Chapter I (1)

OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH INTELLECT FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF LOUIS XIV.

The consideration of these great changes in the English mind, has led me into a digression, which, so far from being foreign to the design of this Introduction, is absolutely necessary for a right understanding of it. In this, as in many other respects, there is a marked analogy between investigations concerning the structure of society and investigations concerning the human body. Thus, it has been found, that the best way of arriving at a theory of disease is by beginning with the theory of health; and that the foundation of all sound pathology must be first sought in an observation, not of the abnormal, but of the normal functions of life. Just in the same way, it will, I believe, be found, that the best method of arriving at great social truths, is by first investigating those cases in which society has developed itself according to its own laws, and in which the governing powers have least opposed themselves to the spirit of their times.[1] It is on this account that, in order to understand the position of France, I have begun by examining the position of England. In order to understand the way in which the diseases of the first country were aggravated by the quackery of ignorant rulers, it was necessary to understand the way in which the health of the second country was preserved by being subjected to smaller interference, and allowed with greater liberty to continue its natural march. With the light, therefore, which we have acquired by a study of the normal condition of the English mind, we can, with the greater ease, now apply our principles to that abnormal condition of French society, by the operations of which, at the close of the eighteenth century, some of the dearest interests of civilization were imperilled.

[1] The question as to whether the study of normal phenomena should or
should not precede the study of abnormal ones, is of the greatest
importance; and a neglect of it has introduced confusion into every
work I have seen on general or comparative history. For this
preliminary being unsettled, there has been no recognized principle
of arrangement; and historians, instead of following a scientific
method suited to the actual exigencies of our knowledge, have
adopted an empirical method suited to their own exigencies; and
have given priority to different countries, sometimes according to
their size, sometimes according to their antiquity, sometimes
according to their geographical position, sometimes according to
their wealth, sometimes according to their religion, sometimes
according to the brilliancy of their literature, and sometimes
according to the facilities which the historian himself possessed
for collecting materials. All these are factitious considerations;
and, in a philosophic view, it is evident that precedence should be
given to countries by the historian solely in reference to the ease
with which their history can be generalized; following in this
respect the scientific plan of proceeding from the simple to the
complex. This leads us to the conclusion that, in the study of Man,
as in the study of Nature, the question of priority resolves itself
into a question of aberration; and that the more aberrant any
people have been, that is to say, the more they have been
interfered with, the lower they must be placed in an arrangement of
the history of various countries. Coleridge (_Lit. Remains_, vol.
i. p. 326, and elsewhere in his works) seems to suppose that the
order should be the reverse of what I have stated, and that the
laws both of mind and body can be generalized from pathological
data. Without wishing to express myself too positively in
opposition to so profound a thinker as Coleridge, I cannot help
saying that this is contradicted by an immense amount of evidence,
and, so far as I am aware, is supported by none. It is contradicted
by the fact, that those branches of inquiry which deal with
phenomena little affected by foreign causes, have been raised to
sciences sooner than those which deal with phenomena greatly
affected by foreign causes. The organic world, for example, is more
perturbed by the inorganic world, than the inorganic world is
perturbed by it. Hence we find that the inorganic sciences have
always been cultivated before the organic ones, and at the present
moment are far more advanced than they. In the same way, human
physiology is older than human pathology; and while the physiology
of the vegetable kingdom has been successfully prosecuted since the
latter half of the seventeenth century, the pathology of the
vegetable kingdom can scarcely be said to exist, since none of its
laws have been generalized, and no systematic researches, on a
large scale, have yet been made into the morbid anatomy of plants.
It appears, therefore, that different ages and different sciences
bear unconscious testimony to the uselessness of paying much
attention to the abnormal, until considerable progress has been
made in the study of the normal; and this conclusion might be
confirmed by innumerable authorities, who, differing from
Coleridge, hold that physiology is the basis of pathology, and that
the laws of disease are to be raised, not from the phenomena
presented in disease, but from those presented in health; in other
words, that pathology should be investigated deductively rather
than inductively, and that morbid anatomy and clinical observations
may verify the conclusions of science, but can never supply the
means of creating the science itself. On this extremely interesting
question, compare _Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire_, _Hist. des Anomalies de
l'Organisation_, vol. ii. pp. 9, 10, 127; _Bowman's Surgery_, in
_Encyclop. of the Medical Sciences_, p. 824; _Bichat_, _Anatomie
Générale_, vol. i. p. 20; _Cullen's Works_, vol. i. p. 424;
_Comte_, _Philos. Positive_, vol. iii. pp. 334, 335; _Robin et
Verdeil_, _Chimie Anatomique_, vol. i. p. 68; _Esquirol_, _Maladies
Mentales_, vol. i. p. 111; _Georget_, _de la Folie_, pp. 2, 391,
392; _Brodie's Pathology and Surgery_, p. 3; _Blainville_,
_Physiologie comparée_, vol. i. p. 20; _Feuchtersleben's Medical
Psychology_, p. 200; _Lawrence's Lectures on Man_, 1844, p. 45;
_Simon's Pathology_, p. 5.

Another confirmation of the accuracy of this view is, that
pathological investigations of the nervous system, numerous as they
have been, have effected scarcely anything; the reason evidently
being, that the preliminary knowledge of the normal state is not
sufficiently advanced. See _Noble on the Brain_, pp. 76-92, 337,
338; _Henry on the Nervous System_, in _Third Report of Brit.
Assoc._ p. 78; _Holland's Medical Notes_, p. 608; _Jones and
Sieveking's Patholog. Anat._ p. 211.

