Chapter VI (1)

STATE OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE IN FRANCE FROM THE END OF THE SIXTEENTH
TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

It may be easily supposed, that those vast movements in the intellect of France, which I have just traced, could not fail to produce a great change in the method of writing history. That bold spirit with which men were beginning to estimate the transactions of their own time, was sure to influence their opinions respecting those of a former age. In this, as in every branch of knowledge, the first innovation consisted in recognizing the necessity of doubting what had hitherto been believed; and this feeling, when once established, went on increasing, destroying at each step some of those monstrous absurdities by which, as we have seen, even the best histories were disfigured. The germs of the reform may be discerned in the fourteenth century, though the reform itself did not begin until late in the sixteenth century. During the seventeenth century, it advanced somewhat slowly; but in the eighteenth century it received a sudden accession of strength, and, in France in particular, it was hastened by that fearless and inquisitive spirit which characterized the age, and which, purging history of innumerable follies, raised its standard, and conferred on it a dignity hitherto unknown. The rise of historical scepticism, and the extent to which it spread, do indeed form such curious features in the annals of the European intellect, as to make it surprising that no one should have attempted to examine a movement to which a great department of modern literature owes its most valuable peculiarities. In the present chapter, I hope to supply this deficiency so far as France is concerned; and I shall endeavour to mark the different steps by which the progress was effected, in order that, by knowing the circumstances most favourable to the study of history, we may with the greater ease inquire into the probability of its future improvement.

There is, in reference to this subject, a preliminary consideration well worthy of notice. This is, that men seem always to have begun to doubt in matters of religion, before they ventured to do so in matters of history. It might have been expected that the reproaches, and, in a superstitious age, the dangers, to which heresy is exposed, would have intimidated inquirers, and would have induced them to prefer the safer path of directing their scepticism upon questions of literary speculation. Such, however, is by no means the course which the human mind has adopted. In an early stage of society, when the clergy had universal influence, a belief in the unpardonable criminality of religious error is so deeply rooted, that it engrosses the attention of all; it forces every one who thinks, to concentrate upon theology his reflections and his doubts, and it leaves no leisure for topics which are conceived to be of inferior importance.[807] Hence, during many centuries, the subtlest intellects of Europe exhausted their strength on the rights and dogmas of Christianity; and while upon these matters they often showed the greatest ability, they, upon other subjects, and especially upon history, displayed that infantine credulity, of which I have already given several examples.

[807] See some very just remarks in _Whewell's Philos. of the Induc.
Sciences_, vol. ii. p. 143. In _Neander's Hist. of the Church_,
vol. iv. pp. 41, 128, there are two curious illustrations of the
universal interest which theological discussions once inspired in
Europe; and on the former subservience of philosophy to theology,
compare _Hamilton's Discussions on Philosophy_, p. 197. But no
one has treated this subject so ably as M. Auguste Comte, in his
great work, _Philosophie Positive_. The service which the
metaphysicians rendered to the church by their development of the
doctrine of transubstantiation (_Blánco White's Evidence against
Catholicism_, pp. 256-258) is a striking instance of this
subordination of the intellect to ecclesiastical dogmas.

But when, in the progress of society, its theological element begins to decay, the ardour with which religious disputes were once conducted becomes sensibly weakened. The most advanced intellects are the first to feel the growing indifference, and, therefore, they are also the first to scrutinize real events with that inquisitive eye which their predecessors had reserved for religious speculations. This is a great turning-point in the history of every civilized nation. From this moment theological heresies become less frequent,[808] and literary heresies become more common. From this moment the spirit of inquiry and of doubt fastens itself upon every department of knowledge, and begins that great career of conquest, in which by every succeeding discovery the power and dignity of man are increased, while at the same time most of his opinions are disturbed, and many of them are destroyed: until, in the march of this vast but noiseless revolution, the stream of tradition is, as it were, interrupted, the influence of ancient authority is subverted, and the human mind, waxing in strength, learns to rely upon its own resources, and to throw off incumbrances by which the freedom of its movements had long been impaired.

[808] M. Tocqueville says, what I am inclined to think is true, that an
increasing spirit of equality lessens the disposition to form new
religious creeds. _Démocratie en Amérique_, vol. iv. pp. 16, 17.
At all events, it is certain that increasing knowledge has this
effect; for those great men whose turn of mind would formerly
have made them heretics, are now content to confine their
innovations to other fields of thought. If St. Augustin had lived
in the seventeenth century, he would have reformed or created the
physical sciences. If Sir Isaac Newton had lived in the fourth
century, he would have organized a new sect, and have troubled
the church with his originality.

