Chapter VI (2)

In no instance can we find a better example of this reactionary movement, than in the case of Bossuet, bishop of Meaux. The success, and indeed the mere existence, of his work on Universal History, becomes, from this point of view, highly instructive. Considered by itself, the book is a painful exhibition of a great genius cramped by a superstitious age. But considered in reference to the time in which it appeared, it is invaluable as a symptom of the French intellect; since it proves, that towards the end of the seventeenth century, one of the most eminent men, in one of the first countries of Europe, could willingly submit to a prostration of judgment, and could display a blind credulity, of which, in our day, even the feeblest minds would be ashamed; and that this, so far from causing scandal, or bringing a rebuke on the head of the author, was received with universal and unqualified applause. Bossuet was a great orator, a consummate dialectician, and an accomplished master of those vague sublimities by which most men are easily affected. All these qualities he, a few years later, employed in the production of what is probably the most formidable work ever directed against Protestantism.[864] But when he, leaving these matters, entered the vast field of history, he could think of no better way of treating his new subject, than by following the arbitrary rules peculiar to his own profession.[865] His work is an audacious attempt to degrade history to a mere handmaid of theology.[866] As if, on such matters, doubt were synonymous with crime, he, without the slightest hesitation, takes everything for granted which the church had been accustomed to believe. This enables him to speak with perfect confidence respecting events which are lost in the remotest antiquity. He knows the exact number of years which have elapsed since the moment when Cain murdered his brother; when the deluge overwhelmed the world; and when Abraham was summoned to his mission.[867] The dates of these, and similar occurrences, he fixes with a precision, which might almost make us believe that they had taken place in his own time, if not under his own eyes.[868] It is true, that the Hebrew books on which he willingly relied, supply no evidence of the slightest value concerning the chronology even of their own people; while the information they contain respecting other countries is notoriously meagre and unsatisfactory.[869] But so narrow were the views of Bossuet upon history, that with all this he, in his own opinion, had no concern. The text of the Vulgate declared, that these things had happened at a particular time; and a number of holy men, calling themselves the council of the church, had, in the middle of the sixteenth century, pronounced the Vulgate to be authentic, and had taken upon themselves to place it above all other versions.[870] This theological opinion was accepted by Bossuet as an historical law; and thus the decision of a handful of cardinals and bishops, in a superstitious and uncritical age, is the sole authority for that early chronology, the precision of which is, to an uninformed reader, a matter of great admiration.[871]

[864] This is the opinion of Mr. Hallam respecting Bossuet's History of
the Variations of Protestant Churches. _Const. Hist._ vol. i. p.
486: compare _Lerminier_, _Philos. du Droit_, vol. ii. p. 86.
Attempts have been made by Protestant theologians to retort
against the Catholics the arguments of Bossuet, on the ground
that religious variations are a necessary consequence of the
honest pursuit of religious truth. See _Blanco White's Evidence
against Catholicism_, pp. 109-112; and his _Letters from Spain_,
_by Doblado_, p. 127. With this I fully agree; but it would be
easy to show that the argument is fatal to all ecclesiastical
systems with strictly defined creeds, and, therefore, strikes as
heavily against the Protestant churches as against the Catholic.
Beausobre, in his acute and learned work on Manichæism, seems to
have felt this; and he makes the dangerous admission, 'que si
l'argument de M. de Meaux vaut quelque chose contre la
Réformation, il a la même force contre le Christianisme.' _Hist.
de Manichée_, vol. i. p. 526. On Bossuet as a controversialist,
see _Stäudlin_, _Geschichte der theologischen Wissenschaften_,
vol. ii. pp. 43-45; and for a contemporary opinion of his great
work, see a characteristic passage in _Lettres de Sévigné_,
vol. v. p. 409.

[865] His method is fairly stated by _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_,
vol. xxv. p. 427.

[866] See, on this attempt of Bossuet's, some good remarks in
_Stäudlin_, _Geschichte der theologischen Wissenschaften_, vol.
ii. p. 198: 'Kirche und Christenthum sind für diesen Bischoff der
Mittelpunct der ganzen Geschichte. Aus diesem Gesichtspuncte
betrachtet er nicht nur die Patriarchen und Propheten, das
Judenthum und die alten Weissagungen, sondern auch die Reiche der
Welt.'

[867] _Bossuet_, _Discours sur l'Histoire Universelle_, pp. 10, 11, 16,
17; see also, at p. 90, a curious specimen of his chronological
calculations.

[868] He says, that if the ordinarily received dates of the Pentateuch
and the Prophets are not true, then the miracles must fall, and
the writings themselves are not inspired. _Hist. Univ._ p. 360.
It would be hard to find, even in the works of Bossuet a more
rash assertion than this.

[869] Indeed the Jews have no consecutive chronology before
Solomon. See _Bunsen's Egypt_, vol. i. pp. viii. xxv. 170, 178,
185, vol. ii. p. 399.

[870] Doing this, as they did everything else, on account, not of
reason, but of dogma; for, as a learned writer says, 'l'Église a
bien distingué certains livres en apocryphes et en orthodoxes;
elle s'est prononcée d'une manière formelle sur le choix des
ouvrages canoniques; néanmoins sa critique n'a jamais été fondée
sur un examen raisonné, mais seulement sur la question de savoir
si tel ou tel écrit était d'accord avec les dogmes qu'elle
enseignait.' _Maury_, _Légendes Pieuses_, p. 224.

[871] Theologians have always been remarkable for the exactness of their
knowledge on subjects respecting which nothing is known; but none
of them have surpassed the learned Dr. Stukeley. In 1730, this
eminent divine writes: 'But according to the calculations I have
made of this matter, I find God Almighty ordered Noah to get the
creatures into the ark on Sunday the 12th of October, the very
day of the autumnal equinox that year; and on this present day,
on the Sunday se'nnight following (the 19th of October), that
terrible catastrophe began, the moon being past her third
quarter.' _Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_,
vol. ii. p. 792.

