have begun to doubt in matters of religion, before they ventured to do so in matters of history. It might have been expected that the reproaches, and, in a superstitious age, the dangers, to which heresy is exposed, would have intimidated inquirers, and would have induced them to prefer the safer path of directing their scepticism upon questions of literary speculation. Such, however, is by no means the course which the human mind has adopted. In an early stage of society, when the clergy had universal influence, a belief in the unpardonable criminality of religious error is so deeply rooted, that it engrosses the attention of all; it forces every one who thinks, to concentrate upon theology his reflections and his doubts, and it leaves no leisure for topics which are conceived to be of inferior importance.1 Hence, during many centuries, the subtlest intellects of Europe exhausted their strength on the rites and dogmas of Christianity; and while upon these matters they often showed the greatest ability, they, upon other subjects, and especially upon history, displayed that infantine credulity, of which I have already given several examples.

But when, in the progress of society, its theological element begins to decay, the ardour with which religious disputes were once conducted becomes sensibly weakened. The most advanced intellects are the first to feel the growing indifference, and, therefore, they are also the first to scrutinize real events with that inquisitive eye which their predecessors had reserved for religious speculations. This is a great turning-point in the history of every civilized nation. From this moment theological heresies become less frequent, and literary heresies become more common. From this moment, the spirit of inquiry and of doubt fastens itself upon every department of knowledge, and begins that great career of conquest, in which by every succeeding discovery the

See some very just remarks in Whewell's Philos. of the Induc. Sciences, vol. ii. p. 143. In Neander's Hist. of the Church, vol. iv. pp. 41, 128, there are two curious illustrations of the universal interest which theological discussions once inspired in Europe; and on the former subservience of philosophy to theology, compare Hamilton's Discussions on Philosophy, p. 197. But no one has treated this subject so ably as M. Auguste Comte, in his great work, Philosophie Positive. The service which the metaphysicians rendered to the church by their development of the doctrine of transubstantiation (Blanco White's Evidence against Catholicism, pp. 256 258) is a striking instance of this subordination of the intellect to ecclesiastical dogmas.

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

power and dignity of man are increased, while at the same time most of his opinions are disturbed, and many of them are destroyed until, in the march of this vast but noiseless revolution, the stream of tradition is, as it were, interrupted, the influence of ancient authority is subverted, and the human mind, waxing in strength, learns to rely upon its own resources, and to throw off incumbrances by which the freedom of its movements had long been impaired.

The application of these remarks to the history of France, will enable us to explain some interesting phenomena in the literature of that country. During the whole of the Middle Ages, and I may say, till the end of the sixteenth century, France, though fertile in annalists and chroniclers, had not produced a single historian, because she had not produced a single man who presumed to doubt what was generally believed. Indeed, until the publication of Du Haillan's history of the kings of France, no one had even attempted a critical digest of the materials which were known to be extant. This work appeared in 1576;3 and the author, at the conclusion of his labours, could not disguise the pride which he felt at having accomplished so great an undertaking. In his dedication to the king he says, "I am, sire, the first of all the French who have written the history of France, and, in a polite language, shown the grandeur and dignity of our kings; for before there was nothing but the old rubbish of chronicles which spoke of them." He adds in the preface: "Only I will say, without presumption and boasting, that I have done a thing which had not been done before, or seen by any of our nation, and have given to the history of France a dress it never appeared in before." Nor were these the idle boasts of an obscure man. His work went through numerous editions; was translated into Latin, and was reprinted in foreign countries. He himself was looked upon as one of the glories of the French nation, and was rewarded by the favour of the king, who conferred on him the office of secretary of finance. From his work, we may, therefore, gain some notion of what was then the received standard of historical literature; and with this view, it is natural to inquire what the materials were which he chiefly employed. About sixty years earlier, an Italian named Paulus Emilius had published a gossiping compilation on "the Actions of the French." This book, which is full of extravagant fables, was

Biog. Univ. vol. xix. pp. 315, 316; where it is said, "l'ouvrage de Du Haillan est remarquable, en ce que c'est le premier corps d'histoire de France qui ait paru dans notre langue." See also Dacier, Rapport sur les Progrès de l'Histoire, p. 170; and Des Réaux, Historiettes, vol. x. p. 185.

Bayle, article Haillan, note L.

Mercure François, in Bayle, article Haillan, note D.

