] 'Nous rejetterons entièrement de notre philosophie la recherche
des causes finales.' _Principes de la Philos._, part i. sec. 28,
in _[OE]uvres de Descartes_, vol. iii. p. 81. See also part iii.
sec. 3, p. 182; and his reply to Gassendi, in _[OE]uvres_, vol.
ii. pp. 280, 281. Compare _Cousin_, _Hist. de la Philosophie_,
II. série, vol. ii. p. 71, with _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la
Médecine_, vol. v. p. 203.

[242] Dr. Whewell, for instance, says, that we must reject final causes
in the inorganic sciences, but must recognize them in the organic
ones; which, in other words, simply means, that we know less of
the organic world than of the inorganic, and that because we know
less, we are to believe more; for here, as everywhere else, the
smaller the science the greater the superstition. _Whewell's
Philos. of the Inductive Sciences_, 8vo., 1847, vol. i. pp. 620,
627, 628; and his _Hist. of the Induc. Sciences_, vol. iii. pp.
430, 431. If the question were to be decided by authority, it
would be enough to appeal to Bacon and Descartes, the two
greatest writers on the philosophy of method in the seventeenth
century; and to Auguste Comte, who is admitted by the few persons
who have mastered his _Philosophie Positive_, to be the greatest
in our own time. These profound and comprehensive thinkers have
all rejected the study of final causes, which, as they have
clearly seen, is a theological invasion of scientific rights. On
the injury which this study has wrought, and on the check it has
given to the advance of our knowledge, see _Robin et Verdeil_,
_Chimie Anat._ Paris, 1853, vol. i. pp. 489, 493, 494, vol. ii.
p. 555; _Renouard_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. i. pp. 232, 237;
_Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. ii. p. 220; _Geoffroy
Saint-Hilaire_, _Hist. des Anomalies de l'Organisation_, vol.
iii. pp. 435, 436; _Herder_, _Ideen zur Gesch. der Menschheit_,
vol. iii. p. 270; _Lawrence's Lectures on Man_, p. 36; and
_Burdach_, _Traité de Physiologie_, vol. i. p. 190.

[243] 'Auf das innigste verbunden mit der Theologie, nicht allein in den
katholischen, sondern selbst auch in den protestantischen
Ländern.' _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. ix. p. 516.
Descartes, in a letter to Mersenne (_[OE]uvres_, vol. vi. p. 73),
writes, in 1629, 'La théologie, laquelle on a tellement
assujettie à Aristote, qu'il est impossible d'expliquer une autre
philosophie qu'il ne semble d'abord qu'elle soit contre la foi.'
Compare vol. vii. p. 344, vol. viii. pp. 281, 497.

[244] Dr. Brown (_Philosophy of the Mind_, Edinburgh, 1838, p. 172)
calls Descartes 'that illustrious rebel, who, in overthrowing the
authority of Aristotle,' &c. See also _Duvernet_, _Hist. de la
Sorbonne_, vol. ii. p. 192; _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_, part
ii. p. 532; and _Locke's Works_, vol. iii. p. 48. This, I need
hardly say, refers to the habit of appealing to Aristotle, as if
he were infallible, and is very different from that respect which
is naturally felt for a man who was probably the greatest of all
the ancient thinkers. The difference between the Aristotelian and
Cartesian systems is touched on rather hastily in _Cudworth's
Intellect. Syst._ vol. i. pp. 170, 171.

These were the principal services rendered to civilization by one of the greatest men Europe has ever produced. The analogy between him and Richelieu is very striking, and is as complete as their relative positions would allow. The same disregard of ancient notions, the same contempt for theological interests, the same indifference to tradition, the same determination to prefer the present to the past: in a word, the same essentially modern spirit, is seen alike in the writings of Descartes, and in the actions of Richelieu. What the first was to philosophy, that was the other to politics. But, while acknowledging the merits of these eminent men, it behoves us to remember that their success was the result, not only of their own abilities, but likewise of the general temper of their time. The nature of their labours depended on themselves; the way in which their labours were received, depended on their contemporaries. Had they lived in a more superstitious age, their views would have been disregarded, or, if noticed, would have been execrated as impious novelties. In the fifteenth, or early in the sixteenth century, the genius of Descartes and of Richelieu would have lacked the materials necessary to their work; their comprehensive minds would, in that state of society, have found no play; they would have awakened no sympathies; their bread would have been cast upon those waters which return it not again. And it would have been well for them if, in such a case, indifference were the only penalty with which they would be visited. It would have been well if they had not paid the forfeit incurred by many of those illustrious thinkers who have vainly attempted to stem the torrent of human credulity. It would have been well if the church had not risen in her wrath--if Richelieu had not been executed as a traitor, and Descartes burned as a heretic.