In France, a long train of events, which I shall hereafter relate, had, from an early period, given to the clergy a share of power larger than that which they possessed in England. The results of this were for a time decidedly beneficial, inasmuch as the church restrained the lawlessness of a barbarous age, and secured a refuge for the weak and oppressed. But as the French advanced in knowledge, the spiritual authority, which had done so much to curb their passions, began to press heavily upon their genius, and impede its movements. That same ecclesiastical power, which to an ignorant age is an unmixed benefit, is to a more enlightened age a serious evil. The proof of this was soon apparent. For when the Reformation broke out, the church had in England been so weakened, that it fell almost at the first assault; its revenues were seized by the crown,[2] and its offices, after being greatly diminished both in authority and in wealth, were bestowed upon new men, who, from the uncertainty of their tenure, and the novelty of their doctrines, lacked that long-established prescription by which the claims of the profession are mainly supported. This, as we have already seen, was the beginning of an uninterrupted progress, in which, at every successive step, the ecclesiastical spirit lost some of its influence. In France, on the other hand, the clergy were so powerful, that they were able to withstand the Reformation, and thus preserve for themselves those exclusive privileges which their English brethren vainly attempted to retain.

[2] A circumstance which Harris relates with evident delight, and goes
out of his way to mention it. _Lives of the Stuarts_, vol. iii. p.
300. On the amount of loss the church thus sustained, see
_Sinclair's Hist. of the Revenue_, vol. i. pp. 181-184, and
_Eccleston's English Antiquities_, p. 228.

This was the beginning of that second marked divergence between French and English civilization,[3] which had its origin, indeed, at a much earlier period, but which now first produced conspicuous results. Both countries had, in their infancy, been greatly benefited by the church, which always showed itself ready to protect the people against the oppressions of the crown and the nobles.[4] But in both countries, as society advanced, there arose a capacity for self-protection; and early in the sixteenth, or probably even in the fifteenth century, it became urgently necessary to diminish that spiritual authority, which, by prejudging the opinions of men, has impeded the march of their knowledge.[5] It is on this account that Protestantism, so far from being, as its enemies have called it, an aberration arising from accidental causes, was essentially a normal movement, and was the legitimate expression of the wants of the European intellect. Indeed, the Reformation owed its success, not to a desire of purifying the church, but to a desire of lightening its pressure; and it may be broadly stated, that it was adopted in every civilized country, except in those where preceding events had increased the influence of the ecclesiastical order, either among the people or among their rulers. This was, unhappily, the case with France, where the clergy not only triumphed over the Protestants, but appeared, for a time, to have gained fresh authority by the defeat of such dangerous enemies.[6]

[3] The first divergence arose from the influence of the protective
spirit, as I shall endeavour to explain in the next chapter.

[4] On the obligations Europe is under to the Catholic clergy, see some
liberal and very just remarks in _Kemble's Saxons in England_, vol.
ii. pp. 374, 375; and in _Guizot's Civilisation en France_. See
also _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. iii. pp. 199-206,
255-257, vol. v. p. 138, vol. vi. pp. 406, 407; _Palgrave's
Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth_, vol. i. p. 655; _Lingard's Hist. of
England_, vol. ii. p. 44; _Klimrath_, _Travaux sur l'Hist. du
droit_, vol. i. p. 394; _Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of
England_, vol. i. p. 157.

[5] The way in which this acted is concisely stated by Tennemann: 'Wenn
sich nun auch ein freierer Geist der Forschung regte, so fand er
sich gleich durch zwei Grundsätze, welche aus jenem Supremat der
Theologie flossen, beengt und gehemmt. Der erste war: die
menschliche Vernunft kann nicht über die Offenbarung
hinausgehen.... Der zweite: die Vernunft kann nichts als wahr
erkennen, was dem Inhalte der Offenbarung widerspricht, und nichts
für falsch erkennen, was derselben angemessen ist,--folgte aus dem
ersten.' _Gesch. der Philos._ vol. viii. part i. p. 8.

[6] As to the influence of the Reformation generally, in increasing the
power of the Catholic clergy, see M. Ranke's important work on the
_History of the Popes_; and as to the result in France, see
_Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. v. pp. 233-235. Corero,
who was ambassador in France in 1569, writes, 'Il papa può dire a
mio giudizio, d'aver in questi romori piuttosto guadagnato che
perduto, perciochè tanta era la licenza del vivere, secondo che ho
inteso, prima che quel regno si dividesse in due parti, era tanta
poca la devozione che avevano in Roma e in quei che vi abitavano,
che il papa era più considerato come principe grande in Italia, che
come capo della chiesa e pastore universale. Ma scoperti che si
furono gli ugonotti, cominciarono i cattolici a riverire il suo
nome, e riconoscerlo per vero vicario di Cristo, confirmandosi
tanto più in opinione di doverlo tener per tale, quanto più lo
sentivano sprezzare e negare da essi ugonotti.' _Relations des
Ambassadeurs Vénitiens_, vol. ii. p. 162. This interesting passage
is one of many proofs that the immediate advantages derived from
the Reformation have been overrated; though the remote advantages
were undoubtedly immense.

The consequence of all this was, that in France, every thing assumed a more theological aspect than in England. In our country, the ecclesiastical spirit had, by the middle of the sixteenth century, become so feeble, that even intelligent foreigners were struck by the peculiarity.[7] The same nation, which, during the Crusades, had sacrificed innumerable lives in the hope of planting the Christian standard in the heart of Asia,[8] was now almost indifferent to the religion even of its own sovereign. Henry VIII., by his sole will, regulated the national creed, and fixed the formularies of the church, which, if the people had been in earnest, he could not possibly have done; for he had no means of compelling submission; he had no standing army; and even his personal guards were so scanty, that at any moment they could have been destroyed by a rising of the warlike apprentices of London.[9] After his death, there came Edward, who, as a Protestant king, undid the work of his father; and, a few years later, there came Mary, who, as a Popish queen, undid the work of her brother; while she, in her turn, was succeeded by Elizabeth, under whom another great alteration was effected in the established faith.[10] Such was the indifference of the people, that these vast changes were accompanied without any serious risk.[11] In France, on the other hand, at the mere name of religion, thousands of men were ready for the field. In England, our civil wars have all been secular; they have been waged, either for a change of dynasty, or for an increase of liberty. But those far more horrible wars, by which, in the sixteenth century, France was desolated, were conducted in the name of Christianity, and even the political struggles of the great families were merged in a deadly contest between Catholics and Protestants.[12]

[7] The indifference of the English to theological disputes, and the
facility with which they changed their religion, caused many
foreigners to censure their fickleness. See, for instance, _Essais
de Montaigne_, livre ii. chap. xii. p. 365. Perlin, who travelled
in England in the middle of the sixteenth century, says, 'The
people are reprobates, and thorough enemies to good manners and
letters; for they don't know whether they belong to God or the
devil, which St. Paul has reprehended in many people, saying, Be
not transported with divers sorts of winds, but be constant and
steady to your belief.' _Antiquarian Repertory_, vol. iv. p. 511,
4to, 1809. See also the remarks of Michele in 1557, and of Crespet
in 1590; _Ellis's Original Letters_, 2nd series, vol. ii. p. 239;
_Hallam's Constitutional History_, vol. i. p. 102; _Southey's
Commonplace Book_, 3rd series, p. 408.