The application of these remarks to the history of France, will enable us to explain some interesting phenomena in the literature of that country. During the whole of the Middle Ages, and I may say till the end of the sixteenth century, France, though fertile in annalists and chroniclers, had not produced a single historian, because she had not produced a single man who presumed to doubt what was generally believed. Indeed, until the publication of Du Haillan's history of the kings of France, no one had even attempted a critical digest of the materials which were known to be extant. This work appeared in 1576;[809] and the author, at the conclusion of his labours, could not disguise the pride which he felt at having accomplished so great an undertaking. In his dedication to the king he says, 'I am, sire, the first of all the French who have written the history of France, and, in a polite language, shown the grandeur and dignity of our kings; for before there was nothing but the old rubbish of chronicles which spoke of them.' He adds in the preface: 'Only I will say, without presumption and boasting, that I have done a thing which had not been done before, or seen by any of our nation, and have given to the history of France a dress it never appeared in before.'[810] Nor were these the idle boasts of an obscure man. His work went through numerous editions; was translated into Latin, and was reprinted in foreign countries. He himself was looked upon as one of the glories of the French nation, and was rewarded by the favour of the king, who conferred on him the office of secretary of finance.[811] From his work, we may, therefore, gain some notion of what was then the received standard of historical literature; and with this view, it is natural to inquire what the materials were which he chiefly employed. About sixty years earlier, an Italian named Paulus Emilius had published a gossiping compilation on the 'Actions of the French.'[812] This book, which is full of extravagant fables, was taken by Du Haillan as the basis of his famous history of the kings of France; and from it he unhesitatingly copies those idle stories which Emilius loved to relate. This will give us some idea of the credulity of a writer, who was reckoned by his contemporaries to be, beyond all comparison, the greatest historian France had produced. But this is not all. Du Haillan, not content with borrowing from his predecessor everything that was most incredible, gratifies his passion for the marvellous by some circumstances of his own invention. He begins his history with a long account of a council which, he says, was held by the celebrated Pharamond, in order to determine whether the French should be governed by a monarchy or by an aristocracy. It is, indeed, doubtful if any such person as Pharamond ever existed; and it is certain that, if he did exist, all the materials had long perished from which an opinion could be formed respecting him.[813] But Du Haillan, regardless of these little difficulties, gives us the fullest information touching the great chieftain; and, as if determined to tax to the utmost the credulity of his readers, mentions, as members of the council of Pharamond, two persons, Charamond and Quadrek, whose very names are invented by the historian.[814]

[809] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xix. pp. 315, 316; where it is said, 'l'ouvrage
de Du Haillan est remarquable en ce que c'est le premier corps
d'histoire de France qui ait paru dans notre langue.' See also
_Dacier_, _Rapport sur les Progrès de l'Histoire_, p. 170; and
_Des Réaux_, _Historiettes_, vol. x. p. 185.

[810] _Bayle_, article _Haillan_, note L.

[811] _Mercure François_, in _Bayle_, article _Haillan_, note D.

[812] _De Rebus gestis Francorum_, which appeared about 1516. _Biog.
Univ._ vol. xiii. p. 119. Compare, respecting the author,
_Mézéray_, _Hist. de France_, vol. ii. p. 363, with _Audigier_,
_l'Origine des François_, vol. ii. p. 118, who complains of his
opinion about Clovis, 'quoy qu'il fasse profession de relever la
gloire des François.' Even the superficial Boulainvilliers
(_Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement_, vol. ii. p. 166)
contemptuously notices 'les rétoriciens postérieurs, tels que
Paul Emile.'

[813] Compare _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. i. pp. 176, 177,
with _Montlosier_, _Monarchie Française_, vol. i. pp. 43, 44.
Philippe de Comines, though superior to Sismondi and Montlosier
in point of ability, lived in the middle ages, and therefore had
no idea of doubting, but simply says, 'Pharamond fut esleu roy,
l'an 420, et régna dix ans,' _Mém. de Comines_, livre viii. chap.
xxvii. vol. iii. p. 232. But De Thou, coming a hundred years
after Comines, evidently suspected that it was not all quite
right, and therefore puts it on the authority of others.
'Pharamond, qui _selon nos historiens_ a porté le premier la
couronne des François.' _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. x. p. 530.
See a singular passage on Pharamond in _Mém. de Duplessis
Mornay_, vol. ii. p. 405.

[814] Sorel (_La Bibliothèque Françoise_, Paris, 1667, p. 373) says of
Du Haillan, 'On lui peut reprocher d'avoir donné un commencement
fabuleux à son histoire, qui est entièrement de son invention,
ayant fait tenir un conseil entre Pharamond et ses plus fidelles
conseillers, pour sçavoir si ayant la puissance en main il deuoit
réduire les François au gouvernement aristocratique ou
monarchique, et faisant faire une harangue à chacun d'eux pour
soustenir son opinion. On y voit les noms de Charamond et de
Quadrek, personnages imaginaires.' Sorel, who had a glimmering
notion that this was not exactly the way to write history, adds,
'C'est une chose fort surprenante. On est fort peu asseuré si
Pharamond fut jamais au monde, et quoy qu'on sçache qu'il y ait
esté, c'est une terrible hardiesse d'en raconter des choses qui
n'ont aucun appuy.'

Such was the state of historical literature in France early in the reign of Henry III. A great change was, however, at hand. The remarkable intellectual progress made by the French towards the close of the sixteenth century was, as I have shown, preceded by that scepticism which appears to be its necessary precursor. The spirit of doubt, which had begun with religion, was communicated to literature. The impulse was immediately felt in every department of knowledge, and now it was that history first emerged from a debasement in which it had for centuries been sunk. On this subject a mere statement of dates may be of service to those persons who, from a dislike to general reasoning, would otherwise deny the connexion which I wish to establish. In 1588 was published the first sceptical book ever written in the French language.[815] In 1598, the French government, for the first time, ventured upon a great public act of religious toleration. In 1604, De Thou published that celebrated work, which is allowed by all critics to be the first great history composed by a Frenchman.[816] And at the very moment when these things were passing, another eminent Frenchman, the illustrious Sully,[817] was collecting the materials for his historical work, which, though hardly equal to that of De Thou, comes immediately after it in ability, in importance, and in reputation. Nor can we fail to remark, that both these great historians, who left all their predecessors immeasurably behind them, were the confidential ministers and intimate friends of Henry IV., the first king of France whose memory is stained by the imputation of heresy, and the first who dared to change his religion, not in consequence of any theological arguments, but on the broad and notorious ground of political expediency.[818]

[815] 'Die erste Regung des skeptischen Geistes finden wir in den
Versuchen des Michael von Montaigne.' _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der
Philos._ vol. ix. p. 443.