Indeed, the mere fact that two such men, occupying so conspicuous a place before the public eye, and enforcing views so obnoxious to the interests of superstition, should have lived without serious danger, and then have died peaceably in their beds--the mere fact that this should have happened, is a decisive proof of the progress which, during fifty years, had been made by the French nation. With such rapidity were the prejudices of that great people dying away, that opinions utterly subversive of theological traditions, and fatal to the whole scheme of ecclesiastical power, were with impunity advocated by Descartes, and put in practice by Richelieu. It was now clearly seen, that the two foremost men of their time could, with little or no risk, openly propagate ideas which, half a century before, it would have been accounted dangerous even for the most obscure man to whisper in the privacy of his own chamber.

Nor are the causes of this impunity difficult to understand. They are to be found in the diffusion of that sceptical spirit, by which, in France as well as in England, toleration was preceded. For, without entering into details which would be too long for the limits of this Introduction, it is enough to say, that French literature generally was, at this period, distinguished by a freedom and a boldness of inquiry, of which, England alone excepted, no example had then been seen in Europe. The generation which had listened to the teachings of Montaigne and of Charron, was now succeeded by another generation, the disciples, indeed, of those eminent men, but disciples who far outstripped their masters. The result was, that, during the thirty or forty years which preceded the power of Louis XIV.,[245] there was not to be found a single Frenchman of note who did not share in the general feeling--not one who did not attack some ancient dogma, or sap the foundation of some old opinion. This fearless temper was the characteristic of the ablest writers of that time;[246] but what is still more observable is, that the movement spread with such rapidity as to include in its action even those parts of society which are invariably the last to be affected by it. That spirit of doubt, which is the necessary precursor of all inquiry, and therefore of all solid improvement, owes its origin to the most thinking and intellectual parts of society, and is naturally opposed by the other parts: opposed by the nobles, because it is dangerous to their interests; opposed by the uneducated, because it attacks their prejudices. This is one of the reasons why neither the highest nor the lowest ranks are fit to conduct the government of a civilized country; since both of them, notwithstanding individual exceptions, are, in the aggregate, averse to those reforms which the exigencies of an advancing nation constantly require. But, in France, before the middle of the seventeenth century, even these classes began to participate in the great progress; so that, not only among thoughtful men, but likewise among the ignorant and the frivolous, there was seen that inquisitive and incredulous disposition, which, whatever may be said against it, has at least this peculiarity, that, in its absence, there is no instance to be found of the establishment of those principles of toleration and of liberty, which have only been recognized with infinite difficulty, and after many a hard-fought battle against prejudices whose inveterate tenacity might almost cause them to be deemed a part of the original constitution of the human mind.[247]

[245] That is in 1661, when Louis XIV. first assumed the government.

[246] M. Barante (_Tableau de la Littérature Française_, pp. 26, 27)
notices 'cette indépendance dans les idées, ce jugement audacieux
de toutes choses, qu'on remarque dans Corneille, dans Mézéray,
dans Balzac, dans Saint-Réal, dans Lamothe-Levayer.' To these may
be added Naudé, Patin, and probably Gassendi. Compare _Hallam's
Literat. of Europe_, vol. ii. pp. 364, 365, with _Mackintosh's
Ethical Philos._ p. 116, and _Lettres de Patin_, vol. i. p. 297,
vol. ii. pp. 33, 186, 191, 242, 342, 498, 508, vol. iii. p. 87.

[247] The increase of incredulity was so remarkable, as to give rise to
a ridiculous assertion, 'qu'il y avoit plus de 50,000 athées dans
Paris vers l'an 1623.' _Baillet_, _Jugemens des Savans_, Paris,
1722, 4to. vol. i. p. 185. Baillet has no difficulty in rejecting
this preposterous statement (which is also noticed in
_Coleridge's Literary Remains_, vol. i. p. 305; where, however,
there is apparently a confusion between two different periods);
but the spread of scepticism among the upper ranks and courtiers,
during the reign of Louis XIII. and the minority of Louis XIV.,
is attested by a great variety of evidence. See _Mém. de Madame
de Motteville_, vol. iii. p. 52; _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 266;
_Conrart_, _Mém._ p. 235 note; _Des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol.
vii. p. 143; _Mém. de Brienne_, vol. ii. p. 107 note.