In the same way, because Bossuet had been taught that the Jews are the chosen people of God, he, under the title of Universal History, almost confines his attention to them, and treats this obstinate and ignorant race as if they formed the pivot upon which the affairs of the universe had been made to turn.[872] His idea of an universal history excludes those nations who were the first to reach civilization, and to some of whom the Hebrews owed the scanty knowledge which they subsequently acquired.[873] He says little of the Persians, and less of the Egyptians; nor does he even mention that far greater people between the Indus and the Ganges, whose philosophy formed one of the elements of the school of Alexandria, whose subtle speculations anticipated all the efforts of European metaphysics, and whose sublime inquiries, conducted in their own exquisite language, date from a period when the Jews, stained with every variety of crime, were a plundering and vagabond tribe, wandering on the face of the earth, raising their hand against every man and every man raising his hand against them.

[872] 'Premièrement, ces empires ont pour la plupart une liaison
nécessaire avec l'histoire du peuple de Dieu. Dieu s'est servi
des Assyriens et des Babyloniens pour châtier ce peuple; des
Perses pour le rétablir; d'Alexandre et de ses premiers
successeurs pour le protéger; d'Antiochus l'Illustre et de ses
successeurs pour l'exercer; des Romains pour soutenir sa liberté
contre les rois de Syrie, que ne songeaient qu'à le détruire.'
_Bossuet_, _Hist. Univ._ p. 382. Well may M. Lerminier say
(_Philos. du Droit_, vol. ii. p. 87), that Bossuet 'a sacrifié
toutes les nations au peuple juif.'

[873] On the extraordinary and prolonged ignorance of the Jews, even to
the time of the Apostles, see _Mackay's Progress of the
Intellect_, vol. i. pp. 13 seq.; a work of profound learning.

When he enters the more modern period, he allows himself to be governed by the same theological prejudices. So contracted is his view, that he considers the whole history of the church as the history of providential interference; and he takes no notice of the manner in which, contrary to the original scheme, it has been affected by foreign events.[874] Thus, for example, the most important fact relating to the early changes in Christianity, is the extent to which its doctrines have been influenced by the African form of the Platonic philosophy.[875] But this, Bossuet never mentions; nor does he even hint that any such thing had occurred. It suited his views to look upon the church as a perpetual miracle, and he therefore omits the most important event in its early history.[876] To descend a little later: every one acquainted with the progress of civilization will allow, that no small share of it is due to those gleams of light, which, in the midst of surrounding darkness, shot from the great centres of Cordova and Bagdad. These, however, were the work of Mohammedanism; and as Bossuet had been taught that Mohammedanism is a pestilential heresy, he could not bring himself to believe that Christian nations had derived anything from so corrupt a source. The consequence is, that he says nothing of that great religion, the noise of which has filled the world;[877] and having occasion to mention its founder, he treats him with scorn, as an impudent impostor, whose pretensions it is hardly fitting to notice.[878] The great apostle, who diffused among millions of idolaters the sublime verity of one God, is spoken of by Bossuet with supreme contempt; because Bossuet, with the true spirit of his profession, could see nothing to admire in those whose opinions differed from his own.[879] But when he has occasion to mention some obscure member of that class to which he himself belonged, then it is that he scatters his praises with boundless profusion. In his scheme of universal history, Mohammed is not worthy to play a part. He is passed by; but the truly great man, the man to whom the human race is really indebted, is--Martin, bishop of Tours. He it is, says Bossuet, whose unrivalled actions filled the universe with his fame, both during his lifetime and after his death.[880] It is true, that not one educated man in fifty has ever heard the name of Martin, bishop of Tours. But Martin performed miracles, and the church had made him a saint; his claims, therefore, to the attention of historians must be far superior to the claims of one who, like Mohammed, was without these advantages. Thus it is that, in the opinion of the only eminent writer on history during the power of Louis XIV., the greatest man Asia has ever produced, and one of the greatest the world has ever seen, is considered in every way inferior to a mean and ignorant monk, whose most important achievement was the erection of a monastery, and who spent the best part of his life in useless solitude, trembling before the superstitious fancies of his weak and ignoble nature.[881]

[874] The original scheme of Christianity, as stated by its Great Author
(_Matthew_ x. 6, and xv. 24), was merely to convert the Jews; and
if the doctrines of Christ had never extended beyond that
ignorant people, they could not have received those modifications
which philosophy imposed upon them. The whole of this subject is
admirably discussed in _Mackay's Progress of the Intellect in
Religious Development_, vol. ii. pp. 382 seq.; and on the
'universalism,' first clearly announced 'by the Hellenist
Stephen,' see p. 484. Neander makes a noticeable attempt to evade
the difficulty caused by the changes in Christianity from
'various outward causes:' see his _History of the Church_,
vol. iii. p. 125.

[875] Neander (_Hist. of the Church_, vol. ii. p. 42) even thinks that
Cerinthus whose views are remarkable as being the point where
Gnosticism and Judaism touch each other, borrowed his system from
Alexandria. But this, though not unlikely, seems only to rest on
the authority of Theodoret. On the influence of the Platonism of
Alexandria in developing the idea of the Logos, see _Neander_,
vol. ii. pp. 304, 306-314. Compare _Sharpe's Hist. of Egypt_,
vol. ii. pp. 152 seq.

[876] And having to mention Clemens Alexandrinus, who was more deeply
versed in the philosophy of Alexandria than were any of the other
fathers, Bossuet merely says, p. 98, 'à peu près dans le même
temps, le saint prêtre Clément Alexandrin déterra les antiquités
du paganisme pour le confondre.'