[816] The first volume appeared in 1604. See _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque
Historique de la France_, vol. ii. p. 375; and preface to _De
Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. i. p. iv.

[817] Sismondi has scarcely done justice to Sully; but the reader will
find a fuller account of him in _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la
Réforme_, vol. viii. pp. 101-117; and a still better one in
_Blanqui_, _Histoire de l'Economie Politique_, vol. i. pp.
347-361.

[818] According to D'Aubigné, the king, on his conversion, said, 'Je
ferai voir à tout le monde que je n'ai esté persuadé par autre
théologie que la nécessité de l'estat.' _Smedley's Reformed
Religion in France_, vol. ii. p. 362. That Henry felt this is
certain; and that he expressed it to his friends is probable; but
he had a difficult game to play with the Catholic church; and in
one of his edicts we find 'une grande joye de son retour à
l'église, dont il attribuoit la cause à la grâce du
Tout-Puissant, et aux prières de ses fidèles sujets.' _De Thou_,
_Hist. Univ._ vol. xii. pp. 105, 106. Compare, at pp. 468, 469,
the message he sent to the pope.

But it was not merely over such eminent historians as these that the sceptical spirit displayed its influence. The movement was now becoming sufficiently active to leave its marks in the writings of far inferior men. There were two particulars in which the credulity of the earlier historians was very striking. These consisted in the uncritical manner in which, by blindly copying their predecessors, they confused the dates of different events; and in the readiness with which they believed the most improbable statements, upon imperfect evidence, and often upon no evidence at all. It is surely a singular proof of that intellectual progress which I am endeavouring to trace, that, within a very few years, both these sources of error were removed. In 1597, Serres was appointed historiographer of France; and, in the same year, he published his history of that country.[819] In this work, he insists upon the necessity of carefully recording the date of each event; and the example, which he first set, has, since his time, been generally followed.[820] The importance of this change will be willingly acknowledged by those who are aware of the confusion into which history has been thrown by the earlier writers having neglected, what now seems, so obvious a precaution. Scarcely had this innovation been established, when it was followed, in the same country, by another of still greater moment. This was the appearance, in 1621, of a history of France, by Scipio Dupleix; in which, for the first time, the evidence for historical facts was published with the facts themselves.[821] It is needless to insist upon the utility of a step which, more than any other, has taught historians to be industrious in collecting their authorities, and careful in scrutinizing them.[822] To this may be added, that Dupleix was also the first Frenchman who ventured to publish a system of philosophy in his own language.[823] It is true, that the system itself is intrinsically of little value;[824] but, at the time it appeared, it was an unprecedented, and, on that account, a profane attempt, to unfold the mysteries of philosophy in the vulgar speech; and, in this point of view, supplies evidence of the increasing diffusion of a spirit bolder and more inquisitive than any formerly known. It is not, therefore, surprising, that, almost at the same moment, there should be made, in the same country, the first systematic attempt at historical scepticism. The system of philosophy by Dupleix appeared in 1602; and in 1599, La Popelinière published at Paris what he calls the _History of Histories_, in which he criticizes historians themselves, and examines their works with that sceptical spirit, to which his own age was deeply indebted.[825] This able man was also the author of a _Sketch of the New History of the French_; containing a formal refutation of that fable, so dear to the early historians, according to which the monarchy of France was founded by Francus, who arrived in Gaul after the conclusion of the siege of Troy.[826]

[819] _Marchand_, _Dictionnaire Historique_, vol. ii. pp. 205, 209, La
Haye, 1758, folio. This curious and learned work, which is much
less read than it deserves, contains the only good account of
Serres I have been able to meet with; vol. ii. pp. 197-213.

[820] 'On ne prenoit presque aucun soin de marquer les dates des
événemens dans les ouvrages historiques.... De Serres reconnut ce
défaut; et pour y remédier, il rechercha avec beaucoup de soin
les dates des événemens qu'il avoit à employer, et les marqua
dans son histoire le plus exactement qu'il lui fut possible. Cet
exemple a été imité depuis par la plupart de ceux qui l'ont
suivi; et c'est à lui qu'on est redevable de l'avantage qu'on
tire d'une pratique si nécessaire et si utile.' _Marchand_,
_Dict. Historique_, vol. ii. p. 206.

[821] 'Il est le premier historien qui ait cité en marge ses autorités;
précaution absolument nécessaire quand on n'écrit pas l'histoire
de son temps, à moins qu'on ne s'en tienne aux faits connus.'
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xix. p. 95. And the _Biog. Univ._
vol. xii. p. 277, says, 'On doit lui faire honneur d'avoir cité
en marge les auteurs dont il s'est servi; précaution
indispensable, que l'on connaissait peu avant lui, et que les
historiens modernes négligent trop aujourd'hui.' Bassompierre,
who had a quarrel with Dupleix, has given some curious details
respecting him and his History; but they are, of course, not to
be relied on. _Mém. de Bassompierre_, vol. iii. pp. 356, 357.
Patin speaks favourably of his history of Henry IV. _Lettres de
Patin_, vol. i. p. 17: but compare _Sully_, _[OE]conomies
Royales_, vol. ix. pp. 121, 249.