It is no wonder if, under these circumstances, the speculations of Descartes and the actions of Richelieu should have met with great success. The system of Descartes exercised immense influence, and soon pervaded nearly every branch of knowledge.[248] The policy of Richelieu was so firmly established, that it was continued without the slightest difficulty by his immediate successor: nor was any attempt made to reverse it until that forcible and artificial reaction which, under Louis XIV., was fatal, for a time, to every sort of civil and religious liberty. The history of that reaction, and the way in which, by a counter-reaction, the French Revolution was prepared, will be related in the subsequent chapters of this volume; at present we will resume the thread of those events which took place in France before Louis XIV. assumed the government.

[248] Volumes might be written on the influence of Descartes, which was
seen, not only in subjects immediately connected with his
philosophy, but even in those apparently remote from it. Compare
_Broussais_, _Examen des Doctrines Médicales_, vol. ii. pp. 55
seq.; _Lettres de Patin_, vol. iii. p. 153; _Sprengel_, _Hist. de
la Médecine_, vol. iv. p. 238; _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_,
part ii. pp. 327, 332, 352, 363; _Stäudlin_, _Geschichte der
theologischen Wissenschaften_, vol. i. p. 263; _Tennemann_,
_Gesch. der Philos._ vol. x. pp. 285 seq.; _Huetius de Rebus ad
eum pertinentibus_, pp. 35, 295, 296, 385-389; _Mosheim's Eccles.
Hist._ vol. ii. p. 258; _Dacier_, _Rapport Historique_, p. 334;
_Leslie's Nat. Philos._ p. 121; _Eloges_, in _[OE]uvres de
Fontenelle_, Paris, 1766, vol. v. pp. 94, 106, 137, 197, 234,
392, vol. vi. pp. 157, 318, 449; _Thomson's Hist. of Chemistry_,
vol. i. p. 195; _Quérard_, _France Lit._ vol. iii. p. 273.

A few months after the death of Richelieu, Louis XIII. also died, and the crown was inherited by Louis XIV., who was then a child, and who for many years had no influence in public affairs. During his minority, the government was administered, avowedly by his mother, but in reality by Mazarin: a man who, though in every point inferior to Richelieu, had imbibed something of his spirit, and who, so far as he was able, adopted the policy of that great statesman, to whom he owed his promotion.[249] He, influenced partly by the example of his predecessor, partly by his own character, and partly by the spirit of his age, showed no desire to persecute the Protestants, or to disturb them in any of the rights they then exercised.[250] His first act was to confirm the Edict of Nantes;[251] and, towards the close of his life, he even allowed the Protestants again to hold those synods which their own violence had been the means of interrupting.[252] Between the death of Richelieu and the accession to power of Louis XIV., there elapsed a period of nearly twenty years, during which Mazarin, with the exception of a few intervals, was at the head of the state; and in the whole of that time, I have found no instance of any Frenchman being punished for his religion. Indeed, the new government, so far from protecting the church by repressing heresy, displayed that indifference to ecclesiastical interests which was now becoming a settled maxim of French policy. Richelieu, as we have already seen, had taken the bold step of placing Protestants at the head of the royal armies; and this he had done upon the simple principle, that one of the first duties of a statesman is to employ for the benefit of the country the ablest men he can find, without regard to their theological opinions, with which, as he well knew, no government has any concern. But Louis XIII., whose personal feelings were always opposed to the enlightened measures of his great minister, was offended by this magnanimous disregard of ancient prejudices; his piety was shocked at the idea of Catholic soldiers being commanded by heretics; and, as we are assured by a well-informed contemporary, he determined to put an end to this scandal to the church, and, for the future, allow no Protestant to receive the staff of marshal of France.[253] Whether the king, if he had lived, would have carried his point, is doubtful;[254] but what is certain is, that, only four months after his death, this appointment of marshal was bestowed upon Turenne, the most able of all the Protestant generals.[255] And in the very next year, Gassion, another Protestant, was raised to the same dignity; thus affording the strange spectacle of the highest military power in a great Catholic country wielded by two men against whose religion the church was never weary of directing her anathemas.[256] In a similar spirit, Mazarin, on mere grounds of political expediency, concluded an intimate alliance with Cromwell; an usurper who, in the opinion of the theologians, was doomed to perdition, since he was soiled by the triple crime of rebellion, of heresy, and of regicide.[257] Finally, one of the last acts of this pupil of Richelieu's[258] was to sign the celebrated treaty of the Pyrenees, by which ecclesiastical interests were seriously weakened, and great injury inflicted on him who was still considered to be the head of the church.[259]