[8] An historian of the thirteenth century strikingly expresses the
theological feelings of the English crusaders, and the complete
subordination of the political ones: 'Indignum quippe judicabant
animarum suarum salutem omittere, et obsequium c[oe]lestis Regis,
clientelæ regis alicujus terreni postponere; constituerunt igitur
terminum, videlicet festum nativitatis beati Johannis Baptistæ.'
_Matthæi Paris Historia Major_, p. 671. It is said, that the first
tax ever imposed in England on personal property was in 1166, and
was for the purpose of crusading. _Sinclair's Hist. of the
Revenue_, vol. i. p. 88: 'It would not probably have been easily
submitted to, had it not been appropriated for so popular a
purpose.'

[9] Henry VIII. had, at one time, fifty horse-guards, but they being
expensive, were soon given up; and his only protection consisted of
'the yeomen of the guard, fifty in number, and the common servants
of the king's household.' _Hallam's Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 46.
These 'yeomen of the guard were raised by Henry VII. in 1485.'
_Grose's Military Antiquities_, vol. i. p. 167. Compare _Turner's
Hist. of England_, vol. vii. p. 54; and _Lingard's Hist. of
England_, vol. iii. p. 298.

[10] Locke, in his first Letter on Toleration, has made some pungent,
and, I should suppose, very offensive, observations on these rapid
changes. _Locke's Works_, vol. v. p. 27.

[11] But, although Mary easily effected a change of religion, the
anti-ecclesiastical spirit was far too strong to allow her to
restore to the church its property. 'In Mary's reign, accordingly,
her parliament, so obsequious in all matters of religion, adhered
with a firm grasp to the possession of church-lands.' _Hallam's
Const. Hist._ vol. i. p. 77. See also _Short's Hist. of the Church
of England_, p. 213; _Lingard's Hist. of England_, vol. iv. pp.
339, 340; _Butler's Mem. of the Catholics_, vol. i. p. 253; and
_Carwithen's Hist. of the Church of England_, vol. i. p. 346.

[12] 'Quand éclata la guerre des opinions religieuses, les antiques
rivalités des barons se transformèrent en haîne du prêche ou de la
messe.' _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme et de la Ligue_, vol.
iv. p. 32. Compare _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._, vol.
ii. pp. 422, 563; and _Boullier_, _Maison Militaire des Rois de
France_, p. 25, 'des querelles d'autant plus vives, qu'elles
avoient la religion pour base.'

The effect this difference produced on the intellect of the two countries is very obvious. The English, concentrating their abilities upon great secular matters, had, by the close of the sixteenth century, produced a literature which never can perish. But the French, down to that period, had not put forth a single work, the destruction of which would now be a loss to Europe. What makes this contrast the more remarkable is, that in France the civilization, such as it was, had a longer standing; the material resources of the country had been earlier developed; its geographical position made it the centre of European thought;[13] and it had possessed a literature at a time when our ancestors were a mere tribe of wild and ignorant barbarians.

[13] The intellectual advantages of France, arising from its position
between Italy, Germany, and England, are very fairly stated by M.
Lerminier (_Philosophie du Droit_, vol. i. p. 9).

The simple fact is, that this is one of those innumerable instances which teach us that no country can rise to eminence so long as the ecclesiastical power possesses much authority. For, the predominance of the spiritual classes is necessarily accompanied by a corresponding predominance of the topics in which those classes delight. Whenever the ecclesiastical profession is very influential, ecclesiastical literature will be very abundant, and what is called profane literature will be very scanty. Hence it occurred, that the minds of the French, being almost entirely occupied with religious disputes, had no leisure for those great inquiries into which we in England were beginning to enter;[14] and there was, as we shall presently see, an interval of a whole generation between the progress of the French and English intellects, simply because there was about the same interval between the progress of their scepticism. The theological literature, indeed, rapidly increased;[15] but it was not until the seventeenth century that France produced that great secular literature, the counterpart of which was to be found in England before the sixteenth century had come to a close.

[14] Just in the same way, the religious disputes in Alexandria injured
the interests of knowledge. See the instructive remarks of M.
Matter (_Hist. de l'Ecole d'Alexandrie_, vol. ii. p. 131).

[15] _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers Etats_, vol. vi. p. 136. Indeed, the
theological spirit seized the theatre, and the different
sectarians ridiculed each other's principles on the stage. See a
curious passage at p. 182 of the same learned work.

Such was, in France, the natural consequence of the power of the church being prolonged beyond the period which the exigencies of society required. But while this was the intellectual result, the moral and physical results were still more serious. While the minds of men were thus heated by religious strife, it would have been idle to expect any of those maxims of charity to which theological faction is always a stranger. While the Protestants were murdering the Catholics,[16] and the Catholics murdering the Protestants, it was hardly likely that either sect should feel tolerance for the opinions of its enemy.[17] During the sixteenth century, treaties were occasionally made between the two parties; but they were only made to be immediately broken;[18] and, with the single exception of l'Hôpital, the bare idea of toleration does not seem to have entered the head of any statesman of the age. It was recommended by him;[19] but neither his splendid abilities, nor his unblemished integrity, could make head against the prevailing prejudices, and he eventually retired into private life without effecting any of his noble schemes.[20]

[16] The crimes of the French Protestants, though hardly noticed in
_Felice's History of the Protestants of France_, pp. 138-143, were
as revolting as those of the Catholics, and quite as numerous
relatively to the numbers and power of the two parties. Compare
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 516, 517, with
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. ii. p. 173, vol. vi. p.
54; and _Smedley_, _Hist. of the Reformed Religion in France_,
vol. i. pp. 199, 200, 237.

