Bayle the Sceptic 9780231878838

Citation preview

BAYLE THE SCEPTIC

K.WêOur/Μΐφ

Β A Y L · E. ruiluhd

by &. Katrtly

FUil

Strert.iDertfJ*

.

BAYLE THE

SCEPTIC B Y

HOWARD ROBINSON

To forget Bayle or to suppress him is to mutilate

and

falsify the whole history of ideas in the eighteenth century· BRUNETIERE

Jtr— I 1Î54· : 'UMVFFISM COLUMBIA PRESS 1693 ; /

:

IS

NEW

YORK

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS ι 93 ι

Copyright 1931 COLUMBIA

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

Published October, 1931

PRINTED THE

IN

THE

TORCH

UNITED

STATES OF

PRESS, CEDAR R A P I D S ,

AMERICA IA.

FOREWORD The following study has grown out of a long-standing interest in the life, opinions, and influence of Pierre Bayle. The list of modern works on this father of the philosophes might seem to indicate no need of a reappraisal. But such brilliant essays as those of Faguet and Brunetière are so slight as to do little more than point the way. Delvolvé's volume is the most solid of recent studies, but it was too exclusively conceived in the chair of the technical philosopher. The works of Sayous, Deschamps, and others so frequently deplore Bayle's mental tendencies as to be distortions of the man rather than true pictures. Serrurier has tried the impossible task of making him essentially a man of faith. Apart from a volume on Bayle 's literary criticism, there is no work in English on the "master of doubt" of the eighteenth century. A rereading of Bayle — in every case, the earliest obtainable editions were used, though the writer has long possessed the collected works in the eight folios — has made the great sceptic a very real figure. The man, who has been so unmercifully and smugly vilified, has lived again in his duodecimos. I have been more than ever impressed with the yeoman service Bayle rendered in softening the temerity of propositions, in removing spectres, and in unloading from many shoulders a huge bundle of comparatively unimportant convictions and burdensome superstitions. Nor can it seem otherwise to those who have some faith in the value of doubt. Bayle 's scepticism was applied with unusual fairness and impartiality by a brain that was extraordinarily nimble in running the errands of reason. The English reader has known too little of this keen moulder of minds; he was very much more than a French Protestant refugee

vi

FOREWORD

who dwelt on the confines of theology. Bayle has been overshadowed by men who largely purloined their weapons from his ample arsenal. The only English editions of his writings were published in the eighteenth century, and are not now easily obtainable. Nearly half of his work was never englished at all. I have, therefore, made a generous use of quotations from his writings, translating them, of course, into English. In Bayle 's case quotation is especially useful, for ' ' the life of a sedentary writer is in his books, ' ' as Voltaire has wisely remarked in The Age of Louis

XIV.

Bayle, however, is not an uninteresting person, for his war on outworn opinions led him into no end of trouble. This resulted, in large part, because he refused to be a retiring philosophical thinker, protected by the "dust of a college." The popular tone of his works gave them so much influence that he became a chief force in moulding modern rationalism. He deserves remeasurement ; certainly his own supreme disregard for fame hardly warrants a continued ignorance of his place as the ' ' precursor of the eighteenth century. ' ' It is interesting to find, on perusing Bayle, that some of the fences he easily cleared two centuries ago are still regarded by many as serious obstacles. Bayle was a spectator of life, whose writing was much colored by what he had read. But his observations were the more acute because his mind was richly stored; there has seldom heen a more consistent and balanced critic of human weakness. The bibliography at the end of the narrative is more complete, it is believed, than any that has been attempted hitherto. Quotation and authority have been supported with considerable care by reference to volume and page. This "slavery to exactitude" has seemed wise. The reader is asked, nevertheless, to think of the study, not as a learned dissertation, but a vital portrait of one of the most fascinating and powerful of moderns. May it be somewhat worthy of Bayle, whose own writings were so thoroughly acceptable to the generations of which he has been the great teacher.

vii

FOREWORD

The writer wishes to express his indebtedness to James Harvey Robinson, by whom he was first stimulated to a study of Bayle as a forerunner of eighteenth-century

rationalism. Professor

Lynn

Thorndike of Columbia University has kindly read the manuscript, and added greatly to its value by his constructive criticism. HOWABD ROBINSON MIAMI UNIVERSITY OXFORD,

OHIO

June, 1931

CONTENTS FOREWORD

Ν

I . BACKGROUNDS I I . B A Y L E AND P O P U L A R SUPERSTITION III.

1 .

.

.

.

16

CATHOLIC F R A N C E AND T H E H U G U E N O T S

.

.

.

35

BAYLE AND THE HISTORY OF CALVINISM FRANCE ENTIRELY CATHOLIC

.

.

.

41 55

I V . B A Y L E AND T H E M O V E M E N T FOR TOLERATION

THE PHILOSOPHICAL COMMENTARY BAYLE AND LOCKE

.

.

.

V . A C I T I Z E N OF T H E R E P U B L I C OF L E T T E R S

.

.

71 89

.

94

.

109 124

.

V I . T H E V I C T I M OF INTOLERANCE

107

JURIEU'S ATTACK ON BAYLE THE DISMISSAL OF PROFESSOR BAYLE . VII.

VIII.

.

.

T H E PUBLICATION OF T H E HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

THE NATURE OF THE DICTIONARY JURIEU AGAIN AROUSED

.

.

.

T H E DICTIONARY — MIRACLES AND T H E B I B L E

.

.

.

.

.

.

OBSCENITY PRIESTCRAFT DICTIONARY — SCEPTICISM

ORIGINAL SIN ATHEISM XI.

BAYLE'S LAST YEARS

151

155 162 170

T H E DICTIONARY — H U M A N SHORTCOMINGS

X. THE

129

136 142

HOLY SCRIPTURE OLD TESTAMENT HEROES THE MIRACULOUS IX.

64

.

176

187 194 .

.

.

.

200

206 215 220

SORCERY

224

JURIEU'S LAST ASSAULT

234

CONTENTS

χ XII.

XIII.

L I F E AFTER D E A T H

246

In England In Germany

253 265

T H E R E T U R N FROM E X I L E

Voltaire The Encyclopedists The Aftermath APPENDIX

A — The Writings of Bayle Β — Related Works Appearing in Bayle 's Lifetime C — Works on Bayle and His Writings Appearing from 1706-1789 D — Principal Modern Studies of Bayle and his Writings

INDEX

277

285 296 305 310 318 320 322 325

CHAPTER

I

BACKGROUNDS The life of a man of letters seldom abounds in striking episodes or resounding actions. His battleground, if he be pugnacious, is the written page ; his weapon, the printed word. Powerful personalities are likely to prefer the mêlée and rewards of activity in what appear the important matters of the day. It has frequently been remarked, however, that in strength of influence the sword ha3 yielded to the pen, especially if wielded by a thinker of large views. Such was Pierre Bayle, man of letters, encyclopedist, refugee, and rationalist. His comparatively uneventful life was begun in 1647 under the shadow of the Pyrenees and completed in the city of Rotterdam as the year 1706 was drawing to a close. His birth occurred a few years after Louis X I V began his long reign, and his life ended shortly before the sun of Louis's glory set in dull gloom. Both lived on for a few years into that restless eighteenth century, which witnessed the Philosophes

in France, the Aufklärung in Ger-

many, Deism in England — the century of the Encyclopedists, the extension of science, and the French Revolution. The changes in thinking and emphasis that so clearly marked the eighteenth century can be traced back into that fretful period bounded by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 and the death of Louis in 1715. These were the years when Pierre Bayle was at his maturity. In England, for example, the Revolution of 1688 brought relatively large freedom of thought and expression. The social and intellectual atmosphere that resulted was more than ever congenial to the spirit of inquiry, and to the scientific interests of Halley, Flamsteed, and Newton. Locke's leadership in

BACKGROUNDS

2

philosophy stimulated, if unwittingly, a rationalistic viewpoint that found anti-Christian expression in the eighteenth century. The age-long disorganization in Germany was slowly mending at this time with the rise of Prussia, whose elector became king just as the new century opened. The drain of the Thirty Years' War was being repaired, and new intellectual tendencies were perceptible. The work of Leibnitz and Thomasius was to make a marked enlightenment possible. In France, the years between 1685 and 1715 were still illuminated by the brilliancy of the distinguished writers who helped to make Louis X I V the Great. But change was in the air. Racine, Molière, Corneille, Boileau, Pascal, Bossuet, were giving way before the inevitableness of "progress." Both a rising science and a new philosophy were making French classicism less important than it was. The revolt against Aristotle was led by a Gassendi and a Descartes. Spinoza with his so-called " a t h e i s m " was startling the age. The acceptance of science by the French mind was powerfully aided by the work of a Fontenelle, the scientific and critical spirit was fostered by a Bayle. It is not too venturesome to say that the marked change found in eighteenth-century France arose in these years; men of the new spirit, the "moderns," were burning their bridges, so to speak. It is easy, of course, to make too much of the historic periods which have been marked out for convenience. Yet the changes coming in the last three decades of the age of Louis X I V seem to be more rapid and important than has usually been the case, distinct because of the intenser search for truth, the deeper passion for religious liberty, along with the rise of a new scientific and historical attitude. The idea of progress arose, and progress itself became possible. This change is often too exclusively associated with such men as Montesquieu, Diderot, and Voltaire in France; with Lessing, Gottsched, and Wolff in Germany; with Hume, Bolingbroke, and

3

BACKGROUNDS

Gibbon in England. But these men were not so much initiators as inheritors of the new spirit. The forces which they did so much to make permanent were already sweeping powerfully across national and linguistic boundaries. They are inexplicable if one forgets Descartes, Spinoza, Fontenelle, Leibnitz, Locke, Newton, and Bayle. One of the most important, certainly, among the fathers of the ' ' modern ' ' spirit, the stimulators of reason in all spheres of human interest, was Pierre Bayle. He was so unassuming, so modest, so utterly careless with regard to his own lasting reputation that he has been too frequently taken at his own modest rating. It is doubtful, however, if any man of his eventful time did more to stimulate the new century. At his desk, from behind his books, he issued blow after blow at the accepted ideas of his day, shocking many out of their comparative assurance. By the middle of the new century Voltaire could declare that the works of Bayle were the "library of the nations." Age-old fortifications fell before his persistent attacks. In a real sense he opened the eighteenth century, served as the advance guard of the army of the Philosophes. Ferdinand Brunetière has gone so far as to say that almost all that Voltaire brought back from England after his visit in the twenties the English owed in large part to Bayle.1 Bayle's attack on superstition opened his campaign. The treatment of the Huguenots in 1685 brought forth the first and greatest plea for toleration, preceding that of Locke by several years. The crowning work of Bayle 's life, the Critical and Historical Dictionary, became such an inexhaustible arsenal that it has been given the strange title, "Bible of the Eighteenth Century." " T o forget Bayle, to suppress him, is to mutilate, to falsify the entire history of ideas of the eighteenth century. ' '2 ι Études critiques sur l'histoire de la littérature p. 117. 2 Brunetière, p. 117.

française,

5th eer., 1893,

4

BACKGROUNDS That, nevertheless, has been clearly Bayle's misfortune. His very

hardihood, his trail blazing, have too often been forgotten in the brilliant work of those who followed in a way which he had made usable. The present study of Bayle 's life, opinions, and influence is an attempt to remedy this ingratitude. I f the reading of the result proves as entertaining as the quest it ought to be worth while. Bayle 's life was uncommonly eventful despite his incurable taste for study, and his marked dislike for mixing in political and religious activities. More intimate acquaintance with this retiring man has uncloaked a character of high quality and attractiveness. I t has shown, too, that Bayle was quite distinct in attitude of mind from many of the libres-penseurs

who sat at his feet. Bayle epito-

mizes in unusual fashion a distinct stage in the growth of the modern mind, and does it so fully that he might well be called the father of modern rationalism. Never did a birth and a childhood seem less likely to produce an international man. Bayle was born in 1647 at Carla in the County of Foix in southern France. 3 The home to which he came was the parsonage of the Huguenot minister of the village. Here he lived for the first twenty years of his life under the constant influences of the Reformed religion. The County of Foix — today the Department of the Ariège — was about as remote as it could well be. I n its lower (northern) reaches around Pamiers the County is but a continuation of the high plain of the Garonne. But it rises rapidly toward the Spanish border and Andorra, in a series of great levels produced by lateral ranges. Around Carla are mountains one thousand feet high, and, not f a r behind, the Pyrenees loom up to triple that height. The country was and is wildly picturesque in a The village is now known officially as Carla-Bayle, to distinguish it from other Carlas, and to do honor to its best-known native son.

BACKGROUNDS

5

parte, thickly wooded, the streams rushing down through great gorges or pausing a moment in beautiful grottoes. These remote, high valleys harbored a vigorous people, who were early tenacious of their rights — as people so situated have always been. The mediaeval counts of Foix long enjoyed a semi-independent existence. These hardy, often uncouth, people naturally were jealous of their political as well as of their religious rights. The district was in the heart of the Albigensian country, ravaged by Simon de Montfort in the thirteenth century. When the Reformation came, and Calvin sent his missionaries far and wide from Geneva, the region about Carla accepted the Reformed religion. The religious wars that so wasted France in the last half of the sixteenth century left Carla practically untouched. When the Protestants of the more accessible Pamiers were dispossessed in 1566, they took refuge at Caria. Six years later the horrible days of St. Bartholomew made it even more an asylum for the persecuted Huguenots. Carla and its neighborhood were relieved when Henry IV granted the Protestants some privileges by the Edict of Nantes just at the end of the sixteenth century. But the state within the state created by the Edict never satisfied a pro-Catholic court. The Protestants from the first found it difficult to obtain all the rights they had been granted. In the early years of the seventeenth century, especially during the "reign" of Richelieu, the Huguenot position was rapidly and seriously weakened. In the wars of the twenties Carla was often taken and retaken, for the County of Foix was a chief battleground. When in 1627 the Catholic leader, Marshal Thémines, wished to enter the County of Foix his army of eight thousand men was stopped for two whole days by seven Protestant soldiers. They commanded a narrow pass on the only road by which he could enter. One can be sure that Bayle in his childhood heard often of

6

BACKGROUNDS

the heroic action of the seven at the narrow defile of Jambonnet near his birthplace. Rohan in his Memoirs naturally compared the incident with Thermopylae. The peace of 1629 reconfirmed the rights of the "pretended reformed religion." But the fortified towns lost their defences, including those of Carla. At the same time the Protestant population of Carla was further increased by the harsh decree that henceforth not a single Protestant could live in nearby Pamiers. It would seem natural that Bayle, as he grew out of childhood two decades later, would be nourished early and often on the heroic struggles and sacrifices of the Huguenots. One might expect the boy to embrace and hold tenaciously the ancestral faith. He had tenacity enough, but it was employed for very different ends. The educational standards of the Protestant clergy were high. Young Bayle received the rudiments of Latin and Greek from his father. He early displayed an insatiable appetite for reading. This joined with a remarkable memory soon furnished him with such mental resources that he did not feel confined to the doctrines received in childhood. Though Carla was far removed from the focus of French activity, much must have come to the ministerial household from a comparatively remote world. Books of controversy and of philosophy would naturally bulk large. Descartes died when Bayle was three years old. His famous Discourse on Method

had

appeared in 1637. It was carefully read by Huguenot ministers, although they were by no means agreed whether it was to be an aid or a hurt to their faith. Bayle probably came in touch with Descartes' philosophy early, for it proved a strong influence in his mental emancipation. Equally subversive of the time-honored Aristotelianism was the work of Gassendi, whose death occurred when Bayle was nine. As the young man grew to maturity the followers of the two schools were carrying on a lively warfare. The philosopher, Spinoza, was a younger contemporary of Gassendi and

BACKGROUNDS

7

Descartes. Fifteen years older than Bayle, he was not to give his famous Tractate to the world until 1670, and was to die seven years later. The period of Bayle 's youth and early manhood was a time of great vitality in thought. There was restlessness among Catholics as well. Just before Bayle 's birth great concern had resulted from the revival of St. Augustine's doctrine of grace by the Flemish theologian, Jansenius. His Augustinus, appearing in 1640, was a Catholic's exposition of predestination, as harsh in some ways as that of Calvin. This started a long controversy in the church. In the forties both the Pope and the Sorbonne felt it necessary to condemn Jansenism, for it was already finding adherents. In 1643 Arnauld popularized Jansen's ideas in his work on Frequent Communion. The Port Royalists took it up, the Jesuits opposed it. Bayle was just entering his teens when Pascal published that celebrated attack on the Jesuits, the Provincial Letters. This controversy was carefully followed by the Huguenots, for they found some affinities in Jansenism, and took rather more than a pious delight in watching the bitter strife in the Catholic church. The most powerful figure of the time in French Catholicism was Bossuet. He was equally distinguished as a preacher, a theologian, and a writer. His famous Exposition of Catholic Doctrine was published in the same year as Spinoza's Tractate — when Bayle was in his early twenties. In that year (1670) Bossuet became tutor to the Dauphin, for whom he composed his Discourse on Universal History and Political Principles Drawn from Holy Scripture. As a champion of Catholicism he had no equal. The History of the Variations of the Protestant Church saw the light in 1688. The government, with which Bossuet was closely connected, believed the disappearance of Protestantism in France an end devoutly to be sought. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) was but the climax of a long and menacing movement to

8

BACKGROUNDS

that end. The outcome of this step, as we shall find, was to affect Bayle'β literary career in a marked way. Of Bayle's more or less exact contemporaries there were two who should be mentioned at the start. The German, Leibnitz, was almost the same age ; the Englishman, Locke, fifteen years his senior. Bayle read everything he could lay his hands on. He had so insatiable a curiosity, so remarkable a memory, that everything was grist for his mill/ As his health was frail, the intense application to study was a cause of worry to his parents. When nineteen he attended a Protestant academy in a nearby county, only to fall ill from overwork. Later he was sent elsewhere to the home of an uncle for a change of air and to divert him from study. The house of the local minister, as it happened, was well stocked with books, "which was such a temptation to Bayle as almost cost him his life. ' ' s By this time he had poured over books of controversy, and had made wide excursions into ancient and modern literature. Desmaizeaux has it that Plutarch and Montaigne were his favorite authors. They might well have been, for these two giants of the world of letters have captivated many a kindred mind. The debt he owed to them is to be found on many a page. He knew Montaigne almost by heart. Montaigne's suspension of judgment — que sais je? — was reproduced to an unusual degree in Bayle 's writings. Montaigne was possibly a chief cause for Bayle 's lack of fervid loyalty and that determined churchmanship of a Calvin or a Bossuet. Bayle's freedom from prejudice was clearly shown by his experience at Toulouse. When twenty he went there to continue his * In Carla the grenier is still shown where Bayle did much of his reading. » The Vie de Bayle by P. Desmaizeaux, from, which this statement is taken, was the work of one of Bayle's closest friends. It was published with the Dictionary. I have referred for it, and for the Dictionary, to the octavo edition, edited by Beuchot (1820). For the quotation, see Vol. XVI, p. 44.

BACKGROUNDS

9

education at the Jesuit college. It may seem strange that a Protestant minister should have sent his son to a Catholic school. But this was not uncommon. The Jesuits were generally acknowledged to be able educators, so able that Huguenots risked their children in the care of the Jesuits, confident that early training would keep them true to their own church. In this case it was a disastrous step for Bayle 's father to take. The young man's balanced mind was entirely willing to weigh arguments pro and con. His principal concern at Toulouse was logic, which gave added strength to the Catholic arguments on the authority of the church and of tradition. A month after his arrival he became a Roman Catholic. This union with the older church was a severe shock to his family. There can be no doubt of Bayle's sincerity in this change. A study of the Catholic position made him feel honestly, as he himself put it, that he was a schismatic and out of the way of salvation. He felt bound to join himself again to the main stock of the church, when he came to see that the Protestant communions were but "lopped-off branches."" Bayle wrote at the time to his elder brother, Jacob — already an assistant to his father in the work of the church — urging that he, too, examine the basis of authority of the Protestant faith. The father suspected this to be a dictated letter. Whatever the truth in the matter, the Jesuits were certainly overjoyed at this important conversion, and hoped, no doubt, to use it as a lever. The bishop of the diocese in which Carla lay even offered to pay all the young man's educational expenses. The joy was not long-lived. Bayle's open mind had been rather too hastily convinced, it would appear. Further study led him to doubt the step he had taken. What he called later the "worship paid to creatures" seemed "excessive." In addition, "philosophy having given him a more perfect knowledge of the impossibility of transubstantiation, ' ' he made a new examination and ' ' recovered β Deemaizeaui, xvi, 264.

10

BACKGROUNDS

the light which he had lost, and followed it without regarding a thousand temporal advantages of which he deprived himself, nor a thousand inconveniences which appeared inevitable. ' ' 7 The change was aided by discussion with a friend, and the sudden and secret appearance of his brother Jacob in a Protestant home where Bayle had been invited to dinner. This double conversion was most significant for the future. Bayle can be accused of youthful haste but not of insincerity ; openmindedness, an exacting intellectual conscience, and an unusual firmness of character explain the two steps of 1669 and 1670. He seems to have had uncommon ability to think as he pleased, and an unusual determination to speak as he thought. To renounce Catholicism in the days of Louis X I V was dangerous. Not long before (1665), a rigorous decree had been passed against those who relapsed. Bayle found it necessary to flee the country. After secretly abjuring Catholicism before his brother and some other Huguenot ministers, Bayle made a speedy flight to Geneva. There, it was felt, he would be safe from the resentment of the Jesuits, "unconscious of the full value of the prize they had lost." The judgment of Edward Gibbon, the English historian — his words have just been quoted — is of more than ordinary value. Bayle's experience was to be paralleled in the next century by Gibbon's double conversion. The Englishman was turned to Catholicism by reading the charming pages of Bishop Bossuet's of the Variations

of the Protestant

History

Church and his Exposition

of

Catholic Doctrine. Gibbon, like Bayle, wrote a pompous letter to his father, describing his conversion. In the Autobiography

Gibbon

justified the action in much the same way as had Bayle. To my present feeling it seems incredible that I should ever believe that I believed in transubstantiation. . . . For my own part I am proud of an honest sacrifice of interest to conscience. I can never blush if my tender ι His own words, quoted, Desmaizeaux, xvi, 264.

BACKGROUNDS

11

mind was entangled in the sophistry that seduced the acute and manly understandings of Chillingworth and Bayle, who afterwards emerged from superstition to scepticism. Gibbon would have it that "the study of physics convinced him (Bayle) of the impossibility of transubstantiation, which is abundantly refuted by the testimony of our senses. ' ' Both men, likewise, were sent to Switzerland after their brief Catholic careers. Gibbon's father packed his impressionable son off to Lausanne where he renounced transubstantiation under the gentle persuasions of a Reformed minister. Gibbon was reclaimed by the study of De Crousaz's system of logic, the very man who was later to make an elaborate reply to Bayle 's "philosophy of doubt." De Crousaz did not long retain the respect of Gibbon. He later wrote that De Crousaz had a ' ' stronger claim on my gratitude than on my admiration." On the contrary, Gibbon's respect for Bayle greatly increased, for the two men traveled much the same road.8 The balance of an open mind had led Bayle away from Catholicism to philosophy within the Protestant fold rather than back to the Reformed religion. There he could pursue more freely the bent already apparent, though later he was to find even its light restrictions irksome. The double conversion is a sort of first act of scepticism by one who was willing to take intellectual trouble and abide by the consequences. Geneva had become well known during the Protestant revolt as the city which Calvin remade into an austere theocracy. Before his death — just a century earlier — training schools for ministerial missionaries were set up. Protestant exiles came to Geneva from the various Catholic countries. And from Geneva ardent proselytes penetrated the Catholic states. It was the great center and training ground for Reformed activity. The old rigor had somewhat relaxed β Miscellaneous Worlcs, 1837, pp, 29, 30, 32, 37. For De Crousaz and Gibbon, see below, Chaps, xn and xm.

12

BACKGROUNDS

by the seventeenth century. Yet in Bayle 's time the University of Geneva was still an important Protestant school where theological problems and inquiry were eagerly pursued. Bayle read even more widely in theology, Biblical criticism, and philosophy after his retirement to Geneva. Here he added much to his knowledge of the " n e w " thinking of his fellow countryman, Descartes. At the time, as we have said, the Cartesian system was being widely discussed and anxiously scrutinized. Many Reformed ministers felt that Descartes's basic dictum — " I think, therefore, I a m " — cut deeply into the necessity of revelation. The ministry, which the elder Bayle hoped his son would enter, became less and less attractive. He attended the services in Italian, it is true, but it was done principally to improve his knowledge of that language. At length, Bayle definitely set aside the ministry as a profession on the pretext that he had a weak voice. He set it aside for that of teaching, though a voice might seem about as needful in the one calling as in the other. Bayle tutored for a time in private families in and near Geneva. In 1674 he had a similar position at Rouen, obtained for him through a fellow student, Basnage by name, whose father was the Huguenot minister in Rouen.® Thence he gravitated to Paris, still as a tutor. It was while there that he obtained his first dignified teaching position. His friend Basnage had also left Geneva to complete his theological training in the Protestant Academy at Sedan. It happened at the time that the chair of philosophy became vacant. There were several candidates for the position, but none suited the professor of theology, Jurieu by name. Jurieu, therefore, listened to the suggestion of Bayle's name by Basnage. A public disputation was necessary to decide whether Bayle or one of the three local applicants β At that time he changed hie name from Bayle to Bêle, though he later returned to the use of Bayle.

BACKGROUNDS

13

should attain the seat. Each was to take the rather comprehensive subject of time, and dispute without books or other assistance between sunrising and sunsetting. Bayle won the intellectual marathon. Jurieu had been told of Bayle 's temporary Catholicism, but it was not made public for fear of the royal decree against those who relapsed. The acquiescence of the professor of theology in Bayle 's candidature shows that the step at Toulouse was certainly not to the young philosopher's discredit, from the Reformed viewpoint. Some years later, when Jurieu became Bayle 's sworn enemy, he wrote: " A s I believed that he was sincere in his return to us, we resolved to keep the matter (of his conversion at Toulouse) secret and to proceed. He was several years in the Academy . . . neither doing or saying anything that gave offence. " 10 Bayle 's development into scepticism was gradual, for Sedan was a very orthodox Protestant training school, much more so, for example, than Saumur. Bayle taught at Sedan for six years, spending most of the time on the preparation of his lectures. Toward the end of this period he was able to branch out into writing for the public. By that time he was over thirty years of age, and thoroughly prepared for a larger audience. The end of the teaching at Sedan for both Bayle and Jurieu came in 1681 with the forced closing of the Academy. Louis XIV had already gone far in the measures for making France completely Catholic. The Edict of Nantes was to be revoked in '85. The closing of the four Protestant academies in France was one of the preliminary steps. In June of 1681 a decree led to the terrible Dragonnades. A month later the Huguenot Academy at Sedan was closed. The Jesuits seems to have brought it about, for they obtained the vacated buildings for a nominal sum.11 io Desmaizeaux, xvi, 60. « H. M. B&ird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1895, Vol. I, p. 515.

BACKGROUNDS

14

The necessity for a second emigration was only too plain. Bayle was undecided for a time as to the place he should go. Many in Sedan were leaving for the nearby Rhine country, which Louis's government had not yet absorbed by acts of reunion. And there was northern Germany, Holland, and England to consider. Bayle seems to have been actually preparing to go to England when an opportunity opened in the Low Countries, an opportunity that decided his future. At Sedan Bayle had earned the high regard and friendship of a Dutch student named Van Zoelen. The latter had a relative in Rotterdam, Hadrian van Paets by name, who was one of the city councillors and a liberal patron of letters. Van Zoelen wrote Paets asking if something could not be done for the dispossessed professor of philosophy. As a result, Bayle was offered the professorship of philosophy and history in an academy recently established in Rotterdam under the optimistic title of École Illustre. Here he was to remain for the rest of his life. Gibbon contrasted the exile in Rotterdam with the possible honors which Bayle might have won in France had he been willing to stay as a Catholic. Yet the ' ' comforts of a benefice or the dignity of a mitre ' ' were not to be compared to the "private state of exile, indigence, and freedom." And Gibbon added that "without a country or a patron( !) or a prejudice he claimed the liberty and subsisted by the labors of his pen. ' ' 1 2 Before he entered Holland, however, the labors of his pen were already fruitful. The first of his important writings was composed at Sedan, occasioned as it was by the great comet that appeared in 1680. For reasons to be given presently, it only saw the light in 1682 after Bayle had left his native land. Before we enter Holland with the philosopher whose mind and its influence we are seeking, it will be well to consider this work. According to 12 Work cited, p. 32.

BACKGROUNDS

15

Jurieu, Bayle, while at Sedan, was "neither doing or saying anything that gave offence." Could the same have been said of his writing? The theologian was emphatically certain in later years that Bayle's first important work was one of the most pernicious things he ever published.

CHAPTEB I I

BAYLE AND POPULAR SUPERSTITION In 1681 Bayle wrote a significant letter to his elder brother. He spoke of Cartesianism as a convenient hypothesis for explaining the workings of nature. And he added these significant words : The more I study philosophy, the more doubt I find. The differences between the various sects amount only to probabilities, some lesser, some greater; none are final or ever will be, so profound are the workings of God in the world of nature as well as in that of grace. . . . I am a philosopher without being "set," and regard Aristotle, Epicurus, Descartes as the inventors of conjectures that may or may not be of use.1

This essential balance of mind was effectively revealed in the widely read treatise that Bayle wrote at Sedan in that very year. The "blazing star" of 1680 was one of the most spectacular that had appeared for decades. Any brilliant comet, followed by a gleaming tail that seemed to point to some particular portion of the earth, had always aroused much consternation. Astrological minds had sought to connect comets with baleful human occurrences, with the beginning of war, the decease of a king, with a famine, a flood, or some other ' ' act of God. ' ' They had been considered as presages of divine wrath, and as even working an actual deleterious effect on the earth and its simple-minded inhabitants. Illustrations will occur to the reader. The Venerable Bede illustrates the credulity of his time ; he could write, for example, that ' ' In the year 729 comets appeared : the holy Egbert passed away and Osric died. ' ' The comet of 1066 was naturally connected with the defeat and death of Harold at Hastings. Odericus Vitalis wrote that 1 Letter of 29th of May, 1681, in Oeuvres diverses, ed. of 1737, Vol. IV. For the bibliography of Bayle 's writings, see the appendix.

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

17

History's ancient annals fix The year one thousand sixty-six (Then a fiery comet whirled, Dreadful omen round the world.) As the time when England's lord Fell before the Norman sword.

Its representation on the Bayeux tapestry was not a mere pictorial flourish. Comets of 1450 and 1456 were connected with the advances of the Turk, even by the pope of the time. The hairy messenger of 1556 was regarded by Charles V and the world at large as indicative of a change of rulers in Europe. Charles had been influenced much by the heavens, a common failing among rulers as well as subjects. When this comet appeared, he cried " M y fates call out," and hastened to leave for the Spanish monastery, which was to be his final earthly home. Protestants of the Beformation period believed no less firmly than Catholics in the efficacy of comets. Cranmer, Zwingli, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, and Knox were sure that "they did not lightly appear but against some great matter," as Cranmer put it. A conspicuous comet that showed itself in 1618 could not but portend some thirty years of war and plunder such as Europe had seldom known. Shakespeare was voicing the general opinion of his time when he wrote of "comets of revenge" and lamented the death of Henry V in such words as these : Hung be the heavens with black, yield day to night 1 Comets, importing changes of time and states, Brandish your royal tresses in the sky, And with them scourge the bad revolting stars That have consented unto Henry's death.

By 1680 this immemorial superstition was beginning to lose its hold on the better educated members of society, especially on those who were en rapport with the scientific movements of the time. But

18

P O P U L A R SUPERSTITION

the comet of 1680 was so brilliant that it raised in an acute fashion the question of the effects of comets on human life. A German writer of the time has left a full description of its appearance and of the state of his mind. 1 tremble when I recall the terrible appearance it had oil Saturday evening in the clear sky, when it was observed by everybody with inexpressible astonishment. It seemed as though the heavens were burning, or as if the very air were on fire. The star itself was not larger than an ordinary star of the first magnitude. . . . But from this little star stretched out such a wonderfully long tail that even an intellectual man was overcome with trembling; one's hair stood on end as this uncommon, terrible, and indescribable tail came into view. . . . Although the comet was not far from the horizon, yet this trailing rod raised itself up to the very highest point of the heavenly vault. It extended about sixty-eight degrees, or the fifth part of a circle. The tail stretched through the heart of the Eagle and the wing of the Swan, even to Cassiopeia. O wonderful, almighty God ! The heavens show thy might and the earth thy handiwork.2

The well-known English diarist, John Evelyn, wrote at the time: " W h a t it may portend, God only knows. . . . I pray God avert his judgments! We had of late several comets which may be warnings of God, as they commonly are forerunners of his animadversions." Confirmatory earthly evidence was found to bolster credulity. A comet-marked egg, laid in Rome by a hen that had never before laid an egg, was regarded as a corroborative portent. It aroused so much discussion that the scientific Journal des Sçavans of Paris published a denial of its importance. Standard works on comets were reprinted. Hundreds of pamphlets appeared. Fontenelle even wrote a play in which he satirized the superstition. Scientific observers became busier than ever. The credit goes to the famous English astronomer, Edmund Halley, for the proof of the scientific belief that they were governed by the ' ' laws of nature. ' ' He made a careful study of the much less spectacular comet of 1682, comparing 2 Quoted in H. Robinson, The Great Comet of 1680, " a n Episode in the History of Rationalism, ' ' 1916, pp. 24, 25. See this volume, also, for other references to cometary superstition.

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

19

it with earlier recorded cometary appearances in the hope of detecting its periodic return. He believed it to be the same one that had appeared seventy-six years earlier, and at equal periods for all known human history, including the apparition of 1066. Halley proved correct, for it returned in 1759, and has not failed to keep to schedule ever since. The intellectual classes in France and Holland seem to have been rather fully emancipated from credulity by 1680. Yet there were many who would come to the philosopher and the scientist to find a reassurance for their inherited concern. Such was the occasion that led Pierre Bayle, professor of philosophy at Sedan, to prepare his Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Comet of 1680. There were two ways in which the belief in presage could be attacked. The scientist could accumulate observations to show the working of natural law. The philosopher and theologian approached the matter from a different angle. Pierre Bayle 's attack on superstition did not ignore the scientific attitude. He showed himself thoroughly up to date in that regard. But the comet was not of interest to him as a scientific phenomenon so much as an occasion for reflections on the state of mind that could accept the comet as a divine messenger. Bayle felt the philosophic arguments to be of uncommon value as the subtitle of the work shows: "Wherein it is proved by many arguments, both philosophical and theological, that comets are not presages of evil. With several moral and political reflections and historical observations." The comet was just what a doubting mind like Bayle 's needed for airing his views. He could criticize superstition freely when it would have been dangerous to criticize Christian dogmas. But the land of superstition is without clear-cut "natural" boundaries. A prodigy such as a comet could be attacked as a miracle, but so might the supposed interferences with natural law recorded in the Bible. Beligious belief was not easily separated in some of its aspects from superstition. As a result Bayle 's pen

20

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

wandered over into forbidden territory now and again in such piquant fashion that he later found himself in a peck of trouble. But to the work itself. The author intended at first to write but a letter to be inserted in the Parisian Mercure Galant. But his interest in related subjects and his joy in digressing dragged the work out to such a length that it became a book of generous dimensions. The authority in Paris to whom he sent the first draft returned the manuscript with the judgment that it would be difficult to obtain a privilege for his attack on superstition despite the Roman Catholic style that Bayle had assumed. After Bayle 's arrival in Rotterdam the work was presented to a local printer and accepted. It appeared from the press of Reinier Leers in the spring of 1682. The name of Bayle was in no way connected with the work ; indeed, great precautions were taken to hide the real authorship, partly because Bayle did not wish to have the work known as by a Protestant refugee, partly on account of the startling nature of the contents, partly out of genuine modesty. This last consideration should not be forgotten; Bayle had so little interest in applause that he constantly effaced himself. Pew master minds have been so unassuming." Bayle opened his attack on the comet by showing the uselessness of the evidence accumulated in the poets and historians.4 Even among the historians he found such an "excessive passion for retailing miracles and all the visions which the credulity of man has authorized that it would not be prudence to take up promiscuously with all they transmit of this kind." (5) Even if the historian does list comets with calamities that were felt on earth soon after, it does not prove cause and effect, ' ' unless you will grant me that a woman in the Rue St. Honoré, who on putting her head out of the window 3

See below, p. 142, for the matter of pseudonymity. * Sections 1-8. The later editions were divided into 263 sections. Reference will be made to the essay in this form.

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

21

as a train of coaches goes by, may reasonably conclude that she is the true cause of the movement of the coaches." (5) Having cleared the ground Bayle proceeded first to treat the pretended science of astrology in general, of which cometary superstition is a part. To Bayle there never was such a piece of impertinence, never anything so chimerical, nor such a scandal to human nature as astrology, which cheats will practice and which fools are credulous enough to believe. (56) He mixed in a bewildering jumble the male and female signs, of which some are terrestrial and others aqueous, some hot and some cold, some diurnal and some nocturnal. The signs of the zodiac have their realms of influence on the earth, and so it must be necessary, of course, for a comet to have a horoscope. If it happens to be in the Ram, it portends dreadful wars. Consider, I pray, whether you are not renouncing all shame and sincerity to advance such principles. Because a comet appears in a group of stars which the ancients thought fit to call the Virgin, therefore, shall our women be barren, or have frequent miscarriages, or die maids t 8 I know nothing in the world that hangs so ill together ! Only the excess of caprice could ever represent this sign to be that of a woman, for in reality it resembles the human form no more than any other figure which you may fancy. But allow it had a human form, have we eyes good enough with the help of our best telescopes to discern whether it resembles a woman rather than a man, or the figure of a maid rather than that of a married woman f But even if we should make out these nice distinctions . . . must it, therefore, follow that they communicate to a body at thirty millions of leagues distant, influences against the propagation of mankind f . . . To offer such things in seriousness, shows the greatest contempt of mankind, and the most scandalous and lying impunity. (17)

If presages are successful they are usually to be explained by a kind of wilful experience. " If a girl be told her horoscope matches her with some particular man, she resolves upon it, which brings the matter easily about, and fortifies the illusion." After reading Bayle 's treatment of astrology, one wonders how the belief can yet linger along the fringe of the reading public. s The comet of 1680 was in the sign of Virgo for a time.