[249] On the connexion between Richelieu and Mazarin, see _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiii. pp. 400, 530; and a curious,
though perhaps apocryphal anecdote in _Tallemant des Réaux_,
_Historiettes_, vol. ii. pp. 231, 232. In 1636 there was noticed
'l'étroite union' between Richelieu and Mazarin. _Le Vassor_,
_Hist. de Louis XIII_, vol. viii. part ii. p. 187.

[250] 'Mazarin n'avoit ni fanatisme ni esprit persécuteur,' _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 531. That he did not
persecute the Protestants is grudgingly confessed in _Felice's
Hist. of the Protestants of France_, p. 292. See also _Smedley's
Reformed Religion in France_, vol. iii. p. 222.

[251] He confirmed it in July, 1643. See _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. iii. appendix, p. 3; and _Quick's Synodicon in
Gallia_, vol. i. p. ciii.

[252] In 1659, there was assembled the Synod of Loudon, the moderator of
which said, 'It is now fifteen years since we had a national
synod.' _Quick's Synodicon in Gallia_, vol. ii. p. 517.

[253] Brienne records the determination of the king, 'que cette dignité
ne seroit plus accordée à des Protestans.' _Sismondi_, _Histoire
des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 65.

[254] He was so uneasy about the sin he had committed, that before his
death he intreated the Protestant marshals to change their creed:
'Il ne voulut pas mourir sans avoir exhorté de sa propre bouche
les maréchaux de la Force et de Chatillon à se faire
Catholiques.' _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. ii. p.
612. The same circumstance is mentioned by Le Vassor, _Hist. de
Louis XIII_, vol. x. part ii. p. 785.

[255] Louis XIII. died in May 1643; and Turenne was made marshal in the
September following. _Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. iii.
pp. 148, 151.

[256] Sismondi (_Hist. des Français_, vol. xxiv. p. 65) makes the
appointment of Gassion in 1644; according to Montglat
(_Mémoires_, vol. i. p. 437) it was at the end of 1643. There are
some singular anecdotes of Gassion in _Les Historiettes de
Tallemant des Réaux_, vol. v. pp. 167-180; and an account of his
death in _Mém. de Motteville_, vol. ii. p. 290, from which it
appears that he remained a Protestant to the last.

[257] The Pope especially was offended by this alliance (_Ranke_, _die
Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 158, compared with _Vaughan's Cromwell_,
vol. i. p. 343, vol. ii. p. 124); and, judging from the language
of Clarendon, the orthodox party in England was irritated by it.
_Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion_, pp. 699, 700. Contemporary
notices of this union between the cardinal and the regicide, will
be found in _Mém. de Retz_, vol. i. p. 349; _Mém. de Montglat_,
vol. ii. p. 478, vol. iii. p. 23; _Lettres de Patin_, vol. ii.
pp. 183, 302, 426; _Marchand_, _Dict. Historique_, vol. ii. p.
56; _Mem. of Sir Philip Warwick_, p. 377; _Harris's Lives of the
Stuarts_, vol. iii. p. 393.

[258] De Retz (_Mémoires_, vol. i. p. 59), who knew Richelieu, calls
Mazarin 'son disciple.' And at p. 65 he adds, 'comme il marchoit
sur les pas du cardinal de Richelieu, qui avoit achevé de
détruire toutes les anciennes maximes de l'état.' Compare _Mém.
de Motteville_, vol. ii. p. 18; and _Mém. de la Rochefoucauld_,
vol. i. p. 444.

[259] On the open affront to the Pope by this treaty, see _Ranke_, _die
Päpste_, vol. iii. p. 159: 'An dem pyrenäischen Frieden nahm er
auch nicht einmal mehr einen scheinbaren Antheil: man vermied es
seine Abgeordneten zuzulassen: kaum wurde seiner noch darin
gedacht.' The consequences and the meaning of all this are well
noticed by M. Ranke.