[822] The ancients, as is well known, rarely took this trouble. _Mure's
Hist. of Greek Literature_, vol. iv. pp. 197, 306, 307. But what
is much more curious is, that, even in scientific works, there
was an equal looseness; and Cuvier says, that, in the sixteenth
century, 'on se bornait à dire, d'une manière générale, Aristote
a dit telle chose, sans indiquer ni le passage ni le livre dans
lequel la citation se trouvait.' _Cuvier_, _Hist. des Sciences_,
part ii. p. 63; and at p. 88, 'suivant l'usage de son temps,
Gessner n'indique pas avec précision les endroits d'où il a tiré
ses citations:' see also p. 214.

[823] 'Le premier ouvrage de philosophie publié dans cette langue.'
_Biog. Univ._ vol. xii. p. 277.

[824] So it seemed to me, when I turned over its leaves a few years ago.
However, Patin says, 'sa philosophie françoise n'est pas
mauvaise.' _Lettres de Patin_, vol. iii. p. 357. On the dialectic
powers of Dupleix, see a favourable judgment in _Hamilton's
Discuss. on Philos._ p. 119.

[825] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxv. p. 402. Sorel (_Bibliothèque Françoise_,
p. 165), who is evidently displeased at the unprecedented
boldness of La Popelinière, says, 'il dit ses sentimens en bref
des historiens de toutes les nations, et de plusieurs langues, et
particulièrement des historiens françois, dont il parle avec
beaucoup d'asseurance.'

[826] 'Il réfute l'opinion, alors fort accréditée, de l'arrivée dans les
Gaules de Francus et des Troyens.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxxv. p.
402. Compare _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique de la France_,
vol. ii. p. 39. Patin says that De Thou was much indebted to him:
'M. de Thou a pris hardiment de la Popelinière.' _Lettres de
Patin_, vol. i. p. 222. There is a notice of Popelinière, in
connexion with Richer, in _Mém. de Richelieu_, vol. v. p. 349.

It would be useless to collect all the instances in which this advancing spirit of scepticism now began to purge history of its falsehoods. I will only mention two or three more of those which have occurred in my reading. In 1614, De Rubis published at Lyons a work on the European monarchies; in which he not only attacks the long-established belief respecting the descent from Francus, but boldly asserts, that the Franks owe their name to their ancient liberties.[827] In 1620, Gomberville, in a dissertation on history, refutes many of those idle stories respecting the antiquity of the French, which had been universally received until his time.[828] And, in 1630, Berthault published at Paris the 'French Floras,' in which he completely upsets the old method; since he lays it down as a fundamental principle, that the origin of the French must only be sought for in those countries where they were found by the Romans.[829]

[827] 'Il réfute les fables qu'on avançoit sur l'origine des François,
appuyées sur le témoignage au faux Bérose. Il dit que leur nom
vient de leur ancienne franchise.' _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque
Historique_, vol. ii. p. 750.

[828] Compare _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque Françoise_, p. 298, with _Du
Fresnoy_, _Méthode pour étudier l'Histoire_, vol. x. p. 4, Parie,
1772. There is an account of Gomberville in _Les Historiettes de
Tallemant des Réaux_, vol. viii. pp. 15-19; a singularly curious
book, which is, for the seventeenth century, what Brantome is for
the sixteenth. I ought to have mentioned earlier the inimitable
ridicule with which Rabelais treats the habit historians had of
tracing the genealogies of their heroes back to Noah. _[OE]uvres
de Rabelais_, vol. i. pp. 1-3, and vol. ii. pp. 10-17: see also,
at vol. v. pp. 171, 172, his defence of the antiquity of Chinon.

[829] 'L'auteur croit qu'il ne faut pas la chercher ailleurs que dans le
pays où ils out été connus des Romains, c'est-à-dire entre l'Elbe
et le Rhin,' _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique_, vol. ii. p.
56. This work of Berthault's was, for many years, a text-book in
the French colleges. _Biog. Univ._ vol. iv. p. 347.

All these, and similar productions, were, however, entirely eclipsed by Mezeray's History of France; the first volume of which was published in 1643, and the last in 1651.[830] It is, perhaps, hardly fair to his predecessors, to call him the first general historian of France;[831] but there can be no doubt that his work is greatly superior to any that had yet been seen. The style of Mezeray is admirably clear and vigorous, rising, at times, to considerable eloquence. Besides this, he has two other merits much more important. These are, an indisposition to believe strange things, merely because they have hitherto been believed; and an inclination to take the side of the people, rather than that of their rulers.[832] Of these principles, the first was too common among the ablest Frenchmen of that time to excite much attention.[833] But the other principle enabled Mezeray to advance an important step before all his contemporaries. He was the first Frenchman who, in a great historical work, threw off that superstitious reverence for royalty which had long troubled the minds of his countrymen, and which, indeed, continued to haunt them for another century. As a necessary consequence, he was also the first who saw that a history, to be of real value, must be a history, not only of kings, but of nations. A steady perception of this principle led him to incorporate into his book matters which, before his time, no one cared to study. He communicates all the information he could collect respecting the taxes which the people had paid; the sufferings they had undergone from the gripping hands of their governors; their manners, their comforts, even the state of the towns which they inhabited; in a word, what affected the interests of the French people, as well as what affected the interests of the French monarchy.[834] These were the subjects which Mezeray preferred to insignificant details respecting the pomp of courts and the lives of kings. These were the large and comprehensive matters on which he loved to dwell, and on which he expatiated; not, indeed, with so much fulness as we could desire, but still with a spirit and an accuracy which entitles him to the honour of being the greatest historian France produced before the eighteenth century.