22

POPULAR SUPERSTITION Bayle so enjoyed attacking superstition in general that he paid

his respects to many curious holdovers with which modern readers of his work may not be entirely unfamiliar. The belief that eclipses affected human beings was dying out faster than the belief in comets largely because they were more easily predictable. Yet he tells us that the eclipse of 1654 so terrified people that they fled to well ventilated cellars to provide against the damps of the eclipse. In one place a country curate was unable to confess all his parishioners who were preparing for a possible last hour, so he announced on a Sunday that they need not be in so much of a hurry ; the eclipse had been postponed for a fortnight. (51) He has curious instances of the beliefs in lucky and unlucky days, and of the superstition regarding names. All Lucreces and Helens, he observed, do not have honor and virtue. (32) Henry was said to be an ominous name for the kings of France because of the tragic deaths of the three last kings named Henry. The sceptical philosopher commented: "Had Louis X I I I been christened Henry, he had undoubtedly been killed at the siege of some revolted town! What piteous stuff is this!" (30) And to choose patron saints by their names is as foolish. Those troubled with sore eyes such as glass grinders and lantern makers commend themselves to St. Clare, those troubled with deafness to St. Ouie, those with gout to St. Genou. Probably St. Clare is as able to cure the weakness of eyes as anybody else, but it is the grossest credulity to believe that because St. Clare is called St. Clare therefore Ood has given him the gift of healing sore eyes. But let us return to comets after digressing in true Baylian fashion. His treatment of them from the physical point of view is the same as made by the man of science. To be efficient causes, he argued, comets would have to produce some effect on the earth. But if such were to be, its atmosphere must needs reach millions of leagues. And yet it is the common belief that the earth 's atmosphere has not more than three or four league's elevation at the most. Their light could not affect the earth any more than a lamp burning

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

23

in an open field warms a field, or a candle stuck up in a public square in a town keeps the inhabitants warm when even a brisk fire in every one's chamber hardly preserves them from the cold. (9) But Bayle did not take the matter of the physical influence of a comet seriously enough to spend as much time on it as on the relation of earthly calamities to comets as presages. His wide knowledge of history was drawn upon to show that the facts desert the defenders of cometary influence. He made an extensive treatment of the comets of 1664 and 1665 to establish his case. If the years following are considered, he insisted, it is noticeable that they were years of blessing and not of trouble. (35) If the Venetians lost Candía in 1669, it was in the process of being lost before 1665, and was better out of the hands of the Venetians anyway. The treaty ending the wars of Spain and Portugal, by freeing the latter country, was a blessing; Spain began to lose Portugal as early as 1640, and thus the two comets were certainly not guilty. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668) was surely ablessing. The year 1665 also saw the cessation — very necessary for the good of the church — of troubles between the Jesuits and the Jansenists. (42) And he reminds his fancied theological reader that "men of your profession have the character of being subject to great heats in disputes about the smallest trifles." It is true that in 1665 there died a pope, a grand duke, and the King of Spain, all in two month's time. But Almighty God would surely not have hung out a comet to hasten or presage the Spanish King's death. The prince had long been kept alive by "mere dint of physic." (57) Another way of attacking cometary influences was to show that comets had been so numerous that any possible influences were a mere jumble. There were seven between 1298 and 1314, twenty-six from 1500 to 1543. Even between 1665 and 1680 four comets appeared. Ought such signs to be so frequenti Do not they lose much of their

24

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

force when we are so used to themf And if men will not forbear fancying they are signs, though there have been twenty-six in forty-three years, it is because they refuse to use their reason. [His queries are delightful.] Why so many comets in one yearf Is not one enough at a time Y But, above all, why comets seen only by astronomers t Is not this a sign thrown away Τ . . . How can we imagine God should give us invisible signs, or if he showed them to two or three persons to communicate to the rest, why choose astronomers of all men f o r that purpose, men who have no religion themselves, and are never likely to preach repentance to the world t (56)

Bayle concluded his direct treatment of comets by denying that it is none of our business to pry into the works of God. It is necessary to believe that comets are the ordinary works of nature which, without regard to the happiness or misery of mankind, are transported from one part of the heavens to another by virtue of the general laws of motion. . . . And as comets which have appeared to two or three only are not properly signs, one must confess that there are some which signify nothing. Whence it follows that none of them are presages, because all the difference between a comet which is not seen and one seen by everybody is that the first is at a greater distance from us, or smaller, or nearer the sun. (56)

Bayle would seem to have done his job sufficiently well in the first quarter of the treatise. But his favorite argument had not yet been advanced. Assuming that the man to whom he is writing is a theologian, and to be won only by arguments drawn from religion, Bayle meets him on that ground. Comets are signs of evils to come, so you say. Yet they cannot be signs unless they are miraculously produced. Comets, moreover, were as numerous before Christ's time as now. But a comet appearing to pagans would have the curious effect of making them worship false gods more earnestly than ever. This, surely, would be a strange thing for God to do, to cooperate with demons by means of miracles to sink men deeper in pagan superstition. "Yet, humanly speaking, that would be all that God would have a right to expect." (70) The Bible teaches us, on the contrary, that God abhors idolatry, is such a jealous deity as to commence his law by a double command

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

26

to serve no other gods. There is no reason, in addition, to believe, that any change took place when Christianity was born, and anyway the wonderful progress of the cross of Christ has been so slight that the greatest part of mankind are yet idolaters. . . . So that, were it the purpose of God to produce comets as signs of his wrath, it would be true to say that he is quickening a false devotion almost all over the world, increasing the number of pilgrims to Mecca, multiplying the offerings to the most famous of impostors, inducing men to build mosques for Mohammedan worship, causing the invention of new superstitions among the dervishes — in a word, of stimulating many abominable things which otherwise might not have been. (72)

The argument from religion was so congenial to Bayle, in view of his early training and environment, that he could not let go, so to speak. A number of lengthy and fruitful digressions lead the reader far from comets. Miracles must be noticed. Here the working of his mind proves very interesting in view of the violent controversy over miracles that was to rage in the next century. Bayle has a decided repugnance to a belief in miracles because of his thorough acceptance of the idea that nature is orderly. Unnatural things do occur, undoubtedly, but the "Author of Nature goes always on in his own high way and follows the general law which he has established." (66) It is no belittling of Providence to find natural causes, for in sound philosophy Nature is nothing else than God himself acting by certain laws which he has established of his own free will. So that the works of Nature are not less the effect of the power of God than miracles, and suppose as great a power as miracles, it being altogether as difficult to form a man by the natural laws of generation as to raise him from the dead. (91)

He concluded that the philosopher does well to hold to natural causes as long as he may. Indeed, for God "to overturn the course of Nature" is likely to do more harm than good. (103) A man, he declared, who takes that

26

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

for a miracle which is not so, cannot conceivably fall in with the Creator's purpose. (74) Such prodigies as comets, hurricanes, earthquakes, and meteors could only show a transcendent power without in any clear way speaking God's message. And there is every reason to believe that God would never work such miracles, "against the order of nature," among pagans. (217) Better is it not to multiply miracles without a necessity; "we must never have recourse to miracles when we can explain by natural reasons." (223) Bayle 's belief is clear at this point, although he felt it necessary to make a prudential qualification. "When we are certain God does such and such a thing, it is blasphemy to say it is useless, for God has his own reasons. But, despite that, it is well to put the cui bono when men without a shadow of reason, would persuade us to believe any miraculous fact." (224) Bayle did not go so far as to deny Christ's miracles, "which were of an order entirely supernatural." (20) This acceptance of Christ's miracles as acts of God ' ' out of love for us, ' ' was largely precautionary.® Bayle would explain the prodigality of miracles in the days of early Christianity by the way in which pagans carried along their prejudices when they embraced Christianity. In any case, the gospel of Christ was not intended to make men better philosophers, to explain the works of nature or fortify man against prejudice and common error. (84) At least it has not done so, in Bayle 's opinion. He had a low opinion of human judgment as a whole, and well he might from his thorough knowledge of the past. "The Fathers of the early church, who were bred Platonists, retained the spirit of their sect. ' ' He was considerably ahead of his time in affirming that the "body of the faithful have been tinctured from age to age with the errors of paganism except — and this is always Bayle 's defence —in points which manifestly overthrow the mysteries of religion." (84) Were he not teaching in a Protestant academy one wonders • This matter will come up again, when the Dictionary is reached. See Chap, vin.

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

27

whether he would have gone the whole way, and have found no easy dividing point between that which was pagan and that which was a "Christian mystery." Pagan priests and politicians were the convenient scapegoats for the prevalence of miracle mongering. Bayle did not discuss the need for examining a revelation in which miracles were related, possibly through caution, for we know th^t his earlier reading had led him into the field of Biblical criticism. Throughout the middle portion of the essay Pierre Bayle reverted again and again to the question of miracles, and to the whole matter of their moral utility. The consideration of moral values within and without Christian circles leads him, finally to discuss the relation of religion and morals. Have they any inherent connection? Or is the atheist as likely to be moral as the theist ? He ultimately reached the position, with certain slight qualifications, that atheism is not in itself prejudicial to morality. This surprising digression in a work on comets grew out of the treatment of miracle-working among idolaters. God might conceivably work miracles among pagans, and embed them deeper in idolatry in order to keep them from becoming atheists. Such a far-fetched supposition made possible the treatment of the whole question of morals and religion. It is the core of the book on comets. Bayle replied to the supposition that God would prefer idolatry of a deeper dye to any kind of atheism by denying the possibility of people generally becoming atheists. Natural leanings toward credulity were assisted by the desire of rulers to use religion for political purposes. (108) The priests, too, were naturally inclined to maintain superstitious persuasions so to make themselves more necessary and raise the dignity of their position. The augurs of Rome, for example, invented ceremonies, had prodigies reported of which they were the sole interpreters. Thus they became mediators between God and man.

28

POPULAR S U P E R S T I T I O N

Do you doubt that the least effects of nature were not used as marks of the wrath of heaven f It was to the interest of pontiffs, priests, and augurs, as much as it is to the interest of lawyers and doctors that there should be lawsuits and sickness. No wonder they took care that the people should not grow slack in their religion. (109)

Bayle foreshadows in this attitude of mind the position Voltaire was to express so forcibly in the next century. But the philosopher of Rotterdam showed no such bitter earnestness as the venomous Voltaire. We shall have occasion later to note the differences between the two, and also the marked dependence of the younger upon the older thinker. Bayle was even so malevolent as to believe that the devil preferred idolatry to atheism, for atheists would pay him no homage directly or indirectly. He would even prefer some small share of the worship due to the Supreme Being rather than see all mankind atheists. The author's illustration is piquant. The relation of God and the devil is not like the case of a galant, for example, who has a passion for his neighbor's wife, and that woman's husband. The latter, were he to choose, would rather see his wife indifferent to all the world than to have her affections divided between himself and another, unless he is one of those accommodating husbands, who tramples under foot the sacred laws of marriage and consoles himself for his wife's infidelity by reprisals on other husbands. But the galant has no such feeling, if his mistress preserves a love for her husband, provided he is admitted to the same privilege. Do not think this comparison strange, since idolatry is so often mentioned in Scripture, as adultery, committed against the honor of a jealous god. (113)

In the lengthy proof that atheism is no worse than idolatry, Bayle showed a remarkably wide knowledge of ancient literature. He seems to have depended most on Cicero and Plutarch for his general position, though numerous others rendered tribute to his omnivorous mind.7 The power of habit is so great, felt Bayle, that it 7

The source for the famous paradox, that atheism was no worse than idolatry, was Plutarch's essay on Superstition. Tts revival by Bayle had a surprisingly large influence on modern thinking.

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

29

would really be easier to convert an atheist than to turn a bigoted heretic to Christianity, for " i t is harder to beget habits in a mind, which has contrary habits, than in a mind entirely void." (120) In any case, he asserted, the atheists of antiquity were not to our knowledge the wickedest of the pagans. A Catiline, a Nero, a Heliogabalus were religious and far from moral. Bayle continued, from this harmless starting point, to go forward to the position that atheism does not lead necessarily to the corruption of morals. " I t is only a common prejudice that induces us to believe that atheism is a most fearful state." (133) It sounds reasonable enough that a believer in no God should be immoral, should make a jest of what others call honor and virtue, and stick at no crime. But, unfortunately, this assumption does not chime with experience. His observations, as we have indicated, were distinctly pessimistic with regard to the actual practice of Christian morality. I declare that if people of another world were left to guess at the manners of Christians, and were they informed that they are persons of reason and good sense, desirous of happiness, persuaded that there is a Paradise for the obedient and a hell for those who disobey, these people of another world would have no doubt that Christians would vie with each other to follow the Gospel precepts, that they would strive as to who should excel in works of mercy, in prayer, in forgiveness of injuries, were there any among them capable of offending his neighbor! But only from considering Christians in the abstract. If considered in detail and by the motives determining their acts, observers would soon change their minds. They would not have to live a fortnight among us to learn that people do not walk according to the lights of the conscience. (134)

Pagans were forgotten, for the time being, in the scathing and comprehensive indictment of modern Christianity that Bayle then proceeded to amplify. He came to the conclusion that the springs of actions were not to be found in the general notions of right and wrong, but in the judgment of the moment as to the immediate action. This individual judgment, he felt, might agree

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

30

with a man's general ideas, but for the most part it was otherwise. Moreover, ambition, avarice, envy, lust, revenge and all the crimes resulting from these passions are found in all countries no matter what the religion may be. (136) Ceremonies may be observed, but they seldom interrupt the prevailing passions. Abstaining a whole Lent from flesh meat does not necessarily mean abstinence from evil speaking or revenge. "No, every one lives in this season as he did before, except that he goes oftener to sermons, and instead of making two large meals a day and eating meat, he eats so much of other things at noon that a light lunch suffices later for the rest of the day." (137) The numerous proofs of his stand must have afforded very diverting reading for the people of his time. The conduct of soldiers and the nature of war gave Bayle an abundant collection of illustrations. The low standard of the mediaeval Crusaders was effectively brought out. (140) It may have been true, he observed, that in ancient times Christianity was charged with weakening the mind and inspiring a horror for war. That may be, but as a matter of fact no nations are more warlike than those professing Christianity. [141] Were the principles of Christianity justly pursued, there would be no such thing as a conqueror among Christians, no offensive war, and each would content himself with defending his territory from the invasion of infidels.

Christians, on the contrary, employ their utmost skill and all their passions to perfect the art of war, without the knowledge of the Gospel serving as the slightest hindrance to their cruel designs. (141) Bayle next turned to the conduct of women, of whom he did not have a high opinion. Atheism is certainly not a woman's sin, he said, yet the lewdness of women in France and Venice is notorious, and the open permission of prostitution in Rome, the seat of the Apostolic See, is sufficient evidence that there is no relation between religion and morals. (142) The pretended devotion to the Virgin

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

31

Mary by those who lead scandalous lives (149), the prevalence of drinking (144), the life of the court (151), were cited as other cases in point. The reader was then invited to take a look at a great lord on his deathbed. Here Nature pulls off the mask, and the true sentiments of the soul are discovered, if it is ever done. Do we see any more eager than princes, dukes, and counts in recommending themselves to the virtue of holy relics and to the intercession of the holy Τ . . . Whence come the riches of the churches, but from the fear of great men that they will stay too long in purgatory f . . . But the worst is that the heirs do not faithfully execute the promise of the testator, dreading death less than he because it is farther off. . . . A court does not make men renounce the Apostles Creed ; they simply refuse to follow it so long as they are in good health. (151) Bayle was well enough versed in the history of his own country to call up Louis X I with his crimes and his bigotry, his excessive use of relics, and his numerous spasms of repentance, as a capital illustration. Bayle then considered just what a society of atheists would be like. He concluded that it would be little different from an ordinary commonwealth. There would need to be severe laws, of course. But does not every state require the same? . . . Is it not owing purely to the vigor of the King in the new laws against bullies and pickpockets that we are not insulted night and day in the streets of Paris f Were it not for this we should be exposed to the same violence as in former reigns, though the preachers and confessors should discharge their duties better than ever before. [His conclusion was that] human justice is for the most part the basis of human virtue; the moment she loosens the reins, few persons are cautious how they offend. (161) The author found that the spring of human action lay largely in the desire for pleasure. "Say what you will it is certain that man has more love for pleasure than hatred of pain, and that he is more affected with good than with evil. He goes cheerfully to pain and sorrow, provided pleasure is the way that leads to them." (167) Nor did Bayle hesitate to laud virtuous atheists. He denied that

32

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

the atheist was a monster. Epicurus, who questioned Providence and immortality, lived as good a life as any of the ancient philosophers, and his sect contained many persons of honor and probity. Bayle quite rightly showed that later misrepresentations of the doctrine of Epicurus caused the evil reputation that his philosophy has too often carried. Bayle added a number of interesting witneses, some of which were not so apt as the Epicureans. The Sadducees were called atheists by Bayle because they did not believe in the immortality of the soul, and yet they were better than the Pharisees. He listed an atheistic society in Turkey. Among the moderns the case of Vanini was advanced. This would appeal to Bayle, for Vanini was an Italian philosopher burned for atheism at Toulouse early in the century. We shall find that Bayle returns, again and again, to the defence of atheism. Such a sweeping condemnation of Christianity as a moral force has seldom been made. Yet, of course, Bayle was conscious of the good effects of Christian thinking and belief on some persons. In several places (136, 164, 171) he reminded his readers that he excepted a goodly number of Christians out of the general rule, such as are governed by the true spirit of Christianity. . . . But the true principle of man's action, apart from the few in whom the grace of the Holy Spirit acts powerfully, is none other than the temperament, the natural inclination for pleasure, the desire to please some one, a habit developed as the result of friendships. Such are the grounds of our action, in whatever country we are born, or whatever principles bred in. (136)

After exhausting the question of atheism and morality, the author concluded his truly miscellaneous thoughts by observations on the political conditions and outlook of his time. French affairs were related with the spirit of a loyal and patriotic citizen, yet the hope was expressed that Louis XIV would leave Europe in repose, despite his ability to have the empire of the world if he wished it. It has seemed worth while to spread out the ideas of Bayle in his

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

33

work on comets, for it is, in the words of the editor of the recent critical edition, "the most representative work of this epoch of transition. ' ' 8 And for Bayle himself it is a basic production. In this volume he expressed his views with considerable freedom, remarkably so when one considers the situation out of which he had come, and that in which he found himself at the time. It shows not only his courage, but reveals a method, an examination of fact to test theory, an unwillingness to accept what is easily affirmed by the majority and by tradition. Some suggestions have been made as to the influences that formed Bayle 's thought. Plutarch, Cicero, Montaigne were clearly much in his mind. He knew ancient philosophy very well even at this time ; it had probably served powerfully to emancipate his thinking from sectarian and national restrictions. His predilection among the moderns was for men of the Montaigne type. The Humanists of the Renaissance, especially Erasmus, appealed to him. Bayle seems from his references and quotations to have used the writings of such recent "free thinkers" as Charron and La Mothe le Yayer. Charron had put Montaigne's thought into somewhat orderly philosophical form in his Treatise on Wisdom, published toward the close of the sixteenth century. La Mothe le Vayer died while Bayle was at Geneva. He had been so highly regarded at the French court as to become the tutor of the Dauphin. In the course of his life he became a decided "Christian sceptic," as he called himself. His work On Virtue among the Pagans and the Discourse to Show that the Doubts of a Sceptical Philosophy are of Great Use in the Sciences were significant. The authorship of the Thoughts on the Comet was not long in doubt. Bayle 's printer had shown the manuscript to a friend, who saw no reason for concealing the name of one who was causing β See Préface, p. xxix. It was edited by A. Prat (2 vols., 1911, 1912) for the Société des Textes français modernes.

POPULAR SUPERSTITION

34

"beaucoup du bruit." It was immediately successful. In less than a year the first edition was exhausted, and a second issued. Two other French editions appeared in Bayle 's lifetime (1699 and 1704), and five others followed before the middle of the eighteenth century. An English translation was made in 1708, with a life of Bayle appended; its author declared that on the appearance of the Thoughts on the Comet Bayle began to be looked on as "one of the best pens in Europe." The work was not only the best refutation of cometary superstition, but a manifesto of the new spirit creeping abroad. A. G. Pingré, in his Cométographie, published shortly before the French Revolution, wrote: Everybody knows the Letter on the Comet of 1680 of which the celebrated Bayle was the author. One should guard against some "asides" in the work, but the author, in my opinion, has reasoned very wisely and truly on the significance of comets.®

Voltaire in his well-known history of the age of Louis XIV was good enough to say that "Bayle wrote against vulgar prejudice a famous book, which the progress of reason has rendered less piquant than it was. ' ' 1 0 Gibbon said later that ' ' the philosophy of Bayle dispelled a prejudice which Milton's muse had so recently adorned, that the comet ' from its horrid hair shakes pestilence and war. ' " 11 Bayle did not stop with comets. There were earth-born evils to combat as well. Without vaunting or strutting, yet with a decisiveness that was almost new, Bayle continued his self-appointed labor of shocking comfortable assurance. It was not long before his smoothly moving but sharp pen made some exceedingly deep thrusts at another crying evil of his day — religious intolerance. To this we shall next turn. » Vol. I, p. 162. 10 Oeuvres complètes, 1877-85, Vol. xiv, p. 538. 11 The Decline and Fall of the Soman Empire, Bury ed., Vol. IV, p. 434.

CHAPTEB I I I

CATHOLIC FRANCE AND THE HUGUENOTS Holland was in its golden age when Bayle went pilgrim to that refuge from the old creed. The long struggle against Spanish overlordship had been rewarded by the recognition of independence half a century earlier. The success of Dutch commerce, the extent of its colonial holdings, had given to the upper classes of Holland a wealth and an outlook that was exceptional. The country was a collection of oligarchies, the magistrates and members of the Estates being drawn almost exclusively from the noble and wealthy classes. In this group there was considerable enlightenment. They were, as a rule, interested in peace, since it furthered prosperity. There was genuine toleration by the state because of the attitude of this comparatively small governing class. The bourgeois were not so broadminded, but they could not express their narrowness save through the church organizations, and then only on their own fellow sectaries. Official sanction was given to all religious faiths save that of the Jews. Holland proved very useful to the French Calviniste when it became more and more plain that Louis XIV was determined on but one faith in his state. The suppression of the academies and the beginning of the rough Dragonnades in 1681 were as the handwriting on the wall. Huguenots fled by thousands from France despite every effort of the government to prevent emigration. The effect on Rotterdam, where Bayle went, is illustration enough. The magistrates of the city authorized one thousand new dwellings in 1681 for housing the refugees. Four years later the Walloon (French Calvinistic) Church had 2500 communicants in Rotterdam, and three

36

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

Walloon pastors were needed where formerly one had served the French Calviniste of that city.1 The school to which Bayle was called through the kindness of a Dutch pupil was not a distinguished institution. The École Illustre was really ' ' made ' ' by the coming of Bayle and Jurieu, and by the immigration of French Protestants in general. Because of the rivalry between the cities each one usually had its own lycée to prepare the young men of the community for the university. The teachers in the lycées, if they proved at all brilliant, were likely soon to be called to one of the five Dutch universities. The École Illustre of Rotterdam had made a start shortly before Bayle's arrival when the rector of the Erasmian school, Sylvius by name, was given the right to open a public course on the two laws in a room assigned him by the magistrates. This same permission was granted Bayle in 1681 through the efforts of Hadrian van Paets. Bayle began his public lectures on philosophy and history in December of 1681. His colleague at Sedan, Jurieu, was also without a position. Bayle seems to have interested himself in finding a similar position at Rotterdam for his colleague. Not long after Bayle entered on his new duties Jurieu was made professor of theology in the same École. Both were to remain in Rotterdam for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, the amity that seems to have been unbroken up to this time was soon to receive a violent rupture. Jurieu became more and more prominent in the Walloon church, and was appointed one of the pastors of Rotterdam. Some attention will have to be given presently to the way in which he became Bayle's bitter enemy. Bayle found the new position to his liking. Instead of the twenty hours of lecturing a week that had been his lot at Sedan, only seven were now required. If the salary paid by the city was modest in size, five hundred guilders a year, Bayle found an opportunity not 1

C. Serrurier, Pierre Bayle en Hollande, 1913, is useful on the contemporary conditions in Holland.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

37

hitherto enjoyed for leading the life of the student and author. His cabinet de travail was a workshop indeed. His productivity is simply amazing, for his comparative leisure was not expended in social or external pursuits but was wholly devoted to intellectual labors. He was to be known fittingly in later years as the "philosopher of Rotterdam," and to reëmbody in rather striking ways some of the viewpoints and qualities of his fellow townsman of an earlier century, Erasmus of Rotterdam. So little did Bayle care for academic distinction and so much for the pleasures of unobtrusive study that he rejected an advantageous offer of advancement. It came in 1684 from the city of Praneker. He wrote at the time in one of his letters, apropos of the pleasant life at Rotterdam : " I get up and I retire when I wish. I go out if I wish, and I do not go out if I do not desire to do so, except for the two days on which I give lectures. ' ' 2 There was nothing of the idle dilettante in Bayle. With time at his command he became a veritable intellectual machine, working late and long on the numerous questions that appealed to his evercurious mind. Indeed, the years after 1682 were filled, nay packed, with assiduous reading and much writing. Occasion for appearing in print soon offered itself in the melancholy misfortunes that were accumulating for the French Protestants. The Edict of Nantes (1598) had produced a difficult political dualism in France. The Huguenots, as we have said, lost many of their guarantees at the time of Richelieu. After 1629, though their armed political power was nearly gone, they were yet largely unhampered in the exercise of their religious practices. The years that followed, at least until 1660, when Louis XIV assumed direct control of the state, were years of great advancement for French Protestantism. Huguenot workmen were skilful, Huguenot mer2 Quoted by Serrurier, p. 46.

38

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

chants so successful that the majority of the business of the kingdom was in their hands. After 1660 there was a change for the worse in Huguenot fortunes. The young King was very sure of his own importance, and determined to follow his own "lights" whether or no his insufficient education was a true guide. Time after time their guaranteed rights were disregarded, increasingly so as the reign progressed. The Huguenots were embarrassed by vexatious limitations which, it was pretended, infringed in no way the edict under which they enjoyed their privileges. The "pretended Reformed religion" suffered seriously when the Chambers of the Edict were suppressed in 1669. An eloquent advocate even went so far at the time as to say to the King that we are everywhere driven to extremities. Our condition is made not only calamitous, but positively unendurable. Our places of worship are taken from us. We are excluded from trades. We are deprived of all the means of gaining a livelihood, and there is no longer a person of our religion who is not thinking of withdrawing from the kingdom.3

After the Peace of Nimwegen (1678) brought an end of foreign preoccupations, the attack on the Protestants became systematic. The laws against those who relapsed, among whom Pierre Bayle would be counted, grew much worse. Even more severe were the results of the terrible law of 1681, which gave children of Protestants, when as old as seven, the "right" of embracing the religion of the state. This blow at the family was carried out in very harsh fashion, for to Louis and his advisers every means was justified if it could bring about the conversion of his subjects to the religion of the state. The lot of the Reformed became more melancholy when the dragoons were quartered in the homes of the recalcitrant Protestants. By 1685 the Dragonnades had spread throughout the kingdom. a H. M. Baird, The Huguenots and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 1895, Yol. I, p. 459.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

39

The culmination of the effort to make Prance "all Catholic," as Bayle put it in one of the writings we shall examine, was the formal revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in October of 1685. The preamble refers to the successful work of conversion "by which the greater part of his subjects of the pretended Reformed religion had embraced the Roman Catholic religion." And this success was thought to make needless any further execution of the original edict of 1598. It was entirely revoked, in consequence, "with all that has since been done in favor of the said religion." Public worship of Protestants was abolished, their schools were closed (in addition to those closed in 1681), their ministers were exiled. The ordinary Protestant, however, was forbidden to leave the kingdom on penalty of the galleys for men, and the confiscation of body and goods for women.4 Of the sad consequences of these steps Bayle was only too well aware, both from personal experience and from the lot of his own family left in Prance. The situation raised in many minds the whole question of religious freedom and of forced "conversion." Bayle felt it necessary to answer, in the first place, the misrepresentations of Huguenot history which were being retailed at the time of the Dragonnades. Strongly anti-Protestant interpretations helped to make Frenchmen believe in the justice of the suppression that was going on. The most widely read book of this type was a History of Calvinism by Father Maimbourg. He had joined the Jesuit order back in the days of Richelieu, for some years had taught in their school at Rouen, later gave himself to preaching, and when he reached his fiftieth year turned his attention to the writing of sprightly works on the history of the church. In 1672 appeared his History of the Brians and Socinians, two years later an account of the Iconoclastic heresy, in 1675 a History of the Crusades, in 1677 one on the Greek schism, in the next year another « Baird, work cited, Vol. II, pp. 27, 29.

40

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

on the Great Schism of the West. The year 1680 saw his History of Lutheranism, and in 1682 appeared a History of Calvinism. Maimbourg had the ability to make history "live." Indeed, he carried his efforts at enlivening the past to such a high degree that he dared to portray his contemporaries in the character he drew of those, long dead, whom they appeared to resemble. It is no wonder that his facile pen brought him a great reputation, that he was widely read and much enjoyed. Nor is it surprising that this historic "romancer" should have been guilty of errors and partiality. The devices of Mlle, de Scudéry hardly qualify as an adequate "method" for serving up the past. Maimbourg's History of Calvinism, was certainly well timed. In the year 1682 the religious situation of the Protestants in France was absorbing everybody's attention. In dedicating his volume to the King, Maimbourg recalled the brilliant condition of France in the early eighties. The limits of the kingdom had been extended, by ' ' legitimate claims, ' ' to the Rhine and even beyond. Most noble of all, the King had given a glorious peace to Europe, resigning with unexampled moderation all the additional advantages that would unquestionably have come by war. But most glorious of all was the victory within the country over Calvinism, the most furious and terrible of all the enemies France had ever known, which had in the past desolated the country with fire and sword, given it a prey to the avarice and cruelty of foreigners, and reduced it to the last extremity by the fury of civil wars and by repeated revolts.

The King was especially praised because he had succeeded where the earlier kings had failed, for the Calviniste appear not only to be "disarmed, prostrate, humble, submissive and at your feet, but almost annihilated and approaching their end as a group." And this happy conclusion of the whole matter, sings Maimbourg, has not been obtained by torture, or war, but by a conduct just, gentle,

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

41

and charitable, by ordinances of wisdom and equity. . . . It is by this gentle method of charity, much more effective than that of force, that we see to-day this great multitude of wandering sheep return amid the plaudits of heaven and earth into the fold of the good Pastor, and increase by their conversion the number of your Catholic subjects, who, after Qod, owe to you this great addition to the spiritual empire. At the conclusion of the volume the good Father counts the work as already accomplished. It is not then by rigor and force that he tried to reduce them, but only by zeal and justice, animated with the spirit of love and charity, which he uses to lead them gently to the Catholic Church from which their ancestors unfortunately separated. . . . We see to-day the happy success of this great zeal, shown by the unbelievable multitudes of those who abjure heresy and enter into the banquet hall of Jesus Christ where they have been invited. It is by this wise, just, and gentle conduct that this great Prince has made beyond all comparison more conversions of the Protestants, without noise, tumult, or show, than all the kings who preceded him did by punishments, arms, and victories, (p. 504) The volume was a wholesale condemnation of Calvinism from the days of its founder. Its perniciousness, he held, was much greater — until disarmed — than Lutheranism, from which the author regarded it as coming. It caused much more disorder in France than did Lutheranism in Germany. ' ' All that rebellion, perfidy, avarice, ambition, impiety, cruelty, despair had aroused in past ages, Calvinism has re-aroused among our fathers, in order to establish itself by fire and sword, if possible, on the ruins of religion and the state." (1, 2) Such was the temper of the author. It is not necessary to follow the work in detail, since Bayle, in replying to it, saw no need of a page-by-page refutation. His method was to prove a nlbre original and effective one than that usually used in controversies. B A Y L E A N D THE HISTORY OP CALVINISM

The title of Bayle 's reply, a General Criticism of the History of Calvinism

by M. Maimbourg

explains his purpose. Bayle an-

nounced in the preface that he would not enter into a discussion of

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

42

facts, nor make historic research in the field of Maimbourg's history. He preferred to take the facts as recorded by the Jesuit historian and to consider what judgments should be made on them. He renounced any attempt to censure the elaborate pen-pictures of Maimbourg, for that might arouse his anger since the author is known to regard these pen-pictures as his chefs d'oeuvre. Bayle added interest to his reply by casting it in the form of letters — there were twenty-two in the first edition — in which he could treat Maimbourg's work topically and informally. This method gave Bayle the freedom which he always found so congenial. Several of the early letters are almost exclusively on the subject of " b a d " history and " b a d " historians. If Maimbourg can be accused justly of dishonesty, Bayle felt that there would be no need of correcting every faulty detail. It is almost more important, he wrote, in reading a book to know the spirit of its author than the things of which he treats.® Maimbourg writes so well, conceded Bayle, that one certainly will not go to sleep reading him. But, unfortunately, his career has not conduced to impartiality and coolness. For long he was a preacher, who was an impassioned opponent of the Jansenists. He may have been learned, but Bayle does not think it necessary to pronounce on that. Certainly the Jansenists thought not, and they handled him pretty roughly. Then he seems to have thought to reply to them by flank attacks through history. The success of his first work, in which he attacked the Jansenists, thinly disguised as ancient heretics, was so great that it led him to compose more histories. Indeed, it has become an annual affair, said Bayle. (72) It is unfortunate, though, that they show all the violence of the churchman, for there is little doubt, thinks Bayle, that Maimbourg writes in choler. Indeed he himself would be the last man to appear » Page 52. The references are to the 2d ed., 1683.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

43

in Maimbourg's chamber while he was composing, for his pen is a veritable poniard. It would be a diverting spectacle to see him at work in the chamber which a goodly royal pension has granted. Undoubtedly fire must leap forth from his eyes, while he makes all the "faces" of a man transported with anger, and "pushes" his pen as if he wished to bury it in the body of a heretic. Unhappy the Huguenot who should at that time fall into his clutches. Nothing could induce me to be in his room then sans chappelet. (4)

This gentle raillery conceals a real point of view. The man who would write in anger, in the spirit of vengeance, cannot wTite accurately of the past. But Maimbourg's good faith is even more suspect because of his complaisance for the opinions at court. So true was this in Maimbourg's case that his pro-French feeling had led him to be suspected by the Pope and even the Jesuits of Gallicanism. Bayle then shows from a thorough knowledge of Maimbourg's writings that he went much out of the way to laud the "legitimate" extension of royal power. For example, he hymns the King's praises for taking Strasbourg. (89) There can be little good faith [declares Bayle] in the histories of M. Maimbourg, except perhaps in those things which are not related to the designs of France or to the Jansenists or to the Calviniste, or to any other passions of this gentleman. For when a man is possessed with a demoniacal passion for revenge, or for making court to a prince, he accommodates his facts to his feelings, much like that Procrustes who roughly fitted his prisoners to the length of his bed. (92)®

Bayle, in truth, was sceptical about histories in general. His caution regarding superstition appears in this work in regard to the record of the past. What might be called critical historical works had hardly begun in Bayle 's day. It is to his credit that he was so acutely conscious of the general weakness of historical literature. In this volume there i s a " philosophy of history, " as it were, β Maimbourg ended his days, in 1686, as a royal pensioner in the abbey of St. Victor.

44

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

in which can be clearly seen the germs of Voltaire's later volume of that name. Prejudice, felt Bayle, enters in so largely that one can hardly be sure of his facts. (15) Take St. Bartholomew, for example. Bead a Catholic and then a Protestant account, and you would hardly know they were about the same event. It is almost a waste of time to read history of that sort. (17) And yet he would not wish to reduce the certitude of history too much. One can believe a fact or a plan or a particular motive when all the parties agree to it. (21) He used the conspiracy of Amboise with the denials and counterdenials as an illustration of his "historical Pyrrhonism." (26) One of the chief causes of the uncertainty of history is the despicable custom of assuming that the opposite party has committed crimes, an assumption made to cover up the injustices of one's own side. (230) Some, he agreed, write with care, but such is not the general rule. Bayle 's earnestness for truth — a consuming passion throughout his life — was expressed in the hope, at the end of the second letter, that "important truths will be gradually revealed, for they are more useful than the discoveries of the (natural) philosophers, since it is much more necessary to know the depths of the human spirit and heart than the movements of matter." (32) Bayle lived up to his historical ideal. The Protestants, as a rule, read Maimbourg's travesty with anger in their hearts. As for me I am difficult to arouse; in reading this book, I have not felt the least temptation to anger. I read it from beginning to end with calmness. If he aroused me the least bit it was only to pity and to laughter at the furious onslaughts of M. Maimbourg. (3)

The General Criticism is exceedingly refreshing to any one who has waded through the virulent and dreary works of controversy of the time. There is an absence of fiery epithets and of anger. But, as a recompense, Bayle cuts more deeply by the sharp way in which he handled those parts of the work which he chose to examine.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

45

In the sixth letter Bayle treated the supposed gentleness of the King, and in denying it added another presumption against Maimbourg's veracity. There is no Huguenot in France who will not dub him an impostor when they see him call the treatment of ns "a conduct equally just, gentle, and charitable." . . . What! they will say, have faith in a man who writes of the fury and rage of our ancestors over a hundred years ago, a man who calls gentle and charitable that which we see and feel daily, the weight of which is hardly to be borne! If, indeed, he is so bold as to lie of those things which are actually in our knowledge and to call gentleness what we know to be anything but that, there is strong reason to believe that he has disguised the truth of what happened in the days of Catherine de Medicis. (112-13) [And he added:] Maimbourg calls it gentleness to compel an infinite number of people to leave France, or to wish to leave, to submit us to a thousand difficult tests, to close the seaports so that we cannot be freed from the yoke, to give us the alternative of leaving our goods or changing our religion, to improve on the harshness of the Spaniards toward the Moriscoes, for the Spanish allowed them to leave with their goods, to go where they wished, even furnishing vessels for their transport. Is it gentleness to fill our houses with soldiers until their licentiousness constrains us to go to mass ; on a thousand false counts to imprison our ministers, to tear down our churches, to abandon us to the injustice of the courts Τ . . . Is such conduct gentle 1 Is it not mockery to speak in that way of such actions f (113-14) The great body of the work is taken up with a topical handling of certain pivotal points in Catholic and Protestant relations. The method is well chosen for bringing out the weakness of his opponent, and of his church. Throughout the matter is handled interestingly and with restraint, coupled with that calm, logical, detached treatment that Bayle had shown in the work on the comet. His conception of history is based on a well-advised scepticism of the so-called historical works of his day. Along with this there is a sharp handling of the claims of religion in a world which it seems to have done little to improve. If Bayle did not show great eagerness to defend the Reformed church, he did not show himself out of touch with it. " I shall not oppose history to history," he wrote, "but leave that

46

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

to more able pens than mine. ' ' He prophesied that a real refutation would appear soon from one of the "best writers of the time." 7 The seventh letter is a thorough handling of the Qallican question, that is, the tendency of the French church to free itself from strong papal control. The ninth considers the accusation of Maimbourg that the priests who had turned Protestant during the Reformation did so in order to satisfy the desire to marry. Bayle refuted the statement by quoting Catholics as to the loose morality of the clergy before the Reformation, when conditions certainly did not require marriage to satisfy fleshly desires. Marriage surely is no deliverance. ' ' Those who accuse our first reformers of marrying to deliver themselves from the yoke of mortification, do not know what they are saying, for what greater cross is there than marriage?" (165) As to Maimbourg's declaration that the Bishop of Nevers abjured Catholicism to have the liberty of marrying a woman he loved, Bayle observed: Does he think there is a bishop in the world who would abandon his ecclesiastical dignities and his great revenue to marry t I doubt much if there is a single bishop who would be capable of leaving a position so pleasing, so delightful, simply to become a married minister. (173,176) In the eleventh letter the treatment of Calvin by Maimbourg came in for extensive examination. Calvin's supposed lack of learning, his voluptuousness, his " n a k e d " religion, were considered. Maimbourg was advised to consult experience, which shows that a false religion is usually adorned. (208) Bayle answered his accusations as to the character of Calvin, not by quoting Calvin's followers, but his enemies. (220) The twelfth letter treats the massacre of the Yaudois, the fourteenth, the accusation that the Huguenots have revolted time and again during periods when the crown was weak. The latter is as fine ι P. 520. He alluded to a systematic refutation then being written by Jurieu.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

47

an example as any in the volume to show how effective Bayle can be. An abundance of historical material is at his pen's point, with numerous striking historic parallels. If there is no right to revolt, he asked, have the Catholics a right to revolt in England Τ If people must be loyal to the religion of the ruler, how about the early Christians Ì By virtue of these maxims, Nero, Domitian, Decius, and Diocletian are to be blamed for not using sufficient strength to destroy the gospel. (279) If the love one has for his religion and for his state oblige him to exterminate all who announce a new doctrine, it is clear that one is criminal to attempt the conversion of infidels. But since it is clear that one cannot justly put the innocent to death, Christianity could pass from place to place only as a criminal enterprise. Thus we see that M. Maimbourg's principles lead directly to atheism, or at least to Deism, for all the politicians who say one should never suffer novelties in religion, are people with little or no belief, but very desirous of keeping up religion among the people who follow them. (280)

The twenty-third letter treats the relation of morals and religion with regard to France in particular. The subject which took so much attention in the Thoughts on the Comet occupied one letter in the General Criticism. France was to Bayle an example of the way religion suffers at the hands of the Politiques. The most essential obligation of a Christian prince should be those of a Christian man ; "not I am king of France and then Christian, but rather I am a Christian and then king of France." (447) To Bayle, it was shameful that so much more attention should be given to crushing Calvinism than to stamping out immorality in the state. If a person is damned by both heresy and crime, why so much attention to the former? Parisian morals and court practices came in for sharp handling, as a prelude to the conclusion that " i t is absurd to persecute cruelly those denying some dogma that is thought to have been

48

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

revealed, and to do nothing with those professing courtezans, whose actions, as every one knows, are clearly and distinctly forbidden by God." (464) There was a full consideration of transubstantiation in the twenty-fifth letter. This chapter has peculiar interest as revealing Bayle 's own mental attitude when he forsook Catholicism at Toulouse. It was on this question that he claimed to justify his relapse. Bayle believed it criminal to remain in a society and not believe its chief point of doctrine. The church should decide the belief, you say, but if it is contrary to reason the church should justify it. And if it does so on the interpretation of the famous text, "This is my body, etc.," it should use reason. But a reasonable interpretation of the text is not the literal one, else we should have to believe in a literal hardening of Pharaoh's heart. (553) If one must follow the doctors of theology in the interpretation of Scripture, and use various methods of exegesis for various passages, "contrary to all the rules of language, reason, and analogy, then there is no need for the word of God." We might as well, countered Bayle, use the Alcoran or the Dialogues of Plato, for by this method one could find all the mysteries there and others besides, if need arose. (557) To Bayle the logical conclusion of his argument was that one must canonize the opinions of the theologians. This led to a question which was " u p " in many parts of the work. Is the church infallible, as it claims? Bayle declared it "the great point, the true touchstone of all the controversies." (558) The author clearly felt its importance, since tin infallible church could deny the validity of the very task he was at. But infallibility can only be true when it is the revealed will of God. His train of reasoning is of interest. I ask a Catholic why he believes transubstantiation. He replies, because the church has made it an article of faith. I ask why he believes the decisions of the church are true; he replies, because he believes it infallible.

CATHOLICS A N D HUGUENOTS

49

I continue by asking why he believes it infallible. He replies that Qod has said so. I push my questions still further by asking why he believes the things revealed by Ood are true. He responds, because he conceives God as a perfect sovereign, incapable of deceiving and being deceived. I have then nothing more to ask. (197)

Evidently the witness of the church to its own infallibility is not sufficient, but "we must know independently of what the church says that it is infallible." (198) Otherwise, declared Bayle, you are in a ridiculous circle, believing the church infallible because God revealed it, and believing God revealed it becausc the church is infallible. In the twenty-sixth letter he reverts again to this fundamental question on which the right of reason is based. The Scriptural evidence for infallibility must be so clear that people will see it without the church's assistance. (561) But, if this be true, then the people have no need of an infallible authority to know revelation. (562) This pitiless logician, thereupon, proved that there has been abundant difference of opinion among the Catholics on the question as to what Scriptures prove it, and as to where it resides in the church. "It is clear, therefore, that the infallibility which the Roman church attributes to itself is a chimera." (566) This argument was not pushed to the extreme point, for it would lead one naturally to consider the truth of a supposed revelation in an infallible Scripture. Bayle was careful not to raise this question on which the Protestants were as certain as the Catholics were about infallibility. There was no need, in treating Maimbourg's book, to go to that length. But his determination to seek the truth by ways of reason rather than along the paths of revelation led him later to handle Scripture rather frankly.8 The volume cannot be dismissed without some reference to forced conversion and persecution. Bayle found a vivid contrast between β In the Dictionary. See Chap. VIII

50

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

the methods used in France and those of the early apostles. ' ' What opposition, ion Dieu, and what differences!" Bayle listed the various reasons that might be used in France for converting Huguenots, such as the danger to a Calvinistic soul, that outside the church there is no salvation, that their ministers deceive them, etc. But if these reasons are not enough they might pass to those of a temporal interest, of the material advantage of being a Catholic, of the loss if they do not return. Thence they pass to others, of the money they will have, of their advantageous marriages, of their success in law suits. But the converters go even further, using blows, terror, and insolence. ' ' But there is more Christianity in the morals of Seneca than in that." (154) The violation of the individual conscience on the ground that one should compel erring persons to enter the banqueting hall of the Lord, to ' ' compel them to come in, ' ' as the famous parable of Jesus puts it, was peculiarly hateful to Bayle. A man, he thinks, is only obliged to follow his conscience, even though it may be wrong, just as though it were an enlightened conscience. (396) Otherwise, the ignorant peasant who believes in God without knowing why is in the wrong. (397) His answer from history was made by the use of England as an illustration. On Maimbourg's principles the Catholics there should be persecuted. (430) And what about St. Paul Ì Before his conversion he was using force, but afterwards he confined himself to persuasion. (432) This fundamental matter of the right of conscience, and, therefore, of freedom of thought, must not be carried too far in this place, for Bayle treated it at length in an important work published a few years later. It is taken up in the next chapter. The General Criticism is so agreeable a work to read that there is little wonder at the stir it created. The first edition was exhausted in four months, a second with some additions was issued in the

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

51

following year, and a third in 1684. Though anonymously published, the authorship was soon known through the indiscretions of Bayle 's publisher. The public was surprised to find the author " i n Holland amidst the dust of a college, ' ' as the contemporary English biography put it. The General Criticism added greatly to Bayle 's reputation for learning, for ability in controversy, and for critical acumen. The respect for his name was much enhanced by the treatment the book received in France. Maimbourg was decidedly angered at the way in which he was handled; whether or not he wrote in choler, the Jesuit father was decidedly choleric on reading Bayle 's reply. Instead of answering the volume the royal historiographer sought its suppression in Prance. This seemed doubly necessary to hi™ as the book was being read with considerable relish by many Roman Catholics, especially by those of Jansenist leanings, or men like the Duke of Condé, who could trace their ancestry back to the Huguenot party of the previous century. Maimbourg had some difficulty in procuring the legal suppression of the work; he was successful only after a direct application to the King. In March of 1683 an order went forth that it be torn in pieces and burnt in the Place de Grève by the common hangman, and that death be the lot of any selling the book in France. It was described in the order as ' ' advancing calumnious and pretended facts under a false zeal for religion" and as "intended to corrupt the fidelity of subjects." The pen of Bayle and not that of Maimbourg had become a poniard. There were a number of other replies to Maimbourg's volume, following the publication of Bayle's Critique. Jean Rou, who was a French refugee at the Hague in the service of the Dutch government, published a brief reply.® It is a succession of citations from Maimbourg with an answer appended in each case. Less successful » Remarques sur l'histoire later spoke highly of it.

du Calvinisme de M. Maimbourg.