But, the circumstance for which the administration of Mazarin is most remarkable, is the breaking out of that great civil war called the Fronde, in which the people attempted to carry into politics the insubordinate spirit which had already displayed itself in literature and in religion. Here we cannot fail to note the similarity between this struggle and that which, at the same time, was taking place in England. It would, indeed, be far from accurate to say that the two events were the counterpart of each other; but there can be no doubt that the analogy between them is very striking. In both countries, the civil war was the first popular expression of what had hitherto been rather a speculative, and, so to say, a literary scepticism. In both countries, incredulity was followed by rebellion, and the abasement of the clergy preceded the humiliation of the crown; for Richelieu was to the French church what Elizabeth had been to the English church. In both countries there now first arose that great product of civilization, a free press, which showed its liberty by pouring forth those fearless and innumerable works which mark the activity of the age.[260] In both countries, the struggle was between retrogression and progress; between those who clung to tradition, and those who longed for innovation; while, in both, the contest assumed the external form of a war between king and parliament, the king being the organ of the past, the parliament the representative of the present. And, not to mention inferior similarities, there was one other point of vast importance in which these two great events coincide. This is, that both of them were eminently secular, and arose from the desire, not of propagating religious opinions, but of securing civil liberty. The temporal character of the English rebellion I have already noticed, and, indeed, it must be obvious to whoever has studied the evidence in its original sources. In France, not only do we find the same result, but we can even mark the stages of the progress. In the middle of the sixteenth century, and immediately after the death of Henry III., the French civil wars were caused by religious disputes, and were carried on with the fervour of a crusade. Early in the seventeenth century, hostilities again broke out; but though the efforts of the government were directed against the Protestants, this was not because they were heretics, but because they were rebels: the object being, not to punish an opinion, but to control a faction. This was the first great stage in the history of toleration; and it was accomplished, as we have already seen, during the reign of Louis XIII. That generation passing away, there arose, in the next age, the wars of the Fronde; and in this, which may be called the second stage of the French intellect, the alteration was still more remarkable. For, in the mean time, the principles of the great sceptical thinkers, from Montaigne to Descartes, had produced their natural fruit, and, becoming diffused among the educated classes, had influenced, as they always will do, not only those by whom they were received, but also those by whom they were rejected. Indeed, a mere knowledge of the fact, that the most eminent men have thrown doubt on the popular opinions of an age, can never fail, in some degree, to disturb the convictions even of those by whom the doubts are ridiculed.[261] In such cases, none are entirely safe: the firmest belief is apt to become slightly unsettled; those who outwardly preserve the appearance of orthodoxy, often unconsciously waver; they cannot entirely resist the influence of superior minds, nor can they always avoid an unwelcome suspicion, that when ability is on one side, and ignorance on the other, it is barely possible that the ability may be right, and the ignorance may be wrong.

[260] 'La presse jouissait d'une entière liberté pendant les troubles de
la Fronde, et le public prenait un tel intérêt aux débats
politiques, que les pamphlets se débitaient quelquefois au nombre
de huit et dix mille exemplaires.' _Sainte-Aulaire_, _Hist. de la
Fronde_, vol. i. p. 299. Tallemant des Réaux, who wrote
immediately after the Fronde, says (_Historiettes_, vol. iv. p.
74), 'Durant la Fronde, qu'on imprimoit tout.' And Omer Talon,
with the indignation natural to a magistrate, mentions, that in
1649, 'toutes sortes de libelles et de diffamations se publioient
hautement par la ville sans permission du magistrat.' _Mém.
d'Omer Talon_, vol. ii. p. 466. For further evidence of the great
importance of the press in France in the middle of the
seventeenth century, see _Mém. de Lenet_, vol. i. p. 162; _Mém.
de Motteville_, vol. iii. pp. 288, 289; _Lettres de Patin_, vol.
i. p. 432, vol. ii. p. 517; _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_,
vol. vii. p. 175.