[877] About the time that Bossuet wrote, a very learned writer
calculated that the area of the countries which professed
Mohammedanism, exceeded, by one fifth, those where Christianity
was believed. See _Brerewood's Inquiries touching the Diversity
of Languages and Religions_, Lond. 1674, pp. 144, 145. The
estimate of Southey (_Vindiciæ Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ_, London, 1826,
p. 48), is very vague; but it is much easier to judge of the
extent of Mohammedan countries than of the extent of their
population. On this latter point we have the most conflicting
statements. In the nineteenth century, there are, according to
Sharon Turner (_Hist. of England_, vol. iii. p. 485, edit. 1839),
eighty million Mohammedans; according to Dr. Elliotson (_Human
Physiology_, p. 1055, edit. 1840), more than a hundred and
twenty-two million; while, according to Mr. Wilkin (note in _Sir
Thomas Browne's Works_, vol. ii. p. 37, edit. 1835), there are a
hundred and eighty-eight million.

[878] 'Le faux prophète donna ses victoires pour toute marque de sa
mission.' _Bossuet_, p. 125.

[879] The greatest Mohammedan writers have always expressed ideas
regarding the Deity more lofty than those possessed by the
majority of Christians. The Koran contains noble passages on the
oneness of God; and for the views of their ordinary theologians,
I may refer to an interesting Mohammedan sermon, in _Transactions
of the Bombay Society_, vol. i. pp. 146-158. See also, in vol.
iii. pp. 398-448, an Essay by Vans Kennedy; and compare a
remarkable passage, considering the quarter from which it comes,
in _Autobiography of the Emperor Jehangueir_, p. 44. Those who
are so thoughtless as to believe that Mohammed was a hypocrite,
had better study the admirable remarks of M. Comte (_Philos.
Pos._ vol. v. pp. 76, 77), who truly says, 'qu'un homme vraiment
supérieur n'a jamais pu exercer aucune grande action sur ses
semblables sans être d'abord lui-même intimement convaincu.'

[880] 'Saint Martin fut fait évêque de Tours, et remplit tout l'univers
du bruit de sa sainteté et de ses miracles, durant sa vie, et
après sa mort.' _Bossuet_, _Hist. Univ._ p. 111.

[881] The Benedictines have written the life of Martin in their _Hist.
Lit. de la France_, vol. i. part ii. pp. 413-417, Paris, 1733,
4to. They say that he erected the first monastery in Gaul:
'Martin, toujours passionné pour la solitude, érigea un monastère
qui fut le premier que l'on eût encore vû dans les Gaules,' p.
414. At p. 415, they make the unnecessary admission, that the
saint 'n'avoit point étudié les sciences profanes.' I may add,
that the miracles of Martin are related by Fleury, who evidently
believes that they were really performed. _Fleury_, _Hist.
Ecclésiastique_, livre xvi. no. 31, vol. iv. pp. 215-217, Paris,
1758, 12mo. Neander, having the advantage of living a hundred
years later than Fleury, is content to say, 'the veneration of
his period denominated him a worker of miracles.' _Hist. of the
Church_, vol. iv. p. 494. There is a characteristic anecdote of
him, from Sulpitius Severus, in _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. i.
p. 123.

Such was the narrow spirit with which the great facts of history were contemplated by a writer, who, when he was confined to his own department, displayed the most towering genius. This contracted view was the inevitable consequence of his attempt to explain the complicated movements of the human race by principles which he had generalized from his own inferior studies.[882] Nor need any one be offended, that, from a scientific point of view, I assign to the pursuits of Bossuet a rank lower than that in which they are sometimes placed. It is certain that religious dogmas do, in many cases, influence the affairs of men. But it is equally certain, that as civilization advances, such influence decreases, and that even when the power of those dogmas was at its height, there were many other motives by which the actions of mankind were also governed. And since the study of history is the study of the aggregate of these motives, it is evident that history must be superior to theology; just as the whole is superior to a part. A neglect of this simple consideration has, with a few eminent exceptions, led all ecclesiastical authors into serious errors. It has induced in them a disposition to disregard the immense variety of external events, and to suppose that the course of affairs is regulated by some principles which theology alone can detect. This, indeed, is only the result of a general law of the mind, by which those who have any favourite profession, are apt to exaggerate its capacity; to explain events by its maxims, and as it were, to refract through its medium the occurrences of life.[883] Among theologians, however, such prejudices are more dangerous than in any other profession, because among them alone are they fortified by that bold assumption of supernatural authority on which many of the clergy willingly rely.

[882] At pp. 479, 480, Bossuet gives a sort of summary of his historical
principles; and if they are true, history is evidently impossible
to be written. On this account, though fully recognizing the
genius of Bossuet, I cannot agree with the remarks made upon him
by M. Comte, _Philos. Pos._ vol. iv. p. 280, vol. vi. pp. 316,
317.

[883] And then, as M. Charles Comte well says, they call this prejudice
their moral sense, or their moral instinct. _Comte_, _Traité de
Législation_, vol. i. p. 116.