1682. Bayle

52

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

was a reply by Rocoles, a refugee who had gone to Geneva in 1675 carrying letters of recommendation from Bayle. 10 Another -was that of Pierre Jurieu, the friend of Bayle. Jurieu's pen was as active as Bayle 's, if not more facile. Not long before this he had written an effective exposé of the treatment of the Huguenots ; it was called The Last Efforts of Afflicted Innocence. While Bayle was writing his answer to Maimbourg, Jurieu was at the same task. It was Bayle's knowledge of Jurieu's orthodox reply that justified him in being discursive in the letters that we have just reviewed. Jurieu's work appeared in 1683.11 It was in two large volumes, and at least four times as long as Bayle 's reply. It might be regarded as the official orthodox answer. The first two parts gave an orderly history of the Reformation in the form of an apology. A third part was a history of Papisme ; it was concluded by "recriminations" in response to the accusations made by Maimbourg. The contrast between Bayle 's reply and Jurieu's answer was great. Jurieu's ability as a writer was considerable, but it could hardly make up for the " l a b o r e d " task he had undertaken. Bayle 's novel way of treating his adversary was much more successful with the public. The theologian assumed, of course, that Calvinism was the true religion. He even went so far as to justify the use of severe methods against heretics, a stand that would appear to undermine his own objection to the mistreatment of "afflicted innocence." All errors of belief, argued Jurieu, ought not to be tolerated, especially if they are capable of ruining souls. He might well have had Bayle in mind when he wrote : ' ' There is a dangerous principle that the esprits forts of this age are trying to establish, namely, that errors of belief of whatever kind ought not to be condemned. 10 L'histoire véritable du Calvinisme. 1683. 11 L'histoire du Calvinisme et celle du Papisme mises en parallèle, "or an apology for the Reformation, for the reformera, and for the Reformed." 1683.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

53

It is a dangerous principle, leading unquestionably to indifference in religion." (ii, 276) The erring conscience for which Bayle pleaded was directly attacked by his colleague: "If good faith covers up mental errors, why will that not make safe an atheist, a Jew, an idolater, an infidel who believes, in good faith, that our Jesus is an impostor and our God a chimera?" (ii, 277) Jurieu justified the severest remedies in extreme cases, especially where a leading heretic was in danger of ' ' ruining the most august mysteries of religion." The magistrates should impose silence on such a one, he felt, then if this command is violated the culprit can be punished as a violator of the order and the laws of the sovereign, (ii, 278) The case of Servetus was in point. Maimbourg had set the execution of Servetus in Geneva over against St. Bartholomew, declaring that Calvin admitted the right "to punish heretics by the vigorous ways of justice, since he did it at Geneva when he induced the magistrates to condemn Servetus to the fire." (488) Jurieu's reply was: It can sometimes happen that an heresiarch will act with so much force, such blasphemy and such scorn of laws human and divine that a magistrate will find himself forced to use the last severity against him. And doubtless that obliged the authorities of Geneva to put Servetus to death in the last century, (ii, 280)

That was not Bayle 's method of meeting Maimbourg. ' ' The punishment of Servetus," he wrote, "was a deed that has been highly disapproved by Protestants, and for one who excuses it, I am sure there are a thousand among us who condemn it." (505) Jurieu may have been put out by the poor reception of his reply to Maimbourg when compared with that of his colleague. Gilles Menage was unkind enough to say at the time that "Bayle writes like a gentleman, and Jurieu like a bigoted old woman." 12 An elaborate reply to Jurieu, published in 1684 under the title La Quoted by Deemaizeaux, XVI, 69.

54

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

France toute Catholique, asserted that Jurieu had been condemned by all the honorable people of his own party for going too far in his personal attack on Maimbourg. Certainly the contrast between the minds of Bayle and Jurieu is clearly revealed in the widely different way they met the same situation. It need be no surprise that Bayle was soon to find a bitter enemy in this colleague and former friend. As if it were not enough to have issued three editions of the General Criticism, each succeeding one fuller than the preceding, within the years 1682-1684, Bayle published a continuation of the original work in 1685. In January of the momentous year that saw the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, there appeared twenty-two New Letters of the Author of the General Criticism, "justifying some places of the Critique which seemed to contain contradictions," and treating "many curious things which bear some relation to these matters." In the New Letters Bayle turned to more general questions about the working of man's mind. Here he was more the thinker and less the historic critic. Here were to be found, according to one writer, those "clear and judicious reflections which lift Bayle into the rank of the great moral thinkers. ' ' The slow development of truth, the rights of the conscience as over against those of the sovereign, the contradictory character of great men and the influence on them of praise, the fallibility of authors, the relation of feeling to changes of religion, are some of the varied array of topics. The most important one of the New Letters is the ninth. Here the erring conscience, spoken of in the General

Criticism,

received fuller treatment and defence. A detailed examination of the New Letters is not necessary because of their very nature. The work did not enjoy the brilliant reception given the letters of which they were a continuation. The New Letters, nevertheless, are important in the growth of Bayle 's influence and in the development of his ideas. They have been much

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

55

read." The persecution had led to further reflections in the New Letters. And they, in turn, were a sort of prelude to the great work on toleration which was to appear in the following year. The Philosophical Commentary of 1686 was to prove the climax of the series. FRANCE ENTIBELY CATHOLIC

In the meantime the lot of the Protestants in Prance was becoming worse. Previous to the Revocation a number of steps were taken that caused much suffering. The closing of the colleges was followed by the exclusion of the Huguenots from judicial offices and from the liberal professions. Their worship was gradually more and more restricted. Those outside a community were forbidden to worship in the Huguenot " t e m p l e " of the place. If the Huguenots admitted a convert from Catholicism to their worship, the act was sufficient warrant for destroying the church." The royal officers used every petty legality as an excuse for destroying the churches; the Huguenots were deprived of at least nine-tenths of their places'of worship in the early eighties. Out of eighty churches in the bishopric of Valence but two remained in 1685. But worse than that was the renewal of the Dragonnades in 1685. Intendant Foucault was so successful in Béarn that the armed converters were widely used in other provinces. Bayle 's family in Carla did not escape. Nor was Bayle unmindful of their lot, for throughout the years he had kept in constant touch with his family by means of a steady correspondence. Bayle's is Gibbon's judgment of them is interesting. In his Journal for 1764, he recorded having read the General Criticism. Bayle revealed a "measure of knowledge, precision, and candour, as well as entertainment, seldom exhibited. . . . His chapters on the marriage of the clergy are full of pleasantry, learning, and knowledge of human nature; and his two letters on the love of parents toward their children and on jealousy contain a profound philosophy." Gibbon thonght the New Letters far superior to the first series. Work cited, p. 554. i« Baird, work cited, Vol. I, pp. 530 ff. Also Lavisse, Histoire de France, VoL VII, pt. II, pp. 62 ff.

56

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

mother died while he was at Sedan. That left the aged father and two brothers. The elder, Jacob was assuming more and more care for the church of which he and his father were the joint pastors. A younger brother, who was much beloved, died in the spring of 1684 while studying at Paris. Just a year later the life of Bayle's father ended, the result in part of the loss of his son, and of the sad afflictions of the church he was serving. Jacob tried to carry on his work of pastor as judiciously as possible. Long after every other church in the region had been torn down or turned to other uses, that at Carla remained, a mute evidence of its importance and of the strength of the Huguenots in the community. In May of 1685 Jacob Bayle thought best to go into hiding. Unwisely encouraged by fair promises, he came forth to carry on his work again openly, only to be arrested and imprisoned. Pierre Bayle may have been in part responsible for the attack on his brother. A neighboring bishop induced Louvois to issue a decree for Jacob Bayle 's arrest, the bishop being influenced by Pierre Bayle 's relapse; the minister of state, by the General Criticism. Jacob Bayle was imprisoned at first in Pamiers ; later he was thrown into a dungeon of the Château Trompette at Bordeaux, in the hope of making so prominent a Protestant minister abjure his faith. Pierre Bayle did everything he could to procure his brother's release. The treatment of the prisoner was at least somewhat more considerate by the fall of the year. On November 22nd an order for his release finally reached Bordeaux. But it came too late, for Jacob Bayle was already a victim of the severe treatment he had received. He had died ten days earlier. The news of Jacob Bayle 's death and the announcement that Louis had at last revoked the Edict of Nantes (18th of October, 1685) came to Bayle in Rotterdam about the same time. The climax to his family misfortunes and the final step against the religion in which he was born aroused Bayle as never before. It was under

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

57

such influences that he wrote another important work against religious persecution. It will serve as a fitting conclusion to the record of Bayle 's relationship to the events of 1685. The Protestant attacks on Louis's policy had been answered in 1685 by a laborious three-volume work called France All Catholic under the Reign of Louis the Great}1 It consisted of nine colloquies by some supposed French Protestants, who after realizing that their sect was ' ' impious and pernicious to the state ' ' took the resolution of "hastening its ruin so happily undertaken by the King." The work was an answer to Jurieu's reply to Maimbourg, in particular, and also "to all the other libels that the Protestants have made public during the past two years," according to the subtitle. Jurieu's work, however, was the only one examined with any care. The reply was a defence of Catholic history, and of Louis, who has shown in his rule the most excellent principles of the "art of reigning." The author believed that kings have the right to maintain a religion established in their state for "fifteen centuries," and that the so-called Protestant "martyrs" are simply rebels against royal authority. He concluded that the Huguenots should not be tolerated on account of their politics, their customs, and their religion, (iii, 653) In reply to the accumulation of misfortunes that came to Bayle, he was aroused as never before. He issued a small pamphlet in 1685 which reflects the bitterness and hatred felt far and wide by the doings in France. With a pen dipped in gall he wrote a duodecimo of 128 pages entitled Ce que c'est que la France toute catholique sous le règne de Louis le Grand. The title is not easy to translate into an English that will carry the meaning of the phrase. It might be called the "Character of all-Catholic France under Louis the Great ' ' or better '1 What France Entirely Catholic under is La France toute catholique, etc.

58

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

Louis the Great really is. ' ' The title of the little piece was suggested by the pro-Catholic defence of the King, which has just been mentioned. Bayle 's pamphlet was not the only attack on Louis for actually revoking the Edict. But Bayle 's little work was outstanding among them all, the "strongest of all those which came at that time from Calvinistic pens." Sayous, the historian of French literature outside of Prance, believes that none of the other numerous Huguenot attacks on the Revocation "offers a judgment of its nature which more exactly characterizes the true nature of the event." 14 The Character of France Entirely Catholic was much more than a mere outburst, for even his personal loss and the destruction of the home in which he had been reared could not extinguish the philosophic and literary proclivities of Bayle. The little work contains three letters. There is first a brief one from a French ecclesiastic to a Huguenot who had gone to London, in which the former asks the Huguenot's opinion on the second letter, it being a violent attack on France and the French, written to the ecclesiastic by another refugee. This letter, which also carries the title of the book, occupies most of the volume. The third letter is the more restrained reply of the London Huguenot to whom the French ecclesiastic had written. The device used by Bayle gave him a chance to show the Roman Catholic attitude, to go to the limit in criticizing it. and then to conclude on a more restrained note. The abbé professes to be so shocked by the libelous letter he has received that he more than once, while reading it, recommended himself to God, so "enormous" were its "aberrations." And he is thankful, on the other hand, that the "greatest king of earth" has so effectively used "gentle, zealous, and charitable ways against a ie For the first quotation, see A. Deschamps, La Genèse du scepticisme érudit chez Bayle, 1878, p. 160. The work of P. A. Sayous is Hiitoire de la littérature française à l'étranger, 2 vols., 1853. See Vol. I, p. 280.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

59

religion rebellious to God and the church." (2) The first letter of three concluded with an exhortation to the Huguenot to return to the "lap of your mother, who offers you not only earthly goods, but the eternal glory of Paradise, which cannot be found outside the church you have left." (4) The letter of which the abbé complained was an unmeasured condemnation of what had happened. If my language is " u n peu rude,'' wrote the supposed refugee, " i t is because the French seem to take the ruin of the Huguenots so calmly. ' ' The whole of France seems to rejoice over its victory, and there are none worse than "your order, which has fanned the fire of persecution and lighted the Dragonnades." (9) France is destitute of "honnêtes gens," it would seem. Old Diogenes would certainly not have gone out with hie lantern in search of an honest man in the France of today ; he would not have felt it worth while to leave his tub. (10) You are "so bewitched, so brutish, so meshed in the snares of a low superstition" (18) that you do not realize what the world thinks of you. There never was a nation that has so disgusted the whole earth, for your pretended keen political sense, "which is no longer than your nose" (42) has made you quite blind to international feeling. You act as if all the other peoples of the world were dogs or marionettes, so little do you seem to care for their opinion. (28) The two characteristic marks of all-Catholic France were held to be bad faith and violence. (15) "Lying seems so natural to you that you even do it when it is unnecessary; yet practice should have made you more adroit." (22) You may think, the writer continued, that you have been gentle, since you have not burned people alive and put up the wheel and the stake.17 Dragoons ought to be thought gentle as lambs when they do not throw women and infants to the 17

Bayle, through ignorance, missed an opportunity at this point of being even harsher. One Protestant pastor — Hömel of the village of Soyon on the Rhone — was broken on the wheel. Baird, work cited, I, 539.

60

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

flames. (26) But that is to use "gentle" in a wrong way. "Cease fooling yourself in using words in a sense different from other nations, for they can no longer understand your jargon." (28) But you may reply ; we have succeeded, therefore, it was well done. A fine reason, retorted Bayle, this argument that the end the justifies the means, that necessity knows no law. ' ' Is there a butcher so clumsy that he does not finally kill the beef and cut it in a hundred pieces." (32) Bayle 's plea for an honest statement in the interests of truth and good faith might seem belied by the pictures of the Huguenot sufferings which he paints in many parts of the letter, had they not been abundantly verified. To overcome Huguenot obstinacy you had " t o ruin their goods by your soldiers, imprison them, cloister their wives and daughters, use every device to prevent them from sleeping" (23) and "yet you call such things gentle." In Poitou soldiers pillaged the houses of peasants and townsmen, and exposed them to a thousand insults and violent deeds. (36) Almost all their temples of worship were destroyed. (49) The picture is surely revolting : Do you think that death on the scaffold for religion is more painful than to see yourself eaten out of house and home by soldiers, who insult you in every way, who blow horns in your ears to prevent you from sleeping (to break down resistance to conversion) and who reduce you to such a condition that there is no end to your troubles, either by flight, or by death Τ You close all the ports and other exits of the kingdom, you condemn to the galleys those who would save themselves, you prevent those not changing their religion from earning a living . . . and yet you are proud to have banged no one! (65-66)

Bayle then pictured the consequences of such actions pursued in the name of religion. It means the breakdown of religious faith. Do not be mistaken, your triumphs are rather those of Deism than of the true faith. [Seeing your conduct, people] cannot help saying that God is too good to be the author of such pernicious things as positive religions, that he has revealed to man only a natural law, and that enemies of our

61

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

repose have come in the night to sow tares in the field of natural religion by establishing certain particular colts which are the eternal seed of wars, carnage, and injustice. (12)

These oft-quoted lines may show Bayle 's own change of spirit under the pressure of events and of reflection. They certainly forecast the coming century in a surprisingly clear way. "Such is your portrait," wrote Bayle, "for you have preferred the ways of the fox to the violence of the lion until your slight success (at conversion) led you on to violence." (48) The triumph of your church is the best lesson in " Malebranchism, " for "God makes the world ridiculous by preserving the Roman church in prosperity." (74-75)18 The invective concluded with an appeal to opinion outside the Christian world. I complain yet more of the Christianity you have made noisome (puant), to use a Biblical expression, before other religions. The name Christian has become justly odious to infidels. . . . What estimate will they make of Christianity if they judge of your conduct? Would they not believe it a religion which loves blood and carnage, which uses violence against heart and spirit, which makes hypocrites so as to establish a wider tyranny f

(96-97)

What will the Japanese and Chinese think ? ' ' The laws of humanity really oblige one to warn the Chinese emperor of what has just occurred in France so that he may take proper measures for receiving missionaries to his country." (102) And the writer then went on to picture the gradual rise of parties and of civil war in China as a result of missionary activity. The tirade ended : If I knew a corner of the world where these persecuting maxims are not carried, how gladly would I go there tomorrow ! . . . And if it comes about that you get a footing here [England], then I shall leave the day following, if possible f o r G r e e n l a n d vitra

Sauromatas

fugere

hinc libet et

glacialem

Oceanum. (105-6) !» Malebranche was an important Cartesian of the time. A decade earlier he had published an influential work On the Search for Truth. He was a sharp opponent of Arnauld.

62

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

The third letter was a response to the abbé from the Huguenot to whom the letter, just summarized, had been sent for judgment. The concluding epistle was more restrained. The fiery young author of the tirade was condemned, and his letter explained as the result of his youth, of his companionships, and of his leaning toward poetry "where he has made a great name for himself." (108) "No wonder you used signs of the cross when reading his blasphemies against religion in general!" (107) And then Bayle proceeded to ask the ecclesiastic some very pertinent questions. There are many good people in Prance, of course. " I have no doubt that you condemn the violence used. If so, you really ought to warn your rash and puerile publicists of the bad reputation they have given Catholic writers in the eyes of foreigners." (112) The volume closed, significantly, in the sceptical manner. The boldness of your writers, in denying what has been openly done, is able to ruin faith in the historic record of the most important happenings. Some one will say, indeed, since men have always been as they are now, and since to-day they publish the most false statements regarding the present time, even addressing themselves to kings and princes, some one will say that there is no assurance of the truth of what the apologies of Justin Martyr, of Athenagoras, of Tertullian accuse the pagans in addressing themselves to the emperors of their time. (128)

Such was the stinging pamphlet that Bayle wrote against the "gentleness" of the Revocation. I t is suffused with feeling, as none other of his works. Yet it differed much from the general run of pamphlets with which it commonly would be classed. There is a severe denunciation of Catholicism, but no evidence can be found to show that anti-Catholicism means pro-Protestantism. It is not sectarian. The bad faith and violence of Catholics in France led rather to the injury of all positive religion. Bayle 's philosophic outlook saw the consequences in a larger way than a sectarian would. The failure of France to live and let live in religion was a serious count against the world mission of Christianity.

CATHOLICS AND HUGUENOTS

63

The great error, to Bayle 's thinking, lay in the lack of tolerance. He hated "persecuting maxims" because he cherished so deeply freedom of thought and speech. In consequence, he proved in his next work, on a more elaborate scale, that all constraint in religious matters is ' ' criminal and contrary both to reason and to Scripture. ' ' (125)

CHAPTEB

IV

BAYLE AND THE MOVEMENT FOR TOLERATION Bayle 's thinking had been so bold before 1685 that he was finding the climate of Calvinism somewhat rigorous. He had grown far away from the Puritanical attitude of the Reformed church. The crisis of 1685, it is true, produced an impassioned attack on Catholic intolerance in France, that might seem to make him one with the afflicted Huguenot beliefs. It was but natural, therefore, that his keen-cutting mind should interpret the experiences of the Revocation year as implying the need for an all-round toleration. The result was his famous Philosophical Commentary of 1686. When Bayle retired to Holland in the early eighties, he was entering the country where the spirit of toleration was making distinct progress. The Protestant Revolution was, on the whole, favorable to toleration, for the reason that it was a revolt against the older authority of an infallible church and tradition. The older church had long thought that there was no salvation outside its borders, any more than there was a chance to survive the Deluge of ancient times if not within the saving ark of Noah. The Catholic Church naturally felt it to the interests of everybody to prevent variations in belief. Indeed, this would seem an honest inference from the old Judaistic conception of a "jealous Ood," who would have no ' ' other Gods before ' ' him. The Reformation offshoots of the Catholic Church naturally denied the excessive right of the older church. But, in so doing, the Lutherans and the Calviniste did not free themselves from the spirit of monopoly, and of persecution. Each Protestant variant was only too likely to assume that its own particular beliefs were the only way to salvation. It is no surprise,

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

65

therefore, that Protestants as well as Catholics persecuted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, that Zwingli effected the drowning of Baptists, Luther the killing of the peasants, Calvin the burning of Servetus and the persecution of many others. The Pilgrims hanged Quakers and the Anglican church of the sixteenth century put to death those who were too timid or too forward. Yet the right of personally examining the basic Scriptures, which the Protestants endeavored to put in the place of the infallible church, caused inevitable differences of belief. Where the beliefs were held by small groups or by convinced believers in individualism, the tolerant spirit naturally had more elbow room. Probably the most remarkable advance of this sort was made by the brothers Socinus, two Italians who found it well to leave Italy for Switzerland when their Unitarian opinions became convictions. The sixteenth-century Racovian catechism of the Socinians distinctly advocated tolerance. But the other churches regarded Socinians as heretics of the blackest dye, to whom the choicest epithets were given by their enemies, and for whom were freely and confidently predicted the most exquisite tortures in the world to come. Our acquaintance, Jurieu, considered the Socinian sect as the most dangerous of all, because its advocacy of toleration tended to breed "indifference to religion." In Holland a great advance had been made. Possibly the devastating politico-religious wars of the previous century had forced the Dutch to fear religious hatreds, possibly the broad commercial relationships of Holland were to some degree responsible, possibly Holland's pivotal position in European affairs made the country a meeting place and melting pot of thought as well as of peoples. The Peace of Religion of 1578, for example, decreed that every one should "serve God according to the understanding God had given to him." 1 ι Ft. Buffini, Eeligious Liberty, Eng. trana., 1912, p. 92.

66

BAYLE AND TOLERATION Yet the Socinians, who had entered Holland before the close of

the sixteenth century, were not kindly treated. Since they could not form an open organization of their own, they were found among the Mennonites and the various branches of Calvinism. The Calvinist churches of Holland were especially concerned with the mental vagaries of their members. One of the strangest variants was a belief in free love, known as Labadism, from a Calvinistic pastor whose thought went off in that direction. So much was this sect feared that the government departed from its habitual moderation, and forbade the meetings of Labadists. The greatest bitterness, however, raged within the Calvinistic group in Holland over the matter of predestination. I t came to a head early in the seventeenth century when Arminius, a professor in the University of Leyden, issued a Remonstrance against the extreme doctrines of Calvin. His pronouncement naturally called forth a Counter-Remonstrance. The church was soon torn by strife, and it became necessary for the state to intervene time and again in the interests of the country as a whole. The efforts of the state were usually in the interests of live and let live, and so the religious strife within Calvinism really aided the movement for freedom of worship. Long before Bayle went to the Low Countries practical freedom was allowed. The governing classes did not mix in the religious disputes, for they were a caste apart almost, to whom material prosperity and peace were necessary for the state. It was this oligarchic republicanism that gave to Holland its notable position as a haven for the persecuted. The country was the " f o y e r " of tolerance. "Catholics, Arminians, Lutherans, Mennonites, Jews worshipped freely. ' ' 2 This does not mean, however, that

within

the churches much intolerance was not to be found. Descartes was accused publicly of atheism by the Calvinistic pastors; they also 2 Serrurier, work cited, p. 30.

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

67

attacked Spinoza, and Bayle was to suffer from the intolerance of the church into which he had been born. s The question of religious liberty was causing much discussion in French Protestant circles before the Huguenots were driven from the country. The heated discussions caused much bitterness and weakness in the Reformed church of France during the very years when the systematic persecution by the state should have been faced by a united group. According to Jurieu the advocacy of relaxation began in 1670 when D'Huisseau, a pastor living at Saumur, allowed himself to be so far seduced by the reading of Arminian works as to publish a book on the Reunion of Christendom,.* Though D'Huieseau's book was soon forgotten after the author and the book were condemned by a Huguenot synod, its viewpoint was not suppressed. Jurieu wrote against the Reunion of Christendom a volume that was a Treatise on Toleration in Matters of Religion. This, his first publication, was unbendingly orthodox before the dissolving ideas of the Cartesian philosophy. Another Huguenot, Pajon, who had taught at Saumur, proved incorrigibly independent in thought. Jurieu, who at first was on intimate terms with Pajon, soon led the pack against what became known as Pajonism, really just the Arminian doctrines from Holland under another name. Jurieu accused Pajon of Socinian beliefs, than which no worse accusation was possible. Pajonism was condemned in the seventies. By the time of the Revocation these struggles had divided the Calviniste "on points of pure speculation, and delivered them to the enemy. Much is to be attributed to these fatal divisions, the decadence and the ruin of great > In 1670 Spinoza had published in Latin his famous Tractate on the Liberty of Philosophizing. His argument that public order cannot be harmed by this liberty was illustrated by the city of Amsterdam, ' ' the most flourishing of all the cities in the world, and at the head of all as regards toleration. ' ' * Jean Puaux, Les précurseurs français de la tolérance, 1881, p. 75.

68

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

flourishing churches, without any effort at resistance. ' ' So wrote an historian of the misfortunes of his own communion.5 But the Jurieu point of view was unrelenting, as will be recalled from the attitude he took in replying to Maimbourg in 1683. Jurieu accepted the burning of Servetus as an unfortunate, if rare, necessity, because of his dangerous doctrines and influence. A very different volume appeared in 1684 from the hand of another Huguenot. Henri Basnage was the younger brother of the Basnage, who had known Bayle at Geneva, and who was responsible for his introduction to Sedan. The younger Basnage, some seven years Bayle's junior, published a little work on Tolérance

des

religions in 1684, written, according to Bayle, "with a great deal of spirit and judgment. ' ' β The work was an enthusiastic one, more important as showing the reality of the problem than for any profound discussion of toleration. Basnage argued that since heresy has given security and comfort to many, one should be cautious about human certainties. It is not making truth any more attractive, he held, to force people to adopt it by dragging them to the altar. His little work was but the prelude to the more powerful attacks of Bayle and Locke. There is no doubt that many besides Bayle were thinking much on the question of toleration during the troubled decade of the Revocation. One evidence of this is a letter written to Bayle from England in 1685. Hadrian van Paets, Bayle 's benefactor and close friend, was in England on public business during the summer following the accession of James II to the throne. He was so impressed by the quiet acceptance of the Catholic James in a strongly Protestant country that he wrote an account of the English ' ' tolerance for those who are not of the dominant religion." 7 Bayle « Puaui, p. 94. «The Dictionary,

"Henri Basnage," Rem. A, III, 161.

ι Lettre de M. H. V.P.àM.B

1686.

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

69

thought so much of it that he translated the letter into French, and saw it into print. It also was turned from Latin into Dutch. This readable pamphlet of some forty pages has little to say of the English situation, but much of the need for tempering the heats of controversy. One way is to realize that God only has all the truth for judging truly of the good faith of obstinate "heretics." He argued that the differences between the Lutherans and the Reformed — whether or not Christ is present bodily in the sacrament — or between the Presbyterian and the Anglicans — whether to taie the sacrament on one's knees or while sitting bareheaded at a table — are so slight that reunion should be possible. But he held that such a hope cannot be entertained for Protestants and Catholics ; their differences seem irreconcilable. But even there a peaceful way can be found out of trouble, "the toleration of all dogmas not overturning the fundamentals of salvation." (44) The letter from Paets was neither very comprehensive nor very decisive in its remedy for the intolerant spirit. It does, at least, introduce us to England, the third country that needs to be examined for evidences of the growth of religious liberty. Paets was delighted at the way in which James II was accepted, despite his open Catholicism. Nothing more memorable than this has happened, wrote Paets, in an England, "long a great theater of change in things human." (3) Had he foreseen the changes of three years later, he would not have praised James II as a man of his word ' ' in which there is full confidence," nor have hailed the happy commencement of this reign, "for no one can drive James II from the throne nor dispute his scepter." (6) The intolerant spirit, which James was soon to reveal, had been too common in his country since the days of the Reformation. Catholics under Mary, Protestants under Elizabeth, the Presbyterians in Scotland, had been alike intolerant. The reaction of James I to the Millenary Petition and Gunpowder Plot was in the

70

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

direction of conformity and severity. Lord Bacon, with the recent powder plot in mind, wrote that the true God is a jealous God "whose worship and religion will admit no mixture nor partner," although he deprecated the use of the sword or of "sanguinary persecutions to force consciences except it be in cases of overt scandal, blasphemy, or practice against the state. ' ' 8 During the Civil Wars of Charles I's reign the Scottish Presbyterians endeavored to force their intolerance on the Independents. It was in 1645 that the Scottish Parliament made a solemn address to the English Parliament ' ' against the toleration of the sects and against the liberty of conscience." Yet there were advocates for toleration at the time. Chillingworth, despite having had Archbishop Laud for a godfather, turned Catholic, and then returned to Anglicanism. Just before the beginning of the Civil Wars he wrote the much-read Religion of Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation. It was irenic in tone, a real contribution to a Christian charity none too common in his turbulent day. During this dark period Jeremy Taylor wrote a plea for toleration, the Discourse on the Liberty of Prophesying, but he did not adhere to its position on becoming a bishop. More important was John Milton's Areopagitica (1644), a plea for the liberty of unlicensed printing. In this impassioned work Milton seems chiefly concerned with the danger of the "fine conformity," which censorship would "starch us into," and with the need of liberty as the " t h e nurse of all great wits." Milton believed in a limited toleration; he would not include Roman Catholics. During the Commonwealth and Protectorate there seemed to be arising a situation similar to that in Holland where all Protestants sects would be allowed to worship, and even the Jews relieved to some extent of their disabilities. But all this was changed with the β Essays, ' ' On Unity of Religion. ' '

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

71

Restoration of the Stuarts in 1660. The Dissenters were ill treated by numerous acts, and Charles himself, a discreet, secret Catholic, was intent on bringing his state into the Catholic fold. Public suspicion of his grand design led to its postponement until the more determined James decided on completing the work, just at the time that Louis X I V was revoking the privileges of the Huguenots. Little wonder, as we review the fortunes of France, Holland, and England, that toleration should be a lively question in the mideighties. T H E PHILOSOPHICAL, COMMENTARY

Bayle had foreshadowed in the last part of his France

Entirely

that an important work on toleration was now being trans-

Catholic

lated from the English for he chose to speak of a work of his own in this cryptic way. There is here (in London) a learned Presbyterian and good philosopher, who has written a philosophical commentary upon the words of the parable "Compel them to come in." It is not as yet printed. They are at present translating it into our language. . . . I shall hasten the translation and publication of this book as much as possible. I am convinced that a great many Catholics will approve it, notwithstanding the prevailing spirit of those of your cloth. (125) The prophecy was fulfilled when Bayle 's treatise on toleration appeared in 1686, under the title of Philosophical the words of Jesus proved

by several

Christ, "Compel arguments

than to make conversions

Commentary

on

them to come in," wherein

it is

that there is nothing

by force,

converters

by constraint

Augustine

made for persecution.

and wherein

are refuted

more

abominable

the sophisms

along with the defence

of the that

St.

Bayle carefully veiled the author-

ship by feigning — on the title page — that it was ' ' translated from the English of Mr. J o h n F o x of Bruggs by M. I. F . ' ' and published at Canterbury. The particular form that Bayle gave his momentous defence of

72

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

toleration — a treatment of the words ' ' Compel them to come in " — needs brief explanation. St. Augustine, who lived in the fifth century, grew intolerant when his church became the state church, and he argued that it was praiseworthy to urge, even to force, people to accept the gospel for their own sakes, just as force must be used to prevent a delirious person from throwing himself over a precipice. He used, as a justification, the verse in Luke (xiv, 23), "And the Lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in that my house may be filled." At the time of the Revocation the French Catholics were using Augustine's arguments and his proof from Scripture to justify their acts of coercion. The particular work that Bayle had in mind was a volume written by the Archbishop of Paris and published in 1685 under the title, Agreement

of the Conduct of the

French

Church m Recalling Protestants with that of the African Church in recalling the Donatists to the Catholic Church.9 The Philosophical

Commentary

is composed of several parts,

published at various times. The heart of the work appeared in 1686 ; it consisted of a lengthy Preliminary Discourse, and the first two parts. A third portion, appearing in the following year, paid particular attention to St. Augustine. A Supplement was added in 1688, largely as a reply to attacks on the work by Jurieu. The third and fourth parts of the Commentary do not need a detailed exposition, since they relate in controversial fashion what was set forth in 1686. But the first two parts are very much worth examination. The Preliminary Discourse is a sharp and bitter condemnation of the French treatment of the Huguenots, written in the manner of his France Entirely

Catholic, With remarkable prescience the

supposed English author drew lessons from the Huguenot misfortunes. β St. Augustine was Bishop of Hippo in north Africa, and found the Donatigte his bitter enemies.

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

73

We of England began to think the beast was grown tame and tractable, began to think that this wolf, this tiger, had forgot her savage nature; but thanks to God the French converters have undeceived us, and we now know what we may expect if we ever fall into their clutches. . . . It is certain they would not forbear three ( !) years, nor fail bringing those to the stake who did not go to the mass, had they once more the power in their own hands.10 Monks and other emissaries of the Pope are so little to be trusted that prudence demands the banishment of Papists where there may be the least ground of suspicion against them. The author went even further, saying that all Catholics, save kings, should be obliged to leave immediately, or at least deprived of all means of endangering the state.11 Looking at the situation in France, Bayle bitterly declared that the church of Rome is now in the very posture which becomes her best. . . . The pomp of it was wanting. This she has at last compassed with great glory. After having turned herself often around her resting place, you now see her lolling at full length, and perfectly at her ease, (i, 122) This pomp, to which he ironically referred, was the result of constraining the conscience: They pillage, smite, imprison, kidnap, and kill a world of people, who do not harm the state nor their neighbors, and are guilty of no other crime than that of not believing, from a sense of their duty to God, what others do believe, from a like sense of duty to God. (i, 133) The Preliminary Discourse closed on an ominous note. The age we live in . . . is full of free thinkers and deists. People are amazed at their number, but for my part I am amazed that we have not more of this sort among us, considering the havoc religion has made in the > Headers will recall, of course, that James reigned just three years. References to the Philosophical Commentary are to the two-volume (French) edition of 1713. For the quotation, eee Vol. I, p. 97. 11 Vol. I, p. 110. These words are responsible, probably, for the oft-repeated assertion that Bayle 's toleration did not extend to Catholics. We shall find a broader conception in the second part of the Commentary.

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

74

world, and the extinction of all virtue which inevitably follows when it, the church, authorizes all imaginable crimes, (i, 134)

There is a marked difference between the logical, cool Philosophical Commentary The Commentary,

and the rather fiery, sharp Preliminary Discourse. as an early life of Bayle put it, is a masterpiece

of sound reasoning. Step by step the defences of the castle of intolerance are overcome until one feels at the end that there is no cranny in which an unconquered fraction of its garrison can be in hiding. The first outwork to overcome was the claim that reason should be subordinated to a special revelation. Bayle began, therefore, by reaffirming the primacy of reason. God enlightens men, he held, the moment they open the eyes of their attention. God's immediate illumination of men " a t all times, in all ages, and to all nations of the earth, provided they give but the least attention" is the only rule for judgment of those things, partly true, partly false, which are continually being presented, (i, 141) " E v e r y philosophically attentive mind clearly conceives that this living and distinctive light, which accompanies us in all places and at all times . . . comes from God and is a natural revelation." (i, 148) The church even admits this, insisted Bayle, by its own language. The light of nature is the judge of what is good or bad in the Scripture, for the church has always rejected interpretations that would bring evil consequences if literally accepted, (i, 136) " N o one can any longer pretend that theology is the queen and philosophy the handmaid. The theologians confess that they look on the latter as their sovereign mistress." (i, 139) Though there may be limitations regarding speculative truth, Bayle argued that there could be no limitations regarding the practical and universal principles of conduct ; " a l l moral laws, without exception, ought to be regulated by the idea of natural equity, which enlightens every man coming into the world. " (i, 142) Only in this way can the many mists which swim between the eyes

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

75

of the understanding and the universal rays that flow from divinity be dispersed. This deistic position is reaffirmed again and again as the basis of all truth and right in conduct. The " n a t u r a l right, which is a sure and infallible rule, by which one must judge everything, not excepting the question whether such and such a thing is contained in Scripture ' ' would seem to be what is called conscience, (i, 158) Bayle has much to say of conscience later on. Bayle having established the right to use the "light of nature, the primitive, original rule of distinguishing truth from falsehood, and good from evil," proceeded to center his attention on the particular issue of toleration, (i, 156) In the first part he elaborates nine arguments against compulsion. The first, of course, is its repugnance to the "natural light." It teaches us that "there is a Being sovereignly perfect, who governs all things, who should be worshipped by man, who approves certain actions and rewards them, and who disapproves others and punishes them." (i, 152) But this cannot be primarily an external matter, for the internal motion of the will is the essence of religion. Therefore, constraint must be a mistaken way of establishing a religion. Bayle, as a result, concluded that the literal sense of the words of the parable cannot be intended. God surely, he wrote, would not make a revelation repugnant to reason, such as that it is right to prefer vice to virtue, that one should value his dog above his parents, that to go by sea from one country to another one must ride a horse. Since such things are contrary to reason, is one to believe that God has commanded in his Word that we should "cudgel men into a religioni" (i, 158) It is as if Scripture should command us to be skilled in languages without studying. In the second place, he held that the literal acceptance of compulsion was contrary to the spirit of the gospel. Bayle abundantly proved this, though to do it fully, he declared, one would have to transcribe all of the New Testament. The gospel, according to Bayle,

76

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

explains more fully than natural revelation the idea of an honnête man. If, therefore, a supposed teaching of the gospel is contrary to the original revelation of natural religion, it is even more unjust than if simply contrary to religion in general. Jesus would then be an emissary of Satan, in very truth (i, 160, 163). Moreover, Jesus himself did not use force ; " he did not arm legions of angels which were always, as it were, in his pay, nor send them in pursuit of the deserters, to round them up by force." (i, 166). God's "antecedent revelation ' ' is clear, so clear that the patrons of the literal meaning of the words, "Compel them to come in" better deserve the title of "directors-general of the butchers and hangmen" than that of interpreters of Scripture, (i, 168) Bayle took up next the possibility that a god may dispense with his own laws as naturally revealed. ' ' Now, ' ' he says, ' ' we cut at the very root of the literal sense." A king's edicts must be just if he bases punishments upon their violation. They must be founded on some good reason, otherwise subjects could be punished for not possessing blue eyes, a Roman nose, and fair hair. If it be answered that a seemingly unjust edict, such as that revoking the Edict of Nantes, is really just because it is in the interest of the true religion, then, replied Bayle, you are in danger of chaos, of confounding virtue and vice, for each party regards itself as having the only true religion. And think of the plight of kings in such a case, where an unestablished religion would feel it right to use any means to justify its purpose of becoming powerful, (i, 176) This forecast of the possible deposition of kings is of interest as coming, supposedly, from an Englishman in 1686. But Bayle held that such an interpretation would deprive us of "those small remains of natural religion, which were saved from the shipwreck of the first man." (i, 177) In chapter five the remorseless author showed that the acceptance of compulsion is a tacit admission that infidels may and should keep

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

77

Christians out of their lands. We have already found some use of this argument. Readers of Voltaire, Montesquieu, and their contemporaries will recall the abundant use they made of China, Persia, and Japan for purposes of invidious comparison with so-called Christian Europe. Here Bayle showed the way. Suppose, Bayle says, a deputation of missionaries go from the Pope to China. And in the hearing which they are granted, the missionaries are asked, "What course do you take with those who, having heard your sermons a hundred times over, cannot bring themselves to believe a word of what you say?" What will the monks answer? If sincere — "which is expecting a good deal of those missionaries" — they must say, We have a command from our God to compel the obstinate. In consequence of this command we are obliged in conscience to poison the idolatrous Chinese, to reduce them to beggary, to cudgel them into our churches, to hang some for an example, take away their children, and give them over to the gentle treatment of armed men. (i, 184)

What would the Emperor do in reply ? asked Bayle. He would, of course, immediately order them out of the country as public pests, who preach butchery and desolation. Not only would their preaching lead to blows; the Chinese would soon be killing one another like so many flies, and the Emperor himself would sooner or later be endangered. Bayle 's imagination pictured graphically the consequences of missionary entrance into China, how a Christian party, gradually formed, would menace the state, call in crusaders from the west, and finally thrust the Emperor into a cloister for the rest of his days, or until he embraced their religion. Since it is a ruler's business to keep the public peace, the Emperor would be obligated, therefore, to deny entrance to Christian missionaries. Bayle 's argument at this point was made the more effective by some reflections on Christian history, of which he was so thoroughly a master.