[830] The first volume in 1643; the second in 1646; and the last in
1651. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxviii. p. 510.

[831] 'The French have now their first general historian, Mezeray.'
_Hallam's Literature of Europe_, vol. iii. p. 228; and see
_Stephen's Lectures on the History of France_, 1851, vol. i. p.
10.

[832] Bayle says, that Mezeray is, 'de tous les historiens celui qui
favorise le plus les peuples contre la cour.' _Le Long_,
_Bibliothèque Historique_, vol. iii. p. lxxxvi.

[833] Though it did not prevent him from believing that sudden tempests,
and unusual appearances in the heavens, were aberrations, due to
supernatural interference, and, as such, were the prognosticators
of political change. _Mézéray_, _Hist. de France_, vol. i. pp.
202, 228, 238, 241, 317, 792, vol. ii. pp. 485, 573, 1120, vol.
iii. pp. 31, 167, 894; instructive passages, as proving that,
even in powerful minds, the scientific and secular method was
still feeble.

[834] What he did on these subjects is most remarkable, considering that
some of the best materials were unknown, and in manuscript, and
that even De Thou gives scarcely any information respecting them;
so that Mezeray had no model. See, among other passages which
have struck me in the first volume, pp. 145-147, 204, 353, 356,
362-365, 530, 531, 581, 812, 946, 1039. Compare his indignant
expressions at vol. ii. p. 721.

This was, in many respects, the most important change which had yet been effected in the manner of writing history. If the plan begun by Mezeray had been completed by his successors, we should possess materials, the absence of which no modern researches can possibly compensate. Some things, indeed, we should, in that case, have lost. We should know less than we now know of courts and of camps. We should have heard less of the peerless beauty of French queens, and of the dignified presence of French kings. We might even have missed some of the links of that evidence by which the genealogies of princes and nobles are ascertained, and the study of which delights the curiosity of antiquaries and heralds. But, on the other hand, we should have been able to examine the state of the French people during the latter half of the seventeenth century; while, as things now stand, our knowledge of them, in that most important period, is inferior in accuracy and in extent to the knowledge we possess of some of the most barbarous tribes of the earth.[835] If the example of Mezeray had been followed, with such additional resources as the progress of affairs would have supplied, we should not only have the means of minutely tracing the growth of a great and civilised nation, but we should have materials that would suggest or verify those original principles, the discovery of which constitutes the real use of history.

[835] Those who have studied the French memoirs of the seventeenth
century, know how little can be found in them respecting the
condition of the people; while the fullest private
correspondence, such as the letters of Sévigné and De Maintenon,
are equally unsatisfactory. The greater part of the evidence now
extant has been collected by M. Monteil, in his valuable work,
_Histoire des divers Etats_: but whoever will put all this
together must admit, that we are better informed as to the
condition of many savage tribes than we are concerning the lower
classes of France during the reign of Louis XIV.

But this was not to be. Unhappily for the interests of knowledge, the march of French civilization was, at this period, suddenly checked. Soon after the middle of the seventeenth century, that lamentable change took place in France, which gave a new turn to the destinies of the nation. The reaction which the spirit of inquiry underwent, and the social and intellectual circumstances which, by bringing the Fronde to a premature close, prepared the way for Louis XIV., have been described in a former part of this volume, where I have attempted to indicate the general effects of the disastrous movement. It now remains for me to point out how this retrogressive tendency opposed obstacles to the improvement of historical literature, and prevented authors, not only from relating with honesty what was passing around them, but also from understanding events which had occurred before their time.

The most superficial students of French literature must be struck by the dearth of historians during that long period in which Louis XIV. held the reins of government.[836] To this, the personal peculiarities of the king greatly contributed. His education had been shamefully neglected; and as he never had the energy to repair its deficiencies, he all his life remained ignorant of many things with which even princes are usually familiar.[837] Of the course of past events he knew literally nothing, and he took no interest in any history except the history of his own exploits. Among a free people, this indifference on the part of the sovereign could never have produced injurious results; indeed, as we have already seen, the absence of royal patronage is, in a highly civilized country, the most favourable condition of literature. But at the accession of Louis XIV. the liberties of the French were still too young, and the habits of independent thought too recent, to enable them to bear up against that combination of the crown and the church, which was directed against them. The French, becoming every day more servile, at length sunk so low, that, by the end of the seventeenth century, they seemed to have lost even the wish of resistance. The king, meeting no opposition, endeavoured to exercise over the intellect of the country an authority equal to that with which he conducted its government.[838] In all the great questions of religion and of politics, the spirit of inquiry was stifled, and no man was allowed to express an opinion unfavourable to the existing state of things. As the king was willing to endow literature, he naturally thought that he had a right to its services. Authors, who were fed by his hand, were not to raise their voices against his policy. They received his wages, and they were bound to do the bidding of him who paid them. When Louis assumed the government, Mezeray was still living; though I need hardly say that his great work was published before this system of protection and patronage came into play. The treatment to which he, the great historian of France, was now subjected, was a specimen of the new arrangement. He received from the crown a pension of four thousand francs; but when he, in 1668, published an abridgment of his History,[839] it was intimated to him that some remarks upon the tendency of taxation were likely to cause offence in high quarters. As, however, it was soon found that Mezeray was too honest and too fearless to retract what he had written, it was determined to have recourse to intimidation, and half of his pension was taken from him.[840] But as this did not produce a proper effect, another order was issued, which deprived him of the remaining half; and thus early, in this bad reign, there was set an example of punishing a man for writing with honesty upon a subject in which, of all others, honesty is the first essential.[841]

[836] This is noticed in _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxvii.
pp. 181, 182; also in _Villemain_, _Littérature Française_, vol.
ii. pp. 29, 30. Compare _D'Argenson_, _Réflexions sur les
Historiens François_, in _Mémoires de l'Académie des
Inscriptions_, vol. xxviii. p. 627, with _Boulainvilliers_,
_Ancien Gouvernement de la France_, vol. i. p. 174.