[17] In 1569 Corero writes: 'Ritrovai quel regno, certo, posto in
grandissima confusione; perchè, stante quella divisione di
religione (convertita quasi in due fazioni e inimicizie
particolari), era causa ch' ognuno, senza che amicizia o parentela
potesse aver luoco, stava con l'orecchie attente; e pieno
disospetto ascoltava da che parte nasceva qualche romore,' _Relat.
des Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. ii. p. 106. He emphatically adds,
'Temevano gl' ugonotti, temevano li cattolici, tenieva il
prencipe, temevano li sudditi.' See also, on this horrible state
of opinions, _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 21,
22, 118-120, 296, 430. On both sides, the grossest calumnies were
propagated and believed; and one of the charges brought against
Catherine de Medici was, that she caused the Cesarean operation to
be performed on the wives of Protestants, in order that no new
heretics might be born. _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol.
vii. p. 294.

[18] _Mably_, _Observations sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. iii. p. 149. In
the reign of Charles IX. alone, there were no less than five of
these religious wars, each of which was concluded by a treaty. See
_Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie Française_, vol. ii. p. 69.

[19] For which l'Hôpital was accused of atheism: 'Homo doctus, sed verus
atheus.' _Dict. Philos._ article _Athéisme_, in _[OE]uvres de
Voltaire_, vol. xxxvii. pp. 181, 182.

[20] I have not been able to meet with any good life of this great man:
that by Charles Butler is very superficial, and so is that by
Bernardi, in _Biog. Univ._ vol. xxiv. pp. 412-424. My own
information respecting l'Hôpital is from _Sismondi_, _Hist. des
Français_, vol. xviii. pp. 431-436; _Capefigue_, _Hist. de la
Réforme_, vol. ii. pp. 135-137, 168-170; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._
vol. iii. pp. 519-523, vol. iv. pp. 2-8, 152-159, vol. v. pp.
180-182, 520, 521, 535, vol. vi. pp. 703, 704; _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. i. p. 234. Duvernet (_Hist. de la
Sorbonne_, vol. i. pp. 215-218) is unsatisfactory, though fully
recognizing his merit.

Indeed, in the leading events of this period of French history, the predominance of the theological spirit was painfully shown. It was shown in the universal determination to subordinate political acts to religious opinions.[21] It was shown in the conspiracy of Amboise, and in the conference of Poissy; and still more was it shown in those revolting crimes so natural to superstition, the massacres of Vassy and of St. Bartholomew, the murder of Guise by Poltrot, and of Henry III. by Clement. These were the legitimate results of the spirit of religious bigotry. They were the results of that accursed spirit, which, whenever it has had the power, has punished even to the death those who dared to differ from it; and which, now that the power has passed away, still continues to dogmatize on the most mysterious subjects, tamper with the most sacred principles of the human heart, and darken with its miserable superstitions those sublime questions that no one should rudely touch, because they are for each according to the measure of his own soul, because they lie in that unknown tract which separates the Finite from the Infinite, and because they are as a secret and individual covenant between Man and his God.

[21] 'Ce fut alors que la nation ne prit conseil que de son fanatisme.
Les esprits, de jour en jour plus échauffés, ne virent plus
d'autre objet que celui de la religion, et par piété se firent les
injures les plus atroces.' _Mably_, _Observations sur l'Hist. de
France_, vol. iii. p. 145.

How long these sad days[22] would, in the ordinary course of affairs, have been prolonged in France, is a question which we now perhaps have no means of answering; though there is no doubt that the progress even of empirical knowledge must, according to the process already pointed out, have eventually sufficed to rescue so great a country from her degraded position. Fortunately, however, there now took place what we must be content to call an accident, but which was the beginning of a most important change. In the year 1589, Henry IV. ascended the throne of France. This great prince, who was far superior to any of the French sovereigns of the sixteenth century,[23] made small account of those theological disputes which his predecessors had thought to be of paramount importance. Before him, the kings of France, animated by the piety natural to the guardians of the church, had exerted all their authority to uphold the interests of the sacred profession. Francis I. said, that if his right hand were a heretic, he would cut it off.[24] Henry II., whose zeal was still greater,[25] ordered the judges to proceed against the Protestants, and publicly declared that he would 'make the extirpation of the heretics his principal business.'[26] Charles IX., on the celebrated day of St. Bartholomew, attempted to relieve the church by destroying them at a single blow. Henry III. promised to 'oppose heresy even at the risk of his life;' for he said, 'he could not find a prouder grave than amidst the ruins of heresy.'[27]

[22] The 19th and 20th volumes of _Sismondi's Histoire des Français_
contain painful evidence of the internal condition of France
before the accession of Henry IV. Indeed, as Sismondi says (vol.
xx. pp. 11-16), it seemed at one time as if the only prospect was
a relapse into feudalism. See also _Monteil_, _Hist. des divers
Etats_, vol. v. pp. 242-249: 'plus de trois cent mille maisons
détruites.' De Thou, in the memoirs of his own life, says, 'Les
loix furent méprisées, et l'honneur de la France fut presque
anéanti ... et sous le voile de la religion, on ne respiroit que
la haîne, la vengeance, le massacre et l'incendie,' _Mém. de la
Vie_, in _Histoire Univ._ vol. i. p. 120; and the same writer, in
his great history, gives almost innumerable instances of the
crimes and persecutions constantly occurring. See, for some of the
most striking cases, vol. ii. p. 383, vol. iv. pp. 378, 380, 387,
495, 496, 539, vol. v. pp. 189, 518, 561, 647, vol. vi. pp. 421,
422, 424, 426, 427, 430, 469. Compare _Duplessis_, _Mém. et
Correspond._ vol. ii. pp. 41, 42, 322, 335, 611, 612, vol. iii.
pp. 344, 445, vol. iv. pp. 112-114; _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. i. pp. 307, 308; _Duvernet_, _Hist. de la Sorbonne_,
vol. i. p. 217.