In England, the Long Parliament succeeded to the licensing
authority of the Star-chamber (_Blackstone's Commentaries_, vol.
iv. p. 152); but it is evident from the literature of that time,
that for a considerable period the power was in reality in
abeyance. Both parties attacked each other freely through the
press; and it is said that between the breaking out of the civil
war and the restoration, there were published from 30,000 to
50,000 pamphlets. _Morgan's Ph[oe]nix Britannicus_, 1731, 4to.
pp. iii. 557; _Carlyle's Cromwell_, vol. i. p. 4; _Southey's
Commonplace Book_, third series, p. 449. See also on this great
movement of the press, _Bates's Account of the Late Troubles_,
part i. p. 78; _Bulstrode's Memoirs_, p. 4; _Howell's Letters_,
p. 354; _Hunt's Hist. of Newspapers_, vol. i. p. 45; _Clarendon's
Hist. of the Rebellion_, p. 81; _Nichols's Lit. Anec._ vol. iv.
pp. 86, 102.

[261] Dugald Stewart (_Philos. of the Mind_, vol. i. p. 357) says,
'Nothing can be more just than the observation of Fontenelle,
that "the number of those who believe in a system already
established in the world, does not, in the least, add to its
credibility; but that the number of those who doubt of it, has a
tendency to diminish it."' Compare with this _Newman on
Development_, Lond. 1845, p. 31; and the remark of Hylas in
_Berkeley's Works_, edit. 1843, vol. i. pp. 151, 152, first
dialogue.

Thus it fell out in France. In that country, as in every other, when theological convictions diminished, theological animosities subsided. Formerly religion had been the cause of war, and had also been the pretext under which it was conducted. Then there came a time when it ceased to be the cause: but so slow is the progress of society, that it was still found necessary to set it up as the pretext.[262] Finally, there came the great days of the Fronde, in which it was neither cause nor pretext,[263] and in which there was seen, for the first time in France, an arduous struggle by human beings avowedly for human purposes: a war waged by men who sought, not to enforce their opinions, but to increase their liberty. And, as if to make this change still more striking, the most eminent leader of the insurgents was the Cardinal de Retz; a man of vast ability, but whose contempt for his profession was notorious,[264] and of whom a great historian has said, 'he is the first bishop in France who carried on a civil war without making religion the pretence.'[265]

[262] Compare _Capefigue's Richelieu_, vol. i. p. 293, with a remarkable
passage in _Mém. de Rohan_, vol. i. p. 317; where Rohan contrasts
the religious wars he was engaged in during the administration of
Richelieu, with those very different wars which had been waged in
France a little earlier.

[263] 'L'esprit religieux ne s'était mêlé en aucune manière aux
querelles de la Fronde.' _Capefigue_, vol. ii. p. 434. Lenet, who
had great influence with what was called the party of the
princes, says that he always avoided any attempt 'à faire aboutir
notre parti à une guerre de religion.' _Mém. de Lenet_, vol. i.
p. 619. Even the people said that it was unimportant whether or
not a man died a Protestant; but that if he were a partizan of
Mazarin he was sure to be damned: 'Ils disoient qu'étant mazarin,
il falloit qu'il fût damné.' _Lenet_, vol. i. p. 434.

[264] Indeed he does not conceal this even in his memoirs. He says
(_Mém._ vol. i. p. 3), he had 'l'âme peut-être la moins
ecclésiastique qui fût dans l'univers.' At p. 13, 'le chagrin que
ma profession ne laissoit pas de nourrir toujours dans le fonds
de mon âme.' At p. 21, 'je haïssois ma profession plus que
jamais.' At p. 48, 'le clergé, qui donne toujours l'exemple de la
servitude, la prêchoit aux autres sous le titre d'obéissance.'
See also the remark of his great friend Joly (_Mém. de Joly_, p.
209, edit. Petitot, 1825); and the account given by Tallemant des
Réaux, who knew De Retz well, and had travelled with him,
_Historiettes_, vol. vii. pp. 18-30. The same tendency is
illustrated, though in a much smaller degree, by a conversation
which Charles II., when in exile, held with De Retz, and which is
preserved in _Clarendon's Hist. of the Rebellion_, p. 806, and is
worth consulting merely as an instance of the purely secular view
that De Retz always took of political affairs.

[265] 'Cet homme singulier est le premier évêque en France qui ait fait
une guerre civile sans avoir la religion pour prétexte.' _Siècle
de Louis XIV_, in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xix. p. 261.