[837] 'Le jeune Louis XIV n'avait reçu aucune éducation intellectuelle.'
_Capefigue's Richelieu, Mazarin et la Fronde_, vol. ii. p. 245.
On the education of Louis XIV., which was as shamefully neglected
as that of our George III., see _Lettres inédites de Maintenon_,
vol. ii. p. 369; _Duclos_, _Mém. Secrets_, vol. i. pp. 167, 168;
_Mém. de Brienne_, vol. i. pp. 391-393.

[838] On his political maxims, see _Lemontey_, _Etablissement de
Louis XIV_, pp. 325-327, 407, 408. The eloquent remarks made by
M. Ranke upon an Italian despotism, are admirably applicable to
his whole system: 'Sonderbare Gestalt menschlichen Dinge! Die
Kräfte des Landes bringen den Hof hervor, der Mittelpunkt des
Hofes ist der Fürst, das letzte Product des gesammten Lebens ist
zuletzt das Selbstgefühl des Fürsten.' _Die Päpste_, vol. ii. p.
266.

[839] His _Abrégé Chronologique_ was published in 1668, in three volumes
quarto. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxviii. p. 510. Le Long (_Bibliothèque
Historique_, vol. iii. p. lxxxv.) says, that it was only allowed
to be published in consequence of a 'privilège' which Mezeray had
formerly obtained. But there seems to have been some difficulty,
of which these writers are not aware: for Patin, in a letter
dated Paris, 23 December 1664, speaks of it as being then in the
press: 'on imprime ici en _grand-in-quarto_ un Abrégé de
l'Histoire de France, par M. Mezeray.' _Lettres de Patin_, vol.
iii. p. 503: compare p. 665. It long remained an established
school-book: see D'Argenson's Essay, in _Mém. de l'Académie_,
vol. xxviii. p. 635; and _Works of Sir William Temple_, vol. iii.
p. 70.

[840] _Barrière_, _Essai sur les M[oe]urs du Dix-septième Siècle_,
prefixed to _Mém. de Brienne_, vol. i. pp. 129, 130, where
reference is made to his original correspondence with Colbert.
This treatment of Mezeray is noticed, but imperfectly, in
_Boulainvilliers_, _Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement_, vol. i. p.
196; in _Lemontey_, _Etablissement de Louis XIV_, p. 331; and in
_Palissot_, _Mém. pour l'Hist. de Lit._ vol. ii. p. 161.

[841] In 1685 was published at Paris what was called an improved edition
of Mezeray's History; that is, an edition from which the honest
remarks were expunged. See _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique_,
vol. ii. p. 53, vol. iv. p. 381; and _Brunet_, _Manuel du
Libraire_, vol. iii. p. 383, Paris, 1843. Hampden, who knew
Mezeray, has recorded an interesting interview he had with him in
Paris, when the great historian lamented the loss of the
liberties of France. See _Calamy's Life of Himself_, vol. i. pp.
392, 393.

Such conduct as this showed what historians were to expect from the government of Louis XIV. Several years later, the king took another opportunity of displaying the same spirit. Fénelon had been appointed preceptor to the grandson of Louis, whose early vices his firmness and judgment did much to repress.[842] But a single circumstance was thought sufficient to outweigh the immense service which Fénelon thus rendered to the royal family, and, if his pupil had come to the throne, would have rendered prospectively to the whole of France. His celebrated romance, _Telemachus_, was published in 1699, as it appears, without his consent.[843] The king suspected that, under the guise of a fiction, Fénelon intended to reflect on the conduct of government. It was in vain that the author denied so dangerous an imputation. The indignation of the king was not to be appeased. He banished Fénelon from the court; and would never again admit to his presence a man whom he suspected of even insinuating a criticism upon the measures adopted by the administration of the country.[844]

[842] _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxvi. pp. 240, 241.

[843] 'Par l'infidélité d'un domestique chargé de transcrire le
manuscrit.' _Biog. Univ._ vol. xiv. p. 289; and see _Peignot_,
_Dict. des Livres condamnés_, vol. i. pp. 134, 135. It was
suppressed in France, and appeared in Holland in the same year,
1699. _Lettres de Sévigné_, vol. vi. pp. 434, 435 note.

[844] 'Louis XIV prit le Télémaque pour une personnalité.... Comme il
(Fénelon) avait déplu au roi, il mourut dans l'exil.'
_Lerminier_, _Philos. du Droit_, vol. ii. pp. 219, 220; and see
_Siècle de Louis XIV_, chap. xxxii., in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. xx. p. 307.