[23] This, indeed, is not saying much; and far higher praise might be
justly bestowed. As to his domestic policy, there can be only one
opinion; and M. Flassan speaks in the most favourable terms of his
management of foreign affairs. _Flassan_, _Hist. de la Diplomatie
Franç._ vol. ii. pp. 191, 192, 294-297, vol. iii. p. 243. And see,
to the same effect, the testimony of M. Capefigue, an unfriendly
judge. _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vii. p. xiv. vol. viii. p. 156.
Fontenay Mareuil, who was a contemporary of Henry IV., though he
wrote many years after the king was murdered, says, 'Ce grand roy,
qui estoit en plus de considération dans le monde que pas un de
ses prédécesseurs n'avoit esté depuis Charlesmagne.' _Mém. de
Fontenay_, vol. i. p. 46. Duplessis Mornay calls him 'le plus
grand roy que la chrestienté ait porté depuis cinq cens ans;' and
Sully pronounces him to be 'le plus grand de nos rois.' _Duplessis
Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. xi. pp. 30, 77, 131; _Sully_,
_[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. vii. p. 15. Compare vol. vi. pp. 397,
398, vol. ix. pp. 35, 242, with some sensible remarks in _Mém. de
Genlis_, Paris, 1825, vol. ix. p. 299.

[24] So it is generally related: but there is a slightly different
version of this orthodox declaration in _Smedley's Hist. of the
Reformation in France_, vol. i. p. 30. Compare _Maclaine's note_
in _Mosheim's Eccles. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 24, with _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xvi. pp. 453, 454, and _Relat. des
Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. i. p. 50, vol. ii. p. 48. It was also
Francis I. who advised Charles V. to expel all the Mohammedans
from Spain, _Llorente_, _Hist. de l'Inquisition_, vol. i. p. 429.

[25] The historian of the French Protestants says, in 1548, 'le nouveau
roi Henry II. fut encore plus rigoureux que son père.' _Benoist_,
_Hist. de l'Edit de Nantes_, vol. i. p. 12.

[26] M. Ranke (_Civil Wars in France_, vol. i. pp. 240, 241) says, that
he issued a circular 'addressed to the parliaments and to the
judicial tribunals, in which they were urged to proceed against
the Lutherans with the greatest severity, and the judges informed
that they would be held responsible, should they neglect these
orders; and in which he declared plainly, that as soon as the
peace with Spain was concluded, he was determined to make the
extirpation of the heretics his principal business.' See also, on
Henry II., in connexion with the Protestants, _Mably_, _Observ.
sur l'Hist. de France_, vol. iii. pp. 133, 134; _De Thou_, _Hist.
Univ._ vol. i. pp. 334, 335, 387, vol. ii. p. 640, vol. iii. pp.
365, 366; _Felice's Hist. of the French Protestants_, p. 58.

[27] He said this to the Estates of Blois in 1588. _Ranke's Civil Wars
in France_, vol. ii. p. 202. Compare his edict, in 1585, in
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. iv. pp. 244, 245, and his
speech in vol. v. p. 122; and see _Benoist_, _Hist. de l'Edit de
Nantes_, vol. i. p. 328; _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Corresp._
vol. i. p. 110; _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol. i. p. 250, vol.
viii. p. 651, vol. x, pp. 294, 589, 674, 675.

These were the opinions expressed, in the sixteenth century, by the heads of the oldest monarchy in Europe.[28] But with such feelings, the powerful intellect of Henry IV. had not the slightest sympathy. To suit the shifting politics of his age, he had already changed his religion twice; and he did not hesitate to change it a third time,[29] when he found that by doing so he could ensure tranquillity to his country. As he had displayed such indifference about his own creed, he could not with decency show much bigotry about the creed of his subjects.[30] We find, accordingly, that he was the author of the first public act of toleration which any government promulgated in France since Christianity had been the religion of the country. Only five years after he had solemnly abjured Protestantism, he published the celebrated Edict of Nantes,[31] by which, for the first time, a Catholic government granted to heretics a fair share of civil and religious rights. This was, unquestionably, the most important event that had yet occurred in the history of French civilization.[32] If it is considered by itself, it is merely an evidence of the enlightened principles of the king; but when we look at its general success, and at the cessation of religious war which followed it, we cannot fail to perceive that it was part of a vast movement, in which the people themselves participated. Those who recognize the truth of the principles I have laboured to establish, will expect that this great step towards religious liberty was accompanied by that spirit of scepticism, in the absence of which toleration has always been unknown. And that this was actually the case, may be easily proved by an examination of the transitionary state which France began to enter towards the end of the sixteenth century.

[28] With what zeal these opinions were enforced, appears, besides many
other authorities, from Marino Cavalli, who writes in 1546, 'Li
maestri di Sorbona hanno autorità estrema di castigare li eretici,
il che fanno con il fuoco, brustolandoli vivi a poco a poco.'
_Relat. des Ambassad. Vénitiens_, vol. i. 262; and see vol. ii.
p. 24.

[29] Indeed, Clement VIII. was afterwards apprehensive of a fourth
apostasy: 'Er meinte noch immer, Heinrich IV. werde zuletzt
vielleicht wieder zum Protestantismus zurückkehren, wie er es
schon einmal gethan.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 246. M.
Ranke, from his great knowledge of Italian manuscripts, has thrown
more light on these transactions than the French historians have
been able to do.

[30] On his conversion, the character of which was as obvious then as it
is now, compare _Duplessis Mornay_, _Mém. et Correspond._ vol. i.
p. 257, with _Sully_, _[OE]conomies Royales_, vol. ii. p. 126. See
also _Howell's Letters_, book i. p. 42; and a letter from Sir H.
Wotton in 1593, printed in _Reliquiæ Wottonianæ_, p. 711. See also
_Ranke_, _Civil Wars in France_, vol. ii. pp. 257, 355;
_Capefigue_, _Hist. de la Réforme_, vol. vi. pp. 305, 358.