78

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

We cannot stop the mouths of infidels or prevent their charging Christianity with these things, since they find them in our history. . . . But if we cannot save Christianity from this infamy, let us at least save the honor of its founder and its laws. . . . Let us say that mankind very rarely acts according to its principles, and that Christians have happened not to act by theirs. Thus we shall acquit our religion at the expense of its professors. . . . For how abominable it would be to impute to Jesus Christ all the cruelties of popes and princes, who owned him as head of the church f And yet there is no avoiding this if we admit the literal sense of the parable. (i, 196, 197)

The next position attacked was the statement that heretics are punished not as heretics, but for disobeying royal edicts. He quoted a Catholic in this connection — a favorite method of approach — who declared that the laws of the church should do persons no wrong privately under pretence of public good, (i, 211) Yet the grant of compulsion at all can have no limit. You say you do not intend to dye your hands in blood; prisons and fines are the farthest you can go. . . . (i, 209) Good creatures, indeed! You are under a mighty illusion, for if compulsion of any kind is once allowed, there is no rest. . . . The same reasons which prove it lawful to imprison for heresy, prove much stronger that a man be hanged and drawn for it. (i, 209)

Bayle then launched into some sparkling comparisons to drive home his point. The Catholics might say, countered Bayle, that the Huguenots have only themselves to thank, for they have been duly warned. Yes, he replied, but so were the children thrown into the fiery furnace. Do you justify their treatment? There might even be a law passed for kneeling to a statue of Louis the Great : " If things go on in France as they have for the last fifteen or twenty years, such is not impossible, with the clergy leading the dance." (i, 219) He instanced the severe laws of a Duke of Muscovy, who commanded a subject to bury himself naked in the snow, to bring him a glass of his sweat on a frosty morning, to fetch a thousand fleas carefully counted, etc. But "such things are not more impossible than

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

79

believing this or that in matters of religion, as some men's minds are made." (i, 221) The chapter was concluded by a less invidious ( !) comparison than those of Nebuchadnezzar or a Duke of Muscovy. Suppose Pope Hadrian VI, who was very fond of hake, a very common and little esteemed fish, commanded every one who lived in his territories, to eat it, and issued the command, not as pope, but as ruler of the papal state. Every reasonable man would condemn it as ridiculous and tyrannical. Away, then, away all ye wicked and senseless divines, who pretend kings may command their subjects to be of such a religion. . . . It would be as absurd that what appears true to them should be true to their subjects, as commanding that their features and constitutions should be exactly alike. Grotius cites two fine passages from Origen and St. Chrysostom showing that, of all our prejudices, none are so hard to change as those on religion, and he cites- Galen at the same time that no itch is so hard to cure as prejudice for a sect, (i, 223, 224)

The remaining chapters of the first part contain refutations that grew out of the history of the church. His mastery of this field rendered him the more effective as the misuse of history had been so common in the defence of Christian sects, and was not to cease for some time. Bayle realized, too, that if false teaching was to be confuted, it must be attacked in the very citadel. The seventh chapter shows that Christians cannot say anything against the Mohammedan use of force, as they are fond of doing. And he quoted Catholic writers as witnesses. The Mohammedan, he said, would laugh at you, and send you home to Prance for an answer. Bayle was fond of pointing out that compulsion was not known to the early Fathers of the church. He especially enjoyed confuting Augustine's argument by quoting such a statement as the following from St. Athanasius, one of the most revered of the early churchmen : ' ' For it is not with sword and spear, nor with soldiers

80

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

and armed force that truth is to be propagated, but by counsel and sweet persuasion." (i, 231) The relation of the early Christian to the persecution by pagans was also well worth using as a contrast. He supposes a debate between the early Christians and some Roman emperor. Bayle made the Christians, of course, admit that they would compel in their turn if they had the chance, modelling their reply on the lines of the persecution in France. Bayle maliciously asserted that he did this, so as to couch their answer in mild terms. Of course, I could have framed it on the basis of the Inquisition, the Crusades of St. Dominic, the butcheries of Queen Mary, upon the massacres of Cabrières and Merindol (the Vaudois), and of the valleys of the Piedmont, as well as the tortures under Francis I and the massacre of St. Bartholomew. But I soften the matter as much as it will bear, (i, 236)

The reply of the Roman emperor can be imagined. The first part was concluded by the picture of a world where blood continually flows because each sect, being the ' ' true ' ' religion, follows the literal injunction of the parable used by St. Augustine. "Christianity would make only a perpetual hell for those loving repose, and for those whose side was weak." (i, 249) And most ridiculous of all, the defeated party would have no answer. The second part of the Philosophical Commentary was even more important. In the first part Bayle had kept more or less to the parable and to compulsion as it had been used in France. He now leaves that position, which was combated with consummate adequacy, to discuss the more general grounds for intolerance, even apart from the severe use of force. One of the most important reasons for tolerance, in Bayle 's opinion, is our limited knowledge of other people's minds. The convertisi cannot be a searcher of hearts. "None but God alone can judge of the measure of our understanding, and the degrees of light which are sufficient to each, its proportion varying infinitely."

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

81

(i, 271) Just as the quantity of food sufficient for one man is not suitable for another, so the amount of light needed for convincing persons must vary. And this led him to write of religion and of its varying attractions much as he would of taste or the power of artistic appreciation. De gustibus non est disputandum

is thus

applied to religion. People look at a picture by Raphael and make a thousand different judgments. "You may think Canary wine the best, but men with as good a taste as you cannot abide i t . " (i, 269) It is the saddest of mistakes to make a judgment of other men's perceptions by your own. Then, too, intolerance is fundamentally wrong because it breeds hypocrisy and irreligion, (i, 274) If Papists were persecuted by Calviniste, and compelled to sign a paper offered them, they might do so, "but with more horror for Calvinism than before, or with some seeds of Deism." (i, 284) History is then summoned to show that ground has not been gained by persecution, even if it is looked at superficially. Punishments, such as the rack and other tortures came in for severe handling at this point. Bayle brought out clearly the hypocrisy that torture arouses, when lies are extorted through the infliction of pain. "There are few who in the extremity of suffering will not betray conscience." (i, 288) Why should God have united the soul to a body that can flinch under pain, if he also intended pain to extort confessions of what the soul does not really believe? (i, 290) The seemingly mild punishments in France are not unlike those of the rack. They say the millers were not allowed to gind com or the bakers to bake bread in some provinces for those who could not bring a certificate of catholicity. Thus they were put to the hard choice of starving or taking the sacrament, not daring to make their escape out of the kingdom, on pain, if taken, of tugging at an oar for the rest of life, (i, 291)

The Catholics had accused the Protestante of intolerance. Bayle treated this in several powerful chapters, and showed that the

82

B A Y L E AND TOLERATION

Protestants were as wrong as the Catholics, if they practiced it. Bayle was certainly no respector of persons when he was arguing for principles upon which his heart was set. The supposed falseness of doctrines does not give Protestants the least right to treat subjects ill. (i, 342) The Protestant record on toleration, however, was held to be relatively good ; that of the Catholics, not. Bayle contrasted Holland, Cleves, and England with Austria, Poland, and Savoy, (i, 349) Protestant intolerance is much less blameable than that of Catholics, for the utmost punishment is banishment. If there has been a punishment to death, it is because a friar or a monk in disguise has come with the intention of carrying out some hellish conspiracy, of which there have been a hundred examples, (i, 355) The burning of Servetus — constantly thrown at the Protestants — was handled courageously. This punishment, and a very small number like it, said Bayle, is regarded at present as a hideous blot upon the early days of the Reformation, "the sad and deplorable remains of Papism. I doubt not that if the magistrates of Geneva had such a case in hand to-day, they would carefully avoid any such violence. ' ' After all, is a medley of sects harmful to the state ? This common assumption is based, said Bayle, on the idea that they will not bear with one another. " B u t if each cultivated the toleration for which I contend, there might be the same harmony in a state composed of ten different sects, as there is in a town made up of several kinds of tradesmen." (i, 357) This was strikingly verified half a century later by Voltaire in his Letters on the English. Bayle felt that there should be honest emulation as to which should exceed in piety, good works, and spiritual knowledge. What is it then that hinders this delightful harmony arising from a concert of various voices and different sounds Τ That one religion will exercise a cruel tyranny over the understanding, and force conscience. . . . In a word, all the mischief arises, not from toleration, but the lack of it. (i, 358)

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

83

This happy state was prevented frequently by the attitude of the Catholic church. Its record is so bad that, where a state has shaken off the "yoke of popery," it should make the most severe laws against its readmission, (i, 343) Where Catholics live in a Protestant country, "they should be deprived of the power of doing mischief." But this does not mean that Catholics should not be tolerated, at least to some extent. Writers have usually denied Bayle the credit for this position.12 Yet Bayle is sufficiently explicit. Yet I should never be for leaving them exposed to personal insult, or for disturbing their enjoyment of property, or the private exercise of their religion, or allow any injustice in their appeals to law . . . much less constrain them to worship according to a religion condemned by their consciences. . . . Falseness of opinions is not the true test of toleration or non-toleration, but rather the danger that there may be to the public peace and security, (i, 343-4)

Bayle was consistent here, even though he had suffered much in person and family from the Catholic church. This raises the interesting question as to the extent of Bayle 's tolerance. He first laid down a general rule for guidance, a ' ' fixed point of liberty," as he called it. "It is the duty of superiors to use their endeavors to undeceive those in error, yet to leave them the full liberty of declaring for their own opinions." Foreigners of a different religion should have the right to enter, the same right that the early apostles enjoyed in their missionary activity. Natives of a country should be allowed to innovate in religion, else one should be "forging chains for conscience." (i, 352) Innovators should not be checked at the start, and restricted later only if they try to aggrandize for themselves and their party by means of civil disturbance. If this new doctor has really no designs of stirring up seditions, if his 12 For example, J. B. Bury, History of Freedom of Thought, 1911, p. 107; Euffini, the work cited, p. 129 ; J. M. Robertson, Short History of Free Thought, 3rd ed., 1906, II, 205.

84

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

only aim be to infuse his opinions because he thinks they are true and holy, and to establish them by reason and instruction — in this case, we ought to follow him, if we find he has truth on his side, and if he does not happen to convince us, yet we ought to permit those who are convinced, to serve God in this new doctor's way. (i, 361)

But an opponent of toleration will say, your argument leads to the toleration of Socinians, and Turks, and Jews. Horrors! That is absurd. But Bayle, still consistent, denied that it was absurd, and denied any just limit to toleration. "There can be no solid reason for tolerating any one sect, which does not equally hold for every other." (i, 377) Should Jews be tolerated? Certainly. Mohammedans? Without a doubt. " I see no reason why they should be thought less worthy of toleration than Jews." Unless they injure the public peace, they could not be justly banished, (i, 379) The very pagans were entitled to toleration, and the actions of Theodosius and Yalentinian were, therefore, inexcusable. "It is needless," he continued, "to insist in particular for a toleration of Socinians, since it appears that pagans, Jews, and Turks have a right to it." (i, 382) This led Bayle to examine the "position of the half-toleration gentlemen." (i, 382) Some would have those leaders of heresy punished who blaspheme the divinity.13 But how can a man blaspheme except he blaspheme the divinity in which he himself believes? If a man does not believe in the Trinity — of such was Servetus — he is not blaspheming if he speaks against a divinity which he disowns. "Each party uses the dictionary to suit its fancy, and asserts the hypothesis, Ί am right and you are wrong.' This only throws the world into a chaos more frightful than that of Ovid." (i, 386) Another argument of the demi-tolerationists is that those should be tolerated who accept the fundamentals. And Bayle answered for our century as well as his : "Now just what is a fundamental ?" Is !3 Jurieu was of this type, as his writings, already quoted, have shown.

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

85

it something the half-tolerant man believes fundamental, or something the accused person considers fundamental? "Quite truly," said Bayle "this lays the ground for a tedious debate," in which the accused will deny that he has been destroying a fundamental, which is such only in his accuser's brain. "It is poor reasoning, oft repeated, I may say, to argue that such appears to me a fundamental, and to say that, therefore, it is such." The demi-tolerationist would also exclude innovations and accept only the well-established truths, forgetting, of course, that there was a time when Calvinism and Lutheranism and Catholicism were innovations. Such an argument would justify the killing of such saints as Peter and Paul, (i, 389) This led to a conclusion of the matter by restating very fully the right of the erring conscience to hold to its beliefs. This had already come out in his earlier works, but Bayle gave it a full treatment in the Philosophical Commentary.1* One feels from reading the arguments for toleration that, to Bayle, this is really a fundamental point, for three lengthy chapters treat the rights of the erring conscience. Bayle admitted, of course, that a conscience may be poorly directed, but it is as much warranted in trying to advance a supposed truth as a well directed conscience in advancing the actual truth. He posed a number of illustrations — of two sons killing their fathers in precisely the same way but with their consciences acting differently, of almsgiving to a beggar by two persons, in one case the motive being quite different from the other. Or there may be the same laudable motive in the one giving the alms, and the other refusing it, each thinking his act for the beggar's own good. "An erroneous conscience challenges all the prerogatives for an error that an orthodox conscience can challenge for the truth." (i, 401-2) He used the example of a woman, who marries as her « See above, p. 50.

86

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

husband, one who conceals his legal inability to marry. ' ' The woman who honestly takes this counterfeit and admits him to her bed, does not commit a less warrantable action than if he were her true husband." (i. 417) Or, again, if one tries to kill a man in a coach, and does not succeed, is he really less guilty because of his failure Î And is there any difference of guilt between a Jew pillaging the temple at Jerusalem and a devout Greek sacking the shrine at Delphi* (i, 421) After all, said Bayle, the erring conscience is inevitable because of the prejudices one takes in with his mother's milk. God has willed it that human kind should be preserved by generation. There is need, in consequence, that we be children before we come to judge of good and evil. And our minds are so made that ' ' we cannot, by any infallible mark or character, distinguish what is really truth when we believe it from what is really not true though we believe it." (i, 462) Everybody believes that the truth in Scripture is deep, and requires the "captivating of our understandings to the obedience of faith. ' ' Nor can an infallible church help, for it depends on the acknowledgment of Scripture interpreted in a particular way. We must, in consequence, fall back on the limitations of a conscience that is capable of erring. This, to Bayle, was proved by the effects of education and of environment. If we had been born in China, we should all be of the Chinese religion, and if the people of China were born in England, they would all be Christians. And if a man and a woman were transported to a desert island, strongly persuaded as an article necessary to salvation, that in heaven the whole is not greater than the part, this at the end of two or three hundred years would be an article of faith in the religion of the country, (i, 473)

The third part of the Philosophical

Commentary,

published in

1687, was a treatment in very full fashion of the letters of St. Augustine, upon which the converters based their defence of force.15 Bayle made no attempt to refute Augustine's remarks with i ' Two letters were referred to by the Agreement

of the Conduct of the

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

87

reference to the time they were written. I t was not the Donatist schism that troubled him, but persecution in France. The chief significance of the attack on Augustine lies in its general defence of the voice of reason, of natural light, against the claims of theology. To Bayle, Augustine was an enthroned tyrant, who needed unseating, if the mind and conscience were to be unchained. He thought of him as the master of Aquinas and of Calvin. He disliked his dominance as cordially as Luther did that of Gratian when Luther threw the Decretals into the bonfire at Wittenberg in 1520. Bayle felt about Augustine, to use another illustration, as Sir Francis Bacon felt about Aristotle. He needed to be dethroned in order that men's minds be freed of theological trammels. Nothing shows this better than Bayle 's malevolent artice on Augustine in his Dictionary. Most of it is given over to Augustines moral irregularities before his conversion, an emphasis that he justified because that part of Augustine's life had not been treated in the biographical dictionaries. A cooperative, secular society, such as Bayle wished, could not obtain until Augustine should go the way of other intellectual despots like Aristotle and Gratian. Lecky would have it that Bayle " d i d more than any previous writer to break the spell which St. Augustine had so long cast over theology." 1β The Philosophical Commentary, by its fulness, the masterly and French Church (above, p. 72). One was written to a Donatist by the name of Vincent, the other to the tribune, Boniface. For the letters, see Migne, Patrologia Latino, tome xxxiii, epp. xcii and clxxv. The first is a lengthy treatise, occasioned by Vincent's belief that "nullam vim adhibendam esse homini, ut ab erroris pernicie liberetur." (column 233). But Augustine believed the wounds of a friend were better than the kisses of an enemy : ' ' Melius est cum severitate deligere, quam cum lenite decipere. " In the interpretation of the parable, to the tribune, Augustine assumed that the "highways and hedges," where the banqueters were to be sought, referred to heresies and schisms. (Col. 804) " D e ipsis, sane possumus verissime dicere, quod neminem cogant ad bonum; quoscumque enim cogunt, non cogunt nisi ad malum." (804) Compulsion, seemingly, is not compulsion. ι« History of Rationalism in Europe, 1870, Vol. II, p. 60.

88

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

logical form it received, by its bold and consistent stand on toleration, takes front rank among works of its kind. "It is the first exposition of the principle of tolerance, which appeared in our language," wrote Pu aux.17 Certainly it is the first work in any language to treat the subject in a large way, and in such popular fashion that its ideas would be a real influence. Here is no Spinoza writing in Latin on the Liberty

of Philosophizing.

It helped to

shake, as no otter volume had yet done, those ancestral prejudgments which Bayle was disparaging. The eighteenth century found it a great guide for the movement toward liberty of belief and of speech. In the French Encyclopédie of Diderot, there was a noble article on Tolerance, in which the reader was referred to the Philosophical

Commentary,

as to the volume "which exhausts

the subject." Above all men, who had yet written, he became the acknowledged champion of toleration. Lecky's judgment of the Philosophical Commentary was that it "formed more than any other work the foundation of modern rationalism. ' ' 1 8 There can be no doubt as to the great use made of the work in the eighteenth century. It was englished in 1708, and was in German before the French Revolution. A new edition appeared in French about the time of Louis XIV's demise, at' a time when the errors of his rule were becoming abundantly apparent. The Preface of this edition affirmed that "there is perhaps no work in the whole republic of letters which more merits reprinting than this. . . . In the judgment of many it' is the greatest product of one of the finest minds of the century just passed. ' ' The Roman Catholic authorities felt otherwise; in 1714, they saw fit to put it on the Index of Prohibited Books. Long before that, however, it had aroused the Protestant ire of Jurieu, to whom the third and fourth parts of the it Work cited, p. 55. ι» Work cited, Vol. II, p. 60. See also Robertson, the work cited, ii, 205; and Lanfrey, L'Église et les Philosophes au dix-huitième siècle, 1855, p. 82. And there are numerous other laudatory references.

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

89

work were really answers. It was in truth the doom of Jurieu and of his kind. B A Y L E AND L O C K E

Professor Bury regards Bayle 's work as "ranking in importance beside Locke's work which was being composed at the same time. ' ' l · The statement deserves brief consideration. Locke's Epistola de Tolerantia of 1689 was also the production of a Dutch press. Locke, like Bayle, had been attracted to philosophy by Descartes, and like Bayle and Descartes became a refugee in Holland. He went there two years after Bayle left Sedan, and remained until William and Mary became the rulers of England as well as of Holland in 1689.20 When death overtook Locke in 1704 — two years before Bayle 's death — the English philosopher had long ceased to be a refugee. Locke had written an essay on toleration as early as 1666, but it never saw the light during his lifetime. In 1685 when events in France turned his thoughts to the question of toleration, Locke wrote a letter to a Dutch minister, Limborch. He was then urged to publish this letter on toleration ; it was accordingly printed in Latin in 1689. In the same year it was translated into English and published in London.21 Locke's Letter aroused an antagonist — in Queen's College, Oxford — and led to a second and a third letter in 1690 and 1692. His death in 1704 prevented the completion of a fourth in defence of his position. The stand taken by these two great champions of religious liberty ie History of Freedom of Thought, p. 107. 20 Bayle and Locke do not appear to have been in very close touch. Locke lived for two years in Rotterdam, but he seems to have been in another " s e t , " so to speak. In 1702, Locke wrote to a friend in Holland: " P r a y give my service particularly to Mr. Bayle. . . . I value his opinion in the first rank." See H. R. F. Bourne, The Life of John Locke, 1876, II, 43-44. 21 Both forms of publication were anonymous. The first English edition, a quarto of sixty-one pages, bore the title, A Letter Concerning Toleration, humbly submitted, etc.

90

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

was parallel in many respects. Locke believed, as did Bayle, that eveiy church is orthodox to itself,22 that it is more important to root out immorality than to extirpate sects (4), that outward force cannot compel the understanding (7), that magistrates should be limited in their use of force to the preservation of peace. (21) He held that the church might dismiss members, but that they should not be roughly used. (14) Locke, like Bayle, used interesting illustrations, though not with Bayle's freedom and daring. The Englishman supposed an Arminian and a Calvinist church in Constantinople. If they acted as they have in western Europe, the Turks would laugh at them. (16) Locke also supposed a small group of Christians settling in a pagan country, where they are tolerated, grow stronger, and assume power. "Are they then to overthrow idolatory ?" (35) Locke's answer is an emphatic negative. The English philosopher discussed fully the limits of the civil power, a field in which he was very much interested. He then took up the various articles of faith, and the extent of toleration. Here the two men did not see eye to eye. Locke would not tolerate ' ' opinions contrary to human society," (45) or those, such as Catholics, who "arrogate to themselves some peculiar prerogatives" (46), or a church so constituted that ' ' its members, ipso facto, deliver themselves to the service and protection of another prince." (47) Locke included Mohammedans under this head. Nor would he tolerate those who do not believe in God. He listed, as worthy of toleration, Presbyterians, Independents, Anabaptists, Arminians, and Quakers, (48) but was doubtful about Socinians, though they are not specifically excluded. The famous Toleration Act of 1689 did not measure up to the wishes of Locke, to say nothing of those of Bayle. Catholics, Socinians, Jews, and pagans were given no privileges ; the Dissenters, who did receive some relief, were still excluded, legally, from public office. « P. 16, of the first English edition.

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

91

Locke banned atheists on the ground that covenants and oaths are the bonds of human society; the state has no hold on an atheist, " f o r the taking away of God, even in thought dissolves all." (48) Here he is in sharp contrast to Bayle's defence of the morality of atheists. It is surprising, however, that Bayle did not say more about the atheist in his Philosophical Commentary. His argument about the erring conscience (of which Locke wrote nothing) would seem to justify the toleration of atheism. But Bayle denied that " I open the way for the atheist." (i, 429) He held that the magistrate is obliged to promote public welfare, and should punish those who sap the fundamental laws of the state, and "among such laws are commonly reckoned the belief in a providence and the fear of divine justice." (i, 430) This is not a very positive position, since Bayle thought about atheists in much the same way that Locke looked on Socinians. One cannot help feeling that Bayle would have tolerated atheists, whose moral condition he had already defended in the work on the comet, had it been possible to influence opinion at the time. Nor was it necessary to push this matter in a work where the theological issue was a chief concern. The implication is clear, however, and we shall find that he later befriends the atheist again and again. He did this so effectively in the Dictionary as to invite the charge of atheism against himself. The writer has no desire to disparage Locke in order to laud Bayle. Yet a comparison of the two shows Locke somewhat of a demi-tolerationist, according to Bayle 's definition. The deistic position taken by Bayle is not advanced by Locke. In Locke's mind the gospel came first ; toleration is to be accepted because it is " agreeable to the gospel of Jesus Christ and to the genuine reason." (5) Locke's Letter is hardly extended enough for a full comparison with Bayle 's Commentary. Locke's brief outline, published three years later than Bayle 's work, contains nothing novel to the reader of the

Commentary.

92

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

It would be hard to determine which work had the greater influence since both writers advanced similar, if not exactly the same, principles about the same time. Bayle certainly created considerable stir on the Continent. In 1718 a Protestant minister in Berlin wrote a Refutation

of the Philosophical

Commentary,

"overturning all the

sophisms which the author (Bayle) designedly uses to establish in all places an unlimited tolerance." 23 The author was prompted to publish a work written some twenty-three years earlier, by the success of Bayle 's work. I write to sustain truth against the greatest philosopher of our days, who has wished to endow error and falsehood with privileges — a thing he has done so artfully that a great number of our best pens have succumbed to his malevolent ideas. . . . Never [he added], was there anything more detestable or pernicious than this book of iniquity, this tissue of impieties. (13)

Bayles influence on England was probably slight, at least until after 1708, when the Commentary

appeared in an English transla-

tion. 24 We shall conclude with an interesting reference to Bayle in the edition of Locke's essays on toleration, which appeared in 1765. ' ' It should be observed that though this nation is greatly indebted to Mr. Locke for defending the cause of religious liberty in the strongest and clearest manner, yet the old writers are not to be forgotten, as they laid the foundations." Besides the writings of 23 Philippe Naudé, Réfutation du Commentaire Philosophique, 2 vols., 1718. It may have been a force earlier. I have read a most interesting pamphlet, licensed in August of 1687, on Som(l) Free Reflections upon occasion of the Public Discourse about Liberty of Conscience " b y one who embraces whatsoever of true Religion there is in a l ( ! ) Professions and hates everything which makes any of them hate or hurt one another. ' ' This forty-page pamphlet made much of the " l i g h t of n a t u r e " (Bayle's phrase), emphasized the toleration among ancient pagans, the tolerance of the primitive Christians, and the impossibility of establishing religion by force. Toleration is a natural right and a Christian duty (Bayle's order of treatment). The author does not appear to have been a Boman Catholic, since Christianity consisted for liim " n o t in any speculations nor shadowy ceremonies, but wholly and solely in actual obedience to his holy precepts."

BAYLE AND TOLERATION

93

Civil-War times, " t h e r e is likewise a valuable treatise of Mr. Bayle 's, entitled a Philosophical

Commentary,

. . . published in

1686." The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis X I V and James I I ' s headstrong rule in England aroused two great thinkers to make the case for toleration so clear that it only remained for a slowly moving public opinion to catch up.

CHAPTER

V

A CITIZEN OP THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS In March of 1684 there appeared from an Amsterdam press a duodecimo of 104 pages, claiming to be the first number of a new scientific and literary monthly. The News of the Republic of Letters, as it was called, did not indicate its author until a year later, when the title page announced it to be "le sieur Β. . . Professeur en Philosophie et en Histoire à Rotterdam. ' ' Even then Bayle avowed the authorship only because he felt it due to the magistrates of Rotterdam to express his obligation, since the journal — already an important force — was appearing from an Amsterdam press. After noticing in a review that Rotterdam is famous, not only for commerce but for culture, in that it has rendered honors to the great Erasmus, he added : A very real evidence of this interest in the sciences was shown three years ago. I speak of the École Illustre that the magistrates of Rotterdam had the generosity to found in 1681. If the public receives instruction and diversion from this News of the Republic of Letters, it is owing to these gentlemen. They have made it possible for me to lead the tranquil life which permits me to carry so heavy a burden. . . . If something to the advantage of this News has been said, I consecrate it entirely to the glory of this city. (Mar., 1685, p. 300.)

This concession to municipal jealousy introduces us to a phase of Bayle 's activity quite new in type. His amazing fecundity made the project a possibility and a success, for during the mid-eighties Bayle was producing his works on the French religious persecution and on toleration, in addition to bearing alone the burden of this monthly review. There is little wonder that his health broke down

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

95

in 1687, and that his monthly journal passed into the hands of another editor. Bayle was not the first journalist, but he came very early in the history of periodical journalism. 1 A brief retrospect will show, moreover, that he occupied a very important place in the succession. The passion f o r news is as old as the world. Y e t before printing there were natural limitations to the effective spreading of news. Not until after Bayle 's birth did the regular appearance of journals begin to forecast the amazing modern methods of "broadcasting" news. T o France belongs the credit of giving birth to the first periodical gazette, and the first literary journal. In 1631 Renaudot obtained the right to issue the Gazette. It was more than a right ; he had a monopoly for France of the publication of " p a p i e r s " telling of "things to come both within and without the kingdom." 2 The Gazette of Renaudot remained for a century and a half the only French political journal. I t was subordinated to the government from the first, although it did not become an official organ, the Gazette de France, until a few decades before the French Revolution. There was thought to be no infringement of its territory when a councillor of the Parlement of Paris, De Sallo, established the Journal

des Sçavans in 1665, thirty years after the Gazette began

its long course. De Sallo planned to do for the learned world what the Gazette was doing f o r political affairs. His grant was just as monopolistic as Renaudot's. The title seems to have repelled readers at first until De Sallo explained that his periodical would notice all the extraordinary things in the world of nature, and everything ι The

distinguished

nineteenth-century

critic,

Arsène

Houssaye,

spoke

of

B a y l e a s the " f i r s t j o u r n a l i s t , " because of the w a y in which he contributed to the " a r t . "

H o u s s a y e declared that the News

" c o m m e le verbe de la v é r i t é . " Galeries 2 H a t i n , E . , Les et xviiie

siècles,

Gazettes

1865, p. 16.

w a s awaited even to the Indies

du xviiie

de Hollande

et

siècle.

la Presse

clandestine

aux

xviie

96

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

interesting in the arts and sciences.* His control was short, despite his real ability.4 The Jesuits suspected De Sallo of a leaning toward Gallicanism and the Jansenists. They procured papal action by which the publication of De Sallo's journal was stopped — and then revived in 1666 under the suitable editorship of the Abbé Gaulois. Henceforth, its course was uninterrupted, though the liberty of the press in France was not at all aided by the mistreatment of De Sallo. In 1675 Abbé Gaulois was succeeded by the Abbe de la Roque; his editorship continued through the period when Bayle was publishing his News. De la Roque was not a distinguished journalist, for he lacked both judgment and learning. The very weakness of the one officially fostered French scientific and literary periodical gave Bayle an even better opportunity for doing an important service. We shall find that his monthly was of the type of the Journal des Sçavans. In 1672 the first example of another type of periodical appeared in France under the name of the Mercure Galant. Its field was broad, though not primarily political or learned. De Visé aimed to entertain by means of diverting chronicles of society and by the appeal to "human interest." Vital statistics, short poems, enigmas — the cross-word puzzle was not yet invented — music, even an occasional sermon or learned article were included in the Mercure's repertoire.5 Like its two predecessors, this journal had a monopoly, and began a distinct type of periodical. Each one of the three that we have found it necessary to notice were imitated in other countries, when they were not actually pirated. There were, for example, a number of gazettes in other s E. Hatin, Histoire politique et littéraire de la Presse en France, 8 vols., 1859, is exhaustive. See II, 162. * Hatin, Histoire, ii, 153, made the following comparison, in praising De Sallo: " H e can be placed beside Bayle for breadth and fecundity." In Hatin's judgment, this was the most laudable statement that could be made. o There was a diverting ' ' news-letter ' ' addressed ' ' à Madame " ; as one might well suppose, the news was presented with a light touch.

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

97

countries before the London Gazette made its bow in 1665. Various learned journals appeared after 1665 to cater to the interests of the "curious" and "ingenious." One of the first was the London Philosophical

Transactions,

the word "philosophical" here denot-

ing a very broad interest, comparable to the French use of "philosophie." Another of the same type was founded at Leipzig in the early eighties, with the corresponding Latin title, Acta

Eruditorum.

Italy and Sweden were other countries where early periodicals were patterned after the French models.® Holland was somewhat backward in issuing full-fledged periodicals of the type we have described. But. it was very largely the source for a vigorous clandestine literature in French that infringed the monopolies of the three licensed French journals. From the beginning the Journal

des Sçavans

was pirated in Holland.

But, worse than that, there was constant poaching, so to speak, by hand-written and printed news sheets. These secret gazettes found their way into France by "underground" routes, when they were not actually printed in the forbidden land. So active were they and so much did the government fear their circulation that the police were kept busy trying to stop ' ' malevolent persons composing seditious libels called 'secret gazettes.' " T Louis's dream was not only unity in religious worship, but uniformity in the character of literature and of opinions. No end of effort was made to suppress a Nouvelles

Ecclésiastiques,

which appeared regularly until long

after the French Revolution. But the government was never able to find the editor or printer of this weapon for attacking the church, though the printers were menaced with the pillory, the authors β It is not necessary to note the numerous imitators of the Mercure. A Mercurios Librarius appeared in England in 1680. In 1681 began the Weekly Memorials of the Ingenious, which freely borrowed from the Journal des Sçavans. The famous Spectator and Tatler of the next century were more on the type of the Mercure. The first entirely original English review was the Memorials of Literature (1710). 7 Hatin, Les Gazettes, p. 23.

98

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

with banishment, and despite the burning of copies by the public hangman. Louis was also very much irritated by the freedom of the Dutch press. It has even been declared that the insolence of the gazettes of Holland was one of the causes for the war of 1672. Such were the conditions when Bayle entered the field of journalism. He had remarked, after going to Holland, on the absence of a French scientific journal, and thought of filling the gap with one by himself, since he felt that the function of a journalist "suited him best." The actual impulse to the decision came in 1684 with the establishment of a Mercure Savant at Amsterdam by a certain De Blégny. This quack doctor had failed to launch successfully a medical journal in Paris in the late seventies. He then sought another environment, but his despicable Mercure

led the friends of

Bayle, including Jurieu, to urge that Bayle carry out his design. The result was the first number of the News of the Republic of Letters in the spring of 1684. The title of Bayle 's monthly journal is interesting. The "republic of letters" was as yet a very real cosmopolitan group. In the days of Erasmus national lines had not yet been clearly drawn for those wandering citizens of the world with whom Latin was the common medium. Erasmus was as much at home with More and Colet in England, or at the house of Aldus in Venice, as he was in the city of Rotterdam. In Bayle 's day the learned world was enlarging at an accelerating speed, and the national languages were beginning to impinge more and more on Latin. As yet, also, the field of culture had not been so compartmented as it later became, although the subdivision had already begun. Men of letters in Bayle 's day still tried to master a broad range of interests, and keep abreast of what was published. Bayle 's magazine was intended for more than Holland and France. It might be added that the phrase "republic of letters" proved popular in the next century as the title for similar publications.

N E W S OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

To Bayle this title seemed a happier one than Journal

99

des

Sçavans, since he frankly desired to appeal to a large public. But we can best let him speak for himself in the words of the preface of the first number. Ever since Monsieur De Sallo made the first attempt of this kind in the year 1665, many nations have shown their pleasure, sometimes by a translation of the Journal des Sçavans, sometimes by publishing similar works. Physicians and chemists have published their own journals; jurisprudence and medicine have theirs ; there is one for music ; society news mixed with that of religion, war, and polities, has its Mercure.

He then remarked on the backwardness of Holland in this regard. It is a country noted for victories and commerce. There is an abundance of publishers. Moreover, it has an advantage found in no other country: there is such liberty of printing that writers from all Europe turn to Holland when they have difficulty in obtaining a license for their publications. "Surely, if Milton had lived in the Provinces, he would not have found it necessary to write a book on the liberty of printing. ' ' Bayle felt that this gave great advantages for a periodical designed after the Journal des Sçavans. The editor of Holland's first important literary and scientific journal made it clear, however, that the favorable conditions for free speech and printing would not make his News the headquarters for lies or the vent for memoirs that were intended to ruin one's enemies. ' ' Such is unworthy of an honnête homme ; nothing is more displeasing in the Mercure Savant than the reigning habit of mistreating prominent people." "Books will be judged without prejudice or malignity, and in such a way as not to cause irritation. Whether we approve or disapprove, it will only be as a means of furnishing a new opportunity to the learned to improve general knowledge." He also made it clear that in writing about books on religion he would avoid partiality as much as possible. "Our business will be rather to report than to judge. ' ' The News was also

100

N E W S OF T H E R E P U B L I C OF L E T T E R S

to contain obituaries of the better known personages to whom death has come. A monk will receive as much consideration as any other savant. It is not a question of religion ; it is a matter of science. One should put aside all the terms that divide men into factions, and consider only that which unites them as illustrious men of the republic of letters.

Bayle 's preface proved a true augury of the work. Its tone was modest, its declared purpose to contribute in a real way to the advance of culture, to serve as a moderating influence at a time when controversy was all too bitter. In his day there were not only religious and philosophical heresies, but scientific and literary ones as well. By avoiding politics and using his admirable judgment, Bayle made a decided contribution by his News to the literary life of his time. He was admirably fitted for the rôle. His intellectual neutrality was seldom forsaken; he had been an insatiable reader all his life ; from the beginning a quality of detachment had made it possible to be a judge rather than an advocate. But if Bayle was disinterested and tolerant, he had an insatiable curiosity. Added to all this, was the neat, precise way he had of stating a situation, of summing up an argument, and analyzing the opinions of a writer. Such qualities were rare in his day. The great authority on the history of the press declared that Bayle had "an ability that few men have possessed, even since, of expressing and summing up the ideas of another." One need not be surprised to learn that Bayle became "the universal reporter of Europe," and that the founding of his News was as "important an event as the founding of the Journal des Sçavans."

8

It is interesting to turn the pages of this unassuming but powerful publication. Each monthly issue contained within its hundred and twenty pages some dozen "articles." The greater portion would be reviews of single books: one on the published funeral β Hatin, Histoire, II, 241 ; and Sayous, work cited, I, 272.

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

101

oration of Maria Theresa of Austria might be followed by that of a Latin work on chemistry, or Simon's Historical Old Testament,

Criticism of the

or a work on the temptation of Eve in the Garden.

A new edition of Suetonius, a history of the reign of Francis I, a criticism of the philosophy of Malebranche or Arnauld, Flaherty's Chronology

of Ireland,

a French translation of the idylls of Bion

and Moschus, a traveler's account of Persia, all came within the province of his News. Interspersed among the notices appeared letters to the editor on subjects of interest, or communications that had been procured of something strange in the world of nature or archaeology. Many "curiosities" were noticed. There might be a description, with a plate, of a Roman seal showing a boy and a lion sleeping side by side; or a physician's account of a child whose body was decorated with excrescences like horns, again illustrated; or the peculiar way in which a fractured bone healed; or an illustrated communication on the anatomy of the eye. An article might be devoted to a new means of raising water to a high level, or to an intricate geometrical problem, or to a woman bringing forth a dog, or to the surprising case of a human corpse that remained warm for several days. Bayle knew very well how to add seasoning, as it were, to the repast he set before his readers. The only "advertisement" that appeared was an occasional request that books for review be sent to the publisher of the magazine. There might be also a correction or a disavowal that the editor was connected with any other periodical. The review had its limitations. Bayle never seems to have taken the trouble to learn the Dutch language, and books in that tongue do not appear to have received any attention. In fact, the need for a review in Dutch was met in 1692 by another Rotterdam professor, Rabus, whose bi-monthly, De Boekzaal

van Europa

(The Library

of Europe) admitted that it was inspired by Bayle 's journal to

102

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

furnish similar advantages to the residents of Holland who could not read French. The important Hollandsche Spectator of the next century was so decidedly Baylian in its liberal point of view that the editor was accused of being Bayle 's disciple.® There was an occasional review of a book in English, though Bayle was not at home in that language. Italian works were also reviewed, but those in German do not appear to have taken his attention, save those from Germany which were in Latin. French was so clearly the dominant European language, apart from Latin, in the literary as well as in the diplomatic world of the time that such limitations were by no means serious. Historians of French literature have complained, and rightly no doubt, that Bayle did not give sufficient attention to pure literature at a time when French literary expression was in its most polished stage. He was more likely to misjudge here than in the realms of theology or science or philosophy. But it should be noted that the very period when he was an editor was less important in the literary productivity within France than the years that preceded or succeeded. This lack of interest in pure literature was reflected by his care free and voluminous writing, which, by its rhetorical mannerisms, seemed to hark back to Montaigne rather than look forward to Voltaire. Bayle was, above all, interested in ideas and their presentation. If he lacked a consummate French style, it was even, as Hatin has pointed out, an advantage. He had a "sufficient" style; the more self-conscious Voltaire was restricted by the very quality in which Bayle was not so distinct. Bayle was preoccupied with matter, not with manner. Inevitably there was controversy over Bayle 's reviews of certain books, try as he would to be fair and impartial. But the justice and learning which he showed won him a wide hearing despite the ill feeling of some whose amour propre was aroused. The London Royal β Serrurier, work cited, p. 81.

N E W S OF T H E REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

103

Society thanked him warmly for his project, and expressed the wish to hold a regular correspondence with him. He was also in communication with the similar society in Dublin. The French Academy, through its secretary, warmly commended him. There is no better evidence of his "dictatorship in the world of letters" than the eagerness with which his News was read in Prance. Though it entered the country " à la sourdine, ' ' it was openly read and publicly praised. The editor of the Mercure Galant could have rendered Bayle no greater homage than the offer, in the latter part of 1684, to print answers to Bayle 's reviews. There is printed in Holland [he wrote], a monthly called the News of the Republic of Letters. It is a sort of "journal des sçavans," but broader. The author is esteemed; the work has been well received. It has much spice, which has contributed not a little to its success. . . . One finds here not only the subjects and beauties of new books, but also the faults which this author believes he finds.

The Mercure then offered to advantage injured authors by printing their replies, thus saving them the cost of a printed pamphlet, which in any case might be seen by a very few. This offer is made to the writers of every nation, foreign as well as French.10 One of the pleasantest features of this journalistic venture of Bayle was the enlargement of his acquaintance in that republic of letters that transcended national and linguistic limits. His correspondence very greatly increased, though he had already become an indefatigable letter writer. Christina, the Queen of Sweden, was aroused by a reference in a review to her condemnation of the persecution in France, but Bayle acted so carefully in the affair as to win her friendship. A very interesting correspondence resulted, in which the Swedish Queen showed both her intellectual interests and her high regard for Bayle. io Hatin, Les Gazettes, pp. 131-33.