If the king could, on mere suspicion, thus treat a great writer, who had the rank of an archbishop and the reputation of a saint, it was not likely that he would deal more tenderly with inferior men. In 1681, the Abbé Primi, an Italian, then residing at Paris, was induced to write a history of Louis XIV. The king, delighted with the idea of perpetuating his own fame, conferred several rewards upon the author: and arrangements were made that the work should be composed in Italian, and immediately translated into French. But when the history appeared, there were found in it some circumstances which it was thought ought not to have been disclosed. On this account, Louis caused the book to be suppressed, the papers of the author to be seized, and the author himself to be thrown into the Bastille.[845]

[845] These circumstances are related in a letter from Lord Preston,
dated Paris, 22 July 1682, and printed in _Dalrymple's Memoirs_,
pp. 141, 142, appendix to vol. i. The account given by M. Peignot
(_Livres condamnés_, vol. ii. pp. 52, 53) is incomplete, he being
evidently ignorant of the existence of Lord Preston's letter.

Those, indeed, were dangerous times for independent men; times when no writer on politics or religion was safe, unless he followed the fashion of the day, and defended the opinions of the court and the church. The king, who had an insatiable thirst for what he called glory,[846] laboured to degrade contemporary historians into mere chroniclers of his own achievements. He ordered Racine and Boileau to write an account of his reign; he settled a pension upon them, and he promised to supply them with the necessary materials.[847] But even Racine and Boileau, poets though they were, knew that they would fail in satisfying his morbid vanity; they, therefore, received the pension, but omitted to compose the work for which the pension was conferred. So notorious was the unwillingness of able men to meddle with history, that it was thought advisable to beat up literary recruits from foreign countries. The case of the Abbé Primi has just been mentioned; he was an Italian, and only one year later a similar offer was made to an Englishman. In 1683, Burnet visited France, and was given to understand that he might receive a pension, and that he might even enjoy the honour of conversing with Louis himself, provided he would write a history of the royal affairs; such history, it was carefully added, being on the 'side' of the French king.[848]

[846] An able writer has well called him 'glorieux plutôt
qu'appréciateur de la vraie gloire.' _Flassan_, _Histoire de la
Diplomatie Française_, vol. iv. p. 399.

[847] In 1677, Madame de Sévigné writes from Paris respecting the king:
'Vous savez bien qu'il a donné deux mille écus de pension à
Racine et à Despréaux, en leur commandant de travailler à son
histoire, dont il aura soin de donner des Mémoires.' _Lettres de
Sévigné_, vol. iii. p. 362. Compare _Eloge de Valincourt_, in
_[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_, vol. vi. p. 383; and _Hughes's
Letters_, edit. 1773, vol. ii. pp. 74, 75.

[848] Burnet relates this with delightful simplicity: 'Others more
probably thought that the king, hearing I was a writer of
history, had a mind to engage me to write on his side. I was told
a pension would be offered me. But I made no steps towards it;
for though I was offered an audience of the king, I excused it,
since I could not have the honour to be presented to that king by
the minister of England.' _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. ii. p. 385.

Under such circumstances as these, it is no wonder that history, so far as its great essentials are concerned, should have rapidly declined during the power of Louis XIV. It became, as some think, more elegant; but it certainly became more feeble. The language in which it was composed was worked with great care, the periods neatly arranged, the epithets soft and harmonious. For that was a polite and obsequious age, full of reverence, of duty, and of admiration. In history, as it was then written, every king was a hero, and every bishop was a saint. All unpleasant truths were suppressed; nothing harsh or unkind was to be told. These docile and submissive sentiments being expressed in an easy and flowing style, gave to history that air of refinement, that gentle, unobtrusive gait, which made it popular with the classes that it flattered. But even so, while its form was polished, its life was extinct. All its independence was gone, all its honesty, all its boldness. The noblest and the most difficult department of knowledge, the study of the movements of the human race, was abandoned to every timid and creeping intellect that cared to cultivate it. There was Boulainvilliers, and Daniel, and Maimburg, and Varillas, and Vertot, and numerous others, who in the reign of Louis XIV. were believed to be historians; but whose histories have scarcely any merit, except that of enabling us to appreciate the period in which such productions were admired, and the system of which they were the representatives.

To give a complete view of the decline of historical literature in France, from the time of Mezeray until early in the eighteenth century, would require a summary of every history which was written; for all of them were pervaded by the same spirit. But, as this would occupy much too large a space, it will probably be thought sufficient if I confine myself to such illustrations as will bring the tendency of the age most clearly before the reader; and for this purpose, I will notice the works of two historians I have not yet mentioned; one of whom was celebrated as an antiquary, the other as a theologian. Both possessed considerable learning, and one was a man of undoubted genius; their works are, therefore, worth attention, as symptoms of the state of the French intellect late in the seventeenth century. The name of the antiquary was Audigier; the name of the theologian was Bossuet: and from them we may learn something respecting the way in which, during the reign of Louis XIV., it was usual to contemplate the transactions of past ages.

The celebrated work of Audigier, on the Origin of the French, was published at Paris in 1676.[849] It would be unjust to deny that the author was a man of great and careful reading. But his credulity, his prejudices, his reverence for antiquity, and his dutiful admiration for everything established by the church and the court, warped his judgment to an extent which, in our time, seems incredible; and, as there are probably few persons in England who have read his once famous book, I will give an outline of its leading views.

[849] During many years it enjoyed great reputation; and there is no
history written in that period respecting which Le Long gives so
many details. See his _Bibliothèque Historique de la France_,
vol. ii. pp. 13, 14. Compare _La Bibliothèque de Leber_, vol. ii.
p. 110, Paris, 1839.