[31] The edict of Nantes was in 1598; the abjuration in 1593.
_Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxi. pp. 202, 486. But in
1590 it was intimated to the pope as probable, if not certain,
that Henry would 'in den Schooss der katholischen Kirche
zurückkehren.' _Ranke_, _die Päpste_, vol. ii. p. 210.

[32] Of this edict, Sismondi says, 'Aucune époque dans l'histoire de
France ne marque mieux peut-être la fin d'un monde ancien, le
commencement d'un monde nouveau.' _Hist. des Français_, vol. xxi.
p. 489.

The writings of Rabelais are often considered to afford the first instance of religious scepticism in the French language.[33] But, after a tolerably intimate acquaintance with the works of this remarkable man, I have found nothing to justify such an opinion. He certainly treats the clergy with great disrespect, and takes every opportunity of covering them with ridicule.[34] His attacks, however, are always made upon their personal vices, and not upon that narrow and intolerant spirit to which those vices were chiefly to be ascribed. In not a single instance does he show any thing like consistent scepticism;[35] nor does he appear to be aware that the disgraceful lives of the French clergy were but the inevitable consequence of a system, which, corrupt as it was, still possessed every appearance of strength and vitality. Indeed, the immense popularity which he enjoyed is, almost of itself, a decisive consideration; since no one, who is well informed as to the condition of the French early in the sixteenth century, will believe it possible that a people, so sunk in superstition, should delight in a writer by whom superstition is constantly attacked.

But the extension of experience, and the consequent increase of knowledge, were preparing the way for a great change in the French intellect. The process, which had just taken place in England, was now beginning to take place in France; and in both countries the order of events was precisely the same. The spirit of doubt, hitherto confined to an occasional solitary thinker, gradually assumed a bolder form: first it found a vent in the national literature, and then it influenced the conduct of practical statesmen. That there was, in France, an intimate connexion between scepticism and toleration, is proved, not only by those general arguments which make us infer that such connexion must always exist, but also by the circumstance, that only a few years before the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes, there appeared the first systematic sceptic who wrote in the French language. The Essays of Montaigne were published in 1588,[36] and form an epoch, not only in the literature, but also in the civilization, of France. Putting aside personal peculiarities, which have less weight than is commonly supposed, it will be found that the difference between Rabelais and Montaigne is a measure of the difference between 1545[37] and 1588, and that it, in some degree, corresponds with the relation I have indicated between Jewel and Hooker, and between Hooker and Chillingworth. For, the law which governs all these relations is the law of a progressive scepticism. What Rabelais was to the supporters of theology, that was Montaigne to the theology itself. The writings of Rabelais were only directed against the clergy; but the writings of Montaigne were directed against the system of which the clergy were the offspring.[38] Under the guise of a mere man of the world, expressing natural thoughts in common language, Montaigne concealed a spirit of lofty and audacious inquiry.[39] Although he lacked that comprehensiveness which is the highest form of genius, he possessed other qualities essential to a great mind. He was very cautious, and yet he was very bold. He was cautious, since he would not believe strange things because they had been handed down by his forefathers; and he was bold, since he was undaunted by the reproaches with which the ignorant, who love to dogmatize, always cover those whose knowledge makes them ready to doubt.[40] These peculiarities would, in any age, have made Montaigne a useful man: in the sixteenth century they made him an important one. At the same time, his easy and amusing style[41] increased the circulation of his works, and thus contributed to popularize those opinions which he ventured to recommend for general adoption.

[33] On Rabelais, as the supposed founder of French scepticism, compare
_Lavallée_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. ii. p. 306; _Stephen's
Lectures on the History of France_, vol. ii. p. 242; _Sismondi_,
_Hist. des Français_, vol. xvi. p. 376.

[34] Particularly the monks. See, among numerous other instances, vol.
i. pp. 278, 282, vol. ii. pp. 284, 285, of _[OE]uvres de
Rabelais_, edit. Amsterdam, 1725. However, the high dignitaries of
the church are not spared; for he says that Gargantua 'se morvoit
en archidiacre,' vol. i. p. 132; and on two occasions (vol. iii.
p. 65, vol. iv. pp. 199, 200) he makes a very indecent allusion to
the pope. In vol. i. pp. 260, 261, he satirically notices the way
in which the services of the church were performed: 'Dont luy dist
le moyne: Je ne dors jamais à mon aise, sinon quand je suis au
sermon, ou quand je prie Dieu.'

[35] His joke on the strength of Samson (_[OE]uvres de Rabelais_, vol.
ii. pp. 29, 30), and his ridicule of one of the Mosaic laws (vol.
iii. p. 34), are so unconnected with other parts of his work, as
to have no appearance of belonging to a general scheme. The
commentators, who find a hidden meaning in every author they
annotate, have represented Rabelais as aiming at the highest
objects, and seeking to effect the most extensive social and
religious reforms. This I greatly doubt, at all events I have seen
no proof of it; and I cannot help thinking that Rabelais owes a
large share of his reputation to the obscurity of his language. On
the other side of the question, and in favour of his
comprehensiveness, see a bold passage in _Coleridge's Lit.
Remains_, vol. i. pp. 138, 139.

[36] The two first books in 1580; the third in 1588, with additions to
the first two. See _Niceron_, _Mém. pour servir à l'Hist. des
Hommes illustres_, vol. xvi. p. 210, Paris, 1731.

[37] The first impression of the Pantagruel of Rabelais has no date on
the title-page; but it is known that the third book was printed in
1545, and the fourth book in 1546. See _Brunet_, _Manuel du
Libraire_, vol. iv. pp. 4-6, Paris, 1843. The statement in _Biog.
Univ._ vol. xxxvi. pp. 482, 483, is rather confused.