104

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

I will enjoin you a penance, which is that hereafter you will take the trouble to send me all curious books published in Latin, French, Spanish, and Italian, on whatever subject or science . . . above, all, any books of chemistry. . . . Do not forget, likewise, to send me your Journal. . . . This will be the most agreeable and important service that can be done me.11

Arnauld was bitter against Bayle, who rather leaned to the opinions of Malebranche on the relation of pleasure to the senses. Arnauld even published an Advice to the Author of the News of the Republic of Letters in 1685. Bayle 's relations with Malebranche became so pleasant that the former even corrected the proofs of a work of Malebranche that was printed in Rotterdam. An amusing episode in Fontenelle's usually judicious career resulted from Bayle 's habit of inserting correspondence. In the issue for January, 1686, Bayle inserted a supposed letter written from the East Indies, contained in a letter written by Pontenelle to Bayle 's friend, Basnage. It was an account of the civil wars in Borneo, arising from the bitter contest of two queens, Mreo and Enegue. Bayle gravely prefaced the account by a few words relative to the lively interest of the learned world in the Indies, its plants, its animals, and its peoples. Fontenelle's supposed letter was but a slightly concealed satirical allegory on the religious troubles in France, Mreo and Enegue being anagrams for Rome and Geneva. The author found considerable trouble in explaining to the French his account of Mreo's policy of introducing novelties, of her failure to enforce the rule that all her ministers be eunuchs, her custom of embalming her dead favorites and requiring special respect for them from her subjects. Bloody battles raged in Borneo between the queens as to which more resembled their common ancestor. The latest news was to the effect that Mreo had caught Enegue's supporters in a defile and demanded an oath of fidelity. Further news as to the outcome was to be awaited with interest. Fontenelle barely li Desmaizeaux, XVI, 102.

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

105

escaped the Bastille for his allegory of "barbarous countries whose customs and manners are so strange." Bayle's correspondence is an interesting record of the republic of letters of his time, so much so that it was gathered from here and there after his death and published. Three volumes of letters appeared in 1714. There were additions and reissues in 1727, 1729, 1737, and 1739. There are in all some five hundred published letters. Bayle had correspondents in all "camps" ; "One finds the Calvinist theologian beside the Catholic priest, the Christian idealistic philosopher along with the rationalistic critics, the serious savant and the bel esprit."

The index of his correspondents is a list of the noted

men of this time.12 For Bayle, the exile, the refugee, this real citizenship in the society of letters meant much. The exile from the land of his birth became less hard to bear, the unimportance of the Rotterdam teaching position found more than compensation in his international relationships. His friends still sought to facilitate his return to France. The offer of a better university position in Holland came at this time. But Bayle found Rotterdam an attractive and convenient center. The breakdown of his health in the spring of 1687 forced him to give up editorial duties. There were several continuations of his work. His official successor was Basnage, whose journal was published at Rotterdam for the next quarter of a century. Basnage was so conscious of the difficulty of measuring up to the Baylian standard that he preferred to give his journal a new name, Histoire des Ouvrages des Sçavans. If Basnage does not hold so high a place as Bayle in the field of journalism, he proved a not unworthy successor. Another close friend of Bayle was the refugee, Étienne i2 See Emile Gigae, Choix de la correspondance inedite de Pierre Bayle, Copenhagen, 1890. This volume contains some valuable additions to Bayle 's correspondence, found in the manuscripts of the Royal Library of Copenhagen.

106

NEWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF LETTERS

Chauvin. During Bayle 's illness his teaching duties were taken over by Chauvin. In 1696 the latter went to Berlin to be the pastor of the French church, professor of philosophy, and a member of the Royal Society of Science. His New Journal of the Learned appeared there for some years. A literary periodical continued to appear at Amsterdam under the original title. It was edited by Larroque and continued, with some interruptions, until 1718. Probably the most notable continuator of the new journalism was Jean Le Clerc, who began his Bibliothèque

universelle et his-

torique at Amsterdam in 1686. Le Clerc was considered the best of the journalists after Bayle. Various collaborators, including John Locke for a time, assisted him in his work. Voltaire, in his history of the age of Louis XIV, wrote of Le Clerc : ' ' The greatest merit of Le Clerc is to have measured up somewhat to Bayle, whom he often combated. He wrote much more than that great man, but he lacked Bayle 's ability to please and instruct at the same time." To Voltaire, Bayle represented the highest standard of journalism. De Sallo may have invented the periodical, he wrote, but Bayle "perfected this type of writing." 13 i> Oeuvres, XIV, 132 ; XXII, 263.

CHAPTER V I

T H E VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE Bayle 's physical breakdown early in 1687 prevented the completion of the February number of the News. A t first, Bayle thought a short rest would be sufficient. But it was long before he was back at his desk. In a letter written in March of 1688, he declared to a friend : It is more than thirteen months since I fell sick. All the while I have only lingered and languished, and I now just begin, at the return of this spring, to take a little literary exercise. . . . I have made a journey to Cleves, another to Aix (to drink the waters), and upon my return hither I have immersed myself in the greatest seclusion possible, without either reading or writing. At last, after I thought myself sufficiently rested, I resumed my philosophical lectures, but with regard to other matters I still keep myself in full and absolute inaction. . . . I have not as yet returned to my books, nay I do not so much as run through the literary journals.1 This annoying cessation in Bayle 's intellectual life was soon followed by an even more troublesome attack. It proved not to be another fever. The attack he next endured was at the hands of Juri eu, the arch-defender of orthodoxy. Though the theologian proved successful in driving his former friend from the professorship he held in Rotterdam, the essential victory lay with Bayle. Some attention must needs be given to this episode in Bayle 's career, though Bayle soon rose above this seeming misfortune to the climax of his career. Jurieu was to win, and lose. Jurieu has been mentioned a number of times. His career externally seemed to parallel Bayle's. Jurieu was the son of a French Protestant minister of central France. After receiving his education ι Quoted by Desmaizeaux, XVI, 107.

108

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

— at Saumur and Sedan — he was for a time minister in succession to his father in his native village near Blois. In 1674 he became a professor at Sedan, of Hebrew and theology. Both Jurieu and Bayle went to Rotterdam in 1681 to teach their respective subjects in the École Illustre. We have already found that Jurieu was a pastor in addition to his duties as a teacher. Jurieu was ten years Bayle 's senior. He seems to have shown from his early years a mind of great promise. As early as 1666 he had been asked to be the Walloon pastor at Rotterdam. From the first he conceived it necessary to defend the church against any deviation from the strict principles handed down by Calvin. His earnestness as the watchdog of orthodoxy had been shown, indeed, long before his removal to Rotterdam. The beliefs of Pajon and others were boldly questioned, on the ground that any relaxation from orthodoxy was but an invitation to further wanderings. The explanation of his constant embroilment in controversy, both within his own communion and beyond as well, seems to have been a choleric temperament joined with an energy so abounding that it needed constant opportunities for expression. In his self-assumed rôle of Protestant inquisitor, Jurieu attacked friends and relatives with the same gusto that he displayed in his tirades against Bossuet, Maimbourg, and Arnauld. In 1681, for example, he wrote so sharp a book against his uncle that the latter was constrained to nickname the nephew, "Jurieu, l'injurieux," a title he was never able to shake off. One need have no surprise at his attack on Bayle. Jurieu had an able mind, a good style of writing, and as much energy as Bayle. In 1681 he won a name as the defender of Protestantism by his La Politique

du clergé

de France.

In the

following year he heartened his suffering co-religionists by a Préservatif contre le changement de religion, and exhibited their sufferings in the moving Derniers Efforts de l'innocence

affligée. His reply to

Maimbourg was considered the official retort of orthodoxy.

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

109

By the time of the Revocation Jurieu had won a great reputation. He was the oracle, the chief controversialist, the most powerful voice of the dispersed French Protestants. The Catholics, themselves, recognized this. Bossuet spoke of Jurieu as a sort of general pastor of the Huguenots, in allusion, perhaps, to his pastoral letters, which were printed and widely circulated. It was unfortunate for the church to which Jurieu belonged that its acknowledged leader should feel it necessary for his spiritual health to keep in continual combat with some one. But such men are not too rare. Exalted by this rôle that their abilities and the plaudits of their admirers grant them, they seem to forget some of the Christian virtues in a desire to fulfill their mission. Jurieu illustrates the type as well as any one in his contentious age. JURIEU's ATTACK ON BAYLE

There are several possible explanations for Jurieu's feeling against Bayle. His natural disputatiousness, his assumed position as the chief defender of the faith, were made only the more keen by the retorts that the Catholic writers hurled at him. Bossuet could dub Jurieu the archbishop of his flock ; he also accused him of really helping Socinianism. When Bossuet asserted that the "glory of Christianity has been delivered to the Socinians; the evil has even reached the head of the church, ' ' it gave Jurieu pause. Was he careless in watching over the flock? Were there wolves within the fold ? As a result, his natural inclination redoubled. In this saddening but curious and instructive war, Bayle was but one of the wolves whom Jurieu endeavored to unmask. French Protestantism in Holland, in the decade following the Revocation, was torn by internal strife, with Jurieu usually in the center of the field. The writer has no desire to retrace, step by step, the tiresome controversy begun in the mid-eighties between Bayle and Jurieu. Its larger outlines, however, are useful as showing the great advo-

110

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

cate of toleration a partial victim of the spirit he was trying to exorcise. Bayle 's Philosophical

Commentary

of

1686 aroused

Jurieu's suspicions. If such a work, in which the gates were lowered even for Socinians, was to pass unchallenged, Bayle might assert successfully a leadership within the refugee church as it moved toward a relaxed belief. Jurieu's concern was undoubtedly genuine. As shepherd of the dispersed flock, he felt the very real danger of the exile. Their situation was not unlike that of the Old Testament Jews, especially as Jurieu came to believe in the ultimate return to France. The alien and tolerant atmosphere of Holland did just what Jurieu feared; it increased divisions within the branch of the church of which he believed himself the leader. He felt the same fear that so concerned the Separatist exiles from England when they left Leyden earlier in the century to establish a home in New England — where the danger of alien influences and of disunion would no longer threaten. Even before the publication of the Philosophical Commentary the ideas of the two men were notably divergent. The doctrine of the erring conscience had received some attention in Bayle 's criticism of Maimbourg. But such a doctrine was "despicable" to Jurieu, so much so that he replied to the ideas of Bayle on conscience in his True System of the Church (1686). But Jurieu could not stomach Bayle 's great work on toleration. He replied openly to the work, of which he did not at the time know the authorship, in 1687 by The Rights of the Two in the Matter

of Religion,

Sovereigns

the Conscience and the Prince.2

The

elaborated title made it clear that the work was "to destroy the dogma of the indifference of religions and of universal tolerance, against a book entitled a Philosophical Commentary."

The preface

explained why he had picked out this book for attack when there are a hundred other "méchants livres" of the same kind. Three 2 Des Droits des deux souverains.

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

111

reasons were given : " It is by refugee theologians ( ! ) who should be branded for their indifference in religion and in action"; the public should know that such principles are detested by true Protestants; and, thirdly, the "world today is full of these indifferente, especially here in the Provinces." He rightly questioned the pretended English origin of the Commentary : "England has enough malicious books without adding this one. To be a disciple of Hobbes, one does not have to live in the same island with him ; unfortunately, there are libertines everywhere." He held this "conspiracy against the truth" to be the work of a cabal. The chapters on the erring conscience appeared to Jurieu to be the heart of the work ; its rights are developed with a view to establishing tolerance and a general indifference of all sects and even of all religions. . . . (12) Their anger against persecution [he assumed], is principally owing to their hatred of truth, an accusation which I doubt if they will try to answer. (12)

The whole world can believe as it wishes, according to them, the Turk, the Jew, and the pagan, and all the erring sects in Christianity with their superstitions and heresies, for these men think it right to tolerate, not only the Socinians but the Jews, the Mohammedans, and the pagans, to permit them all to have public worship, to dogmatize, and to make converts. That, believe me, is the aim of this book. The work has been produced to establish that most dangerous of all the Socinian dogmas, leading to the ruin of Christianity and establishing indifference regarding religion. (14)

Jurieu, of course, was quite right from the view-point of the sectary, who had so ardently defended Calvinism. He scouted the idea that "truth and error are no more than names, that nothing is fixed and certain." (37) Orthodoxy to him meant believing the absolute truth. So how could men believing different things be orthodox at the same time 1 ' ' We believe God is the absolute truth, that his understanding is the source of all truths, and, therefore, it is impossible to be orthodox in God's sight without being so in

112

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

reality." (38) And he vented his sarcasm on these gentlemen of the cabal, who, without losing an atom of their Christianity, can also please the Atheists. (40) They were accused of really upholding cannibalism, of justifying parricide and incest, and of making Luther and Calvin nothing but miserable " clabaudeurs. " Jurieu found some fifty terrible consequences of this shameful doctrine. Jurieu concluded his work by a positive statement of his own position. His "conscience" was the accepted entity of Calvinism, composed, like the soul, of which it is the expression, of two parts, the spirit and the heart, the understanding and the will. These two faculties were declared to be a unity. (167) It is the separation, however, of the heart from the understanding with which Jurieu found fault in these "libertines." It is true that God and the conscience may be opposed, but when they are in union, then the authority of the conscience becomes supreme. (172) He admitted that where a people have not been notified of God's truth, they are not bound by it. (215) But if a decree has been proclaimed publicly, no one can say, I do not understand it. In the same assembly where the word is preached, some believe and some do not. The notification is equal for all, the persuasion unequal. Yet God has the same right over all because he has employed the same means. . . . There are obstacles which produce error. Unfortunate circumstances of birth, a poor education, ingrained malice, the violence of passion are such obstacles. But they do not lessen the obligation for such to receive the truth when it is announced. (218-19) This astonishing doctrine, so alien to Bayle 's belief, sounds strange, indeed, to modern ears. Jurieu concluded with the assertion that rulers have a legitimate right to destroy a false religion in favor of a good one. For justification, he cited David, who gave the utmost assistance to the "ecclesiastical police." (277) Three quarters of Europe would yet be pagan "if Constantine and his successors had not used authority to abolish it." (280) Jurieu admitted that Christianity was not

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

113

established by means of force, yet "except at that time in the history of the Christian church, one sees constantly everywhere that God has used power to establish the true religion and ruin the false ones." (282) In Jurieu's mind, an idolatrous ruler has not the same right to defend idolatory as an orthodox prince has for defending the truth. (294) And thus concludes this reassertion of the very quandary against which Bayle had warned his readers. What answer is there, he had written, when a person says, ' ' I am right and you are wrong?" Bayle made no immediate direct reply to Jurieu's direct attack on the Commentary,

though in the preface to the third part — that

on Augustine's letters — he referred to a "feeble" attack on the Commentary.

The Supplement denied some of the imputations that

Jurieu had drawn, especially the supposed idea of Bayle that nothing a person did according to the instincts of conscience could be sinful. Bayle denied, too, that corruption of heart was responsible for wrong belief, and that a desire for lust was the reason for rejecting truth. But the Jurieus of all times have so uniformly asserted the contrary that it was almost axiomatic. Bayle brought his Supplement to an end with reflections on the surprising progress that the "impious and detestable" doctrine of compulsion had made. He reminded his opponent that this is the "favorite doctrine of the church of Rome," and that the "Protestants practice it where they are uppermost." (chap, xxix)

He

quoted the judgment of Jurieu that paganism would still subsist over much of Europe but for Constantine and his successors. Bayle then applied this same principle to the Catholic suppression of heresies in ancient times and in his own day. The imputation is that Jurieu, therefore, can find no fault with the persecution of the Huguenots in France. Bayle declared it a great scandal that the reformers of the time of Calvin and Luther should have retained the doctrine of constraint. He concluded by boldly declaring for

114

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

the toleration of Catholics : " I cannot believe, unless there be other reasons, that Catholics should be banished from places where they behave themselves quietly." The wordy battle of these two former friends might have had no more serious issue than a doctrinal disagreement had not Jurieu at this time tied up his attack on Bayle with the political aspirations of the French refugees. He hoped, nay expected, that Protestantism would soon triumph in Prance. In the latter part of the Rights of the Two Sovereigns, Jurieu told his imaginary correspondent that it might have been well if force had not been used against the Huguenots. But, believe me, for the little advantage that you might have today, the church would suffer great losses, and you would be obliged in a few years to contradict yourself. For if the kings of France and Spain will use their authority to drive the Papists from their estates, as the kings of England and Sweden have done, far from blaming them, you would find it very good. Be assured that such is likely to happen. . . . As the kings of the west have established the papal empire, so will their authority destroy it.

(283-85) Jurieu was not satisfied with being the shepherd and the watchdog combined for the scattered flock; he also aspired to be its prophet. So convinced was Jurieu that he possessed the mind of God that he foretold with seeming chronological precision the approaching victory of the Huguenot cause. Persecution and disaster are likely to raise apocalyptic visions. Excited imaginations find at such times precise meanings and clear leadings in vague occurrences and dubious records. They so earnestly seek an end of their troubles that the wish is the creator of the dream. The lot of the Protestants during 1685 and 1686 was hard whether they remained in France or emigrated. Some, it is true, became reconciled to an alien existence, and "settled down." But many, deprived of their resources, "weeping by the waters of Babylon," waited with impatience for any evidence of a restoration to home and country.

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

115

Jurieu was encouraged to his venturous predictions by the prophetic wave that struck Prance after 1685. Vaticination was in the air. A peasant woman of Dauphiné created some stir by speaking "many excellent and divine things" when she fell into ecstasies. When this shepherdess was arrested by the authorities, in the hope of stopping her menacing predictions, other women and children began to prophesy on all sides. According to Jurieu's own account, there were above three hundred children in one corner of Dauphiné, ' ' who fall asleep and during their sleep declare the wonderful things of God. . . and when they are awake return to their former simplicity." Nor was Dauphiné the only province affected. One need not be surprised to learn that in the same Dauphiné angels should have been heard singing in the air.3 Pastor Jurieu did not, it is true, go into ecstasies and pronounce mystic words. He went to the Bible to work out the fulfillment of prophecy, depending on the Book of Revelation, the stumbling block of so many of his kind. He published in 1686 his Accomplishment of the Prophecies, "or the approaching deliverance of the Church. ' ' The substitle of the work outlined the results of Jurieu's meditations. The volume proved that the Papacy is the anti-Christian kingdom, and that that kingdom is not fai; from its ruin, that the present persecutions may end in three years and a half, after which the destruction of anti-Christ shall start, which shall be finished in the beginning of the next age. Then the kingdom of God shall come upon earth.

This amazing misuse of the apocalyptic visions of the eleventh chapter of Revelation seemed very ingeniously devised. The reign of the Beast was to continue for over 1260 prophetical days, that is, 1260 years. (Rev. xi, 3) In order to have this end in Jurieu's own day, he arbitrarily made the reign of Anti-Christ (the Papacy) 3 See Desmaizeaux, XVI, 267-68.

116

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

begin about the end of the fourth century, on the ground that the church had fallen into corruption about that time. Jurieu saw many signs of the approaching destruction of AntiChrist, even though " it is as easy with God to work in one moment, and without preceding dispositions, as to take time and prepare the matter." The revival of science, "almost extinct under the barbarism of scholastic learning"; the growing art of navigation and the voyages of discovery, which prepare the world for the full conversion of the Gentiles; the success of missions; the sensible decline of the Papacy, which " i n truth is falling, though it seems to gain ground" ( ! ) ; the preparedness of the Mohammedans for conversion ; above all, the persecutions in France — all are presages of the coming deliverance. " A n d their dead bodies shall lie in the streets of the city three days and a h a l f , " according to the Book of Revelation (xi, 8, 9). Jurieu concluded from this precise statement that in about three years and a half (1689) the end of the reign of Anti-Christ would be inaugurated by the driving of the Papal church from France and Spain. The destruction of AntiChrist would then continue until about 1710 or 1715. After some years, during which Christians would reunite and convert the Jews, the blessed reign of a thousand years would begin. This curious hodge-podge met with remarkable success — until its prophecies were refuted by the lapse of time. The first edition of the Accomplishment

was sold out in five months, and an enlarged

reprint was marketed in 1687. In the same year it appeared in English. The work was just the encouragement needed for the dispirited émigrés. To have their leader aver, with so much assurance and such an array of Scriptural proof, their imminent return to the homeland was nothing short of electrifying. A medal was even struck by his admirers to Jurius Propheta.

Some of the refu-

gees returned to France ahead of the announced migration, there to await the accomplishment of the promises.

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

117

The prophet was not entirely clear as to the way in which the great event would be brought about. He appears to have believed that it might even be miraculous. But he was not averse to more pedestrian means. The time had come, he wrote "to work for the opening of the eyes of the kings and the peoples of the earth. For this is the time when the flesh of the Beast is to be eaten, when his ornaments are to be torn from him, and Babylon overturned." Jurieu's courage in telling of a precise and imminent fulfillment of his prophecy shows the deep conviction with which he held that at last the baffling secrets of the Apocalypse had been probed. He was willing to leave the test to events: "Time, the only true touchstone, will distinguish true prophecies from foolish visions." When 1689 came and there was no miraculous opening of the heavens, Jurieu turned more and more to earthly political activity as the means of fulfilling his dream. William of Orange looked to be the appointed instrument, the Joshua of Protestantism. The Revolution of 1688 in England brought William the leadership of the British Isles. In 1689 there began a general war against France, with William the leader of the allied forces. Little wonder that Jurieu announced, in a pastoral letter of 1689, his "firm belief that God had brought King William into the world to be the executor of his great designs. ' ' 4 Jurieu became very active politically against France, determined to do all he could to assist God in bringing about the fulfillment of prophecy. He aroused the refugees by his pastoral letters. In 1689 he wrote the Swiss, exhorting them to join in a Protestant league against Louis XIV. During the early nineties he was in secret correspondence with Vernon, secretary to the Duke of Shrewsbury, who was one of William's English ministers. Jurieu had spies in * Readers will recall that the English king still bore the title and made the claim to be the rightful " k i n g of F r a n c e . " To Jurieu, the Revoution of 168889 was a necessary preliminary step in the divine plan.

118

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

France, who were continually bringing or sending him information which was passed on to England. No wonder that the government of Louis regarded Jurieu as one of its worst enemies, whom they would have silenced, if it were possible. This account of Jurieu's activities has been necessary to clarify his next battle with Bayle. Just as Jurieu was giving himself heart and soul to the ' ' cause, ' ' two libels appeared, in which Jurieu and his ardent followers — the war party among the exiles — were severely criticized. Jurieu attributed both of them to Bayle. The first appeared in 1689 under the title, Reply of a New Convert to a Letter from a Refugee*

This small volume included the

two letters mentioned in the title and some supplementary reflections ' ' on the civil wars of the Protestants and the present invasion of England." The refugee recalled some disputes between his correspondent and himself over the case of Servetus. He justified the Protestants in the matter by declaring the case an isolated one, not comparable with the numerous punishments by Catholics. The refugee justified his taking up arms for liberty of conscience, enclosed two pastoral letters of Jurieu, and exhorted the new convert to return to the Protestant church: " Y o u cannot choose a more profitable time to leave the midst of the spiritual Babylon; you may possibly ruin yourself by continuing in it, not only for time but f o r eternity." The " n e w convert" to Roman Catholicism answered the arguments on the burning of Servetus, refuting both Bayle and Jurieu on this celebrated incident. In the supplementary reflections the Protestants were severely handled for stirring up rebellion, and f o r their spirit of satire. The English Revolution, he held, proves that Louis' Revocation of the Edict of Nantes was wise. The new convert accused the refugees of feeding themselves with visions, and of rebelling against their lawful sovereign. β Réponse d'un nouveau converti. It was reprinted in Bayle'β collected works.

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

119

This work was quite overshadowed by a longer and more effective volume that appeared early in 1690, Important Advice to the Refugees on their Approaching Return to France, "given as a New Year's gift to one of them." β This work and the Reply of the New Convert are works which the present writer finds it hard to believe the productions of Bayle 's pen. They seem decidedly unlike the acknowledged works of Bayle. A brief analysis of the Advice may help to show the difficulties. The work claims to be by a lawyer in France who had been converted to Catholicism. The Protestant to whom the Advice was sent, prefixed the publication — it appeared in Amsterdam — with a preface in which he criticized the letter as a "pile of indignities poured out on paper with the utmost bitterness. ' ' He added that he was planning a reply, but as it will take some time, it seemed well to publish the Advice, so that readers may know its character in advance. At the conclusion of the preface William of Orange was hailed as the "favorite of God" and his voyage to England as "tout à fait miraculeux." The Advice itself hardly lived up to the announcement of its character. The Protestants were censured for their satirical writings, which were crossing the French frontiers during this time. The moderation of the Catholic refugees from Great Britain was contrasted with the activities of the Huguenots, and to their discredit. The body of the book was taken up with an elaborate and extreme defence of the absolute sovereignty of kings in opposition to this "monstrous" idea of the sovereignty of the people. Protestant libels, it was held, lead straight to anarchy and disunion, for anyone, according to them, can raise the standard of rebellion. A great deal of attention was given to English history and writings, of which the author appears to have had a good knowledge. The β A vis important aux réfugiez sur leur prochain retour en France. The title page says that it is " p a r Monsieur C. L. A. A. P. D. P . " The Advice was supposed to have been written on Jan. 1st, 1690.

120

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

parricide of Charles the First was utterly condemned. John Milton was called an " i n f a m o u s " person. Some seventy-five pages justified the treatment of the people of the Vaud by the Duke of Savoy, on the gTound that the Duke had a perfect right to banish the Vaudois, since he believed his state should have one religion. As they would not leave voluntarily, they brought their own punishment on themselves: " T h e y show the fruits of your system of rebellion." (288) The concluding part of the volume is a detailed comparison of allied and French success in the war then " o n . " Pride was expressed in the way the French have succeeded in encamping on enemy territory, and in the success of the army of the Rhine in ruining many places along that river. (321)

The author hoped the returning Protestants would go

through a sort of quarantine before putting foot in France, by "disavowing the heaps of defamatory and seditious libels your authors have published." (296) The work is a sharp attack on the ideas held by Jurieu, but he himself is not mentioned and his writings are hardly referred to, or quoted. There is a slight reference toward the end to some "among you becoming prophets." (376) Such was its character. I f the book was written by Bayle, nothing could be more unlike what he had thus far written. I t was wholly taken up with the problem of sovereignty. Its whole spirit was political and not moral ; Bayle had not yet shown any interest in politics. The elaborate handling of English history and the use of English authorities would have been strange in Bayle. His previous treatment of things English had been uniformly vague. The extreme position taken on royal sovereignty would seem to nullify any right to tolerance. Moreover, there is not a word about tolerance in the volume; the whole spirit of it is opposed to freedom of thought. Bayle 's erring conscience is entirely absent. The argument throughout is strongly Catholic. The use of the first three centuries of

121

V I C T I M OF INTOLERANCE

Christian history is the opposite of that made by Bayle in his Philosophical

Commentary.

The defence of the killings of the

Vaudois is in direct contradiction to the position taken in the reply to Maimbourg. I f Bayle could have written France Entirely

Cath-

olic in 1685, and this work in 1690, he was a veritable chameleon. The work seems to lack, as well, the manner of Bayle. There is no sprightliness of attack, no abundant use of striking illustrations and penetrating psychological reflections. The authorship of this work is still in doubt. Respectable students of the period are ranged on both sides. Among recent writers, Delvolvé and Puaux incline to believe it by Bayle. Serrurier and Deschàmps are clear it is not. Bastide, who made an exhaustive study of the problem not many years ago, thinks it may have been sent to Bayle, but that Bayle was not the author.7 Bayle always denied that he was the author: " I t is sufficient to say publicly what I have always said privately when occasion offered, that I am not the author of this libel. ' ' 8 Bayle 's friend, Basnage, wrote after the death of Bayle: " H e always protested to his closest friends that the book was not by h i m . " Desmaizeaux, Bayle's friend and biographer, has examined the question at length. H e did not believe the work by Bayle, yet he put up a rather weak defence in view of information obtained from the printer of the Advice.

The latter

declared that his reader of the proofs, who knew Bayle 's handwriting, insisted it was written by Bayle.® Two former Protestants, turned Catholic, have been suggested as possible authors of the Advice.

One is Pelisson, the French

Academician. H e was born a Protestant, had been a clerk to Fouquet, was confined in the Bastille on Fouquet's downfall, and τ Ch. Bastide, Bayle,

est-il

l'auteur

de l'Avis

aux Réfugiézl

in Bulletin de

la Société de l'histoire du Protestantisme français. 65th year, Nov. and Dec. 1907. β La Cabale

Chimérique,

p. 1.

» Desmaizeaux, X V I , 158, 160.

122

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

turned Catholic in 1670. His style was careless, and he lacked imaginative power in writing, characteristics of the Advice. Matter

He had published Reflections

Important

on the Differences

in the

of Religion in 1686 ; it was a reply to the attacks of Jurieu

and others. The other candidate is a certain De Larroque, who left France in 1686, but returned about a month after the Advice

was

published in Holland, and became a Roman Catholic. De Larroque, according to Desmaizeaux, often spoke of the work as his own. The authorship of the Advice

by some one in France seemed

strengthened by its republication at Paris in 1692 with the royal license. The added Foreword announced that this work, having been sent by the author to one of his friends in a foreign country, was printed with some changes contrary to his wish. That has necessitated a new edition in France in its true form. He protests sincerely that he has no other purpose than doing his duty, in making known to those in whom he takes an interest, certain important truths. He has so slightly regarded the favor and hopes of the court as to have remained incognito, concealing himself for this good work with as much care as one would hide himself for evil deeds. Those who think Bayle wrote the volume find it hard to explain why he did it. Jurieu himself admitted this in his Examination

of a

Libel (1691) : Was there ever so whimsical a design Τ What purpose could he havet [Jurieu concluded that Bayle], being fond of the absolute power of princes and full of indignation against the revolution in England, lost all patience and could no longer refrain from writing an apology for the King of France and for King James. He screened himself under the mask of a bigoted Papist and a violent hater of the Protestant religion. (38) Our study of Bayle's mind does not seem to bear out Jurieu's suppositions. What has been found is Bayle 's determined scepticism, his love of toleration, his hatred of persecution, and his condemnation of the government of Louis X I V . In order to support a belief in absolutism, Bayle is made to deny his love of toleration.

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

123

Even supreme disgust with refugee fanaticism would hardly make the author of France

Entirely

Catholic into a defender of absolute

power, of the right of persecution, and of the massacres of the Vaudois. But the end was not yet. Jurieu found still further evidence of Bayle 's utter apostasy. Jurieu wrote to a friend in 1691 that he could stand Bayle 's faults ' ' so long as I believed him an honorable pagan, but I have discovered him to be a traitor and a scoundrel." 10 The additional " p r o o f " appeared in 1691 with the publication in Switzerland of a Project

of Peace. The author of this work, a Swiss

merchant named Goudet, was desirous of having his manuscript examined in Holland. He, accordingly, sent it to Bayle at the suggestion of one of Bayle 's friends in Geneva, and through Bayle a number of copies were submitted to important persons in the United Provinces for their judgment. Bayle did not regard Goudet's peace plan very highly. He wrote to Switzerland that no project that did not very much weaken France to the point where she was no longer feared would have any chance of acceptance. Yet Bayle was interested in any plan that might end the war, for he disbelieved profoundly in armed conflict. The Project,

quite naturally, was not submitted to the bellicose

Jurieu ; the first he knew of it was when he saw it in print. Piqued at neglect and aroused by this "pacifist" move, the Protestant theologian and war-monger immediately scented another cabal. In an Important

Advice to the Public, Jurieu accused Bayle of being

the leader of this cabal as well. His fevered brain hatched a ' ' cabal which extends from south to north with its center in Paris. ' ' Goudet was made agent for the southern branch, and Bayle for the northern. It was, indeed, full of ' ' chimeras, ' ' yet the dire purpose of the movement was to weaken the allies and "bring about a io Quoted by Puaux, p. 209.

124

VICTIM OF

INTOLERANCE

peace." Such should not be, if this ardent prophet were to have his way. Bayle replied in this same year to Jurieu's attack by publishing his Chimerical

Cabal.11 In it he easily refuted the "fabulous

story lately published with a malicious intent by Mr. J., touching a certain Project to the

of Peace and the libel entitled, Important

Advice

Refugees." T H E DISMISSAL OF PROFESSOR B A Y L E

Jurieu was now determined to ruin his former friend by making the United Provinces altogether too hot for him. In this same hectic year (1691), he launched an attack on Bayle 's theological orthodoxy in a work called the Short Review of Bayle 's moral and religious principles. Bayle was accused of atheism by the use of what he had written a decade earlier in the book on the comet of 1680 and in his criticism of Maimbourg. W h y Jurieu should have waited so long to attack Bayle on this ground can only be explained by the excessive hatred of Jurieu f o r a pro-French traitor, who was working against the cause of God revealed in prophecy. Bayle appeared to Jurieu to be a traitor, a pacifist, and an atheist. The accuser openly declared that ' ' since it was not in his power to get Bayle punished as he deserved, at least he would expose him to public i n f a m y . " Jurieu was Calvin reincarnated; Bayle seemed another Servetus. It was well for Bayle that the government was not in Jurieu's hands — the latter complained of the ' ' clemency of the state ' ' — or there might have been another Servetus or Dolet burned at the stake by a slow fire. The controversy that raged in the early nineties enlisted the friends of the two principles in a veritable battle of the books. The duel became a tournament. Some of Jurieu's friends made such extreme insinuations, based on Bayle 's brief lapse to Catholicism 11

La cabale chimérique, 1691.

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

125

in 1669, that Basnage replied with a Letter on the Differences M. Jurieu

of

and M. Bayle, and Huet followed with a Letter of the

Friends of M. Bayle to the Friends of M. Jurieu. The latter was so angered by the effective reply of Bayle himself that he even appealed to the burgomasters of Rotterdam to punish the author of the Chimerical Cabal. The reply of the town authorities was an attempt to stop the quarrel ; the two men were urged to make up, and were forbidden to write anything further against each other, including anonymous libels. Jurieu, who insisted that "everything is permissible in a good war against a declared enemy," disregarded the order of the town authorities, and launched New Convictions Bayle. In the Last Conviction,

against

"which may serve for a Factum

in

the complaint laid before the state," Bayle was further accused of publishing Goudet's peace plan without governmental authority. But Jurieu was unable to bring state pressure on Bayle by this method. He then appealed to the church of which he and Bayle were members, to punish a man who was not only an atheist but had done ' ' nothing to edify the public by any act of religion " — as if he, Jurieu, was just then doing much in the line of edification. Jurieu's appeal to the Walloon consistory was unsuccessful. Despite his position as pastor in the church, the consistory refused to "degrade" the philosopher. It enjoined silence on the combatants. At last Jurieu turned to the consistory of the Dutch Reformed Church in his quest for confederates. Here his reception was more favorable. The Dutch-speaking Calvinistic church was very conservative ; it had been so ever since the Remonstrants —• the free-will Arminians — were ejected earlier in the century. The Dutch Reformed Church was as watchful as Jurieu for any deviations from the beliefs of Calvin. Just at this time, so it happened, they were troubled by the vagaries of one of their pastors, Balthasar Bekker af Amsterdam, and were in the mood for aiding Jurieu. Bekker had caused considerable trouble when he had published

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

126

an attack on cometary superstition one year after Bayle 's famous book had appeared. Matters became worse for him when he issued a bold attack on sorcery and a belief in the devil. In 1691 Bekker published his De Betoverde

Weereld.

The World Bewitched

was a

stinging attack on superstition. " I t is to destroy this vain idol of credulity," he wrote, "that I have composed my book. If the devil is angry, let him use his powers to punish me. ' ' The devil did not find it necessary ; the sect in which Bekker was a pastor did the job sufficiently well for his satanic majesty. Bekker was accused of being a sadducee, that is, not believing in immortality. It was of no use that he tried to stave off the adverse decision by admitting that there might be a devil, though, if there were, he was certainly chained at the bottom of hell. Bekker learned otherwise when he was unfrocked by the synod of Alkmaar in 1692." It was just at the right moment, therefore, that Jurieu made his appeal to the Dutch Reformed Church of Rotterdam. Since the Dutch consistory did not know French, Jurieu furnished them with some garbled translations from Bayle 's work on comets. They found the selections "execrable." The church, indeed, seemed in danger. A Dutch pastor did not believe in the divine mission of comets nor in the power of the devil, and a French Huguenot denied presages and defended the morals of atheists! To make matters worse for Bayle, one of Bekker's enthusiastic followers, Walten by name, had been too active in Rotterdam. Walten was brought up for condemnation at the same time that the authorities were asked to repress the activities of Bayle. At last Jurieu was to succeed. In 1693, the body of burgomasters was much changed in character from that of 1691. Then Bayle had been defended. Now the rapid kaleidoscope of political affairs had brought in a group of men very closely connected with the stad12 One of Bekker's friends thereupon published a work entitled, The Devil Triumphant.

127

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

holder, William of Orange. Bayle was suspect because he had been the friend of the republican party, which included his lamented benefactor, Paets. War breeds an atmosphere uncongenial to vigorous and free thinking. As a result, Bayle, without a chance to defend himself, was deprived of his professorship in October of 1693. Walten did not get off so easily ; he was sent to prison. After waiting some years for a release that did not come, he took his own life. 13 The authorities gave as their reason for the dismissal of Bayle that a teacher ' ' nourishing such dangerous opinions ' ' would cause harm to ' ' tender youth. ' ' " The ' ' many dangerous theses introduced into his books ' ' were made the ground for the action. Bayle was also forbidden to give private lessons in philosophy. The philosopher had, at last, been "degraded." No mention was made of the pacifist cabal or the Important

Advice

to the

Refugees,

though they may have furnished a background of suspicion for the condemnation of his theological beliefs. The decree against Bayle was wholly based on his treatise concerning the comet. Bayle wrote a friend of the circumstances, concluding his letter as follows : You would be surprised if I should finish my letter without mentioning that French minister who has published so many libels and calumnies against me. I can assure that all these calumnies have fallen to the ground, and there was nothing taken notice of but my book concerning comets, printed nearly twelve years ago. Besides, the Dutch ministers have owed me a grudge for a long time because they hated the friends and patrons which I had upon my first arrival here. 15

Bayle took the blow calmly. The loss of the paltry salary of five hundred guilders did not prove serious, even though, as Bayle wrote, "living was very high in Holland." His needs were of the simplest, so that he was able to continue in study and writing is For Bekker and Walten, see Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek, I, 277-79, 1534. i* Serrurier, p. 159. us Deemaizeaux, XVI, 165-66.

128

VICTIM OF INTOLERANCE

without much handicap. He found the release from lectures and classes so welcome that he made no effort to procure other employment. "Being neither a lover of riches nor of honors, I shall give myself no trouble to procure an invitation elsewhere, and would not accept one though it should be made to me. I am not so fond of the disputes, cabals, and professorial snarlings that reign in our academies. ' ' 1 8 It was fortunate for Bayle that freedom from family responsibilities gave him such independence. In 1682 marriage had been proposed to him on advantageous terms through Jurieu's sister-inlaw. The lady in question was declared to be beautiful, good natured, and the possessor of fifteen thousand crowns. The only impediment was Bayle; he was not willing. Like Montaigne and Erasmus and many another his love was expended on his studies. The intellectual life appealed to him for its own sake. A year later he could write: " I have shown my enemies, by remaining where I am and by making no change in my manner of living, that I can get along without their five hundred guilders." He preferred to remain in Rotterdam, " if I am allowed to continue in it, ' ' because he was busy at the crowning accomplishment of his career, soon to be issued from a Rotterdam press. Bayle had already planned a biographical dictionary before the unfortunate affair with Jurieu deflected his attention. The leisure that was his after October 1693 gave him the needed time for this work. The great Dictionary was the result. Even though Jurieu had won a petty victory and was to cause Bayle some more trouble, his reputation was declining as his prophecies proved to be but visions. On the contrary, the philosopher of Rotterdam was to rise to new heights by the encyclopedic knowledge he was soon to make available for the public. Dismissed professors sometimes find compensation. ι» Desmaizeaux, XVI, 168. Letter of Mar. 8th, 1694.

CHAPTER V I I

T H E PUBLICATION OF THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY Bayle 's grand design of making an Historical tionary

and Critical

Dic-

had occurred to him in the early nineties. The enforced

leisure from teaching that Bayle enjoyed after his dismissal (1693) from the École Illustre

made it possible to carry out the plan. In

its outworking and influence the Dictionary

was to prove his most

important publication, and one of the most valuable contributions to the task of recording and arranging human knowledge. The wellknown Larousse devotes a considerable part of its elaborate preface to Bayle 's Dictionary.

" W e have given to this study (of Bayle 's

work) an extent that may appear too generous. But we shall be pardoned by those who realize that the Grand Dictionnaire Larousse) regards Bayle 's Dictionary

(of

as one of its most glorious

ancestors." (P. xxii) Larousse did not feel it necessary to go beyond Bayle in discussing the history of the encyclopedic idea. We, however, should understand very poorly the importance of Bayle, if we did not at least glance at the work done before him. The idea of encyclopedic knowledge existed long before there were encyclopedias in the modern sense of that term. At first, the encyclopedia was an arrangement of learning according to the accepted divisions in the curricula of the schools. Such was Varrò's Nine Books of of the time of Julius Caesar. Pliny's famous Natural

Studies,

History

of

the next century was the most elaborate collection of facts made by a single Greek or Roman. But it was more a topical grouping of materials, than an encyclopedia "with a definite idea of informing order," as Morley has put it.1 Ι Diderot and the Encyclopedists,

1886, I, 118.

130

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

In the Middle Ages there was a marked interest in all-embracing compilations. The thirteenth century with its ponderous Summas produced works that placed the material under topical heads according to the presuppositions of Christian theology. Vincent of Beauvais is the best known of mediaeval encyclopedists; his Biblioteca Mundi was a speculum or mirror, reflecting everything then known of man and his world. The Reformation, in its turn, naturally stimulated such attempts. The Protestants were eager to reinterpret the past in their way, and the Catholics just as desirous of fortifying the portions of their heritage then under attack. But the century in which Bayle lived was the most noteworthy period in the history of this development. The climax of the older type, in Latin and in a topical order, was Alsted's Encyclopedia of 1630. This seven-volume production is an interesting work. Elaborate tables preceded the matter. The lower liberal disciplines preceded the higher. After theology, jurisprudence, and medicine, came the illiberal or mechanical disciplines, with history and chronology taking up the rear as composite disciplines. Alsted, being a professor of divinity, naturally treated his material in the theological manner. Such complications were thought of as much for continuous reading as for occasional consultation. But there was an increasing desire for books that would be of wide general use for reference as well as for reading. This led, finally, to two important changes; encyclopedias began to appear in the spoken national languages, and the topical arrangement was replaced by an alphabetical order. The French were as forward here as they were in the field of periodical publication. Juigné's Dictionary

of 1644 included the-

ology, history, poetry, cosmology, and chronology. It was an honest attempt, on the part of a man not too well qualified, to summarize historic knowledge on all sides. "Ce notable essay de mon esprit," as he called it, was especially useful because it was arranged in a manner "du tout facile et populaire, tel qu'est l'alphabétique." In

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

131

his preface he had much to say of the way he had improved on the previous Latin works. He objected to those who dress up the past as they please by adding what suits them, "like those women who use teeth of ivory where their own are lacking, or who round out their thin bodies to the appropriate fulness by the use of cotton or fur." Juigné's work might have had more "embonpoint." The article on Erasmus, for example, was distressingly thin: Erasmus of Rotterdam in Holland, a learned professor of humane letters, has acquired immortal renown by his works. But having too freely spoken of the mysteries of the faith, he opened the way to the heretics of that time. He died at Basle in the year 1536.