In this great history we are told, that 3464 years after the creation of the world, and 590 years before the birth of Christ, was the exact period at which Sigovese, nephew to the king of the Celts, was first sent into Germany.[850] Those who accompanied him were necessarily travellers; and as, in the German language, _wandeln_ means _to go_, we have here the origin of the Vandals.[851] But the antiquity of the Vandals is far surpassed by that of the French. Jupiter, Pluto, and Neptune, who are sometimes supposed to be gods, were in reality kings of Gaul.[852] And, if we look back a little further, it becomes certain that Gallus, the founder of Gaul, was no other than Noah himself; for in those days the same man frequently had two names.[853] As to the subsequent history of the French, it was fully equal to the dignity of their origin. Alexander the Great, even in all the pride of his victories, never dared to attack the Scythians, who were a colony sent from France.[854] It is from these great occupiers of France that there have proceeded all the gods of Europe, all the fine arts, and all the sciences.[855] The English themselves are merely a colony of the French, as must be evident to whoever considers the similarity of the words Angles and Anjou;[856] and to this fortunate descent the natives of the British islands are indebted for such bravery and politeness as they still possess.[857] Several other points are cleared up by this great critic with equal faculty. The Salian Franks were so called from the rapidity of their flight;[858] the Bretons were evidently Saxons;[859] and even the Scotch, about whose independence so much has been said, were vassals to the kings of France.[860] Indeed, it is impossible to exaggerate the dignity of the crown of France; it is difficult even to conceive its splendour. Some have supposed that the emperors are superior to the kings of France, but this is the mistake of ignorant men; for an emperor means a mere military ruler, while the title of king includes all the functions of supreme power.[861] To put the question, therefore, on its real footing, the great king Louis XIV. is an emperor, as have been all his predecessors, the illustrious rulers of France, for fifteen centuries.[862] And it is an undoubted fact, that Antichrist, about whom so much anxiety is felt, will never be allowed to appear in the world until the French empire has been destroyed. This, says Audigier, it would be idle to deny; for it is asserted by many of the saints, and it is distinctly foreshadowed by St. Paul, in his second epistle to the Thessalonians.[863]

[850] _Audigier_, _L'Origine des François_, Paris, 1676, vol. i. p. 5.
See also p. 45, where he congratulates himself on being the first
to clear up the history of Sigovese.

[851] _Audigier_, vol. i. p. 7. Other antiquaries have adopted the same
preposterous etymology. See a note in _Kemble's Saxons in
England_, vol. i. p. 41.

[852] 'Or le plus ancien Jupiter, le plus ancien Neptune, et le plus
ancien Pluton, sont ceux de Gaule; ils la divisèrent les premiers
en Celtique, Aquitaine et Belgique, et obtinrent chacun une de
ces parties en partage. Jupiter, qu'on fait régner au ciel, eut
la Celtique.... Neptune, qu'on fait régner sur les eaux, et sur
les mers, eut l'Aquitaine, qui n'est appelée de la sorte qu'à
cause de l'abondance de ses eaux, et de la situation sur
l'océan.' _Audigier_, _L'Origine des François_, vol. i. pp. 223,
224.

[853] See his argument, vol. i. pp. 216, 217, beginning, 'le nom de Noé,
que portèrent les Galates, est Gallus;' and compare vol. ii. p.
109, where he expresses surprise that so little should have been
done by previous writers towards establishing this obvious origin
of the French.

[854] _Audigier_, vol. i. pp. 196, 197, 255, 256.

[855] 'Voilà donc les anciennes divinitez d'Europe, originaires de
Gaule, aussi bien que les beaux arts et les hautes sciences.'
_Audigier_, vol. i. p. 234.

[856] _Ibid._ vol. i. pp. 73, 74. He sums up, 'c'en est assez pour
relever l'Anjou, à qui cette gloire appartient légitimement.'

[857] Vol. i. pp. 265, 266.

[858] Vol. i. p. 149.

[859] Vol. ii. pp. 179, 180.

[860] Vol. ii. p. 269.

[861] Vol. ii. p. 124.

[862] Vol. ii. pp. 451-454.

[863] 'A quoy nous pourrions joindre un autre monument fort authentique,
c'est le résultat de certains pères, et de certains docteurs de
l'église, qui tiennent que l'Ante-christ ne viendra point au
monde qu'après la dissection, c'est-à-dire après la dissipation
de nostre empire. Leur fondement est dans la seconde épistre de
saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens.' _Audigier_, vol. ii. p. 462.

Strange as all this appears, there was nothing in it to revolt the enlightened age of Louis XIV. Indeed, the French, dazzled by the brilliancy of their prince, must have felt great interest in learning how superior he was to all other potentates, and how he had not only been preceded by a long line of emperors, but was in fact an emperor himself. They must have been struck with awe at the information communicated by Audigier respecting the arrival of Antichrist, and the connexion between that important event and the fate of the French monarchy. They must have listened with pious wonder to the illustration of these matters from the writings of the fathers, and from the epistle to the Thessalonians. All this they would easily receive; because to worship the king, and venerate the church, were the two cardinal maxims of that age. To obey, and to believe, were the fundamental ideas of a period, in which the fine arts did for a time flourish,--in which the perception of beauty, though too fastidious, was undoubtedly keen,--in which taste and the imagination, in its lower departments, were zealously cultivated,--but in which, on the other hand, originality and independence of thought were extinguished, the greatest and the largest topics were forbidden to be discussed, the sciences were almost deserted, reforms and innovations were hated, new opinions were despised, and their authors punished, until at length, the exuberance of genius being tamed into sterility, the national intellect was reduced to that dull and monotonous level which characterizes the last twenty years of the reign of Louis XIV.