We have thus seen that, during the seventy years which succeeded the accession of Henry IV., the French intellect developed itself in a manner remarkably similar to that which took place in England. We have seen that, in both countries, the mind, according to the natural conditions of its growth, first doubted what it had long believed, and then tolerated what it had long hated. That this was by no means an accidental or capricious combination, is evident, not only from general arguments, and from the analogy of the two countries, but also from another circumstance of great interest. This is, that the order of events, and as it were their relative proportions, were the same, not only in reference to the increase of toleration, but also in reference to the increase of literature and science. In both countries, the progress of knowledge bore the same ratio to the decline of ecclesiastical influence, although they manifested that ratio at different periods. We had begun to throw off our superstitions somewhat earlier than the French were able to do; and thus, being the first in the field, we anticipated that great people in producing a secular literature. Whoever will take the pains to compare the growth of the French and English minds, will see that, in all the most important departments, we were the first, I do not say in merit, but in the order of time. In prose, in poetry, and in every branch of intellectual excellence, it will be found, on comparison, that we were before the French nearly a whole generation; and that, chronologically, the same proportion was preserved as that between Bacon and Descartes, Hooker and Pascal,[266] Shakespeare and Corneille, Massinger and Racine, Ben Jonson and Molière, Harvey and Pecquet. These eminent men were all justly celebrated in their respective countries; and it would perhaps be invidious to institute a comparison between them. But what we have here to observe is, that among those who cultivated the same department, the greatest Englishman, in every instance, preceded the greatest Frenchman by many years. The difference, running as it does, through all the leading topics, is far too regular to be considered accidental. And as few Englishmen of the present day will be so presumptuous as to suppose that we possess any native and inherent superiority over the French, it is evident that there must be some marked peculiarity in which the two countries differed, and which has produced this difference, not in their knowledge, but in the time at which their knowledge appeared. Nor does the discovery of this peculiarity require much penetration. For, notwithstanding that the French were more tardy than the English, still, when the development had fairly begun, the antecedents of its success were among both people precisely the same. It is, therefore, clear, according to the commonest principles of inductive reasoning, that the lateness of the development must be owing to the lateness of the antecedent. It is clear that the French knew less because they believed more.[267] It is clear that their progress was checked by the prevalence of those feelings which are fatal to all knowledge, because, looking on antiquity as the sole receptacle of wisdom, they degrade the present in order that they may exaggerate the past: feelings which destroy the prospects of man, stifle his hopes, damp his curiosity, chill his energies, impair his judgment, and, under pretence of humbling the pride of his reason, seek to throw him back into that more than midnight darkness from which his reason alone has enabled him to emerge.

[266] Hooker and Pascal may properly be classed together, as the two
most sublime theological writers either country has produced; for
Bossuet is as inferior to Pascal as Jeremy Taylor is inferior to
Hooker.

[267] One of the most remarkable men they have ever possessed notices
this connexion, which he expresses conversely, but with equal
truth: 'moins on sait, moins on doute; moins on a découvert,
moins on voit ce qui reste à découvrir.... Quand les hommes sont
ignorans, il est aisé de tout savoir.' _Discours en Sorbonne_, in
_[OE]uvres de Turgot_, vol. ii. pp. 65, 70.

The analogy thus existing between France and England, is, indeed, very striking, and, so far as we have yet considered it, seems complete in all its parts. To sum up the similarities in a few words, it may be said, that both countries followed the same order of development in their scepticism, in their knowledge, in their literature, and in their toleration. In both countries, there broke out a civil war at the same time, for the same object, and, in many respects, under the same circumstances. In both, the insurgents, at first triumphant, were afterwards defeated; and the rebellion being put down, the governments of the two nations were fully restored almost at the same moment: in 1660 by Charles II.; in 1661, by Louis XIV.[268] But there the similarity stopped. At this point there began a marked divergence between the two countries;[269] which continued to increase for more than a century, until it ended in England by the consolidation of the national prosperity, in France by a revolution more sanguinary, more complete, and more destructive, than any the world has ever seen. This difference between the fortunes of such great and civilized nations is so remarkable, that a knowledge of its causes becomes essential to a right understanding of European history, and will be found to throw considerable light on other events not immediately connected with it. Besides this, such an inquiry, independently of its scientific interest, will have a high practical value. It will show, what men seem only recently to have begun to understand, that, in politics, no certain principles having yet been discovered, the first conditions of success are compromise, barter, expediency, and concession. It will show the utter helplessness even of the ablest rulers, when they try to meet new emergencies by old maxims. It will show the intimate connexion between knowledge and liberty; between an increasing civilization and an advancing democracy. It will show that, for a progressive nation, there is required a progressive polity; that within certain limits, innovation is the sole ground of security; that no institution can withstand the flux and movements of society, unless it not only repairs its structure, but also widens its entrance; and that, even in a material point of view, no country can long remain either prosperous or safe, in which the people are not gradually extending their power, enlarging their privileges, and, so to say, incorporating themselves with the functions of the state.