These professional prejudices, when supported by theological dogmas, in a reign like that of Louis XIV.,[884] are sufficient to account for the peculiarities which mark the historical work of Bossuet. Besides this, in his case, the general tendency was aggravated by personal characteristics. His mind was remarkable for a haughtiness, which we find constantly breaking out into a general contempt for mankind.[885] At the same time his amazing eloquence, and the effects which it never failed to produce, seemed to justify the overweening confidence that he felt in his own powers. There is, indeed, in some of his greatest efforts, so much of the fire and majesty of genius, that we are reminded of those lofty and burning words with which the prophets of antiquity thrilled their hearers. Bossuet, thus standing, as he supposed, on an eminence which raised him above the ordinary weaknesses of men, loved to taunt them with their follies, and to deride every aspiration of their genius. Every thing like intellectual boldness seemed to gall his own superiority.[886] It was this boundless arrogance with which he was filled, which gives to his works some of their most marked peculiarities. It was this, that made him strain every nerve to abase and vilify those prodigious resources of the human understanding, which are often despised by men who are ignorant of them; but which in reality are so great, that no one has yet arisen able to scan them in the whole of their gigantic dimensions. It was this same contempt for the human intellect, that made him deny its capacity to work out for itself the epochs through which it has passed; and, consequently, made him recur to the dogma of supernatural interference. It was this, again, that, in those magnificent orations which are among the greatest wonders of modern art, caused him to exhaust the language of eulogy, not upon intellectual eminence, but upon mere military achievements, upon great conquerors, those pests and destroyers of men, who pass their lives in discovering new ways of slaying their enemies, and in devising new means of aggravating the miseries of the world. And, to descend still lower, it was this same contempt for the dearest interests of mankind, which made him look with reverence upon a king, who considered all those interests as nothing; but who had the merit of enslaving the mind of France, and of increasing the power of that body of men, among whom Bossuet himself was the most distinguished.

[884] The connection between the opinions of Bossuet and the despotism
of Louis XIV. is touched on by Montlosier, who, however, has
probably laid too much stress on the influence which the civil
law exercised over both. _Montlosier_, _Monarchie Française_,
vol. ii. p. 90.

[885] He belonged to a class of historians, described by a celebrated
writer in a single sentence: 'dans leurs écrits l'auteur paraît
souvent grand, mais l'humanité est toujours petite.'
_Tocqueville_, _Démocratie_, vol. iv. p. 139.

[886] Hardly any one acquainted with the writings and the history of
Bossuet will require evidence of his singular arrogance. But the
reader may consult _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Franç._ vol. xxvi. p.
247; and on his treatment of Fénelon, which was the most shameful
transaction of his life, compare _Burnet's Own Time_, vol. iv. p.
384, with _Capefigue's Louis XIV_, vol. ii. p. 58; where there is
printed one of the many epigrams to which the conduct of Bossuet
gave rise.

In the absence of sufficient evidence respecting the general state of the French at the end of the seventeenth century, it is impossible to ascertain to what extent such notions as these had penetrated the popular mind. But, looking at the manner in which government had broken the spirit of the country, I should be inclined to suppose that the opinions of Bossuet were very acceptable to his own generation. This, however, is a question rather of curiosity than of importance; for only a few years later there appeared the first symptoms of that unprecedented movement, which not merely destroyed the political institutions of France, but effected a greater and more permanent revolution in every department of the national intellect. At the death of Louis XIV., in literature, as well as in politics, in religion, and in morals, everything was ripe for reaction. The materials still existing are so ample, that it would be possible to trace with considerable minuteness the steps of this great process; but it will, I think, be more agreeable to the general scheme of this Introduction, if I pass over some of the intermediate links, and confine myself to those salient instances in which the spirit of the age is most strikingly portrayed.

There is, indeed, something extraordinary in the change which, in France, one generation was able to effect in the method of writing history. The best way, perhaps, to form an idea of this, will be to compare the works of Voltaire with those of Bossuet; because these great authors were probably the most able, and were certainly the most influential, Frenchmen during the period they respectively represented. The first great improvement which we find in Voltaire, as compared with Bossuet, is an increased perception of the dignity of the human intellect. In addition to the circumstances already noticed, we must remember that the reading of Bossuet lay in a direction which prevented him from feeling this. He had not studied those branches of knowledge where great things have been achieved; but he was very conversant with the writings of the saints and fathers, whose speculations are by no means calculated to give us a high opinion of the resources of their own understanding. Thus accustomed to contemplate the workings of the mind in what is, on the whole, the most puerile literature Europe has ever produced, the contempt which Bossuet felt for mankind went on increasing; until it reached that inordinate degree which, in his later works, is painfully conspicuous. But Voltaire, who paid no attention to such things as these, passed his long life in the constant accumulation of real and available knowledge. His mind was essentially modern. Despising unsupported authority, and heedless of tradition, he devoted himself to subjects in which the triumph of the human reason is too apparent to be mistaken. The more his knowledge advanced, the more he admired those vast powers by which the knowledge had been created. Hence his admiration for the intellect of man, so far from diminishing, grew with his growth; and, just in the same proportion, there was strengthened his love of humanity, and his dislike to the prejudices which had long obscured its history. That this, in the march of his mind, was the course it actually followed, will be evident to any one who considers the different spirit of his works, in reference to the different periods of life in which they were produced.

The first historical work of Voltaire was a life of Charles XII., in 1728.[887] At this time his knowledge was still scanty, and he was still influenced by the servile traditions of the preceding generation. It is not, therefore, wonderful, that he should express the greatest respect for Charles, who, among the admirers of military fame, will always preserve a certain reputation; though his only merits are, that he ravaged many countries and killed many men. But we find little sympathy with his unfortunate subjects, the accumulations of whose industry supported the royal armies;[888] nor is there much pity for those nations who were oppressed by this great robber in the immense line of his conquests from Sweden to Turkey. Indeed, the admiration of Voltaire for Charles is unbounded. He calls him the most extraordinary man the world had ever seen;[889] he declares him to be a prince full of honour;[890] and while he scarcely blames his infamous murder of Patkul,[891] he relates with evident emotion how the royal lunatic, at the head of forty servants, resisted an entire army.[892] In the same way, he says, that after the battle of Narva, all the attempts of Charles were unable to prevent medals from being struck at Stockholm in celebration of that event;[893] although Voltaire well knew that a man of such extravagant vanity must have been pleased by so durable a homage, and although it is quite certain that if he had not been pleased, the medals would never have been struck: for who would venture, without an object, to offend, in his own capital, one of the most arbitrary and revengeful of princes?