Nor is the article on Calvin very illuminating. He is made to escape to Italy and then to Geneva on account of some crime committed while a curé near his birthplace. His death, according to Juigné, occurred while he was suffering — as all heresiarchs should — from nine terrible diseases. Juigné's work was full of errors. Yet it filled so clear a need that many editions appeared before it was superseded. The work that took its place and immediately led to Bayle 's attempt at an historical dictionary was the compilation of Louis Moréri. His Grand Dictionnaire Historique, "or the curious mixture of sacred and profane letters," appeared at first in one folio volume in the year 1674. By the time that Bayle 's

Dictionary

appeared Moréri 's had gone through seven editions. Moréri 's was the first notable encyclopedia of the alphabetical type. In Bayle 's day it was the most useful work of reference of its kind. The author was educated by the Jesuits, then preached for some years, and later became almoner to a bishop. His learning was wide if not very deep. The work was much colored by his theological profession and his religious connections. The King was praised to the skies, in the dedication, for having used his authority

132

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

so happily "to weaken heresy, preserve the purity of religion, and stifle all the seeds of novelty." Moréri submitted his completed task to the Catholic Church, "which I recognize as my good and only mother and my mistress. I subscribe in advance to all its censures, because I glory in saying that Christian is my cognomen and Catholic my praenomen. ' ' He admitted that his work might not be perfect, "for the sun even has its spots." Moréri 's work must have proved very useful. His strict alphabetical arrangement — he spoke of it as an inno\ r ation — made the greatly increased list of facts readily available. Under the names of the cities he arranged in chronological order the councils held in them, and made remarks on the canons. " I n naming the leaders of heresies I report their principal errors." All important persons were included. Moréri gave no precise sources for his facts, though a short list of references to books would usually conclude an article.2 Bayle, though he set out to correct Moréri, was not unmindful of the work this encyclopedist had done: I hold the sentiments of Horace regarding those who lead the way. The first writers of dictionaries have made many mistakes, but they merit a glory of which their successors should never deprive them. Moréri has taken great pains, the work has been widely used, and by many has seemed satisfactory. 3

The chief fault to be found with Moréri was his lack of judgment. This weakness might well have disappeared in the later editions of the Dictionary, had he lived to bring his work to greater perfection. As it was, the work was edited and reëdited by others until it went through numerous editions ; the last one, of 1759, was in ten folio volumes. This lack of judgment is well illustrated by the proportion of space for the various letters of the alphabet. Half of the work - The editions current at the time were the fifth, sixth, and seventh (1688, 1691, 1694). The last two were published in Holland; the fifth in France. 3 Dictionary, X V I , 14. The references are to the octavo (Beuchot) edition in sixteen volumes, Parie, 1820.

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

133

was taken up with articles under the first five letters. " A " had five hundred pages or a fifth of the space: " S " had to be content with ninety pages. Moréri was also careless and credulous in his genealogies, his geographic knowledge was defective, and he did not know the boundary line between mythology and history. This can be briefly illustrated by reference to articles by Bayle and Moréri on the same persons. Erasmus was given a page by Moréri, instead of the three sentences of Juigné. He showed his Catholic bias by saying that Erasmus was censured with justice by the theological faculty of Paris during his life and by the Council of Trent after his death ; he added that Erasmus was "too free in his discussions." When Bayle treated Erasmus he gave him fifteen times the space granted by Moréri, and took pains to correct six errors in Moréri 's article. Bayle found Moréri much more faulty in the fields of mythology and Roman history than in modern history. He had gathered considerable material on " h e a t h e n " gods and heroes for the purpose of correcting Moréri, much of which was not used after all. (xvi, 2) A significant reflection appeared in Bayle 's article on Aesop. Referring to the life of Aesop by Palnudes, he wrote : All learned men agree that it is a romance, and that the gross absurdities found in it make it unworthy of acceptance. Therefore referring those to Moréri who desire an article taken from Palnudes, I shall say nothing but what I have from very good authors, (vi, 276)

It should be clear that Bayle came at a very important point in this growing interest in arranging human knowledge and making it more accurate. The learned world was using the vernacular languages more and more. The alphabetical arrangement had been introduced. A few French encyclopedic dictionaries were in circulation. But the age of the great works of this type had not yet come. The eighteenth century was to see Chambers' Cyclopaedia and the Britannica

in England, the Encyclopédie

of Diderot and his co-

134

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

workers in France.4 Bayle 's position in the succession could not help but be an important one. His original purpose was to collect the largest number of faults that could be found in dictionaries and in other authors as well, (xv, 223 ff.) Bayle instanced the Ecclesiastical Annals of Baronius as a work where the errors were not to be reckoned by hundreds but by thousands. Bayle 's compilation would be a "touchstone of books," a sort of "insurance office of the republic of letters." (xv, 230) Omissions of other authors were to be rectified. He admitted that the task was great, but natural patience, joined with the habit of meddling only with books, of going little out of one's study, and avoiding as the plague those turbulent men whom I have mentioned, who busily thrust themselves into all affairs, even those of state

will make the great task possible, (xv, 224) Bayle also promised to keep the text of the articles clear from the critical observations : " I shall place them in the margin and at the end of each article. ' ' He realized, also, that such a book was likely to be " d r y and fatiguing." In consequence, he would add some gayer touches "without making too much use of the privilege allowed to works of this kind." The resentment of authors, he admitted, was no small matter: "They pass for a very touchy, choleric, and vindictive race of men." They should, however, know their weaknesses. Bayle promised, above all, not to be controversial. This was one of Moréri's greatest faults: " W e find in it a hundred places that seem to be taken from a true crusading sermon." (xv, 243) Bayle 's Dictionary was to be critical. The two fat folios that appeared in 1697 had meant more than four years of exacting labor. One would like to know more of the * The first alphabetical English encyclopedia was one for science, Harris's Lexicon Technicwm (1704). Chambers' work appeared in 1728, and the Britannica on the eve of the American Revolution. The Encyclopédie began to appear just at the mid-point of the eighteenth century.

T H E HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

135

way in which he worked at this great task. We do know that he had the faculty of keeping to his labors with an intensity seldom surpassed. Diversions, parties, games, banquets, days in the country, visits, and such other recreations necessary to a great many studious men, so they say, are not my concern. I lose no time in them. Nor do I spend it in domestic cares, in seeking preferments, making solicitations, etc. I have been happily delivered from a great many occupations not suitable to me, and I have had the greatest and most charming leisure that a man of letters could desire, (xvi, 8)

The only diversion that Bayle seems to have enjoyed was watching the traveling puppet shows. One can imagine him relaxing occasionally in this way. His health was none too good after the serious physical breakdown in the late eighties. He complained that violent headaches often hindered the work. Bayle was much hampered by the lack of books. I f any literary project would require a large and representative library, it would be the making of a biographical dictionary. The author complained that he had ' ' few books. ' ' We know that he enjoyed nothing more than mousing about in a book shop, preferably one of second-hand volumes, a practice that becomes with book-lovers a vice so pleasant and so confirmed. ' ' The prodigous scarcity of books that were very necessary to my design" stopped his pen, so he wrote, " a hundred times a day. ' ' Frequently the interruptions of which he complained were caused by the need to send for some particular volume in one of the private libraries of Rotterdam. He had all the scholar's love of accuracy. No judgment was taken second hand when he could possibly get at the original. He mistrusted Moréri's compilation so much that a fact taken from it was always in quotations and credited to Moréri. "When I do not cite that writer and yet relate anything to be found in his work, it is a certain proof that I have it from another author. ' ' Bayle realized, too, that a work such as his must serve to many in

136

THE HISTORICAL

DICTIONARY

place of a library of books. He felt it worth while to make numerous quotations, with the exact reference to book and page. This "slave r y , " to which he submitted, was onerous; but it was the work of an honnête man of letters. The acclaim with which the

Dictionary

was received, and the permanent and prominent place it came to occupy among works of the kind show how worthy a citizen he was of the republic of letters. 5 The two folios of the first edition contained over 2,600 pages. Most of each page was made up of notes or remarks in small print, and the side margins were nearly always full of references to authorities. One is amazed at the learning displayed. It seems hardly possible that one man could have done the work in the time given to it. But let us take a look at the book itself. T H E NATURE OF THE DICTIONARY

The title of the work is somewhat misleading. An Historical Critical Dictionary

and

might be a variety of things. The work is really

a general biographical dictionary with only an occasional article on impersonal subjects. There are articles on certain towns, countries, rivers, and islands. Rotterdam was naturally included, and the river of his native region, the Ariège, found a place. Bayle even gave an article to a famous horse (Arion), largely because of its relation to Greek mythology, and possibly as one of the asides with which to entertain the reader. But the work is overwhelmingly biographical. It was the predecessor of such collections as the Dictionary

of Saturai

Biography,

and the Allgemeine

Biographie,

without their national limitations.

But the comparison must not be carried too far. His

Deutsche Dictionary

was " o f a new and singular kind," as Desmaizeaux put it. (xvi, s The latest edition of the Ne tv International Encyclopedia (article " e n cyclopedia") declares Bayle 's Dictionary the most famous of the seventeenth century, and that it has won a permanent place in the history of literature as well as of lexicography.

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

137

181) Bayle never liked restrictions for his pen or his mind, and in making his biographical dictionary he refused to do the ordinary thing, to ape Moréri or Juigné either in matter or manner. In general, the important personages were included, but he did not scruple to omit prominent people and include obscure persons. Voltaire later complained that he looked in Bayle 's Dictionary

for

Julius Caesar, and found only the sixteenth-century physician, John Caesarius. In this case, Voltaire nodded, for Julius Caesar — spelled " C é s a r " — was given an article. Yet his criticism was well taken, though poorly illustrated. If Caesar had a place, Cicero had none. There was an article for Virgil, but none for Horace ; one for Erasmus, none for Thomas More. Of the kings of France named Louis, the V l l t h , X l t h , X l l t h , and X l l l t h appeared. The Emperor Henry VI found a place, but no English Henry seemed worthy of mention. Nero, a

fifteenth-century

Florentine nobleman, was

included, to the exclusion of the Emperor Nero. The

Dictionary

was of a " new and singular kind. ' ' Bayle, of course, was well aware of his capriciousness of choice. He tried to justify it on the ground that he was correcting Moréri, and that various dictionaries of national, ecclesiastical, and classical biography were about to be issued or had appeared. But the real reason leading to his choice of subjects lay elsewhere. The text of each article was an exact and concise account of the person treated, but this brevity was more than counterbalanced by the numerous and lengthy remarks that were appended. The main article on Erasmus might occupy a page or less by itself, but it and the additional remarks took up fifteen folio pages, and the marginal citations of authorities numbered over two hundred. 5 Savonarola was treated at about the same length and in the same way. Sarah, the wife of Abraham, enjoyed seven folio pages, the main article β In the octavo edition, it occupies pp. 215-46 of Vol. VI.

138

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

occupying about a tenth of the room. Her husband, Abraham, had to be content with three folio pages. The main article was not intended to be the important part. In the remarks Bayle extended himself, drawing the character of the person, discussing the motives of conduct, treating matters of religion, morality, philosophy, and history that might be closely or remotely related. The life of some obscure person might be an excuse to instruct or amuse the reader. The theologians and the philosophers were noteworthy for the length of the notes they evoked. Here Bayle seems to have tried consciously to show the strength and the weakness of their opinions. He delighted in elaborating on the overconfidence of divines. Criticism was applied as well to facts generally accepted, in the hope that the readers would learn caution. The text of the article was usually the excuse for the remarks. The work was a biographical encyclopedia of a sort, but it was even more a collection of criticisms by an exacting· and doubting mind of the thinking and morals of homo sapiens. This disjected philosophy of life was intended to be read as much as consulted. In treating ancient mythology, the lives of the patriarchs, the thinking of non-Christian philosophers, the beliefs of great heretics, Bayle knew how to appeal to the interest of his readers. Discussions were carried on in various articles, almost as if appearing in a periodical journal. For example, he wrote on the origin of evil under ' ' Manicheans, ' ' but referred the reader to the "Paulicians" for an elaborate answer to the Manichean beliefs. And still farther along he came back to the defence of the Manichees in the articles on Xenophanes and Zoroaster. There were also numerous diverting discussions to pique the curiosity of the learned, and of those who might not deserve that name. The Project announced that there would be some "gayer touches, ' ' since nothing is more important than such passages in a dictionary, "which is of itself a dry and fatiguing book." (xv, 232)

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

139

Nor were his promises empty. There were articles on famous female courtezans, on Helen of Troy, on the reputed female pope, Joan, on Sappho, and on Eve. His treatment of David, Adam, Sarah, Abelard, Augustine and many others not only enlightened the reader but lightened the Dictionary. Bayle promised that he would not go too far. Many thought he exceeded all bounds. And he found it necessary to defend his freedom of speech on matters customarily taboo in puritanical circles. The philosophical discussion of such dangerous subjects as Epicureanism, the dualism of the Manichees, and of other systems of thought, ancient and modern, were as spice to the cake. Bayle meant his Dictionary to be read. And it was read beyond his fondest expectations. The first volume appeared in August of 1697. But the edition was hardly off the press, and work on the second and concluding volume well in hand (it appeared in December) before the demand for the first volume exceeded the supply. A thousand more copies of volume one were issued, (xvi, 177) So much was the Dictionary read that a distinguished modern critic has called it the "Bible of the eighteenth century." 7 And he has insisted that the Dictionary is a work still to be read; "one makes discoveries at every step, just where one is prepared to turn two leaves at once. It is the last book in the world to be read rapidly. . . . One sees the end with regret." (p. 23) On the eve of publication the author wrote to a friend, ' ' I own this work is nothing else but a confused compilation of passages tacked one to the other, and that nothing can be worse suited to the delicate taste of this age." (xvi, 176) But Bayle was over modest or nervous. His very refusal to keep within the ordinary bounds as to choice of subjects and the fitting proportion of space for various people, only added to the public interest. The amount and value of the information collected is astounding. And its readers cannot but wonder at the ease with which the author carried his τ Émi]e Faguet, Dix-huitième siècle, 1890, p. 1.

140

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

learning. The success of the Dictionary was assured because it suited the taste of his age, and because its author proved to be something more than a lexicographer. The original plan of treating fully the lives of the ancients was not carried out. Bayle feared that the volumes would "grow mouldy in the booksellers' warehouses." "Few articles of this kind," he wrote in the preface, "will be found in my two volumes." Only about a sixth of the articles are on persons living in ante-Christian times. When such articles do appear, Moréri is carefully corrected. In treating Abdera he wrote : "No reader can believe what Moréri says. . . . It is a strange oversight to join two things in such a manner as to place the fabulous times after the times of true history. ' ' 8 Again in ' ' Alcmaeon, ' ' Moréri is accused of committing sixteen errors regarding the persons of this name, (i, 410, A) On Drusilla, daughter of Agrippa, "Mr. Moréri has fallen into some errors which might easily have been avoided if he had written with attention and formed his mind to the rules of exactness." (vi, 24) Pytheas, the ancient traveler, is sharply criticized for abusing the maxim, "A traveler may lie by authority." He has filled his books with all manner of fables concerning the northern countries, where he pretended to have been. He knew that few ocular witnesses could convict him of his lies, but posterity left not his boldness unpunished. (XII, 147)

Biblical characters were decidedly slighted, save for a few, who were given very full consideration. Old Testament worthies were treated when they afforded Bayle an opportunity to belittle the seeming importance of such persons as David and Abraham. He gave articles to the members of the first Biblical family largely because of his interest in human beginnings.9 β Vol. I, p. 35, in Remark A. If the quotation is from a Remark, it will hereafter be indicated by the capital letter. β See below, Chapter VIII.

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

141

The Renaissance and the Protestant revolt had tended to minimize the importance of the Middle Ages. This is well reflected in Bayle 's Dictionary,

f o r the thousand years that separated Augustine from

Laurentius Valla were very much slighted. With the sixteenth century the interest of Bayle markedly increased. Over two thirds of the titles in the Dictionary

are of per-

sons living in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. F o r t y articles, for example, were devoted to the refugees in Holland and the natives of the country. The Dictionary

was thoroughly modern and

appealed because of its numerous articles on contemporaries, and its references to events of the time. The Dictionary did not attempt to treat natural science, though scientific men were not entirely neglected. Bayle had shown his interest in the growing knowledge of anatomy when publishing the News of the Republic

of Letters.

One is not surprised, in conse-

quence, to find numerous articles on physicians and ' ' professors of physic." Mathematicians were well represented. Of astronomers, Kepler was the only famous one to gain admission, and that largely because of his interest in magic. Francis Bacon was included, but there were no articles f o r Galileo, Copernicus, or Boyle. Literature and literary men figured much more largely than has sometimes been recognized. There were many articles on famous writers, ancient and modern. H a r d l y a page of the great work was without some literary quotation, frequently poetic. Of the moderns, there were important articles on literary and humanistic

figures,

such as Dante, Erasmus, Valla, Racan, Balzac, Molière (Poquelin). If the work were to be well balanced, many additional names would need to be added. But Bayle was not trying to compose an ordinary biographical dictionary. He knew and loved the writings of Montaigne, and they are frequently quoted in the work, and yet there was no article devoted to Montaigne. The same can be said of Cicero.

142

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY J U B I E U A G A I N AROUSED

The renewed attacks to which Bayle was again subjected could not be sidestepped this time, inasmuch as his name appeared on the title-page of the Dictionary. This was the only work in his long literary career, apart from the later issues of his journal, which was published with an acknowledgment of his authorship. Bayle 's feeling in the matter was not influenced wholly by prudence. Continuations of his work on the comet and of the criticism of Maimbourg were not less extreme because the author of the original publication was known by the time the continuations were published. Nor did Bayle wish to attach his name to the

Dictionary.

" I have ever had a secret antipathy to i t , " he wrote in the preface, (xvi, 15) This feeling arose primarily from the modesty and disinterestedness of a man who despised the rewards that came through public praise. He often expressed disgust with the deference paid by fawning writers to persons in authority. " T h a t wise indifference, so much celebrated by ancient philosophy, has always pleased me." His indifference to praise tended to make him a more honest critic. In this case, nevertheless, Bayle could not keep to his philosophic resolution. The book's publisher was likely to get into trouble because those who had issued Moréri's work were trying to prevent Bayle 's Dictionary from appearing. A privilege was necessary, as a result, and the Estates would not grant it without the author's name on the title-page. Bayle 's modesty and not an unwillingness to own his ideas had influenced him to publish his books anonymously. This is sufficiently proved by the character of the Dictionary to which his name had to be affixed. It was certainly no more prudent than the earlier writings of this pioneer.10 The demand for the work was so great in France that the Parisian io Bayle was certainly not " a great coward about his b o o k s , " Lecky to the contrary, notwithstanding.

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

143

booksellers desired to issue a pirated edition. The Chancellor, however, would not accede to the wish of the trade before the Dictionary was submitted to examination. The Abbé Renaudot, to whom this duty was assigned, was not unfitted to act the censor. He belonged, both to the French Academy and the Academy of Inscriptions. He was a theologian, who had written to defend the faith, and an expert Orientalist. The results of his examination were entirely negative. He found the Dictionary full of digressions, without any system of religion, and replete with ridicule of the Fathers. Renaudot asserted that the Dictionary

contained the harshest things said against

the Catholic religion for half a century. " H e makes such licentious reflections on the story of Abraham and Hagar as to astonish one that such things are tolerated in a country where at least they profess to believe in the Bible. What he has to say to David is still worse." He found that Bayle had deliberately suspected the sincerity of Henry IV's conversion to Catholicism. He declared the work to be full of "insupportable obscenities," and devoid of the "smallest knowledge of history." Renaudot's decisive veto prevented publication in France. Nor was that the end of the matter. Jurieu rose again to the attack, using Renaudot's judgment as an excuse for his renewed offensive. In 1697 he published anonymously a Judgment of the Public "and particularly of M. the Abbé Renaudot on the Critical Dictionary of Bayle." 1 1 Renaudot's judgment was supplemented by extracts from some fifteen letters adverse to the Dictionary. Jurieu did not divulge the names of the senders or recipients of the letters, for fear of exposing them to the attacks of an " author so violent and headstrong. ' ' Jurieu added his own animadversions. What strange bedfellows the fighting, prophesying Calvinist and the loyal French Catholic Abbé make ! At least Bayle could no longer be accused of heading a pro-French cabal ! Though a common i l Jugement

du public, Rotterdam, 1697, 4to, 47 pp.

144

T H E HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

enemy had brought them together, the two did not see quite eye to eye. Jurieu assured Renaudot that Bayle did not attack the Catholic religion in particular. " H e (Renaudot) has forgotten the character of this author. . . a libertine, a Pyrrhonian, and the enemy of all religions." Jurieu advised the Abbé that Bayle was a "finished Pyrrhonian, or a Deist, whose general aim is the ruin of all faith and of all religion." (11) His method is to "attack and undermine all religions one after the other." (12) As to the Abbé's wonder that such a book was tolerated where the Bible was believed, Jurieu replied, It is one of the misfortunes of the war that the privilege of the state has been obtained by a printer to be put at the head of such a work. Let us hope peace will remedy this ill, and that the two volumes which he plans to add to this monstrous libel will not be so honored. (14)

Bayle had not hesitated, in truth, to pillory Jurieu in the work. Every now and again he was mentioned; it can hardly be denied that Bayle occasionally went out of his way to drag Jurieu into the discussion. But this was Bayle's method of writing, to cite among moderns examples of errors that needed correction. In reply to the pamphlet issued by Jurieu, Bayle defended himself as follows : But will they say you bring him too often into your Dictionaryf Not more frequently than Varillas, I answer, nor nearly so often as Moréri, two authors with whom I have never had any difference. If I speak of him oftener than of other authors, it is because I am more intimate with his writings, (xv, 254)

Jurieu's prophetical professions were used in the Dictionary

as

warnings to the unwary. Speaking of a wonder-working wand that was but short-lived, Bayle added : ' ' Our age is as easy to be imposed upon, after what we have seen concerning an explanation of the Apocalypse. . . . It is the same as it ever was ; every delusion which flatters the passions is pleasing." 1 2 In speaking of the foolish i2 " Abaris, " I, 14, Rem. I. Compare "Abdera," I, 38, H.

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

145

visions of Mary de Agreda, the author appears to allude to Jurieu : ' ' It would be very surprising indeed, if, in sailing so long upon such a sea (The Apocalypse), she should never dash upon this rock." (i, 271, A) The following allusion seems unmistakable: " A wise man ought to be extremely reserved concerning future events, even when appearances are favorable. I think those are to be pitied whose passion requires that they should keep up the hopes of the people. ' ' ("Bennon," iii, 13, C) But the author did not hesitate to attack Jurieu openly. In relating the prophecies of a German author, Braunbom, who had estimated that the death of Anti-Christ would take place in 1640, Bayle declared that the "example of this man ought to be a warning to new calculators . . . which ought to have prevented the minister of Rotterdam from tumbling into the mire." (iv, 109, B) In the article on the City of Constance, Bayle reflected that in all religions people are strangely inclined to think themselves favored by miraculous benefits. . . . Mr. Jurieu, for example, finds it (the miraculous) everywhere, and of late in what happened to the inhabitants of the Cevennes. But people acquainted with the country discover nothing supernatural. (v, 293, B)

Nor could Bayle help referring to Jurieu's intolerant spirit in illustration of a tendency he deplored wherever it was to be found : "In France he took it very ill that the secular power should be used, and in Holland he takes it very ill that it should not be employed. And now after this, who dares to pretend that by changing of climate, one does not change opinion ? " 1 3 The only serious misuse of the Dictionary

for purposes of polemic

against Jurieu was a long dissertation tacked on to one of the last articles. After speaking of the Dutch professor, Zuerius, Bayle added: "Having here an occasion to speak of this accusation of a 13 "Arius, " II, 378, G. The reference is to a famous line in Horace, (Epp. I, xi, 27) "coelum, non animum, mutant, qui trans mare currunt. " See also, "Augustine," II, 558, H.

146

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

new heresy, I shall make a digression which I think very important." (xv, 107) Then follow fifteen pages of closely printed material regarding Jurieu's spirit of hatred as expressed in two of his sermons of 1694. These sermons had aroused controversy at the time. The note was a general attack on Jurieu for his declared belief that one can "hate the person of our neighbor for the love of God. ' ' 1 4 Jurieu was characterized as ' ' choleric, passionate, and a very dangerous enemy." Bayle made an interesting reference to the loss of his position as a teacher of philosophy. Nor could he refrain from showing how Jurieu's accusation of a pro-French cabal and his belief in a concerted attack on orthodoxy had proved to be vain prophecies. Jurieu thought himself the "rampart of orthodoxy, and worthy people were very near giving him the title of Marshall of the F a i t h . " Bayle made it clear that this boasted defender of the faith had such a spirit and such vagaries that he should not be taken seriously. He was but another illustration of the blind anger of the theologians. Bayle also issued a pamphlet in reply to Jurieu's attack on the Dictionary. He retorted that Jurieu was guilty of the very practice he condemned (xv, 252) Bayle made much of the theologian's statement that " I am completing my own r u i n . " " B u t what,'' he replied, " h a s become of my pensions from the court of France Τ Have they been stopped? And could a philosophical life like mine have sunk such a f u n d ? " (xv, 253) Bayle objected to the accusation of obscenity, declaring the Dictionary not nearly so licentious as Montaigne's essays, denied that he had cited more than once the writings of Rabelais, "whose book does not much please m e " (xv, 256), asserted that he has only quoted from historical books, " a n d with these citations have almost always joined a mark of my 14 The text of one of the sermons was taken from the Psalms (CXXXIX, 21, 22) : " D o I not hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? . . . I hate them with a perfect hatred."

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

147

disapproval." (xv, 266) Bayle pretended to be surprised at the long delay of the Judgment. He expected that, as soon as his two volumes were published, Jurieu would immediately proclaim them the most abominable, the most frightful, the most detestable books that ever came into the world, a disgrace to a schoolboy. But in this I was mistaken. He was not delivered before the time, of the pamphlet he was big with. If I had less aversion to quibbling, I might add that his child, notwithstanding, is an abortive.15

Bayle was not yet out of the ecclesiastical snare. Friends of Jurieu brought the matter of the Dictionary before the Walloon consistory at Rotterdam. A committee set two of the pastors at examining the folios to collect the faults they contained. Friends of Bayle wished him represented on the committee, but they were unsuccessful. When the extracts were presented to the committee, they found a number of counts against the work.18 It was held to contain "indecent expressions and questions, and a great many obscene quotations." Especial fault was found with his article on David; the "king and prophet" was treated in an "unworthy and scandalous manner." They objected to the articles on the Manicheans, Marcionites, and Paulicians, because Bayle had advanced the arguments used by these heretics in ancient times, and had, in addition, found new arguments in favor of these heretics, "which tend to oppose the hypothesis of all Protestant divines. ' ' What was worse, he seemed to give the victory to the heretics. In his articles on Pyrrho and Epicurus, Bayle seemed "to weaken the need of believing in a God and in Providence. ' ' 1 7 Bayle was summoned before the consistory on the day before Christmas of 1697, to answer the charges made against him. He XV, 269. It is not worth while to follow this controversy, although it was rather lively for a time. Saint-Evremond took part on Bayle's side. 16 The acts of the consistory and Bayle 's replies are to be found in Beuchot, XVI, 287-300. " See below, Chap. X.

148

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

made a general reply which did not satisfy them, and they then asked for a statement in writing as to his intentions. This was presented to them early in January. It was sufficiently amiable to meet their wishes ; indeed, Bayle appeared only too willing to purge his book of all that was blameworthy. He called their attention to the fact that he was a layman and a philosopher, and that he had written a Critical and Historical Dictionary.

He insisted that he

had been at pains "wherever necessary" to bring back "my readers to the most orthodox principles of our communion," though he would have them remember that an historian must relate "many things concerning the strong and weak sides of every person." He promised to rectify in a second edition all the passages which seemed too free. "No stumbling block" will be left in the article on David. As to the Manichean theory of the origin of evil, he was only showing that the problem could not be solved by reason : ' ' Nevertheless, I promise to consider the matter again, and seek for philosophical reasons against these objections. And if your reverend ministers will be so good as to furnish me with any, I shall make use of them." "Pyrrho" would be corrected as well. In conclusion, Bayle expressed his joy at receiving their advice, affirmed his wish to live and die in the church of his fathers, and asserted his belief in its Confession. Even so thorough an assent did not satisfy the Walloon consistory, for Bayle appeared to justify the Dictionary. He was asked not to wait for a second edition "to repair the scandal." The matter, however, dragged on through the year 1698. Bayle did publish a letter during the year (xvi, 188-91), but a committee of December, 1698, complained that it was too long delayed, that a copy was not sent to the consistory, and that the number printed was so small that "none were to be had at the booksellers for some time past." They suspected — rightly, I doubt not — that it was Bayle 's inten-

149

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

tion to put the letter into as few hands as possible. The letter did not entirely satisfy the consistory. He was further exhorted to perform his promises by a "sincere correction" of the second edition. And they added a word in behalf of the hard-beset Jurieu. The Consistory likewise being of the opinion that our much honored brother, Mr. Jurieu, one of our ministers, having been very much ill treated by Mr. Bayle in his work, it is proper to acquaint the latter of the same, and to exhort him f o r the future to behave with more moderation, both in the second edition of the Dictionary, and in the other volumes which he has promised to the public. The Consistory has observed, not without grief, that so little regard has been paid f o r a minister whose labors are of singular edification to the church.

The attack on Bayle never went beyond this admonition. Truth to say, the consistory accomplished little. Bayle pursued his course quite unconcerned. The articles on the Manicheans, Pyrrho, and Epicurus were not mollified. He partially rewrote the one on David, it is true, but the book's publisher reprinted the original article as a separate pamphlet, so great was the demand. What was worse, his publisher printed both versions of the article on David in the next edition of the Dictionary,

professing a desire to give readers their

choice. The " e d i f y i n g " Jurieu was not handled any more gently in the second edition. Bayle was not much interested in the consistory's opinion, for he did not regard seriously the censorship of an historical

Diction-

ary by a ministerial committee of the Reformed church in Holland. He was writing for a large public. In concluding the account of these initial difficulties, we might apply to Bayle 's Dictionary

his

reflections on the early misfortunes of another great work. "The Dictionary

of the French Academy no sooner appeared but it was

battered by storms on every side : ballads, songs, epigrams, libels, all poured upon that work. . . . Yet it bore off, and now steers on with full sail toward immortality." (xv, 269)

150

THE HISTORICAL DICTIONARY

It is high time that we examined the cargo borne by this buffeted vessel. We shall then learn why "one of the most stupendous monuments of erudition and critical acumen ever bequeathed by a single scholar" became "one of the most important pioneers of religious liberty. ' ' 1 8 is Lecky, Rationalism, I, 285; II, 60.

CHAPTEB V I L I

T H E DICTIONARY —MIRACLES AND T H E B I B L E Let us briefly reeall the great steps in the history of Bayle 's mind; they should not be forgotten as we turn the leaves of his Dictionary

to find the ripened reflections of his last years. His first

important work was published in 1682. The Miscellaneous

Thoughts

on the Comet revealed a critical eye and a sharp mind. Superstition in general was attacked with many interesting asides on the inherent orderliness of nature, and the unreasonableness of miracles. His seeming interest in atheism was the result of a doubt that any relation was to be found between morals and religious belief. In the same year Bayle reaffirmed his doubt as to human motive by a sharp appraisal of Maimbourg's History

of Calvinism.

Here

he showed himself sceptical of historic accounts because they were likely to be full of prejudice based on personal feelings. In examining the history of the church he attacked sharply the idea of infallibility whether based on a church or a book. He added further reflections on Maimbourg's History

in the New Letters of 1685.

That year saw the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The misfortunes of the Huguenots were bitterly resented in his France Entirely

Catholic.

This was followed by a powerful plea for

toleration, based on the events in his native land. He refuted the Augustinian idea that compulsory conversions were just. Again he affirmed the right of reason to judge dogma. More surprising was the expansion of an idea that had appeared earlier, that an uninformed conscience is not doing wrong if it follows the light as it sees it. The lessons of the Philosophical for Protestants as well as Catholics.

Commentary

were meant

152

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

In the meantime Bayle became the editor of a useful and important monthly review of learned works. Here his critical ability found but brief expression, for the project was stopped by ill health in 1687. Not long afterward Bayle became the target of religious fanaticism. Jurieu, his old-time colleague and friend, now became his bitter enemy. This "marshall of the faith" accused Bayle of writing works that attacked the Protestants who hoped to return to France. The supposed pro-French cabal, of which he was assumed to be a member, proving chimerical, Jurieu shifted the onslaught. Bayle was declared to be a detestable unbeliever, even wishing to undermine all religion. The importance of passion in religion was only deepened, in Bayle 's view, by the "snarling" controversy into which he was dragged. One need not wonder that his scepticism as to religious values was deepened by this experience of the early nineties. He lost his professorship in 1693. His writings of those years were largely controversial. The loss of the professorial post made possible the great historical Dictionary. It is the chief work of his later years, the climax of a series of attacks on superstition, wherever he found it. In the Dictionary his ripened thinking had endless opportunity for expression. Here in mature form can be found his ideas of earlier days, and integrated so far as Bayle cared to integrate them. Bayle, however, was not a philosopher in the technical sense. It is a mistake to attempt an analysis of his thought as one would that of Descartes, or Kant, or Spinoza. His works should be approached as one would approach the writings of a Plutarch, a Jerome, a Lucian, a Seneca, or an Erasmus. Philosophical problems were important to him, it is true, but he was particularly a "practical" philosopher, attracted by the relationships of philosophy and religion and morals as they revealed their outworkings in human experience. He was a ceaseless spectator of life, with an extensive

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

153

perspective into the past. The search for truth made him very sceptical of the certainties he found everywhere, and it led him to shatter many a stronghold. Bayle 's idea of the historian was very high. He believed in impartiality, and practiced it to an uncommon degree. We have already found how frequently Bayle corrected the carelessness of Moréri. Others came in for criticism as well. Hofman, wrote Bayle, would have done better to have " f o r g o t t e n " this article entirely " i n which there are many faults of omission; but the worst is that the little he has said is quite full of faults of commission. " 1 In discussing whether a Protestant martyr named Berquin, burned at Paris in 1529, abjured at the last moment, as the Catholics said, Bayle asserted that " i t is certain many pious frauds are handed about in such cases, which an historian ought to distrust." (iii, 372, H) The justification for his article on St. John was that " a collection of errors is a most useful part of history." (viii, 344, A) One of the historians of whom he most complained was Varillas, a prolific writer of Bayle 's time, who died just as the Dictionary was published. Such men ' ' love to say what is not in common histories ; they aspire to the glory of having discovered secret memoirs, etc., which nobody knew before." But what is worse, "They build a whole system upon it, and make it the basis of conjectures they design to vent as matters of f a c t . " (xv, 176, A) Bayle also judged ancient historians, and found them frequently wanting. Tacitus "swallowed the marvellous," St. Jerome "imagined a certain thing to be true, ' ' Plutarch ' ' sometimes applied facts one way and sometimes another. " 2 " The ancient historians so accustom themselves to relate things only in general that they afford but little light into some of the more minute particulars. ' ' 3 Bayle 1 "Alypius of Antioch," I, 450, C. 2 "Achilles," I, 164, M; " A d a m , " I, 106, L ; " A r t a x a t a , " D. a ' ' Archelaus ' ' of Cappadocia, II, 271, K.

154

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

made an interesting observation in the article on Abimelech as to the difference between the accounts in " M o s e s " and in Josephus. "One of the two must be a false historian? Is this to be borneT" And he added, I am of opinion that all the ancient historians have with regard to old memoirs which they consulted. . . unfolded and embellished to their fancy, they have them u p as they pleased ; and this is what at present (i, 77, C)

taken the same liberty . Not finding the facts stretched and dressed we receive for history,

A s to the rules that should govern historians, the great one is to relate the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Bayle frequently compared the historian's task to that of the law court. An author ought not to go by particular rules of his own ; he must conform to public rules. But according to public rules in the matter of history, what is proved by the testimony of grave authors is admitted, and whatever a modern writer advances concerning antiquity, without taking it from good authorities, is to be rejected as fable. 4 If the truth is the great aim, unpleasant as well as pleasant things have to be said. I do not think a layman who writes the history of a country, or the account of his travels, is obliged to be silent about a public custom under the pretence that it is ridiculous. . . . It is impossible to write history without relating infamous and abominable actions. . . . In short, the history of men, their follies and extravagances, and of the infinite variety to be found in the laws and customs of nations, are not things of which the reader ought to be denied, and from which we can reap no benefit. ("François Blondel," second article, iii, 484, A.) Yet just here lay the danger; such history might seem mere satire. The corruption of manners has been so great, as well among those who lived in the world as those who retired from it, that the more a person endeavors to give faithful and true relations, the more he runs the hazard of composing only defamatory libels. . . . Let an historian relate faithfully all the crimes, weaknesses, and disorders of mankind, his work will be looked on as a satire rather than a history. ("Bruschius," iv, 181, D) * "Guevara," VII, 324, D.

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

155

In the article on Marillac, he declared that ' ' satire and flattery are the two plagues of history, two sources that poison human events. ' ' (x, 298, A) So serious is the danger of flattery that Bayle doubted whether contemporary history could really be written, though he did comfort himself with the feeling that the praises of flatterers are likely to be easily detected. Bayle was exceedingly careful to keep his personal liberty at all costs. He even refused a gift from an English nobleman, the Duke of Shrewsbury, who wished to have the Dictionary dedicated to himself. He would not flatter or praise any person who had a position in any court. The unpopularity of his Dictionary in certain quarters was a proof, in the author's mind, that it was truly historical. Whoever relates things that are glorious to his own country and religion, and shameful to foreigners and other religions, cruelly vexes the readers, who do not have his opinions. The perfection of a history consists in its being unacceptable to all sects and nations. It is a sign the writer neither flatters nor spares any of them, (xv, 343)

Such were the ideals with which Bayle approached his task. H O L Y SCRIPTURE

The standards of historic truth, which Bayle ventilated so freely, could not be applied to the Bible with impunity. The idea of the complete inspiration of the Bible was then very largely taken for granted, especially where — as in Protestant circles — it had replaced the infallible church. Biblical criticism was but just beginning. Bayle faced a difficult situation as he tested the Biblical record by his rules for history. Yet Bayle could not or would not refrain from applying ordinary historic tests to the Biblical narrative. For example, he made conjectures as to the length of the reign of Abimelech when Isaac came to Gerar. Since Abimelech was married before Isaac was born, he must, have been a "good hundred years old when Isaac journeyed

156

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

to Gerar. Is this too much ? Did not men at that time live to be above a hundred and fifty years?" And he added slyly, " P e o p l e have set over against this the words of the preacher, Omnis

potentûs

vita brevis, as if supposing the canonical authority of this book, that it was contrary to revelation that a man's reign should continue a hundred y e a r s . " (i, 77, D )

Again, in analyzing minutely the

account of Abraham, Bayle threw out the suggestion that it " i s attended with numberless difficulties, in which both sides of the question do not want for reason." (i, 90, C) He likewise showed the chronological difficulties in the story of Ishmael, who must have been at least sixteen years old when he was reported as being carried away on his mother's shoulders. But make him as young as you can, will it not appear very strange that his mother was obliged to carry him on her shoulders at that age, to lay him under a little tree, to take him up again, to carry him in her arms, and to give him drinkf Read that passage of Scripture concerning Ishmael; it represents to us a child in swaddling clothes, or very near it. We cannot get out of this difficulty by supposing, etc. ("Agar, i, 245, H) A very interesting example of his method, in which lip service was paid to an inspired Bible, is the way in which he explained Cain's fear after the murder of Abel. This expression seems to suppose that Cain believed that all the earth was inhabited, for a man who believed that the whole race of mankind was comprised in the family of Adam, could not have found a better way to avoid being killed than to absent himself from the family. But, on the contrary, Cain seems not to have feared any murderers, provided he did not leave it. Bayle rejected the fecundity of Eve as an explanation often given, for, in that case, Cain's fear would certainly cause him to leave home. I t must, therefore, be the inhabitants of remote countries that he feared, people unknown. For this reason I am inclined to think that the troubles of his conscience made him forget what his father, doubtless, had often told him about the origin of mankind.