[268] Mazarin, until his death in 1661, exercised complete authority
over Louis. See _Siècle de Louis XIV_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. xix. pp. 318, 319; and _Lavallée_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. iii. p. 195; so that, as Montglat says (_Mém._
vol. iii. p. 111), 'On doit appeler ce temps-là le commencement
du règne de Louis XIV.' The pompous manner in which, directly
after the death of Mazarin, the king assumed the government, is
related by Brienne, who was present. _Mém. de Brienne_, vol. ii.
pp. 154-158.

[269] By this I mean, that the divergence now first became clear to
every observer; but the origin of the divergence dates from a
much earlier period, as we shall see in the next chapter.

The tranquillity of England, and her freedom from civil war, are to be ascribed to the recognition of these great truths;[270] while the neglect of them has entailed upon other countries the most woful calamities. On this account, therefore, if on no other, it becomes interesting to ascertain how it was that the two nations we have been comparing should, in regard to these truths, have adopted views diametrically opposite, although, in other matters, their opinions, as we have already seen, were very similar. Or, to state the question in other words, we have to inquire how it was that the French, after pursuing precisely the same course as the English, in their knowledge, in their scepticism, and in their toleration, should have stopped short in their politics; how it was that their minds, which had effected such great things, should, nevertheless, have been so unprepared for liberty, that, in spite of the heroic efforts of the Fronde, they not only fell under the despotism of Louis XIV., but never cared to resist it; and, at length, becoming slaves in their souls as well as in their bodies, they grew proud of a condition which the meanest Englishman would have spurned as an intolerable bondage.

[270] That is to say, their practical recognition; theoretically, they
are still denied by innumerable politicians, who, nevertheless,
assist in carrying them into effect, fondly hoping that each
innovation will be the last, and enticing men into reform under
the pretext that by each change they are returning to the spirit
of the ancient British constitution.

The cause of this difference is to be sought in the existence of that spirit of protection which is so dangerous and yet so plausible, that it forms the most serious obstacle with which advancing civilization has to contend. This, which may truly be called an evil spirit, has always been far stronger in France than in England. Indeed, among the French, it continues, even to the present day, to produce the most mischievous results. It is, as I shall hereafter point out, intimately connected with that love of centralization which appears in the machinery of their government, and in the spirit of their literature. It is this which induces them to retain restrictions by which their trade has long been troubled, and to preserve monopolies which, in our country, a freer system has effectually destroyed. It is this which causes them to interfere with the natural relation between producers and consumers; to force into existence manufactures which otherwise would never arise, and which, for that very reason, are not required; to disturb the ordinary march of industry, and, under pretence of protecting their native labourers, diminish the produce of labour by diverting it from those profitable channels into which its own instincts always compel it to flow.

When the protective principle is carried into trade, these are its inevitable results. When it is carried into politics, there is formed what is called a paternal government, in which supreme power is vested in the sovereign, or in a few privileged classes. When it is carried into theology, it produces a powerful church, and a numerous clergy, who are supposed to be the necessary guardians of religion, and every opposition to whom is resented as an insult to the public morals. These are the marks by which protection may be recognized; and from a very early period they have displayed themselves in France much more clearly than in England. Without pretending to discover their precise origin, I will, in the next chapter, endeavour to trace them back to a time sufficiently remote to explain some of the discrepancies which, in this respect existed between the two countries.

* * * * *

_Note to p. 93._ Descartes died in Sweden on a visit to Christina; so that, strictly speaking, there is an error in the text. But this does not affect the argument; because the works of Descartes, being eagerly read in France, and not being prohibited, we must suppose that his person would have been safe, had he remained in his own country. To burn a heretic is a more decisive step than to suppress a book; and as the French clergy were not strong enough to effect the latter, it is hardly likely that they could have accomplished the former.