De Rebus gestis Francorum, which appeared about 1516. Biog. Univ. vol. xiii.

taken by Du Haillan as the basis of his famous history of the kings of France; and from it he unhesitatingly copies those idle stories which Emilius loved to relate. This will give us some idea of the credulity of a writer, who was reckoned by his contemporaries to be, beyond all comparison, the greatest historian France had produced. But this is not all. Du Haillan, not content with borrowing from his predecessor every thing that was most incredible, gratifies his passion for the marvellous by some circumstances of his own invention. He begins his history with a long account of a council which, he says, was held by the celebrated Pharamond, in order to determine whether the French should be governed by a monarchy or by an aristocracy. It is, indeed, doubtful if any such person as Pharamond ever existed; and it is certain that if he did exist, all the materials had long perished from which an opinion could be formed respecting him.' But Du Haillan, regardless of these little difficulties, gives us the fullest information touching the great chieftain; and, as if determined to tax to the utmost the credulity of his readers, mentions, as members of the council of Pharamond, two persons, Charamond and Quadrek, whose very names are invented by the historian, s

Such was the state of historical literature in France early in the reign of Henry III. A great change was, however, at hand. The remarkable intellectual progress made by the French towards the close of the sixteenth century, was, as I have shown, preceded

p. 119. Compare, respecting the author, Mézéray, Hist. de France, vol. ii. p. 363, with Audigier, l'Origine des François, vol. ii. p. 118, who complains of his opinion about Clovis, "quoy qu'il fasse profession de relever la gloire des François." Even the superficial Boulainvilliers (Hist. de l'Ancien Gouvernement, vol. ii. p. 166) contemptuously notices "les rètoriciens postérieurs, tels que Paul Emile."

Compare Sismondi, Hist. des Français, vol. i. pp. 176, 177, with Montlosier, Monarchie Française, vol. i. pp. 43, 44. Philippe de Comines, though superior to Sismondi and Montlosier in point of ability, lived in the middle ages, and, therefore, had no idea of doubting, but simply says, "Pharamond fut esleu roy, l'an 420, et regna dix ans." Mém. de Comines, livre viii. chap. xxvii. vol. iii. p. 232. But De Thou, coming a hundred years after Comines, evidently suspected that it was not all quite right, and, therefore puts it on the authority of others. "Pharamond, qui selon nos historiens a porté le premier la couronne des François." De Thou, Hist. Univ. vol. x. p. 530. See a singular passage on Pharamond in Mem. de Duplessis Mornay, vol. ii. p. 405.

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

9

by that scepticism which appears to be its necessary precursor. The spirit of doubt, which had begun with religion, was communicated to literature. The impulse was immediately felt in every department of knowledge, and now it was that history first emerged from a debasement in which it had for centuries been sunk. On this subject, a mere statement of dates may be of service to those persons who, from a dislike to general reasoning, would otherwise deny the connexion which I wish to establish. In 1588 was published the first sceptical book ever written in the French language. In 1598, the French government, for the first time, ventured upon a great public act of religious toleration. In 1604, De Thou published that celebrated work, which, is allowed by all critics to be the first great history composed by a Frenchnan.10 And at the very moment when these things were passing, another eminent Frenchman, the illustrious Sully," was collecting the materials for his historical work, which, though hardly equal to that of De Thou, comes immediately after it in ability, in importance, and in reputation. Nor can we fail to remark, that both these great historians, who left all their predecessors immeasurably behind them, were the confidential ministers and intimate friends of Henry IV., the first king of France whose memory is stained by the imputation of heresy, and the first who dared to change his religion, not in consequence of any theological arguments, but on the broad and notorious ground of political expediency.12

But it was not merely over such eminent historians as these, that the sceptical spirit displayed its influence. The movement was now becoming sufficiently active to leave its marks in the writings of far inferior men. There were two particulars in which the credulity of the earlier historians was very striking. These consisted in the uncritical manner in which, by blindly copying their predecessors, they confused the dates of different events; and in the readiness with which they believed the most

"Die erste Regung des skeptischen Geistes finden wir in den Versuchen des Michael von Montaigne." Tennemann, Gesch. der Philos. vol. ix. p. 443.

10 The first volume appeared in 1604. See Le Long, Bibliothèque Historique de la France, vol. ii. p. 375; and preface to De Thou, Hist. Univ. vol. i. p. iv.

"Sismondi has scarcely done justice to Sully; but the reader will find a fuller account of him in Capefique, Hist. de la Réforme, vol. viii. pp. 101-117; and a still better one in Blanqui, Histoire de l'Economie Politique, vol. i. pp. 347-361.

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

66

14

improbable statements, upon imperfect evidence, and often upon no evidence at all. It is surely a singular proof of that intellectual progress which I am endeavouring to trace, that, within a very few years both these sources of error were removed. In 1597, Serres was appointed historiographer of France; and, in the same year, he published his history of that country.13 In this work, he insists upon the necessity of carefully recording the date of each event; and the example, which he first set, has, since his time, been generally followed. The importance of this change will be willingly acknowledged by those who are aware of the confusion into which history has been thrown, by the earlier writers having neglected, what now seems, so obvious a precaution. Scarcely had this innovation been established, when it was followed, in the same country, by another of still greater moment. This was the appearance, in 1621, of a history of France, by Scipio Dupleix; in which, for the first time, the evidence for historical facts was published with the facts themselves. It is needless to insist upon the utility of a step which, more than any other, has taught historians to be industrious in collecting their authorities, and careful in scrutinizing them. To this may be added, that Dupleix was also the first Frenchman who ventured to publish a system of philosophy in

16

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

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

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

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