MIRACLES A N D T H E BIBLE

157

Perhaps he only pretended he was afraid of meeting assassins, hazarded Bayle; but this, of course, must be rejected because God can read one's thoughts. After further suppositions, Bayle finally concluded that God, in accommodating himself to man's frailty, seemed to confirm Cain's belief that there were other people on the earth, and heartened Cain against the fear by giving him a mark, (iv, 300, A) Such a weak solution is made the more doubtful by Bayle 's suggestion that God could as easily and more honorably have disabused Cain of his fear. Bayle even supposed what God might have said in that case: "Cain, thou need have no fear of murderers in remote countries, for there is not one man there." The whole treatment was sure to leave the reader in doubt as to the accuracy of the record, rather than willing to accept Bayle 's unsatisfactory solution of the puzzle. Bayle made various efforts to free himself from the infallibility of the Bible. In treating David critically, he asserted that "the Holy Scripture relates the facts only historically, and therefore everyone is at liberty to pass a judgment upon them." (v. 409) In a note he amplified this position : " If the Scripture in relating an action, condemns or praises it, none can appeal from this judgment." David's actions, if inspired by God, are a rule for mankind. There is no half-way place : ' ' Either those actions are not good or actions like them are not evil." Is it not better, he concluded, to take care of the interests of morality? Otherwise, one will expose the honor of God rather than that of mortal man. (v, 416, I) Another indication of Bayle 's disregard for Biblical inspiration is found in his comparison of the persons in the Bible with those who lived among the "heathen." In the article on David, Bayle thought it very strange that Saul did not know David when he went against Goliath. If such a narrative as this should be found in Thucydides or Livy, all the critics would unanimously conclude that some one had inserted some

158

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

foolish additions to the author's works. But no such suspicion ought to be entertained of the Bible. Nevertheless, some have been so bold as to pretend that, etc. (v, 404, D)

In the article on Abaris, of whom many "fabulous stories" were told, he went at some length into the one that Abaris was carried through the air upon an arrow. This led to the consideration of the witch's broomstick, and then of various other miraculous rods, including those of Mercury and Circe. He added, Huetius asserts that what the poets feign of Mercury's rod was all borrowed from the history of Moses' rod. The devil was certainly a very clever mimic, for Pharaoh's magicians, by virtue of their rods, did some miracles which certainly resembled those of the true God. (i, 10, B)

Bayle was also very fond of tacking the ridiculous rabbinical stories on to the narrative of the Biblical characters, in order, seemingly, to make these persons more fabulous. He also enjoyed comparing Biblical characters and pagans, who were similar. In his article on Jonah, he noted that the "heathen told a story much resembling this. They stole it from the sacred story and falsified it, according to their fancy. This is, at least, the common opinion of our authors." And then Bayle made the Greek reply to an early Christian who chided them for accepting the story of Hercules and rejecting that of Jonah. "The philosophers and learned men of Greece would have answered, we accept your terms. You would either have us reject the story of Hercules or accept that of Jonah. We reject them both." (viii, 387, B) Much is also made of Noah's similarity to Saturn, and of the likeness of Ham and Zoroaster. Bayle did not know Hebrew, yet he was conscious of the textual differences in early versions. In considering the age at which the patriarchs began to have children, he wrote, "Every one knows they were older at that time according to the Septuagint than according to the Hebrew Bible." ("Akiba," i, 342, B) He noted in another place that a Dutch professor of divinity, Altingius, was

MIRACLES AND T H E B I B L E

159

vilified as being a half-Jew, lacking all but the circumcision, because he "maintained that the points of the Tetragammaton are not proper to that name, and that, therefore, the true pronunciation is not known, and that we ought not to accuse those of Jewish superstition who read it A d o n a i . " Ά saying attributed to Lamech was a ' ' riddle. ' ' It is no easy thing to know how the words of Lamech in the original ought to be translated. . . . But even though we get clear of the matter in the grammatical sense, we should not be far along. It would still remain to be considered what Lamech meant speaking to his two wives. It is no little difficulty.6

Bayle also scouted all attempts at allegorical interpretation, a method still used in his day to iron out the dissonances and unpleasantness of parts of the Biblical narrative. In the article on Eve he objected to the ' ' distillers of the sacred letters, ' ' who would be much less to blame if they "threw away their time in chemical distillations in seeking for that phantom, the philosopher's stone." (vi, 328, A) He objected to two standards of testing narratives and events, "two weights and two measures," as he put it. In discussing the supposed rejection of part of the Old Testament by the Sadducees, Bayle reflected that "men so easily invent subterfuges, glosses, and distinctions that they need not reject the authenticity of a book to answer the arguments alleged against them out of i t . " After citing an instance, he added, "Nay, what is more surprising, many Christians, who still acknowledge the truth of Holy Scripture, laugh at magic and maintain that the devils have no power. ' ' (xiii, 26, G) B I, 480, I. The Tetragammaton was the word of four consonants, J H Y H , the Jewish name for their God, and so sacred to the Jews that they put in the rowels of Lord (Adonai). When it was met in the reading of the Bible, Lord was to be pronounced. The Christian mistake of making the vowels of Adonai the vowels of J H V H led to the erroneous word, Jehovah. The position of Altingius, mentioned by Bayle, is now accepted. β I X , 35, C. See Gen. IV, 23.

160

M I R A C L E S AND T H E B I B L E

Bayle went at length into the conduct of Abraham and Sarah when they told Abimelech that Sarah was not Abraham's wife but his sister. This " l i e , " as Bayle did not hesitate to call it, " i s so clear from the twentieth chapter of Genesis, that were it not for the ill habit of sacrificing the natural sense of Scripture to the least difficulties that arise, there could not be two different opinions about the matter." And after a lengthy discussion he referred to some solutions: "Others have recourse to inspiration, and pretend that Abraham was directed by a prophetical spirit. This is th,e way never to be silent. Such a remedy ought to be better managed, and never to be used but as extreme unction. ' ' 7 An even more dangerous difficulty was the way to approach sayings in the Bible that were attributed to God himself, and yet did not accord with the highest moral standards. Does God deceive the people of earth? In the article on Gregory of Rimini, who affirmed that God could lie and deceive, Bayle explained the difficulty. When God commanded Jonah to preach in Nineveh that it would be destroyed in forty days, when God hardened Pharaoh's heart, when he sent a "lying S p i r i t " into some prophets, a real problem was raised. Gregory's arguments seemed powerful to Descartes, but Bayle reflects that Descartes's "quick surrender is a sign that he was not well acquainted with the books of divinity." Setting that aside, Bayle, on his own account, suggested that the expressions made use of by the holy writers were an accommodation to the capacity of the people. Ordinary minds being unable to raise themselves to the most perfect being, it was necessary that the prophets should bring down God to man, and make him stammer with us as a nurse stammers with a child. Hence it is that there are so many expressions in Scripture saying that God repents that he is angry, that he will inquire whether a thing has happened, and a thousand such things inconsistent with perfection. (xii, 534, B )

In the article on Father Adam, Bayle inferred that the ' ' inspired 7 " S a r a h , " X I I I , 101, A ; 105, B )

MIRACLES AND THE B I B L E

161

author" used his " i m a g i n a t i o n , " that he "adulterated Revelation." The Jansenists saw the danger of F a t h e r Adam's explanation, and replied that his doctrine opened the way to a "thousand attempts against the S c r i p t u r e . " After Bayle virtuously announced that ' ' all communions have their Father Adam, ' ' he concluded that some persons are so warm that they never report anything that is told them without improving upon it. They only retain the thing and never remember the expressions. . . . These persons easily believe that the prophets and apostles treated in the same manner the ideas which the Holy Spirit communicated to them, (i, 213, E ) Bayle so carefully guarded the assumption that Scriptural authors are like other authors that his own position could only be inferred. Yet the inference was not hard to draw. To all these difficulties Bayle supposed the only true relief was to have God's direction. If Scripture is diversely interpreted, the best way to extricate oneself from the difficulties that confound our reason, is humbly to implore the direction of the Holy Spirit. [Yet he immediately added] I do not see how it can compose differences, for each one will boast that he has implored the direction of the Holy Spirit, and will maintain, if the interest of his cause requires it, that commands ought to be explained by examples. He, in consequence, held that those who rely on the doctrines of divines rely upon weather cocks that turn with every wind, and use the word of God as a nose of wax, to the great scandal of good and pious souls, and to the great satisfaction of profane men and freethinkers, who are charmed with having an opportunity to say of the spirit that inspired the prophets and apostles, the same thing that the Protestants say of the spirit that makes the pope infallible. ("Samblançai," xiii, 71, B ) Men like Jurieu had no doubt as to which Bayle was, a pious soul or a freethinker. He was certainly very much ahead of his time in handling the Biblical record.

162

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE OLD T E S T A M E N T

HEROES

The seemingly satirical purpose of which he was accused came out even more clearly in his treatment of Old Testament personages. As the Walloon consistory put it, he drew "frightful pictures" in an "unworthy and scandalous manner." Bayle gave ground for the accusation by the choice he made of persons who were given articles. There were long ones on the various members of the first family, Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain; Cain's descendant, Lamech, Noah, and his son Ham were also favored. Bayle was much drawn to the Abraham stories, for he gave articles to Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, and Abimelech. In the articles on the first family, Bayle appears to accept the garden story. His treatment of Eve, for example, was very frank. Nine curious relationships of Eve to the serpent are mentioned, whether she was with child before the end of the ' ' state of innocence, ' ' whether she really lived to be nine hundred and forty years old, whether the rabbinical story is true that the prince of the angels fell desperately in love with her, etc. He also takes pains to ' ' censure ' ' a Venetian, who in his writings had not sufficiently ' ' consulted the honor of Eve in the point of decency." Adam was treated in much the same way. After relating the Biblical account as " a l l that is certain in this matter" he added other stories, some false or very uncertain, and others that did not seem altogether contrary to the "analogy of faith or of probabili t y . " (i, 198) To pious readers, Bayle 's manner of handling the "stock and father of mankind" would certainly seem scandalous. The very detailed inquiry as to his career would appear quite unnecessary. Did Adam have prodigious knowledge? "According to the common opinion he knew more the very first day of his life than any other man can learn by long experience. ' ' Was Aristotle 's learning as extensive as that of Adam, as a good Carthusian has

MIRACLES AND T H E B I B L E

163

affirmed ? (i, 2 0 1 ) W a s he beautiful of bodyt W a s he bisexual, as some would assert f He was led to this last query by the assertions of a certain Antoinette Bourignon, which were included in the Dictionary

in all their frankness, (i, 202, 6 )

The article on Abel is likewise a collection of curious conjectures, gathered by his wide reading. H e discusses Abel's age, how much younger he was than Cain, in what y e a r of the world he was slain, whether he died a virgin, whether the dispute with Cain was about a woman. H e concluded the article thus : I have thrown together in the remarks a great variety of opinions in relation to Abel. They are, indeed, a heap of absurd notions and errors. But as that is the aim and purpose of this Dictionary, the reader ought not to pass judgment on this collection without remembering the author's design. And this caution I give here once for all. (i, 45) The articles on Abraham and his family were prompted by a different intent. That Abraham, the " f a t h e r and source of the f a i t h f u l " should be open to moral criticism seemed to Bayle an excellent opportunity for shaking authority. Bayle 's attitude can best be seen by quoting at some length from the main article on Sarah. Sarah, sister and wife of Abraham, was his faithful companion in all his travels. She was already married to him when they retired from Ur of the Chaldees to go to Haran. The barrenness with which she was afflicted in her own country, did not leave her in foreign parts. This made her resolve to give her husband a substitute that she might become a mother in the person of that substitute, since she could not be one in her own person. Hagar, her servant, whom she chose for this employ, was quickly with child, and paid her with ingratitude. She despised Sarah. And Sarah, not being able to bear this insolence, used so fully the power her husband gave her over Hagar, that she soon compelled Hagar to leave the house. One may see in another place the return of this ungrateful servant and the extremities to which she was reduced when turned out a second time. We shall not repeat it. It is better to say that, at last, by a particular blessing of God, Sarah proved with child being ninety years old, and bore a son called Isaac. She

164

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

lived one hundred and twenty-seven years. We ought not to forget that she was very beautiful, and that her beauty and the complaisance she had for her husband — not to call herself his wife but his sister — exposed her to the danger of two rapes, whereby her chastity had suffered shipwreck, if God had not prevented it.8 A singular providence saved her in this danger, and restored her to her husband with her honor safe and sound, besides the favors that were heaped upon her by the two princes who fell in love with her. This might sweeten the sad experience which he had of the inconveniences they find, who carry about with them a beautiful wife, which are sometimes greater than if they traveled with an ugly one. One cannot easily clear Abraham and Sarah in this matter, nor about the business of Hagar. Therefore, they are in the wrong who are so angry with Calvin for reproving them on this subject. Thus reads the first half of the article on Sarah. The selection is a typical example of his familiar handling of revered persons. The imputation of the article on Hagar was that the morals of the time were below those of his own day, which were bad enough, (i, 242) And in the article on Abimelech Bayle made much of the way in which the amorous King discovered the " c h e a t " imposed upon him. (i, 78) Abraham had not sufficiently fastened his window shutters. This is the whole matter; and if this is too much, you will be obliged to condemn the patriarch and act the Cato against him. It is well known that Cato expelled one Manlius from the Senate, because at noon day, and in the presence of his daughter, Manlius had given his wife a kiss. And this Manlius would have been consul probably at the next election. The citation of Calvin's judgment well illustrates the way in which Bayle constantly supported his boldness. The treatment of Abraham's peccadilloes was mild in comparison with the picture drawn of David. It was bad enough to pick flaws in Abraham, but to sully the character of David was positive impiety. David was the "man after God's own heart," a prophet and β In a note at this point the "father of the f a i t h f u l " is called a " l i a r , " since the ' ' suppression of the truth is a real lie, if designed to make the hearer form a false judgment." (XIII, 107, D)

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

165

the acknowledged author of the Psalms, which was the accepted hymnal of the Christian churches. At the beginning of the lengthy article David was declared to be "one of the greatest men in the world, even though we should not consider him as a prophesying king who was 'after God's own heart.' " (v, 400) Following a lively narrative, which reproduced the Biblical account, the article became more pointed. David's piety is so conspicuous in his Psalms and in many of his actions, that we cannot sufficiently admire it. But there is another thing no less wonderful in his conduct, that he knew so happily how to reconcile piety with the loose maxims of the art of governing. It is generally believed that his adultery with Bathsheba, the murder of Uriah, and the numbering of the people are the only faults with which he can be charged. This is a great mistake, for there are many other things in his life that deserve censure. He is a sun of holiness in the church; he there diffuses by his writings a fruitful light of consolation and piety, which cannot be enough admired. But the sun had its spots, and even in his dying words we find the obliquities of politics. The Holy Scripture relates them only historically, and, therefore, every one is at liberty to pass a judgment upon them. Let us conclude by saying that the history of King David may comfort many crowned heads against the alarm that severe casuits would arouse, who maintain that it is hardly possible for a king to be saved, (v, 409) In the notes many of these points were elaborated. In one (D) he made a study of David's buccaneering activities from the Philistine town given him by the king of Gath. To speak plainly, this conduct was very unjustifiable; in order to conceal one fault he committed a greater. . . . If a private man, how great soever by birth, should behave himself nowadays as David did on this occasion, he would be called very dishonorable names. . . . What opinion, I say, could we entertain of him, if a prince of the blood of France went about raising contributions in the countries where he camped, and put to the sword all that refused to pay his taxes? In truth, had David any more right to exact contributions of Nabal, to massacre all the men and women of the Amalekites, and carry away all the cattle he found there? In answering the supposed retort that the Law of Nations is now better known, Bayle said that such a fact should not hinder us from disapproving the blemishes in David 's life :

166

MIRACLES AND THE B I B L E

Otherwise, we shall give occasion to libertines to reproach us, and say that, to make an action just, it only needs to be done by persons we reverence. It is of great importance to the true religion that the lives of the orthodox be judged by the general notions of justice and order, (v, 410)

In the next note he left to casuists the question as to whether David's willingness to fight against the "people of God, the professors of the true religion," was becoming to a true Israelite. The longest and most outrageous note was the one (H) that enlarged on "many other things in his life that deserve censure." As to his polygamy ; ' ' We cannot say with regard to the pleasures of love that he took much pains to mortify nature. ' ' He gained the throne underhandedly, used cunning in Absalom's revolt, an action "unworthy of a prophet, a saint, and a righteous man." (v, 412) His amourousness in old age, his dancing naked in the streets, and his wars were also condemned. If one should approve no wars ' ' save those that are defensive, David had frequently undertaken unjust wars, for Holy Scripture represents him pretty frequently as the aggressor." This led Bayle to the reflection that we ought to take care, in criticizing modern princes, lest "we should inadvertently asperse this great prophet." (v, 414) He also condemned David's slaughtering of the people of Ammon, Moab, and Edom. "Have not even the Turks and Tartars a little more humanity?" (v, 415) Just at the end of the last note Bayle wrote regarding the death of Adonijah, that it was " a policy in some respects like that of the Ottomans." (v, 418) Is it any wonder that so minute and modern a handling of David should have shocked the consistory ? Their memorial is worth setting over against the picture drawn by Bayle. He shall entirely reform the article of David, so that pious souls may no longer be offended at it, and in order to do this he shall conform to what Holy Scripture says of the great prophet. He ought even to write a vindication of him, and observe that during the life of Saul, David was the rightful king, and far from judging the action of that prince by the com-

MIRACLES AND T H E BIBLE

167

mon and ordinary course of the kings of the earth, he shall show that David was authorized to extirpate the Canaanites; that the high priest, by whose means he consulted God, was a particular rule to him; that we ought to be silent where Scripture is silent; that its silence, f a r from giving a pretext against David, is rather equivalent to an approbation; and finally he shall take care to establish well the prophetical and canonical authority of David's writings, (xvi, 299) Bayle agreed, as we have found, to whitewash the " m a n after God's own heart." But the task was not very thoroughly done in the second edition that appeared in 1702. I n the main article the material was omitted that had appeared between " w e

cannot

sufficiently admire ' ' and " he is a sun of holiness in the church. ' ' β The phrase, " t h e sun had its s p o t s " was retained and a note was added in this wise : His amour with the wife of Uriah, and the orders he gave to cause the same Uriah to be killed are two very enormous crimes. But he was so troubled f o r them, and atoned by so admirable a repentance, that this incident of his life contributes not a little to the instruction and edification of saints, and it is a precept for vigilance. We may learn from it how to lament our sins, and it is a very fine example. As to the remarks which certain critics would make, showing that in certain other actions he was blameworthy, I suppress them in this edition and with the more pleasure because some persons, who are very much more knowing than I in such matters, have assured me that all these clouds are easily dispersed. . . . They may convince us of David's innocence in a conduct, which considered in general appears bad, and which would be so to-day. (v, 405-6) He also omitted four of the most objectionable notes (D, Ε, Η , I ) . A t the end of note F he left out the sentence, ' ' What scandal is here given to pious souls to see so much infamy in the family of this k i n g ! " B u t he failed to suppress the " i n f a m i e s " elaborated in this note ! The demands of the consistory only made the matter worse. The original article was reprinted as a separate pamphlet to meet a wide demand. It was included in all the later editions of the » The first half of the quotation on p. 165.

168 Dictionary

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE along with the denatured article. Bayle seems to have

been responsible for a considerable interest during the eighteenth century in this very human Hebrew king. Jurieu's strictures included a defence of David. De Crousaz in his Examination Pyrrhonism

Ancient

Biblical characters.

10

and Modern

attacked Bayle 's handling of

A few years later an anonymous

du David appeared (1737). P. L. Joly's Critical Dictionary

of

of Bayle contained some strictures.

L'Apologie

Remarks

on the

11

Possibly the climax of vituperation was reached in Voltaire's tragedy Saül, which appeared in 1763. Voltaire announced in the note prefixed to this "facétie antibiblique" that it was translated from the English of M. Huet, a member of the English Parliament and grandson of the Bishop of Avranches. According to Voltaire it was this same Huet who in 1728 composed a "very curious little book, The Man after God's Own Heart."

The supposed reason was

Huet's indignation at hearing a preacher compare George II — he became King in 1727 — to David, "even though George II had never assassinated any one nor burned his French prisoners in furnaces." As usual, Voltaire was covering his tracks. There was, indeed, considerable interest in England over David's character, as a result of the deistic attacks on the Bible. Here again Bayle appears to have been the stimulus. In 1740 — the two English editions of the Dictionary

had already appeared — Patrick

Delany, an Irish divine, published an Historical

Account

of the

Life and Reign of David. This three-volume defence of the monarch announced on the title-page that it treated fully "Mr. Bayle 's criticisms upon the conduct and character of that prince." Delany was so anti-Baylian as to defend the crimes of which David himself repented. 10

See p. 11, and below, chap. X I I I . 11 A ponderous folio published at the Hague in 1733. For a further discussion of this work, see chap. X I I I .

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

169

On the death of George II in 1760 — and not the year after his accession as Voltaire would have his readers believe — several preachers took occasion to utter panegyrics on the late King, who was thought to be complimented by comparing him with David. Point was given to the comparison by the happy coincidence that George and David had reigned an equal length of time, thirty-three years. Therefore, naturally, George as well as David must be a "man after God's own heart." Samuel Chandler, a prominent defender of orthodoxy, preached such a sermon in November of 1760. 12 This aroused a Deist to publish a biting pamphlet called The History

of the Man After

God's Own Heart. It was the purpose

of this pamphlet to show that the British monarch was "insulted by the comparison." And it was this volume that seems to have suggested Voltaire's Saiil.13 Chandler replied in his Review of the History

of the Man

after

God's Own Heart, and he followed this with a thoroughgoing twovolume Critical History

of the Life of David.1* In the meantime

Bayle 's original article on David was "exactly reprinted from the English translation" as a separate pamphlet (1761). The title-page of Chandler's work announced that the "chief objections of Mr. Bayle and others are explained." The preface is significant, for it speaks of "Mr. Bayle and others who have followed him." Chandler admitted that "Mr. Bayle, though he treats with great freedom some of David's actions, yet doth not descend to reviling and is See Diet, of Nat. Biog. X, 42. The pamphlet was printed in 1761 and again in 1764. The writer was probably Peter Annet, though other authors have been suggested. See Diet. Nat. Biog., ii, 9, and Notes and Queries, 1st series, XII, 204. This pamphlet was translated into French a few years later (1768). It is thought to have been done by D Holbach. κ London, 1761. In that year Porteus, later Bishop of London, preached an "able university sermon" to vindicate David. In the next year David Patten published hie King David Vindicated, etc.

170

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

scandal. He speaks of him at least with a show of respect, though I will not pretend to answer for Mr. Bayle 's real sentiments on this head." 15 Chandler's remark that Bayle "doth not descend to reviling and scandal" is important to remember. Bayle would have felt the company of "Voltaire and Annet unpleasant, for they were biting in their sarcasm, and possessed a passionate hatred of which Bayle was innocent. Bayle 's motive was very much higher. The great result of religion should be to produce a better standard of morality, but the unfortunate fact is that it frequently has not. This has resulted in no small degree, he felt, from the veneration for persons who have not been worthy moral examples. It was in that spirit that he criticized Abraham and David. But the attack on these two men was a body blow at the church's faith. David, as the man after God's own heart (I Samuel, xiii, 14) had been endorsed by Paul as the pinnacle of heroic saintliness (Acts xiii, 22). Nor should it be forgotten that "son of David" was a distinctive title of the Messiah. Abraham was almost equally important, and Bayle seems to have realized it. T H E MIRACULOUS

Closely bound up with the inspiration of Scripture was the burning question of miracles. The acceptance of the miraculous was becoming less and less possible to those who found themselves in an orderly universe. The growth of a belief in natural religion tended to lessen the importance of miracles as well as to call them in 16 The present-day tendency, of course, is to admit David's shortcomings as indicative of the standards of his time. But, even so, it is necessary to admit that David was wrong in his own day, and that he knew it. See, for example, Arthur Moorehouse, David the Man after God's Own Heart ( 1 9 0 4 ) ; Charles Callaway, King David of Israel, " A study in the evolution of ethics." (1905) Modern anti-Christian rationalism has not hesitated to handle David after the manner of eighteenth-century Deism. Bradlaugh's New Life of David makes him out to be a " dark blot on the page of human history. ' '

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

171

question. During the eighteenth century they were attacked again and again by deistical writers, because they were used as a proof of the divine origin of Christianity. In the article on Sarah, Bayle had declared that "miracles ought to be kept as much as possible for a great necessity." (xiii, 109, E) Bayle was usually careful to avoid a direct treatment of miracles in discussing Biblical characters. But in handling Jonah's adventure in the whale, Bayle let himself go. The fish story was called in question in the main article by referring to a similar story that the pagans have told of "their Hercules." We have already quoted his judgment that the ancient philosophers would have rejected both the fables about Hercules and that about Jonah.16 But this naturally raised the question of the resurrection of Christ and of Lazarus. " I s it easier to raise a dead man from the grave, than to preserve a man alive in the belly of a great fish?" And did the men who were in the fiery furnace suffer no harm because of a miraculous suspension of the fire's activity? Augustine's answer to the dilemma, that the more miraculous or incredible the act, the more credible it is, did not appeal to Bayle. It is no argument to say that the more impossible a thing the more possible it is. Yet he did not actually deny Augustine's reasoning, though it is denied by the presentation, (viii, 388, B) Augustine had upbraided the heathen with believing their own miracles and not the Christian ones. This gave Bayle an opening he fully elaborated. This affords an instance of one of the most ridiculous effects of prepossession. The managers of the pagan religion had fed the minds of the people with fables for so many ages that they would not suffer that they should be examined. But when the Christian miracles were proposed to them, they set up for philosophers, made use of all such arguments as might be opposed to foolish credulity, and ridiculed the believers. What inconsistency and partiality is this ! The Christian communions show much ie See p. 158.

172

MIRACLES A N D T H E BIBLE

the same spirit against each other. . . . It is well known how easily the Roman Catholics give their assent to an infinite number of miracles. They proudly believe thousands of stories which are daily published, and look upon the most plausible reasons of those who deny them as mere cavils of obstinate heretics. But if they hear that the Protestants spread abroad any miracles, they assume a quite different spirit. . . . They deny the fact, challenge the witnesses, reproach them with imposture, or a distempered brain. If they cannot deny the fact, they explain it by natural causes, and collect from the relations of travelers a thousand similar cases, (viii,

389, B) Bayle concluded after further explanations that "there are everywhere persons who readily believe what is acceptable to them, and are the hardest in the world to be persuaded of a thing: that is unacceptable." Bayle 's attack on Christian credulity was none the less effective because it was slantwise. He was wise enough not to attempt to handle the New Testament miracles directly. If he had, he would have found it even more difficult to ' ' get by. ' ' The short article on Elijah emphasized the prophet's "revengeful spirit," when he killed the priests of Baal after "convincing them by a miracle that they worshipped a false god." (vi, 118) Elisha was included in the Dictionary, because he "wrought abundance of miracles as may be seen in Moréri 's account, ' ' and in order to relate — and confute — the story of a great prodigy said to have happened at Elisha's birth. It was taken from a church father, Epiphanius, who related that the golden calf at Shiloh bellowed so loud, when Elisha was bom, as to be heard at Jerusalem. Ezekiel, "of the four great prophets whose writings made a part of the Old Testament," also found a place, but only for the purpose of retelling absurd stories of his prowess alive and dead, related by the Jews, "infatuated with their superstitious and absurd whims." (vi, 271) A long note lists numerous stories of the efficacy of Ezekiel's tomb near Babylon. Formerly there was a pillar of fire upon the Prophet's tomb, but some unbelieving persons having mixed themselves with the devout pilgrims

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

173

that were assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles, the fiery column disappeared. Here are a great many fables from which may be inferred this truth, that the invocation of saints has been long a practice of the Jews. [His conclusion was disconcerting:] The Protestants have reason to lament the shameless credulity of this people, yet every one ought to learn by what passes in his own party, that in this place the declivity is very slippery. How many things are practiced by the Protestants nowadays which would not have been approved a hundred years ago t I am sure that the author of the Pastoral Letters (Jurieu) has published more false miracles than he should. And yet only a few, and they laymen, have expressed their disapproval, (vi, 273, C) Bayle attacked miracles by showing that the abundance of credulity among the pagans was not dissimilar to that among the Christians. After relating at length the wonders attributed to Achilles, he warned the reader that he must not imagine it is my intention to put them off for true. . . . Credulity is the source of abundance, but at length it runs into such excess that it generally cures those who are not incurable. Credulity is a mother whose own fruitfulness destroys her sooner or later in the minds of those who make use of their reason. . . . They who have so multiplied the sacred winding sheets, the pictures of the Holy Virgin painted by St. Luke, the hairs of the same saint, the head of John the Baptist, the fragments of the true cross, ought to reflect on these maxims. By increasing the dose they have weakened its force, and have administered both the poison and the antidote. 17 Bayle was careful not to treat directly the miracles attributed to Jesus. His reflections on this matter were indirect. He found that "nothing is a more sensible proof of the impertinent credulity of the pagans than their saying that Apuleius had wrought many miracles, and that they equalled or even surpassed those of Jesus Christ." He added in the note: "Apuleius has had the fate of many other persons; his miracles were not spoken of till after his death." (ii, 216, L) An even more striking parallel was Apollonius of Tyana, "one of the most extraordinary persons that ever appeared in the world." The Deists later made much use of the " "Achillea," I, 172, H. See also "Amable."

174

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

similarity between Apollonius and Jesus. Bayle observed that ' ' the pagans very readily opposed the pretended miracles of this man to those of our Savior, and drew a

parallel between them." (ii,

189) The early Christians even found it necessary to ask St. Augustine to answer for the Christian side. The miracles of Apollonius were called magical or superstitious, but there can be no doubt that many pagans took them for real miracles. . . . The Christians were so pressed with the chimerical parallel between the miracles of Apollonius and those of Jesus Christ, and by the ridiculous pretence that the first equalled or even surpassed the latter, that they had recourse to this great light of the church for a solution of the difficulty, (ii, 193, F) Even though he did not apply his test directly to the miracles of the New Testament, Bayle 's implication is clear. Since there is no probability that God should supersede the general laws of nature, but in cases where the preservation of his children requires it, we ought not to take for a miracle what happens equally among believers and unbelievers. In all religions people are inclined to think themselves favored by miraculous benefits. ("Constance," v, 292, B) Miracle was only one form of the wondrous which Bayle found the credulous accepting. In the Dictionary

there are many articles

that have a place simply because the persons were supposed to work wonders of one kind or another. Of the making of the golden calf by Aaron, it was said that "nothing is accounted too costly when the human mind is intoxicated with superstition and idolatry." (i, 1) In speaking of Ishmael's supposed sepulchre at Mecca, he reflected that " i t is very easy to deceive man in matters of religion, and very difficult to undeceive him." ( " A g a r , " i, 247, K) "People are such fools," for "they are content to be led on in the usual road." 1 8 Magicians attracted Bayle. A very long article was devoted to Agrippa, " a great magician." Pierre d'Apone was included be18 "Agrippa/ I, 306, S; "Augustine," II, 554, E.

MIRACLES AND THE BIBLE

175

cause he was suspected of magic.1· Roger Bacon was rewarded a brief article, but it was solely directed to the belief that he was "suspected of magic." Grandier had a place because "he was burned alive as a magician. ' ' Much is made of the supposed magical powers of Pope Gregory VII. Michael Scot he put "in the class of the magicians. ' ' Witchcraft was very generally discredited among the upper classes of Bayle 's time. Bayle made some reference to it, but his interest in witchcraft as a form of superstition was slight. He admitted, however, that the "most incredulous and subtle philosophers must be puzzled with the phenomena relating to witchcraft. ' ' ("Grandier," vii, 203, L) Yet both witchcraft and the more inclusive magic appeared to him as phenomena possible of explanation when more was known about the human mind. Alchindus (Alkindi) was commended since he attempted to account in a natural way ' ' for all that is attributed to good and bad angels." (i, 378) Bayle leaned decidedly toward naturalistic explanations. He believed that the bones of a dog would as effectually produce a cure, if the sick person who relies on relics, formed the same imagination concerning those bones as concerning the bones and ashes of martyrs. . . . The church of Rome is unable to deny that some false relics have wrought miracles, (xii, 234, D)

The condemnation of Bekker and of his disciple, Walten, raised the matter of magic to some practical importance. We shall find, accordingly, that Bayle has some acute observations to make on the matter of magic in the last of his important works. The most striking part of the Reply to the Inquiries

of a Country Gentleman, published

in 1704, treated the subject in a very modern way.20 19 Pierre d 'Apone is better known as Peter of Abano. Bayle was dependent in large part for hie list of " m a g i c i a n s " on Gabriel Naudé's Apologie pour tous les grands personnages qui ont esté faussement soupçonnez de Magie. (1625.) so See Chap. XI.

CHAPTER I X

THE DICTIONARY — HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS The justification Bayle gave for his harsh handling of Abraham and David was the shocking example they set believers in the Old Testament. Bayle 's concern for the relationship of human conduct to thinking was by no means confined to Biblical personages. Even the casual reader cannot but be impressed with the deep concern taken by Bayle in the good and bad among men, and the relation their actions bore to the professions they made. Ever since Bayle began writing he had not hesitated to assume the rôle of James and suggest that religious "professors" ought to be "doers of the word and not hearers only. ' ' Bayle was not so sceptical of his fellow men as to find no one good. He was pleased, occasionally, to extol a record of noble disinterestedness, of moderation, of sound sense and balance. On the other hand, he was certainly not lavish of praise. One might well apply to him the characterization he made of Anaxagoras: "He had an extraordinary contempt for everything which flatters most the vanity of mortals." (ii, 26, A) He proved uncommonly independent in his judgments, and particularly shrewd in detecting vaulting ambition, whether or not it "o'erleaped itself and fell on the other." The shallow human subterfuges and hypocrisies were not proof against his sceptical eye. Bayle believed that true virtue, which was understood by the pagans as well as by the Christians, consists in doing a good action without a desire for pecuniary reward or public applause. Be as disinterested as you please with regard to riches and employments ; if you are not so with respect to praise, you still act meanly. Yon are not

HUMAN S H O R T C O M I N G S

177

recovered from the disease of self-love, you are only disengaged from the grossest snares, you only wear finer chains. 1 H e was also v e r y critical of those who a p p e a r to wish no other r e w a r d than applause : " T h e subtle vapor of incense does not satisfy their desires; t h e y wish for something more solid to attend it. R e p u t a t i o n alone seems a r e w a r d too s p i r i t u a l ; they endeavor to incorporate with it the conveniences of l i f e . " Therefore,

wrote

B a y l e , " e n d e a v o r to be a virtuous m a n ; seek not to appear s o . " The waste of time in t r y i n g to a p p e a r virtuous grew out of bitter experience. Y e t the R o t t e r d a m philosopher was not slow to show the inconveniences of philosophic balance. H e reflected on this in writing of E p p e n d o r f , who t r i e d to be a neutral between the

Reformation

factions in G e r m a n y , with the result t h a t " h e displeased both parties, and they went so f a r as to charge him with being a pensioner of the P a p i s t s and L u t h e r a n s at the same t i m e . " A n d he continued : To judge things according to the principle of natural light, the course Eppendorf took was the most reasonable. . . . But it was in vain that he hoped to stand upon the shore, a quiet spectator of the boisterousness of that sea. He found himself more exposed to the storm than if he had been in either of the fleets. This is the inevitable fate of those who pretend to keep a neutrality. They are exposed to the insults of both parties at once, and they obtain enemies without procuring themselves friends. Whereas, by espousing with zeal either of the two causes, they have friends as well as enemies. A deplorable destiny of man, a manifest vanity of philosophic reason ! I t makes us look upon the tranquillity of the soul and the calmness of the passions as the end of all our labors, and the most precious fruit of our most painful meditations. And yet experience shows that as to the world there is no condition more unfortunate than that of friends who will not devote themselves to the waves of faction. . . . Such men as howl with the wolves have the advantage of not knowing they are in the wrong, for no men are less capable of seeing the faults of their faction and the good that may be found in the other party than those ι " Amphiaraus," I, ΓΑ3, H.

178

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

who are controlled by a fiery zeal and a quick resentment, and who are under the power of strong prejudice. Such men as Eppendorf are miserable. They will not be a hammer, and, therefore, they are an anvil upon which both sides beat continually, (vi, 214-5, C) B a y l e 's utter contempt for personal glory or position, his satisfaction with the slight material rewards that his chosen course of life brought, made him a sharp critic of the J u r i e u s and others who were eagerly seeking the " b u b b l e r e p u t a t i o n . " The restlessness of the " c l i m b e r s " was frequently noticed. I n speaking of a certain Baudouin he wrote that " h e was, with respect to universities, what certain persons are in relation to mistresses, who run from one f a i r one to a n o t h e r . " (iii, 192) Alciatus, the famous sixteenth-century teacher of law, was used as an illustration of a teacher who contrives to receive an offer from another university in order to obtain an increase of salary in his own. (i, 383, D ) His restlessness, as one who imagined he was a " s o u r c e of l i g h t , " should better have resembled " C o p e r n i c u s ' s s u n , " and kept his center whence he could illuminate all who approached him. Doubtless, if only the love of glory possesses a man's soul, without being mixed with the love of gain, we should not see so many persons struck with Alciatus' disease. . . . Better is it to make one's work as near as possible without salary, else the professor of learning is reduced to the nature of the mechanical arts. A shoemaker or a hatter, who will be better paid for his work than another, gains the reputation of an excellent workman by it. To pretend that an increase of your salary is a proof that you are esteemed a great preacher or a more learned professor, is it not to judge of your trade as we judge that of a shoemaker or a hatter! . . . Surely this is to set up one's learning to public sale, and to proclaim that he who bids most shall have it. (i, 386, G) Another professor of law, F r a n ç o i s Accarsi, aroused similar reflections : One of the most common faults among professors is their not fixing in the universities where they have their first employ. . . . They have no more affection for the second call than for the first, and are not for pitching their tents for the last time till they have obtained the best professor-

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

179

ships. . . . Some of those who do not remove, take care to be well paid for their constancy; it costs those who desire to retain them a considerable addition to their wages, (i, 111) And Bayle proceeded in this reflection to say that churchmen are not exempt from this "little infirmity." Bayle had much to say of the great mass who were slaves to their environment and their meager education. If men would only learn from the past, there might be some hope, but this sceptical spectator of life saw little chance of that. The well-worn artifice of Abelard's enemies, that his attack on doctrine was an offence against the state, was so worn out a contrivance that one might think it incapable of success. No! The world is too unteachable to profit by the follies of past ages. Every age behaves as if it were the first. As the spirit of persecution and revenge has hitherto tried to gain rulers for private quarrels, so will it endeavor to do so to the end of the world, (i, 61, 0 ) He might have added that his own case was one in point. The varied fortunes of Amyraut's doctrines show that we must acknowledge the finger of original sin, and the influence of a thousand dark passions, which ought at last to produce in us, if we are of the number of the elect, a salutary and mortifying humiliation. The worst is, men do not profit by what is past; every generation betrays the same symptoms.2 Bayle was never tired of emphasizing the relation of environment to morality, and of showing that good moral standards were not dependent on Christianity or on any other religious foundation. His teaching on the matter is well summarized in a note on the article Loyola: " I n morality, be content with good sense." (ix, 329, T) B y this he would counsel those general maxims which were agreeable to "natural religion" as found in divers times and places. He held that even patriarchs and bishops are "not dis2 1, 514, F. Amyraut was an irenically minded Huguenot; he sought, during Bayle 's childhood, to reunite the branches of Protestantism.

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

180

pensed from obeying this law of natural religion, that requires a person to restore property which has been taken away." The case he had in mind was an interesting one. A pagan temple had been destroyed by a Christian bishop. It was ordered to be restored but the Christians refused to rebuild a temple for pagan worship. Bayle upheld the Roman authority, and argued that the Christians should have rebuilt the temple ; it should make no difference as to what use the building was to be put. Would it be a good reason for keeping a purse that had been stolen to say that the man, from whom it was taken, spends his money extravagantly Τ Let him do so. You are not answerable to God for the ill use he makes of his money. Let him enjoy what is his own.3

Bayle 's famous defence of the morality of atheists in his book on the comet was reinforced time and again by observations in the Dictionary.

Good conduct is found where Christianity or any

other religion is absent. The main article on Atticus concludes: I forgot to mention that Atticus was of the sect of Epicurus, and that we may defy the most zealous defenders of the doctrine, which holds it impossible that men not believing in a providence can equal in virtue those who acknowledge a Jupiter, to show a better man than Atticus among the greatest bigots of paganism, (ii, 503)

Spinoza was a "good, moral m a n . " (xiii, 434, I) La Mothe le Vayer — a sort of link between Montaigne and Bayle — was a man of regular conduct, very like that of the ancient sages, a true philosopher in his manners. He despised even lawful pleasures, and was passionately fond of a studious life, and of reading and writing books. This regularity, austerity, and wisdom did not prevent his being suspected of having no religion, (xiv, 286)

The distinguished Arabian philosopher, Averroës, occasioned a long article. The "picture of his irreligion" was extended by Bayle. This man, "who denied heaven and hell," was suspected of "de3 " Abdas, " I, 27, C.

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

181

spising even the Mohammedan religion, which he outwardly professed." Yet "wonders are related of his patience, liberality, and mildness." (ii, 530) And it led Bayle to reflect that " w e find examples of good conduct in every country, age, and religion." (ii, 546, P ) The Rotterdam philosopher could see little progress when his own time was compared with earlier ages. The Alani, who were " s o savage as to resemble brute beasts," suggested the reflection that there are an "infinite variety of customs and dispositions of which our nature is susceptible, and among which, for one that is good, we can count above a thousand b a d . " (i, 349, B ) There is a very extensive note to the article on Guy Patin, in which he treated at length the women who conceal their approaching motherhood and even kill the child when born, so great is the force of shame that in a timorous sex it prevails over the fear of the gibbet and the remorse of conscience. . . . I f religion had more power over women than the point of honor, would there be so many found who stifle their children? (xi, 4 5 0 )

Despite the teaching of the church as to the future of unbaptized children, the crime is committed " i n contempt of God and in spite of their religion." He returned again and again to the idea that the ' ' point of honor ' ' — the restraint of custom — " is a thousand times more powerful than conscience." (xi, 453) Loose morality was frequently stigmatized. The Emperor Aurelian was highly lauded for his abstemiousness regarding wealth and women. " H e was only fit for the sect of the Montanists. The Christians of the succeeding ages would have found him too rigorous." As for the present time, his strict morals would be " s o bitter and rough a physic as not to agree with our sick." (ii, 569, B ) In the article on Alesius, Bayle reflected on the prevalence of prostitution, and the relaxed attitude of the church toward the social evil.

182

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

What would the ancient Fathers say if they were to return into the world. . . . I t is the fate of all religions as well as of all political bodies, to be the worse f o r a g e . . . . In this respect, sects and communities resemble man, who is innocent only in the cradle and a few years after, (i, 439, D) The article on an Icelander, J o n a s A r n g r i m u s , w a s inserted for the sole reason that his accounts of shocking customs on that island, gave point to B a y l e 's thesis. Where, then, is that natural impression, which enables all men to distinguish between right and wrong? There are even Christian nations, which not only disregard chastity in practice, but have even lost the theory of it as well. Whence it follows that in this regard they are not conscious of what is naturally right. Does not this show that the ideas of virtue depend upon education and custom, and not upon a natural impression? And how will you cure these people whose conscience is deadf for may it not happen that the conscience may unhappily be lulled asleep, where the notions of right and wrong have become extinct ? * The sovereign remedy w a s not, i n consequence, to be f o u n d in the fear of hell and the rewards of heaven, as the church believed, but in laws strictly enforced. ' ' The fear of m a n makes u s abstain f r o m a thousand t h i n g s which w e should not abstain from if we had no other fear u p o n u s but that of the divine vengeance. ' ' 5 The atheistic sectary, Knuzen, who would establish a group having no other "God, religion, or magistracy than conscience," seemed quite blind. This system, besides its horrible impiety ( ! ), is also to believe that mankind can they would not be necessary, science, as this impious man

plainly extravagant. One must be stark mad subsist without magistrates. I t is true that if all men would follow the dictates of concounsels.