[887] He says that he wrote it in 1728. _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. xxii. p. 5, but, according to M. Lepan (_Vie de Voltaire_,
p. 382), 'il parut en 1731.' Both statements may be accurate, as
Voltaire frequently kept his works for some time in manuscript.

[888] Sir A. Alison, who certainly cannot be accused of want of respect
for military conquerors, says of Sweden, 'the attempt which
Charles XII. made to engage her in long and arduous wars, so
completely drained the resources of the country, that they did
not recover the loss for half a century.' _Hist. of Europe_, vol.
x. p. 504. See also, on the effects produced by the conscriptions
of Charles XII., _Laing's Sweden_, p. 59; _Koch_, _Tableau des
Révolutions_, vol. ii. p. 63; and above all, a curious passage in
_Duclos_, _Mém. Secrets_, vol. i. p. 448. Several of the soldiers
of Charles XII. who were taken prisoners, were sent into Siberia,
where Bell fell in with them early in the eighteenth century.
_Bell's Travels in Asia_, edit. Edinb. 1788, vol. i. pp. 223-224.

[889] 'Charles XII, l'homme le plus extraordinaire peut-être qui ait
jamais été sur la terre, qui a réuni en lui toutes les grandes
qualités de ses aïeux, et qui n'a eu d'autre défaut ni d'autre
malheur que de les avoir toutes outrées.' _Hist. de Charles XII_,
livre i., in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xxii. p. 30.

[890] 'Plein d'honneur.' _Ibid._ in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xxii. p. 63.

[891] Which Burke, not without justice, compares to the murder of
Monaldeschi by Christina. _Burke's Works_, vol. i. p. 412. See
some remarks on the murder of Patkul, in _Vattel_, _Droit des
Gens_, vol. i. p. 230; and an account of it, from Swedish
authorities, in _Somers Tracts_, vol. xiii. pp. 879-881. For
Voltaire's version see his _[OE]uvres_, vol. xxii. pp. 136, 137;
which may be contrasted with _Crichton and Wheaton's History of
Scandinavia_, Edinb. 1838, vol. ii. p. 127.

[892] _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xxii. pp. 250-260. It may interest
some persons to hear, that the litter in which this madman 'was
borne from the battle of Pultava' is still preserved at Moscow.
_Kohl's Russia_, p. 220. It was also seen by M. Custine.
_Custine's Russia_, vol. iii. p. 263.

[893] 'Sa modestie ne put empêcher qu'on ne frappât à Stockholm
plusieurs médailles pour perpétuer la mémoire de ces événements.'
_Charles XII_, livre ii., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xxii. p. 70.

So far, it might appear that little had been gained in the method of writing history.[894] But, even thus early, we find one vast improvement. In Voltaire's Life of Charles XII., faulty as it is, there are none of those assumptions of supernatural interference in which Bossuet delighted, and which were natural to the reign of Louis XIV. The absence of this marks the first great stage in the French school of history in the eighteenth century; and we find the same peculiarity in all the subsequent historians, none of whom recurred to a method, which, though suitable for the purposes of theologians, is fatal to all independent inquiries, since it not only prescribes the course the inquirer is bound to take, but actually sets up a limit beyond which he is forbidden to proceed.

[894] Even some of its geographical details are said to be inaccurate.
Compare _Villemain_, _Littérature au XVIII^e Siècle_, vol. ii. p.
33, with _Kohl's Russia_, p. 505. However, as M. Villemain says,
this must always be the case, when writers, who only know a
country from maps, attempt to enter into details respecting
military geography. In regard to style, it cannot be too highly
praised; and a well-known critic, Lacratelle, calls it 'le modèle
le plus accompli de narration qui existe dans notre langue.'
_Lacretelle_, _Dix-huitième Siècle_, vol. ii. p. 42. In 1843 it
was still used as a text book in the French royal colleges. See
_Report on Education in France_, in _Journal of Stat. Soc._ vol.
vi. p. 308. Further information respecting this work may be found
in _Longchamp et Wagnière_, _Mém. sur Voltaire_, vol. ii. p. 494;
and in _Mém. de Genlis_, vol. viii. p. 224, vol. x. p. 304.

That Voltaire should have infringed upon this ancient method only thirteen years after the death of Louis XIV., and that he should have done this in a popular work, abounding with such dangerous adventures as are always found to tempt the mind to an opposite course, is a step of no common merit, and becomes still more worthy of remark, if taken in connexion with another fact of considerable interest. This is, that the life of Charles XII. represents the first epoch, not only in the eighteenth century, but also in the intellect of Voltaire himself.[895] After it was published, this great man turned awhile from history, and directed his attention to some of the noblest subjects: to mathematics, to physics, to jurisprudence, to the discoveries of Newton, and to the speculations of Locke. In these things he perceived those capabilities of the human mind, which his own country had formerly witnessed, but of which during the authority of Louis XIV. the memory had been almost lost. Then it was that, with extended knowledge and sharpened intellect, he returned to the great field of history.[896] The manner in which he now treated his old subject, showed the change that had come over him. In 1752, appeared his celebrated work on Louis XIV.,[897] the very title of which is suggestive of the process through which his mind had passed. His former history was an account of a king; this is an account of an age. To the production of his youth he gave the title of a _History of Charles XII._; this he called the _Age of Louis XIV._ Before, he had detailed the peculiarities of a prince; now, he considered the movements of a people. Indeed, in the introduction to the work, he announces his intention to describe, 'not the actions of a single man, but the character of men.'[898] Nor, in this point of view, is the execution inferior to the design. While he is contented with giving a summary of military achievements, on which Bossuet hung with delight, he enters at great length into those really important matters which, before his time, found no place in the history of France. He has one chapter on commerce and internal government;[899] another chapter on finances;[900] another on the history of science;[901] and three chapters on the progress of the fine arts.[902] And though Voltaire did not attach much value to theological disputes, still he knew that they have often played a great part in the affairs of men; he therefore gives several distinct chapters to a relation of ecclesiastical matters during the reign of Louis.[903] It is hardly necessary to observe the immense superiority which a scheme like this possessed, not only over the narrow views of Bossuet, but even over his own earlier history. Still it cannot be denied, that we find in it prejudices from which it was difficult for a Frenchman, educated in the reign of Louis XIV., to be entirely free. Not only does Voltaire dwell at needless length upon those amusements and debaucheries of Louis, with which history can have little concern, but he displays an evident disposition to favour the king himself, and to protect his name from the infamy with which it ought to be covered.[904]