[38] Mr. Hallam (_Lit. of Europe_, vol. ii. p. 29) says, that his
scepticism 'is not displayed in religion.' But if we use the word
'religion' in its ordinary sense, as connected with dogma, it is
evident, from Montaigne's language, that he was a sceptic, and an
unflinching one too. Indeed, he goes so far as to say that all
religious opinions are the result of custom: 'Comme de vray nous
n'avons aultre mire de la vérité et de la raison, que l'exemple et
idée des opinions et usances du païs où nous sommes: _là est
tousiours la parfaicte religion_, la parfaicte police, parfaict et
accomply usage de toutes choses.' _Essais de Montaigne_, p. 121,
livre i. chap. xxx. As a natural consequence, he lays down that
religious error is not criminal, p. 53; compare p. 28. See also
how he notices the usurpations of the theological spirit, pp. 116,
508, 528. The fact seems to be, that Montaigne, while recognizing
abstractedly the existence of religious truths, doubted our
capacity for knowing them; that is to say, he doubted if, out of
the immense number of religious opinions, there were any means of
ascertaining which were accurate. His observations on miracles
(pp. 541, 653, 654, 675) illustrate the character of his mind; and
what he says on prophetic visions is quoted and confirmed by
Pinel, in his profound work _Aliénation Mentale_, p. 256. Compare
_Maury_, _Légendes Pieuses_, p. 268 note.

[39] His friend, the celebrated De Thou, calls him 'homme franc, ennemi
de toute contrainte.' _Mémoires_, in _De Thou_, _Hist. Univ._ vol.
i. p. 59: see also vol. xi. p. 590. And M. Lamartine classes him
with Montesquieu, as 'ces deux grands républicains de la pensée
française.' _Hist. des Girondins_, vol. i. p. 174.

[40] He says (_Essais_, p. 97), 'Ce n'est pas à l'adventure sans raison
que nous attribuons à simplesse et ignorance la facilité de croire
et de se laisser persuader.' Compare two striking passages, pp.
199 and 685. Nothing of this sort had ever appeared before in the
French language.

[41] Dugald Stewart, whose turn of mind was very different from that of
Montaigne, calls him 'this most amusing author.' _Stewart's
Philos. of the Mind_, vol. i. p. 468. But Rousseau, in every
respect a more competent judge, enthusiastically praises 'la
naïveté, la grâce et l'énergie de son style inimitable.' _Musset
Pathay_, _Vie de Rousseau_, vol. i. p. 185. Compare _Lettres de
Sévigné_, vol. iii. p. 491, edit. Paris, 1843, and _Lettres de
Dudeffand à Walpole_, vol. i. p. 94.

This, then, is the first open declaration of that scepticism, which, towards the end of the sixteenth century, publicly appeared in France.[42] During nearly three generations, it continued its course with a constantly increasing activity, and developed itself in a manner similar to that which took place in England. It will not be necessary to follow all the steps of this great process; but I will endeavour to trace those which, by their prominence, seem to be the most important.

[42] 'Mais celui qui a répandu et popularisé en France le scepticisme,
c'est Montaigne.' _Cousin_, _Hist. de la Philos._, II. série, vol.
ii. pp. 288, 289. 'Die erste Regung des skeptischen Geistes finden
wir in den Versuchen des Michael von Montaigne.' _Tennemann_,
_Gesch. der Philos._ vol. ix. p. 443. On the immense influence of
Montaigne, compare _Tennemann_, vol. ix. p. 458; _Monteil_,
_Divers Etats_, vol. v. pp. 263-265; _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque
Françoise_, pp. 80-91; _Le Long_, _Bibliothèque Historique_,
vol. iv. p. 527.

A few years after the appearance of the Essays of Montaigne, there was published in France a work, which though now little read, possessed in the seventeenth century a reputation of the highest order. This was the celebrated _Treatise on Wisdom_, by Charron, in which we find, for the first time, an attempt made in a modern language to construct a system of morals without the aid of theology.[43] What rendered this book, in some respects, even more formidable than Montaigne's, was the air of gravity with which it was written. Charron was evidently deeply impressed with the importance of the task he had undertaken, and he is honourably distinguished from his contemporaries, by a remarkable purity both of language and of sentiment. His work is almost the only one of that age in which nothing can be found to offend the chastest ears. Although he borrowed from Montaigne innumerable illustrations,[44] he has carefully omitted those indecencies into which that otherwise charming writer was often betrayed. Besides this, there is about the work of Charron a systematic completeness which never fails to attract attention. In originality, he was, in some respects, inferior to Montaigne; but he had the advantage of coming after him, and there can be no doubt that he rose to an elevation which, to Montaigne, would have been inaccessible. Taking his stand, as it were, on the summit of knowledge, he boldly attempts to enumerate the elements of wisdom, and the conditions under which those elements will work. In the scheme which he thus constructs, he entirely omits theological dogmas;[45] and he treats with undissembled scorn many of those conclusions which the people had hitherto universally received. He reminds his countrymen that their religion is the accidental result of their birth and education, and that if they had been born in a Mohammedan country, they would have been as firm believers in Mohammedanism as they then were in Christianity.[46] From this consideration, he insists on the absurdity of their troubling themselves about the variety of creeds, seeing that such variety is the result of circumstances over which they have no control. Also it is to be observed, that each of these different religions declares itself to be the true one;[47] and all of them are equally based upon supernatural pretensions, such as mysteries, miracles, prophets, and the like.[48] It is because men forget these things, that they are the slaves of that confidence which is the great obstacle to all real knowledge, and which can only be removed by taking such a large and comprehensive view, as will show us how all nations cling with equal zeal to the tenets in which they have been educated.[49] And, says Charron, if we look a little deeper, we shall see that each of the great religions is built upon that which preceded it. Thus, the religion of the Jews is founded upon that of the Egyptians; Christianity is the result of Judaism; and, from these two last, there has naturally sprung Mohammedanism.[50] We, therefore, adds this great writer, should rise above the pretensions of hostile sects, and, without being terrified by the fear of future punishment, or allured by the hope of future happiness, we should be content with such practical religion as consists in performing the duties of life; and, uncontrolled by the dogmas of any particular creed, we should strive to make the soul retire inward upon itself, and by the efforts of its own contemplation, admire the ineffable grandeur of the Being of beings, the supreme cause of all created things.[51]

[43] Compare the remarks on Charron in _Tennemann_, _Geschichte der
Philosophie_, vol. ix. p. 527, with two insidious passages in
_Charron_, _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 4, 366.