[895] It is evident, from Voltaire's correspondence, that he afterwards
became somewhat ashamed of the praises he had bestowed on Charles
XII. In 1735, he writes to De Formont, 'si Charles XII n'avait
pas été excessivement grand, malheureux, et fou, je me serais
bien donné de garde de parler de lui.' _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. lvi. p. 462. In 1758, advancing still further, he says of
Charles, 'voilà, monsieur, ce que les hommes de tous les temps et
de tous les pays appellent un héros; mais c'est le vulgaire de
tous les temps et de tous les pays qui donne ce nom à la soif du
carnage.' _Ibid._ vol. lx. p. 411. In 1759, he writes, that he
was then engaged on the history of Peter the Great: 'mais je
doute que cela soit aussi amusant que la vie de Charles XII; car
ce Pierre n'était qu'un sage extraordinaire, et Charles un fou
extraordinaire, qui se battait, comme Don Quichotte, contre des
moulins à vent.' Vol. lxi. p. 23: see also p. 350. These passages
prove the constant progress Voltaire was making in his conception
of what history ought to be, and what its uses were.

[896] In 1741, he mentions his increasing love of history. _Corresp._ in
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. li. p. 96.

[897] Lord Brougham, in his life of Voltaire, says that it appeared in
1751. _Lives of Men of Letters_, vol. i p. 106. But 1752 is the
date given in _Biog. Univ._ xlix. 478; in _Quérard_, _France
Lit._ vol. x. p. 355; and in _Lepan_, _Vie de Voltaire_, p. 382.

[898] 'On veut essayer de peindre à la postérité, non les actions d'un
seul homme, mais l'esprit des hommes dans le siècle le plus
éclairé qui fut jamais.' _Siècle de Louis XIV_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. xix. p. 213. And in his correspondence respecting
his work on Louis XIV., he carefully makes the same distinction.
See vol. lvi. pp. 453, 488, 489, 500, vol. lvii. pp. 337,
342-344, vol. lix. p. 103.

[899] Chap. xxix., in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xx. pp. 234-267.

[900] Chap. xxx., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 267-291. This chapter is
praised in _Sinclair's History of the Public Revenue_, vol. iii.
appendix, p. 77; an indifferent work, but the best we have on the
important subject to which it refers.

[901] Chap. xxxi., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 291-299; necessarily a
very short chapter, because of the paucity of materials.

[902] Chapters xxxii. to xxxiv., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 299-338.

[903] _[OE]uvres_, vol. xx. pp. 338-464.

[904] This disposition to favour Louis XIV. is noticed by Condorcet, who
says it was the only early prejudice which Voltaire was unable to
shake off: 'c'est le seul préjugé de sa jeunesse qu'il ait
conservé.' _Condorcet_, _Vie de Voltaire_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. i. p. 286. See also, on this defect, _Grimm et
Diderot_, _Corresp. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 182; _Lemontey_,
_Etablissement Monarchique_, pp. 451, 452; _Mém. de Brissot_,
vol. ii. pp. 88, 89. It is interesting to observe, that
Voltaire's earlier opinions were still more favourable to Louis
XIV. than those which he afterwards expressed in his history. See
a letter which he wrote in 1740 to Lord Harvey, printed in
_[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. lviii. pp. 57-63.

But the next work of Voltaire showed that this was a mere personal feeling, and did not affect his general views as to the part which the acts of princes ought to occupy in history. Four years after the appearance of the _Age of Louis XIV._, he published his important treatise on the _Morals, Manners, and Character of Nations_.[905] This is not only one of the greatest books which appeared during the eighteenth century, but it still remains the best on the subject to which it refers. The mere reading it displays is immense;[906] what, however, is far more admirable, is the skill with which the author connects the various facts, and makes them illustrate each other, sometimes by a single remark, sometimes only by the order and position in which they are placed. Indeed, considered solely as a work of art, it would be difficult to praise it too highly; while, as a symptom of the times, it is important to observe, that it contains no traces of that adulation of royalty which characterized Voltaire in the period of his youth, and which is found in all the best writers during the power of Louis XIV. In the whole of this long and important work, the great historian takes little notice of the intrigues of courts, or of the changes of ministers, or of the fate of kings; but he endeavours to discover and develop the different epochs through which Man has successively passed. 'I wish,' he says, 'to write a history, not of wars, but of society; and to ascertain how men lived in the interior of their families, and what were the arts which they commonly cultivated.'[907] For, he adds, 'my object is the history of the human mind, and not a mere detail of petty facts; nor am I concerned with the history of great lords, who made war upon French kings; but I want to know what were the steps by which men passed from barbarism to civilization.'[908]

[905] Mr. Burton, in his interesting work, _Life and Correspondence of
Hume_, vol. ii. p. 129, says it was 'first published in 1756;'
and the same date is given by Quérard (_France Littéraire_, vol.
x. p. 359), who is a very accurate bibliographer; so that
Condorcet (_Vie de Voltaire_, p. 199) and Lord Brougham (_Men of
Letters_, vol. i. p. 98) are probably in error in assigning it to
1757. In regard to its title, I translate 'M[oe]urs' as 'morals
and manners;' for M. Tocqueville uses 'm[oe]urs' as equivalent to
the Latin word 'mores.' _Tocqueville_, _Démocratie en Amérique_,
vol. iii. pp. 50, 84.

[906] Superficial writers are so much in the habit of calling Voltaire
superficial, that it may be well to observe, that his accuracy
has been praised, not only by his own countrymen, but by several
English authors of admitted learning. For three remarkable
instances of this, from men whom no one will accuse of leaning
towards his other opinions, see _notes to Charles V._, in
_Robertson's Works_, pp. 431, 432; _Barrington's Observations on
the Statutes_, p. 293; and _Warton's History of English Poetry_,
vol. i. p. xvi. Even Sir W. Jones, in his preface to the _Life of
Nader Shah_, says, that Voltaire is 'the best historian' the
French have produced. _Works of Sir William Jones_, vol. v. p.
542; and compare the preface to his _Persian Grammar_, in
_Works_, vol. ii. p. 123.

[907] 'Je voudrais découvrir quelle était alors la société des hommes,
comment on vivait dans l'intérieur des familles, quels arts
étaient cultivés, plutôt que de répéter tant de malheurs et tant
de combats, funestes objets de l'histoire, et lieux communs de la
méchanceté humaine.' _Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, chap. lxxxi., in
_[OE]uvres_, vol. xvi. p. 381.

[908] 'L'objet était l'histoire de l'esprit humain, et non pas le détail
des faits presque toujours défigurés; il ne s'agissait pas de
rechercher, par exemple, de quelle famille était le seigneur de
Puiset, ou le seigneur de Montlheri, qui firent la guerre à des
rois de France; mais de voir par quels degrés on est parvenu de
la rusticité barbare de ces temps à la politesse du nôtre.'
Supplement to _Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, in _[OE]uvres_, vol.
xviii. p. 435. Compare _Fragments sur l'Histoire_, vol. xxvii. p.
214, with two letters in vol. lx. pp. 153, 154, vol. lxv. p. 370.

It was in this way that Voltaire taught historians to concentrate their attention on matters of real importance, and to neglect those idle details with which history had formerly been filled. But what proves this to be a movement arising as much from the spirit of the age as from the individual author, is, that we find precisely the same tendency in the works of Montesquieu and Turgot, who were certainly the two most eminent of the contemporaries of Voltaire; and both of whom followed a method similar to his, in so far as, omitting descriptions of kings, courts, and battles, they confined themselves to points which illustrate the character of mankind, and the general march of civilization. And such was the popularity of this change in the old routine, that its influence was felt by other historians of inferior, but still of considerable, ability. In 1755, Mallet[909] published his interesting, and, at the time it was written, most valuable work, on the history of Denmark;[910] in which he professes himself a pupil of the new school. 'For why,' he says, 'should history be only a recital of battles, sieges, intrigues, and negotiations? And why should it contain merely a heap of petty facts and dates, rather than a great picture of the opinions, customs, and even inclinations of a people?'[911] Thus too, in 1765, Mably published the first part of his celebrated work on the history of France;[912] in the preface to which, he complains that historians 'have neglected the origin of laws and customs, in favour of sieges and battles.'[913] In the same spirit, Velly and Villaret, in their voluminous history of France, express regret that historians should usually relate what happens to the sovereign, in preference to what happens to the people, and should omit the manners and characteristics of a nation, in order to study the acts of a single man.[914] Duclos, again, announces that his history is not of war, nor of politics, but of men and manners:[915] while, strange to say, even the courtly Hénault declares that his object was to describe laws and manners, which he calls the soul of history, or rather history itself.[916]

[909] Mallet, though born in Geneva, was a Frenchman in the habits of
his mind: he wrote in French, and is classed among French
historians, in the report presented to Napoleon by the Institut.
_Dacier_, _Rapport sur les Progrès de l'Histoire_, p. 173.

[910] Göthe, in his Autobiography, mentions his obligations to this
work, which, I suspect, exercised considerable influence over the
early associations of his mind: 'Ich hatte die Fabeln der Edda
schon längst aus der Vorrede zu Mallet's Dänischer Geschichte
kennen gelernt, und mich derselben sogleich bemächtigt; sie
gehörten unter diejenigen Mährchen, die ich, von einer
Gesellschaft aufgefordert, am liebsten erzählte.' _Wahrheit u.
Dichtung_, in _Goethe's Werke_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 169. Percy,
a very fair judge, thought highly of Mallet's history, part of
which, indeed, he translated. See a letter from him, in
_Nichols's Illustrations of the Eighteenth Century_, vol. vii.
p. 719.

[911] _Mallet's Northern Antiquities_, edit. Blackell, 1847, p. 78.

[912] The first two volumes were published in 1765; the other two in
1790. _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxvi. pp. 9, 12.

[913] _Mably_, _Observ. sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. i. p. ii.; and
compare vol. iii. p. 289: but this latter passage was written
several years later.

[914] 'Bornés à nous apprendre les victoires ou les défaites du
souverain, ils ne nous disent rien ou presque rien des peuples
qu'il a rendus heureux ou malheureux. On ne trouve dans leurs
écrits que longues descriptions de sièges et de batailles; nulle
mention des m[oe]urs et de l'esprit de la nation. Elle y est
presque toujours sacrifiée à un seul homme.' _Histoire de France
par Velly_, Paris, 1770, 4to, vol. i. p. 6; and see, to the same
effect, the _Continuation by Villaret_, vol. v. p. vi.