[44] The obligations of Charron to Montaigne were very considerable, but
are stated too strongly by many writers. _Sorel_, _Bibliothèque
Françoise_, p. 93; and _Hallam's Literature of Europe_, vol. ii.
pp. 362, 509. On the most important subjects, Charron was a bolder
and deeper thinker than Montaigne; though he is now so little
read, that the only tolerably complete account I have seen of his
system is in _Tennemann_, _Gesch. der Philosophie_, vol. ix. pp.
458-487. Buhle (_Geschichte der neuern Philosophie_, vol. ii. pp.
918-925) and Cousin (_Hist. de la Philos._ II. série, vol. ii. p.
289) are short and unsatisfactory. Even Dr. Parr, who was
extensively read in this sort of literature, appears only to have
known Charron through Bayle (see notes on the Spital Sermon, in
_Parr's Works_, vol. ii. pp. 520, 521); while Dugald Stewart, with
suspicious tautology, quotes, in three different places, the same
passage from Charron. _Stewart's Philosophy of the Mind_, vol. ii.
p. 233, vol. iii. pp. 365, 393. Singularly enough, Talleyrand was
a great admirer of _De la Sagesse_, and presented his favourite
copy of it to Madame de Genlis! See her own account, in _Mém. de
Genlis_, vol. iv. pp. 352, 353.

[45] See his definition, or rather description, of wisdom, in Charron,
_De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 295, vol. ii. pp. 113, 115.

[46] _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 63, 351.

[47] 'Chacune se préfère aux autres, et se confie d'être la meilleure et
plus vraie que les autres, et s'entre-reprochent aussi les unes
aux autres quelque chose, et par-là s'entre-condamnent et
rejettent.' _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 348; see also vol. i. pp.
144, 304, 305, 306, vol. ii. p. 116. Expressions almost identical
are used by M. Charles Compte, _Traité de Législation_, vol. i.
p. 233.

[48] 'Toutes trouvent et fournissent miracles, prodiges, oracles,
mystères sacrés, saints prophètes, fêtes, certains articles de foy
et créance nécessaires au salut.' _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 346.

[49] Hence he opposes proselytism, and takes up the philosophic ground,
that religious opinions, being governed by undeviating laws, owe
their variations to variations in their antecedents, and are
always, if left to themselves, suited to the existing state of
things: 'Et de ces conclusions, nous apprendrons à n'épouser rien,
ne jurer à rien, n'admirer rien, ne se troubler de rien, mais quoi
qu'il advienne, que l'on crie, tempête, se resoudre à ce point,
que c'est le cours du monde, _c'est nature qui fait des siennes_.'
_Dela Sagesse_, vol. i. p. 311.

[50] 'Mais comme elles naissent l'une après l'autre, la plus jeune bâtit
toujours sur son aînée et prochaine précédente, laquelle elle
n'improuve, ni ne condamne de fond en comble, autrement elle ne
seroit pas ouïe, et ne pourroit prendre pied; mais seulement
l'accuse ou d'imperfection, ou de son terme fini, et qu'à cette
occasion elle vient pour lui succéder et la parfaire, et ainsi la
ruine peu-à-peu, et s'enrichit de ses dépouilles, comme la
Judaïque a fait à la Gentille et Egyptienne, la Chrétienne à la
Judaïque, la Mahometane à la Judaïque et Chrétienne ensemble: mais
les vieilles condamnent bien tout-à-fait et entièrement les
jeunes, et les tiennent pour ennemies capables.' _De la Sagesse_,
vol. i. p. 349. This, I believe, is the first instance in any
modern language of the doctrine of religious development; a
doctrine which, since Charron, has been steadily advancing,
particularly among men whose knowledge is extensive enough to
enable them to compare the different religions which have
prevailed at different times. In this, as in other subjects, they
who are unable to compare, suppose that everything is isolated,
simply because to them the continuity is invisible. As to the
Alexandrian doctrine of development, found particularly in Clement
and Origen, see _Neander's Hist. of the Church_, vol. ii. pp.
234-257; and in particular pp. 241, 246.

[51] _De la Sagesse_, vol. i. pp. 356, 365; two magnificent passages.
But the whole chapter ought to be read, livre ii. chap. v. In it
there is an occasional ambiguity. Tennemann, however, in the most
important point, understands Charron as I do in regard to the
doctrine of future punishments. _Geschichte der Philosophie_,
vol. ix. p. 473.

Such were the sentiments which, in the year 1601, were for the first time laid before the French people in their own mother-tongue.[52] The sceptical and secular spirit, of which they were the representatives, continued to increase; and, as the seventeenth century advanced, the decline of fanaticism, so far from being confined to a few isolated thinkers, gradually became common, even among ordinary politicians.[53] The clergy, sensible of the danger, wished the government to check the progress of inquiry;[54] and the pope himself, in a formal remonstrance with Henry, urged him to remedy the evil, by prosecuting the heretics, from whom he thought all the mischief had originally proceeded.[55] But this the king steadily refused. He saw the immense advantages that would arise, if he could weaken the ecclesiastical power by balancing the two sects against each other;[56] and therefore, though he was a Catholic, his policy rather leaned in favour of the Protestants, as being the weaker party.[57] He granted sums of money towards the support of their ministers and the repair of their churches;[58] he banished the Jesuits, who were their most dangerous enemies;[59] and he always had with him two representatives of the reformed church, whose business it was to inform him of any infraction of those edicts which he had issued in favour of their religion.[60]

[52] The first edition of _La Sagesse_ was published at Bourdeaux in
1601. _Niceron_, _Hommes illustres_, vol. xvi. p. 224; _Hallam's
Lit. of Europe_, vol. ii. p. 509; _Biog. Univ._ vol. viii. p. 250.
Two editions were susequently published in Paris, in 1604 and
1607. _Brunet_, _Manuel du Libraire_, vol. i. p. 639.