[915] 'Si l'histoire que j'écris n'est ni militaire, ni politique, ni
économique, du moins dans le sens que je conçois pour ces
différentes parties, on me demandera quelle est donc celle que je
me propose d'écrire. C'est l'histoire des hommes et des
m[oe]urs.' _Duclos_, _Louis XIV et Louis XV_, vol. i. p. xxv.

[916] 'Je voulois connoître nos loix, nos m[oe]urs, et tout ce qui est
l'âme de l'histoire, ou plutôt l'histoire même.' _Hénault_,
_Nouvel Abrégé chronologique de l'Histoire de France_, edit.
Paris, 1775, vol. i. p. i.

Thus it was, that historians began to shift, as it were, the scene of their labours, and to study subjects connected with those popular interests, on which the great writers under Louis XIV. disdained to waste a thought. I need hardly observe, how agreeable such views were to the general spirit of the eighteenth century, and how well they harmonized with the temper of men who were striving to lay aside their former prejudices, and despise what had once been universally admired. All this was but part of that vast movement, which prepared the way for the Revolution, by unsettling ancient opinions, by encouraging a certain mobility and restlessness of mind, and, above all, by the disrespect it showed for those powerful individuals, hitherto regarded as gods rather than as men, but who now, for the first time, were neglected by the greatest and most popular historians, who passed over even their prominent actions, in order to dwell upon the welfare of nations, and the interests of the people at large.

To return, however, to what was actually effected by Voltaire, there is no doubt that, in his case, this tendency of the time was strengthened by a natural comprehensiveness of mind, which predisposed him to large views, and made him dissatisfied with that narrow range to which history had been hitherto confined.[917] Whatever may be thought of the other qualities of Voltaire, it must be allowed that, in his intellect, everything was on a great scale.[918] Always prepared for thought, and always ready to generalize, he was averse to the study of individual actions, unless they could be made available for the establishment of some broad and permanent principle. Hence his habit of looking at history with a view to the stages through which the country had passed, rather than with a view to the character of the men by whom the country had been governed. The same tendency appears in his lighter works; and it has been well observed,[919] that, even in his dramas, he endeavours to portray, not so much the passions of individuals, as the spirit of epochs. In _Mahomet_, his subject is a great religion; in _Alzire_, the conquest of America; in _Brutus_, the formation of the Roman power; in the _Death of Cæsar_, the rise of the empire upon the ruins of that power.[920]

[917] In 1763, he writes to D'Argental: 'il y a environ douze batailles
dont je n'ai point parlé, Dieu merci, parceque j'écris l'histoire
de l'esprit humain, et non une gazette.' _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_,
vol. lxiii. p. 51. See also his letter to Tabareau (_Lettres
inédites de Voltaire_, vol. ii. p. 585): 'Personne ne lit les
détails des combats et des sièges; rien n'est plus ennuyeux que
la droite et la gauche, les bastions et la contrescarpe.'

[918] M. Lamartine characterizes him as 'ce génie non pas le plus haut,
mais le plus vaste de la France.' _Hist. des Girondins_, vol. i.
p. 180.

[919] _Biog. Univ._ vol. xlix. p. 493. His _Orphelin de la Chine_ is
taken from Chinese sources: see _Davis's China_, vol. ii. p. 258.

[920] The surprising versatility of Voltaire's mind is shown by the
fact, unparalleled in literature, that he was equally great as a
dramatic writer and as an historian. Mr. Forster, in his
admirable _Life of Goldsmith_, 1854, says (vol. i. p. 119),
'Gray's high opinion of Voltaire's tragedies is shared by one of
our greatest authorities on such a matter now living, Sir Edward
Bulwer Lytton, whom I have often heard maintain the marked
superiority of Voltaire over all his countrymen in the knowledge
of dramatic art, and the power of producing theatrical effects.'
Compare _Correspondence of Gray and Mason_, edit. Mitford, 1855,
p. 44.

By this determination to look upon the course of events as a great and connected whole, Voltaire was led to several results, which have been complacently adopted by many authors, who, even while using them, revile him from whom they were taken. He was the first historian who, rejecting the ordinary method of investigation, endeavoured, by large general views, to explain the origin of feudality; and, by indicating some of the causes of its decline in the fourteenth century,[921] he laid the foundation for a philosophic estimate of that important institution.[922] He was the author of a profound remark, afterwards adopted by Constant, to the effect, that licentious religious ceremonies have no connexion with licentious national morals.[923] Another observation of his, which has been only partly used by writers on ecclesiastical history, is pregnant with instruction. He says, that one of the reasons why the bishops of Rome acquired an authority so superior to that of the eastern patriarchs, was the greater subtlety of the Greek mind. Nearly all the heresies proceeded from the east; and, with the exception of Honorius I., not a single pope adopted a system condemned by the church. This gave to the papal power an unity and consolidation, which the patriarchal power was unable to reach; and thus the Holy See owes part of its authority to the early dulness of the European fancy.[924]

[921] _Essai sur les M[oe]urs_, chap. lxxxv., in _[OE]uvres_, vol. xvi.
p. 412, and elsewhere.

[922] During the eighteenth century, and, I may say, until the
publication in 1818 of Hallam's Middle Ages, there was in the
English language no comprehensive account of the feudal system;
unless, perhaps, we except that given by Robertson, who in this,
as in many other matters of history, was a pupil of Voltaire. Not
only Dalrymple, and writers of his kind, but even Blackstone,
took so narrow a view of this great institution, that they were
unable to connect it with the general state of society to which
it belonged. Some of our historians gravely traced it back to
Moses, in whose laws they found the origin of allodial lands. See
a charming passage in _Barry's History of the Orkney Islands_, p.
219. On the spirit of feudality, there are some remarks well
worth reading in _Comtés Philos. Posit._ vol. v. pp. 393-413.