This reference to conscience m i g h t lead u s to note, just in passing, that B a y l e 's erring conscience, so much emphasized i n the * VIII, 392, C. It is worth noting that Bayle 'a historical sense guarded him against the great error of the Deists, on the one hand, and of Bousseau, on the other. »"Pierre Aretin," II, 297, B.

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

183

Philosophical Commentary, was still in a good state of preservation. Archelaus, King of Macedonia, was commended for not punishing a courtier who had insulted him, thinking the King to be some one else. "All princes should treat involuntary faults in this manner, if they would be just and if the public interest would permit the regulating of their practices according to the ideas of reason." (ii, 261, C) He reaffirmed that "every action committed against the light of conscience is essentially evil." 8 Bayle clearly enjoyed curious cases of conscience. The Roman consul, Septimius Acindynus, was included to give him the opportunity of relating a problem of conduct. A man who was to be hanged for debt, had a beautiful wife. A rich man, deeply in love with her, offered to pay the debt and liberate her husband, if he might pass the night with the lady. She consulted her husband, on the ground of St. Paul's doctrine that "she had no power over her own body but her husband. ' ' The prisoner agreed to have his life redeemed at this price. The debt was ultimately paid, and the man freed. Bayle affected surprise that St. Augustine should seem to approve the conduct of this woman. But the seeming censure of Augustine did not prevent Bayle making such an extreme case justify his doctrine of conscience. The case just given shows another of Bayle 's prominent beliefs — his dislike of, and disrespect for, women. His strictures on them are frequently very severe. In speaking of Juno, he was willing to admit that ' ' we cannot do without women in both civil and religious life." (viii, 510, M) He found women generally of little learning and very credulous. He believed that "devotion was innate to the sex." Indeed, he wrote, "there have been very few revolutions of religion, for better or for worse, which women have not chiefly influenced. ' ' 7 e " A i l l i , " I, 328, L. See also " B i m i n i , " XII, 533, A. t " Fraticelli, " VI, 594, G. "Gregory I , " VII, 216, D. He thought that if

184

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

Bayle found several learned women who were exceptions to the general run. Such was Mary de Gournay, the adopted daughter of Montaigne. Isabella Sforza, also, "may be placed among learned women." Barbara, wife of the Emperor Sigismund, attracted Bayle 's attention because of the extraordinary fact that she was an atheist, "which is almost without example among women." (iii, 97) He doubted whether there were more than four or five in France who have fallen into this "impious belief." And he added, " I am willing to own that this prodigy (an atheistic woman) is becoming something less surprising, since women are not so ignorant as formerly. It requires a certain proficiency in false metaphysics to sink the mind into this unhappy abyss of irreligion ( !)." The few exceptions, however, but proved the rule that woman was essentially religious. And he quotes at this point from his work on the comet that "Atheism is not their vice. . . . They stick to their catechism, and are much more inclined to superstition than impiety." (iii, 98, A) The reason he had given in his treatise on the comet of 1680 for their devotion was that they are "so much possessed with a thousand passions that fall, as it were, to their lot, that they have neither the necessary time nor capacity to call in question the articles of their faith." Many women of "shady" reputation were admitted to the Dictionary,

such as Rhodope, Lais, Thaïs, Lamia,

Flora, Alpaide, Heloïse, "courtezan and afterward wife of Abelard," Chelidonis, "a woman of ill life," etc. Sappho was given considerable attention, with some emphasis on the unnatural passion she had for her own sex. Plaee was found for Padilla, mistress of Peter the Cruel, the notorious Diane of Poitiers, and the equally well-known Anne Boleyn. Of the latter he wrote that ' ' the Catholics have loaded her with slander, which may be very easily confuted. the worship of the Virgin Mary were taken out of Catholicism, it would leave a "frightful g a p . "

H U M A N SHORTCOMINGS

185

Their blindness is the more inexcusable because they might have satisfied their slandering humor without exceeding the bounds of faithful historians." (iii, 528) The scandalous games to celebrate the goddess, Flora, "who, if we are to believe Lactantius, was a courtezan, were in a way the courtezan's festival. Fine morality this!" (vi, 491, C) In the article on Pericles, he went out of his way to note that the prostitutes of Athens built a temple out of their ill-gotten gains. Let us wonder at the blindness of the human mind. Here are some conscientious courtezans who consecrate to religion a considerable part of the money they have got by debauchery. They cannot be better compared than with those financiers who, being grown rich with the blood and sweat of the people, build a magnificent chapel, and adorn the great altar of a cathedral with their offerings, (xi, 624, T)

Women were even worse than men in their evil ways. "If women, generally speaking, are much more tender than men, it is true, on the other hand, that those of them who are cruel and ambitious, exceed men in these two vices. When luxury is the reigning vice, it is much worse. ' ' 8 This misogynist also stressed the dangerous passions they aroused in men. "The misfortunes of the Trojan War were occasioned by women. If three or four persons could have restrained their passions, it might have saved the lives of two or three hundred thousand men." ("Chryseis," v, 153, A) Bayle deplored their influence in intrigue. A man appears to rise with extraordinary rapidity. ' ' For what reason, will people say ? What has he done ? . . . The solution of all this is that some powerful woman protects him by the credit she has gained at the expense of her virtue." ("Cethegus," v, 46, C) Bayle's remedy was that of St. Jerome. "The safest way was s "Eurydice," VI, 348. Compare, also, " F a u s t a , " YI, 418, C; "Lycurgus," IX, 229, G. As to luxury iii dress and the difficulty of curbing women here, see "Cécile Gonzague," VII, 139, C; "Innocent X I , " VIII, 374, L.

186

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

always to be chosen ; it were better to fly than to remain on the field of battle." ("Fontevraud," vi, 513, Ν) Bayle was naturally opposed to governments falling into the hands of women. He brought this out especially in considering Joan, Queen of Naples, a lascivious woman, who expiated this crime by being ' ' liberal to the church and permitting the persecution of the Jews." (xi, 18) A queen's amours are much more inconvenient than those of a king. What troubles were there not in the kingdom of Naples during the reigns of these two Joans. . . . All things duly weighed and considered, one should be obliged to confess that the laws which permit kingdoms to fall to the distaff have not been wisely established. It is not that women have less wit or capacity than men. There have been some who have reigned with so much glory, courage, wisdom, and ability that the greatest of kings have scarcely deserved to be compared with them.8

This philosopher's suspicion of women naturally led him to distrust marriage for himself, and to find it frequently proving anything but satisfactory for others. It was frequently accompanied by "jealousy, that plague of married life." ("Abaris," i, 14) He showed his doubt in speaking of a story told of Allatius. The Pope asked Allatius why he did not take orders. The reply was, because I would always be ready to marry. Why then don't you marry, said the Pope. The reply was, because I would always be at liberty to take orders. And Bayle reflected that, though Allatius may have repented at his death that he had not chosen one or the other, yet "he might have repented for thirty or forty years successively, if he had actually made his choice." (i, 456, D) Of John Aventine, the historian, he wrote, "Let us not condemn him for imprudence because his marriage was unhappy. The wisest are caught in it." (ii, 526, G) Baduel, who wrote a book on the Marriage of Men of Learning

gave the excuse for more reflections on the subject of

matrimony, "which is the most difficult of all to determine with »XI, 23, G. See also, " Olympias, " XI, 233, G and "Urraca," XIV, 492, E.

HUMAN

SHORTCOMINGS

187

judgment." (iii, 25, A ) We already know that Bayle was disinclined to run such a risk, since women too frequently personified the very forces that would counterbalance that which was most dear to him — the life of reason, the control of the passions, the disregard of luxury and honor, the solitary enjoyments of the study. One might reply to Bayle that women were not as he pictured them. He was sceptical, it is to be remembered, of the average male as well. The dangers attendant on the relationship to women were undoubtedly greater then than in later days when female education was to become more general. Bayle, in this particular, preferred what he called "good sense." His disregard, if not contempt, for women and for the refinements of social intercourse, may account for his frankness in matters which were regarded as taboo in polite society. The Dictionary

proved so outspoken on the failings of

women and the play of the passions that its author was widely accused of overstepping the boundary between frankness and obscenity. Before turning to his criticism of theology and philosophy, this question of his frankness must be faced. OBSCENITY

The consistory of Rotterdam listed this as the first among the numerous faults of the Dictionary.

"They had found therein

obscene reflections, indecent expressions and questions, and a great many obscene quotations." (xvi, 287) In their final admonition the consistory advised Bayle "carefully to shun all obscenities, and to suppress the impure expressions, citations, questions, and reflections, remembering that purity of spirit as well as of body, is one of those things which are most recommended to us in the Scriptures. All wise men should take great care not to favor libertinism, which is but too common in this age, and to which the youth have but too great a leaning." (xvi, 298) There is no more difficult problem than the decision as to what

188

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

oversteps the bounds of decency in books and similar publications. Who are qualified to assert that they accurately reflect the public demands and the public good? The clergy, police magistrates, various organizations for "preserving" morals, have often stepped in to declare a particular work indecent. Authors themselves are seldom willing to admit a censorship. Their wide reading of works of other times than their own naturally tends to make the particular demands of a given age less forceful. Bayle was true to type. In defending the Dictionary, he asserted that whenever he had said anything as his own, " I have avoided all words and expressions that are contrary to common civility and decency." 10 He believed this "sufficient in a work of this nature, intermixed with historical narratives and all sorts of discussions." Further, he had avoided all words not found in good usage by the Dictionary of the French Academy. Moreover, if a quotation contained an immodest thing, he only set it down in Latin.11 He asserted that he had refrained from quoting immodest material from books that were little known, which I had rather leave in darkness than excite the desire of buying them. . . . I could name a very honest man, who never was a debauchee, who wrote from London to one of his friends that he expected to find quite other things in the Dictionary from the clamors of certain people. I imagined, said he, that it contained unknown obscenities, but I could find nothing in it, but what myself and my companions knew before we were eighteen years old. 12

Bayle further argued that there were degrees of obscenity. The same demands must not be made for an historical dictionary, where 10

X V , 333. Bayle added to the second edition of his Dictionary an extensive apology or defence of his freedom. It was separately published for the first time in 1879 (Bruxelles) under the title, Sur les obscénités. 11 See, for examples, " A k i b a , " F and " Q u e l l e n a e , " A. 12 X V , 333. This may mean much or little. In the English edition of the work, published in 1734, the editors not only translated all the French passages into English, but practically all of the Greek and Latin passages as well!

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

189

truth is the great aim, as would be made for a "sermon, a book of devotion, or a novel." This would be setting up a tyranny over men's minds. A word that would be thought unbecoming in the mouth of a preacher, or in a small romance designed for the entertainment of the ladies, would not appear so in a case written by a lawyer, nor in the deposition of a doctor, nor in a book of natural philosophy, nor in the faithful translation of a Latin book (xv, 333) If writing a romantic history of the adventures of Jupiter or Hercules for young ladies, it might be well to use enigmatical expressions, but "if the writers of historical dictionaries used long circuits and far-fetched expressions, whereby the fate of some nymphs might be guessed at, they would be counted ridiculous." Bayle asserted again and again that it was impossible to satisfy the purists. There is no avoiding their censure . . . who seem willing that an obscene image should be imprinted on the mind, provided it be with such and such words and not with others. . . . I do not think all authors are obliged to submit to the new notions of politeness of style, for, were it exactly followed, there would at last be no need of any Dictionary but that for the precise ladies, (xv, 338-340) The author strongly objected to that false prudery which clothes ideas that are immodest in enigmatical but suggestive language. Those who "have nice ways of wrapping up things, which some complain I have neglected," do not hinder the impression on the imagination. The delicacy of their touches has only this effect, that people look upon their pictures the more boldly, because they are not afraid of meeting with nudities. . . . Thus the subject insinuates itself more into the imagination and is more at liberty to pour its malignant influence into the heart. . . . This pretended regard to modesty is really a more dangerous snare; it makes one dwell upon an obscene matter, (xv, 342) He illustrated his point in this way. A marriage is about to take

190

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

place, but it is suspended all of a sudden by the interference of a third person, ' ' who happens to be with child, and demands that the marriage her lover has contracted with another be void. ' ' A virtuous young woman wants to know why the marriage should be prevented. She might be told the girl "has the misfortune to be with child, he has kept her company, they have been too intimate, what has passed between them cannot be modestly spoken of. ' ' Even better wrapped-up expressions might be found, but all would imprint on the young woman's mind the action that has produced the young woman's pregnancy, as strongly as Michael Angelo could have done it on a canvas. . . . It is, therefore, certain that the most modest and the most obscene word equally defile the imagination, when the thing denoted is obscene, (xv, 349)

Our lexicographer insisted, further, that his alleged freedom was not nearly so great as that of many writers who were generally accepted. And in the Dictionary Bayle often condemned others for speaking too freely. Stephen Accords was condemned for his poetry ' ' on obscene subjects, which he handled too freely according to the vicious practice of those times." (i, 125) The Latin poet, Ausonius, composed some wanton verses, "but it is wrong to assume this as a proof of. his paganism, as some have done. How many Christian poets there are whose works are more lascivious than his!" (ii, 590, E) The author greatly enjoyed citing the famous Calvinistic reformer, Beza, whose early poems contained ' ' verses too licentious, and little becoming the chastity of Christian muses. But if the author's enemies had been reasonable they would have rather praised him for the pardon he later asked of God and the public." (iii, 396) Garasse wrote a defamatory libel, The Banquet of the Wise Men, and quoted "indecent passages" in his book. Bayle considered at length the defence made by Garasse, one point of which was that

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

191

he was certainly no worse than the saints and fathers of the primitive church. Bayle suggested that Garasse had not defended himself well, and said that he might better have supported himself if he had denied that on purpose he had raked together a heap of filth, and if he had maintained that the use of obscenities by the ancient fathers did not free them from blame, if at bottom it was a pernicious and sinful thing, (vii, 30-1) Above all, " i f chastity is inconsistent with impure ideas, we should never read the most excellent of all books, the Holy Scriptures." (xv, 353) Elsewhere, he wrote that ' ' at this rate the Bible should be corrected and the writers inspired of God would be subject to censure." He pointed out that there were many things in Genesis and in Leviticus not proper to be read in Protestant churches, and noted that the Prophets and the Apocalypse have used the most energetic expressions. " H a s St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans such a regard for chaste ears as our purists require?"

18

Larousse, in the elaborate introduction to his Grand Dictionnaire, came to Bayle 's defence. After explaining how Bayle tried to justify himself, he added that the Rotterdam lexicographer had no need of such subterfuges. His excuse was entirely in the nature of the subjects he treated. If accused of being partial to Bayle, Larousse would reply, ' ' We know by experience the difficulties and especially the necessities which this sort of undertaking presents, and do not hesitate to range ourselves on the side of Bayle against his detractors, whose criticism is too often based on hypocrisy." (xx) The reply that might be made is that Bayle seemed to go unnecessarily out of his way to discuss sexual matters, and to elaborate human waywardness. He appeared uncommonly interested in the evidence of weakness of will and wantonness of action. One might apply to him the words he used of another; " h e found himself is XV, 354. See also "Catherine Sforza," X I I I , 273, E, and "Suetonius," XIII, 546, E. The reference to Romans is to the latter part of the first chapter.

192

H U M A N SHORTCOMINGS

obliged to relate several obscene things, and even was merrier than the necessity of the subject required." 1 4 The old legends of the rabbis and the myths of Greece and Rome were replete with opportunities for freedom. The lengthy articles on Adam, Eve, Achilles, Helen, Heloïse, Abelard, Ham, Margaret of Navarre, and Berenice were " m e r r y . " Objections would be made by the purists to such articles as those on Quellenac, Democritus, Akiba, Arodon. Whether Bayle 's curiosity was scientific or prurient, there is no doubt of his keen interest in the mysteries of the origin of life, and in the study of anatomy. In one place he speculated on the effect of maternity on the human voice, in another of the causes of barrenness, in another, as to how far one should go in lecturing on anatomy to a nun. 15 After all, the test was rather in the purpose of the writer than in the expressions he may have used. His Dictionary was critical, the standard of accuracy which Bayle set himself was very high. He could not see why some things shameful to a prominent person of the past should not be told, as well as those to his credit. The conspiracy of silence which has so often falsified historical figures and has raised them to pedestals much too exalted, was a game in which he was not inclined to indulge. If the truth tended to lower some of the great ones in the general estimation, Bayle did not see that he could help telling the truth. This viewpoint is nowhere better explained than his criticism of Xiphilinus for suppressing the Empress Domitia's evil conduct. I maintain that the suppression of such a fact shows bad judgment. . . . It is the duty of an historian to find the character of his actors in their boldest strokes, which show the extent of their virtues or their vices. . . . Is extenuating her fault and concealing from the reader the extent of her irregularities the duty of an historian ? (v, 559, A ) κ "Quellenac," XI, 374. i ' "Democritus," V, 461; "Parthenai," XI, 413; "Quellenac," XII, 375; "Adam, the Jesuit," I, 215, K.

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

193

He condemned Moréri's Dictionary for passing over in silence the evil conduct of Catherine Sforza. A writer of romances, which contain a thousand fables and chimeras grafted upon real fact, might write thus. . . . But an historian is obliged to represent the bad qualities of people. Justice requires that what is blamable should be actually blamed, and whoever conceals the faults of persons imposes upon the world. 14

Bayle likened his work to the presentation of evidence in a law court, where advocates must express themselves plainly. It is impossible, he wrote, to leave out of a Dictionary everything that sullies the imagination. " I t must be sullied whichever way the reader be told that Henry IV had natural children." (xv, 350) Back of this determination to be full and accurate was the willingness to show the weakness of man. To what end should I suppress these facts Τ [he is speaking of Diogenes, the Cynic] You ought at least, you will say, to use expressions which may veil these infamous actions. I answer that this would be the way to diminish the horror they deserve. . . . This may humble and mortify human reason, and convince us of the infinite corruption of the heart of man, and teach us of a truth of which we should be always mindful, namely, that man needed a revealed light to supply the defects of the philosophical. ("Hipparchia," viii, 145, D )

" I f people delight in obscene passages," he wrote in his defence of the Dictionary, ' ' and spoil themselves by dwelling on them, that will not be my fault. They must blame their own depravity. Do I not show these things to be criminal?" (xv, 352) It is true that he usually concluded by condemning that which was contrary to morality, but the large number of quotations of this character made his critics feel that there was some other moth r e than mere condemnation. The writer believes that the desire to show the depravity of man and an honest interest in a truthful past largely explain Ιβ XIII, 273, E. In "Hipparchia" he justified at length the privileges and dutiee of an historian.

194

HUMAN

SHORTCOMINGS

Bayle's liberty. There was, in addition, the desire to add some "gayer touches" for making more attractive an otherwise "dull ( ! ) compilation. ' ' Bayle has been accused of having a prurient imagination, and of indulging by the proxy of the mind in enjoyments that were not physical. There is no way of proving or disproving a sneer. In any case, Bayle was not hypocritical. As to his life, no one was ever able to bring against it the least suggestion of irregularity. What a powerful weapon it would have been in the war that Jurieu waged against him, if the theologian could have made his attack on moral grounds? Bayle was concerned lest the accusation of writing an obscene book be carried further. He pointed out that Margaret of Navarre was a "virtuous and pious queen, fully possessed of divine love, and yet she did not forbear employing her pen on obscene subjects." (xi, 54) Bayle went at length into the matter in writing of La Mothe le Vayer, in order to show that "the judgment to be passed on a man's morals from his writings would be false on a thousand occasions." (xiv, 290, D) He concluded his long dissertation on the subject of obscenities by the hope that his accusers' second thoughts would be better than their first, (xv, 365) We shall find that his rough handling of the revered past was to prove of great value for the future. The eighteenth century, if it did not actually drop the pilot, threw overboard an immense amount of excess baggage, under the inspiration of Bayle. Or one might use the metaphor which Bayle himself employed. He was a consulting physician for the needless accumulations of the human mind. The Dictionary may have proved a rather severe emetic, but the patient was the better for having "taken" it. PRIESTCRAFT

Did he ask in a veiled way that they drop the pilot? Bayle was

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

195

also accused of this when his enemies declared that he was opposed to all religion, and that he was even an atheist. He certainly took little pains to conceal his hatred of what goes by the name of ecclesiasticism. He laid the fault to credulity, and to the desire of those in power to batten at the expense of others. This, he held, was true of all religions. The Mohammedans could not understand how Abulpharage could be inwardly a Christian, thinking he must dissemble. ' ' This prejudice universally prevails. Every one imagines that the truths of his religion are so clear that the men of genius of another party cannot but be convinced of them. ' ' (i, 101, E) In speaking of the Black Stone at Mecca, Bayle was even sharper. It is very easy to deceive a man in matters of religion and very difficult to undeceive him. He is fond of his prejudices, and finds leaders who indulge him in them. . . . When the disease is become inveterate, the most disinterested fear that the remedy may prove worse than the disease. These dare not cure the wound, and it is to the interest of others that it should not be cured. Thus an abuse is perpetuated; dishonest men protect it, and honest men tolerate it. ("Hagar," i, 248, Κ)

Bayle refused to be a mental sloth and coward, despite the dangers it raised. Those who needed exposing, as he saw it, were exposed. He laughed at the Council of Trent for condemning Calvin and yet thinking it held by St. Augustine's system. The doctors are in this case great comedians. . . . It is a great happiness to some persons that the people never trouble themselves to demand any account of their doctrine. They would otherwise oftener mutiny against doctors than against tax-gatherers. . . . But there is nothing to fear; the people are content to be led on in the usual road, (ii, 553, E)

Bayle elsewhere declared that one of the most useful articles in a Dictionary is the one that shows the ' ' weakness of the heart of man and the ill effects of prejudice in religion." ("Bertelier," iii, 381, G) Bayle, of course, did not lay all errors at the door of scheming theologians, a tendency which was but too common in the next cen-

196

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

tury. Of the four brothers who had a wonderful horse named Bayard, he wrote, ' ' I should not take notice of so idle a tale except that these romantic extravagances have even crept into the sanctuary. Popular superstition has introduced them into religion. ("Aimon," 1, 329) The philosopher of Rotterdam was especially aroused at the odium theologicum, the unrestrained spirit of hatred, pugnacity, and bitterness that controlled too many ecclesiastics. Abelard was pictured in a long article as the victim of this spirit, and of the weaknesses of the flesh. In the article on Alciatus, Bayle recurred to Abelard, and scored the spirit of the "ecclesiastics" whose hatred even led Abelard to think of taking refuge among the Turks, ' ' outside of the sphere of activity of the odium theologicum."

(i, 392,

E) Baius was condemned by this spirit, "this passion which finds heresies wherever it pleases," which transforms thought into pernicious heresies and is ruinous because of its contagion.17 The author revealed his deep distaste for the theologian time and again. The ancient Fathers were frequently corrected, especially those whom the church particularly revered. He had much to say against Tertullian, who had a very pronounced capacity for hatred. Chrysostom, the greatest figure of the ancient eastern church, was quoted many times to show his weakness as a Biblical exegete. Origen of Alexandria was one of the greatest minds in the early church. But his point of view was so strongly touched by Greek influences that he later fell into bad odor. He never achieved that honorary doctorate of sainthood. Bayle 's interpretation was characteristic. Origen was "one of the most prolific writers and first geniuses that flourished in the primitive church." His life was admirable for its purity ; his zeal for the gospel was ardent to the last degree. "He ruined his health with fastings and watchings," " H I , 31, C. See also, " B a r c l a y , " III, 108, E.

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

197

and at last died after having shown his constancy under severe torment. Bayle instinctively came to the defence of Origen. So many virtues, so many admirable talents, and so great a degree of zeal could not prevent his dying as a heretic. . . . There are but few in the Roman communion who dare to doubt of his eternal damnation. And yet how many voluptuous, worldly, lazy, and vicious doctors there are, who being at the same time very orthodox, receive every day thousands of benedictions for their unshaken constancy in the true faith Y How impenetrable are the judgments of God ! (xi, 244)

Every opportunity was taken to belittle Augustine, the greatest father of the western church. The Philosophical

Commentary

attacked the Bishop of Hippo for his intolerance. The

had

Dictionary

article given over to this church father is one of the most malevolent in the whole work. Little attention was paid to the constructive work of Augustine — on the ground that Moréri had treated that side admirably — but much was made of Augustine's moral irregularities, since " i t is proper to discover both the good and the bad of great men." (ii, 550) Bernard of Clairvaux, who dogged Abelard, received much the same treatment. Upon his shoulders the "whole weight of the church seemed to lie." Yet many trivial things were told of him. His mother dreamed before his birth of a white dog, a dream which was interpreted by a monk to refer to her child "who shall keep God's house, and bark much against the enemies of the f a i t h . " (iii, 360) Bayle could not let such an opportunity slip. " W e must take care not to push the comparison too f a r , " he cautioned, and then proceeded to do that very thing. If you pretend to the quality of a great doctor, who acts only for the glory of God, and if you involve a large number of great men in your libels and denunciations, you deserve to be punished, you are unworthy of your station, you are a dog that falls on friend and foe indifferently. . . . Ought such dogs, destitute of discernment, to go unpunishedÎ (iii, 363, D)

One of the best examples of this type of article was that given to

198

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

Albertus Magnus, the great thirteenth-century theologian. The account bristles with the various accusations made against him, that he practiced midwifery, searched for the philosopher's stone, was a notorious magician, made a machine in the shape of a man, ' ' which served him as an oracle. ' ' The supposed miraculous grant of learning by the Virgin Mary to supplement his "dull mind" was the excuse for repeating the saying that "an ass was turned into a philosopher." At the conclusion of the account Bayle made something of his physical smallness. "Our Albertus was a very little man." It is clear that Bayle wished to leave a decidedly unfavorable picture in the mind of his reader, as he concluded his treatment of "little Albert the Great." The spirit that pervaded the volume when Bayle had the clergy in mind was well attested by a fable of Abstemius, who "did not always spare the clergy. ' ' A priest in charge of a nunnery of five women, "by each of which he had a child at the end of a year," excused himself to the bishop by quoting Scripture — "You intrusted me with five talents, and, lo, I have gained five others." Whereupon the bishop gave the priest full absolution for the cleverness of his reply. Bayle reflected: "A bishop, who would excuse such a profanation as this for its pleasantry, would not do his duty much better than the guardian of the five nuns." (i, 94, B) But Bayle was not so anti-Catholic as to suit the Protestant consistory in Rotterdam. So tender was he, for example, regarding some Catholic worthies, that the consistory counselled that he be more truly Protestant. He shall not refute, except on very good grounds, what our divines have advanced concerning certain wicked popes. Though he may allege some conjectures in defence of these popes . . . it is unjust to side unnecessarily •with the party of seducers, who have done so much hurt to the church, and to make our authors pass for rash accusers, (xvi, 300)

Was there ever a more ungrateful assessor of human nature, a man

HUMAN SHORTCOMINGS

199

so non-partisan that he struck at the unreasonable wherever he found it 11t is little wonder that Bayle 's cross-bench mind made him another Eppendorf; " I t was in vain that he hoped to stand upon the shore, a quiet spectator of the boisterousness of that sea."

18

Many other illustrations might be given of Bayle 's harsh judgment of accepted morality. I f he showed a profound distrust of ecclesiastical authority, it was because he found the church failing in the tasks which it assumed. The reading of the past, an uncanny eye for the tendencies of his age, his own unfortunate experiences all helped to produce Bayle 's pessimistic estimate of human achievement. See above, p. 177.

CHAPTER

Χ

THE DICTIONARY — SCEPTICISM The Rotterdam consistory was much concerned over Baylian vagaries regarding heretics, sceptics, and atheists. Why revive the dead? "With regard to Manicheism, instead of displaying the sophisms of the Manichees . . . Mr. Bayle shall refute them, and shall take care not to give the victory to so detestable and monstrous a heresy. ' ' The sceptics were handled with equal discrimination : "He shall observe the same conduct with regard to the Pyrrhonians and Pyrrhonism, which extinguishes all religion. And he shall reform the article on Pyrrho, taking care, both there and everywhere else, not to injure our mysteries." Revision was also necessary for the articles on atheism. He shall correct the passages which may contain a leaning in their favor, and he shall take care not to weaken the value — for civil society and the improvement of morals — of believing in a God, in Providence, and in the future life. He shall insert clauses inspiring a horror against atheism, and show that, though atheists may have been morally commendable, it did not proceed from atheism, but from a self-love, which is not to be commended. It will be well to add examples, which he may know, of atheists who have been very vicious and very infamous, (xii, 299)

Bayle objected to the theological test of his Dictionary. His flights of wit were not made, he wrote, with sinister intentions. His thoughts were thrown out at random, not "in the strain of a dogmatist, nor with the fondness of one who seeks to make converts. ' ' (xv, 270) This may be true enough, but the wide use made of such a work gave the opinions much more importance, and Bayle himself considered that the function of his Dictionary was to furnish some-

SCEPTICISM

201

thing more than a collection of dry facts. His defence was characteristic. If a layman, who bears no public office — and I am such — should drop amongst vast collections of history and learning, some error in religion or morality, I do not see any reason why anybody should be concerned with it. It is not in such works as these that the reader seeks the reformation of his faith.

He compared himself to Montaigne, who went through life uncondemned, although Charron, who put Montaigne's ideas into a treatise on morality, La Sagesse, aroused the "divines." (xv, 271) But such attempts to discount his influence were hardly convincing. Bayle had taught in a Calvinistic seminary, was the son of a Reformed minister, and one of the most prominent of the refugees from France. In replying to the consistory, moreover, Bayle had accepted the Confession of Faith of the Reformed Church, "of which I profess myself a member, and in which I hope, by the grace of God, to live and die." The controversy with Jurieu had aroused an interest in the Dictionary.

Its teachings became of even greater

importance. Scepticism in Bayle 's da}- was commonly known by the name of Pyrrhonism, from the Greek philosopher who taught this view of life. No better definition could be furnished than Bayle 's own: Pyrrho found in all things reason to affirm and to deny, and therefore he suspended his assent. . . . He sought truth so long as he lived, but he so contrived the matter as never to grant that he had found it. . . . The method of thinking that goes by his name — the art of disputing about everything without doing anything else but suspending one's judgment — is called Pyrrhonism, (xii, 99)

Bayle admitted, disingenuously, that "Pyrrhonism was justly detested in the schools of divinity," where it seems to have been much feared in his day. It is dangerous to religion, he admitted, though not to natural science and politics. Religion must be "grounded on certainty. The design, effects, and use of religion vanish as soon as

202

SCEPTICISM

the firm persuasion of its truth is blotted out of the mind." (xii, 101) Bayle, rather ironically, felt that there should be no cause for worry. Only a small number of men are capable of being deceived by the arguments of the sceptics. The grace which God bestows upon the faithful, the force of education, the power of ignorance, if I may say so, and the natural inclination of men to have positive opinions, are impenetrable shields against the darts of the Pyrrhonists, though that sect now fancies it is more formidable than it was formerly.

Thereupon he elaborated a supposed dispute between two abbots — an exercise that Bayle indulged in with relish. The upshot of scepticism, he argued, was to arouse a doubt whether we ought to doubt. Out of this chaos and torment of mind should come a distrust of reason as our guide and a consequent falling back on faith. " It is a great step toward the Christian religion, if a man is convinced that he can expect no satisfaction from his philosophical inquiries. . . . It is a happy disposition to faith to know the defects of reason." And then he quoted Calvin, "who is admirable upon this subject." The only flaw in this train of reasoning was its inability to lead so incorrigible a philosopher as Bayle to follow his own suggestion and "pray to God that he might show him the truth he ought to believe. ' ' We may be sure, also, that Calvin would not have assented to Bayle 's viewpoint, (xii, 106) Scepticism was treated elsewhere than in the article on Pyrrho. Zeno was considered, with the aid of long translations from Seneca, in order to display all the degrees of scepticism, amongst which there is none so extravagant as our Zeno's notions. If he really meant such a paradox as this, either he was diverting himself, or he did not understand the word "nothing" in the same sense as we do, or he was raving. But [added the malign Bayle] we do not find the least symptom of madness in the rest of his opinions, (xv, 36)

The worst of it was that Bayle seemed to enjoy spreading out the

SCEPTICISM

203

arguments of the sceptics. Several long notes in the article on this Zeno were restatements by Bayle as Zeno "ought to argue," if his opinions were revived. This seemed to the consistory but a subtle method of teaching scepticism without having to assume the direct responsibility, (xv, 37) Bayle was fond of putting it this way: "If I should judge of him by myself, I should affirm that he, etc." (xv, 49, G) La Mothe le Vayer attracted Bayle, as we have already found. It was largely because Vayer had "too great a prepossession in favor of scepticism." Yet Bayle feels free to add: "He that would conclude from thence that the author had no religion, would render himself guilty of a very rash judgment, for there is a vast difference between writing freely what may be objected against the faith, and believing it to be really true." (xiv, 287) Some would find here a description of himself.1 The principal type of Christianity that seemed to the straiter sects of Bayle 's day eminently dangerous was called Socinianism. Bayle devoted three articles to men of the name Socinus, of which that on Faustus Socinus is by far the longest. The Socinus family was Italian, but found that free thinking on religious matters, at the time of the Reformation, was inconvenient in Italy. One after another they moved north of the Alps. Laelius, the "first author of the Socinian sect," was sufficiently warned by the fate of Servetus so that he ' ' did not reveal his thoughts but in a proper time and place, and behaved himself so dexterously that he lived among the mortal enemies of his opinions without being injured in the least. ' ' 2 But the ' ' chief founder of a very bad sect that goes by his ι The litigious English theologian, William Warburton, characterized Bayle, his contemporary, in similar language as a writer who ' ' struck into the province of paradox as an exercise for the restless vigor of his mind." The Divine Legation of Moses, 1846, I, 128. We shall have occasion to recur to Warburton in Chap. XII. 2 "Marianus Socinus," sec. article, X I I I , 342, B.

204

SCEPTICISM

name" was Faustus Socinus, the nephew of Laelius. The extensive article on Faustus explained the beliefs of the group, and the fortunes of their followers. " T h e most general objection against them is that by refusing to believe what they think contrary to philosophical truth, they open the way to scepticism, deism, and atheism." (xiii, 348, F ) The Socinians were also thought to undermine the faith in the Bible by approaching Scripture from a rational angle. The use by the apostles of strained expressions of devotion, for example, was explained by the Socinians as the result of enthusiastic zeal. This, however, was a dangerous step, since it might follow that Scripture "would be of little more authority than the panegyrics upon the saints. By overthrowing the inspiration of the sacred writers, the whole revelation comes to nothing, and then everything will be a mere philosophical dispute." (ibid.)

The Socinians emphasized

Christ's humanity and the oneness of the godhead. Bayle made something, also, of their belief that the torments of hell will not be eternal, adding his approval to the position they reached by reason and by reflecting on God's infinite goodness. The Socinians, relying too much ( ! ) on reason, have limited those torments because they considered that men should not be made to suffer only for suffering's sake, since no advantage would accrue from those torments to the sufferers, or the spectators. Nor is this practiced by any well regulated tribunal, (xiii, 362, F )

The Socinians held views somewhat similar to the modern Unitarians. Indeed, that name would not unfairly represent their relation to the more conservative sects of their time. Bayle wrote somewhat fully on the current fear that the Socinian beliefs were spreading sub rosa during his day. He did not accept the report that the sect "grows daily more numerous," despite their lack of full liberty, even in Holland. He doubted, also, whether it would be very widespread even if the restrictions against its prac-

SCEPTICISM

205

tice were removed. It seemed unlikely to Bayle since this sect "does not approve war nor a recourse to magistrates." Bayle believed it only necessary to consult experience in order to show the slight danger of tolerating Socinians. At this point in the article, he added two biting notes on war. "How many princes make a trade of their subjects, as a private man deals in horses and sheep ! They raise troops, not to defend their frontiers, or to attack their enemies, but to make them serve other rulers for money." (xiii, 353, G) He declared that those "who love war are innumerable." Gentlemen are interested in glory, soldiers in laziness and debauchery, others in offices and dignities. "Whence it ought to be concluded that the Socinian religion cannot suit a whole nation, nor even the majority." (xiii, 354, H) " F e w people," he added, "can renounce ambition and give up a military life. ' ' Bayle scouted the idea of a rational body of doctrine like the Socinian serving as an attraction to many people. Commoners are not troubled by speculative ideas on the mysteries. "They like much better a doctrine that is mysterious, incomprehensible, and above reason. They are more likely to admit what they do not comprehend." Indeed, "all the ends of religion are much better to be found in incomprehensible things." Then followed a long treatment of their purposes, in which Bayle took the trouble to show that the founders of the sect were not "mere cheats, greedy of followers." If so, they would have gone "another way to work." After approving their belief — by implication, certainly — he concluded that their principles should be condemned, since they "debase religion and change it into philosophy. The greatness, authority, and sovereignty of God require that we should here walk by faith and not by sight." (xiii, 356, H) But it would have been impossible for Bayle to make a Jurieu believe that he really meant to condemn the Socinians. Or that he was anything but ironical in despairing of the salvation of Pyrrho and of all his disciples: " I

206

SCEPTICISM

cannot see how any sceptic or Pyrrhonist of that kind could avoid going to hell. ' ' 3 ORIGINAL S I N

Bayle was keenly interested in morals and their relation to belief. This has come out again and again as he has scored supposed Christians for their moral shortcomings. His restless mind was ever eager to inquire as to the why of evil in the world, how it originated, why it continued to be so powerful in spite of a Christian theology that based its beliefs on an omnipotent God. In the Dictionary this inquisitivencse was particularly evident. The Christian explanation of the origin of moral evil was so sharply attacked in several articles as to arouse the objection of the consistory. Bayle attacked the Christian position especially in the articles on the Manichees, the Marcionites, the Paulicians, Xenophanes, and Zoroaster. The attack was so fully worked out, and repeated so many times that the consistory felt it necessary to call Bayle 's attention to this. "The committee have found that Mr. Bayle not only advances the arguments which the Manichees made use of in ancient times, but has found new arguments in favor of Manicheism. . . . And, in conclusion, he gives the victory to the Manichean hypothesis." (xvi, 288) This sect was very prominent in the early Christian centuries. Its name was derived from a Persian religious leader named Mani, who lived in the second century, amongst various religious influences, including certain orientalized and hellenic conceptions of Christianity. Mani believed himself the ultimate prophet, much as did Jesus Christ and Mahomet. Mani's chief divergence from orthodox Christianity was in his conception of the origin of evil. Instead of assuming a single divine being who permitted evil in the world, it seemed better to think of the presence of evil as the result of a a " P y r r h o , " X I I , 107, C, where he quotes La Mothe le Vayer.

SCEPTICISM

207

great epic struggle between two eternal forces, one of light, the other of darkness. The Manichean beliefs spread east and west from Persia with amazing rapidity. Their appeal to serious minds will be realized if we recall that St. Augustine was a Manichean before he became a Catholic Christian. For the sake of clearness, it might be well to quote the brief article on the Manicheans, without, of course, including the extensive notes. They are heretics, whose infamous sect, founded by one Mani, began in the third century. It established itself in several provinces and subsisted a very long time. They taught such doctrines as ought to inspire us with the greatest horror. Their weakness did not consist, as at first it may appear, in their doctrine of two principles, one good and the other bad, but in the particular explanations they gave of it, and the practical consequences they drew from it. It must be confessed that this false tenet, which cannot be maintained by any one who admits the Holy Scripture either in whole or in part, would not be easily refuted if it were maintained by pagan philosophers skilled in disputing. It was a happy thing that St. Augustine, who understood so well the arts of controversy, abandoned the Manichean heresy, for he would have removed its grossest errors, and have framed such a system as, by his management, would have puzzled the orthodox. After a few additional sentences regarding its later history, the article concluded, in the second edition, with the following sentence : As in this article as well as in that of the Marcionites and Paulicians and some others, there are things which have given offence to several persons, and have made them suspect that I bad a mind to favor the Manichean sect and raise doubts in the minds of my Christian readers, I here give notice that you will find at the end of this work a dissertation to show that this can by no means weaken the foundations of the Christian faith. The burden of the dissertation seems to be a further assertion of the extraordinary difficulty of explaining the origin of evil in the world except by a blind and unthinking acceptance of revelation. " I t cannot be denied that the introduction of moral evil, with the doctrines annexed to it, is one of the most impenetrable mysteries which God has revealed to men." (xv, 294) He supports this judg-

208

SCEPTICISM

ment, in the usual manner, by citing Calvin and Augustine. He used their authority, since the presence of evil was explained by these two, one a Protestant and the other a Catholic, as the predestination by God of some few to salvation and of the great multitude to eternal damnation. Bayle 's examination of the Christian explanation of the fall of Adam and of its consequences was, in truth, so pitiless, as to seem that of an opponent. The consistory was right. He attacked the idea of one God with all a Manichee 's conviction. Bayle's statement of the Christian epic is worthy of consideration, since it was believed then and now, at least implicitly, by the great body of those named Christians. In a long note on the Paulicians — the Christian Manichees in Armenia — Bayle frankly attacked predestination, the distinguishing tenet of the church, "of which I profess myself a member." The objections which Bayle thought a Manichee should make if he wanted to press his advantage included the query as to how the first man could receive from a good god the faculty of doing ill, how this god could permit sin, or, if not permit, at least allow Adam to run the hazard of sinning. If God were omniscient, he must have known all the particulars of the temptation. He must needs have known before Eve yielded that she was going to ruin herself. He must have known it with such a certainty as renders him inexcusable if he does not prevent the evil. . . . The sin of Adam was yet more certainly foreseen, for the example of Eve gave some light the better to predict the fall of her husband. If God had purposed to preserve man and his innocence and to prevent all the miseries which were the infallible consequence of sin, would he not at least have fortified the husband after the wife had fallen Τ Would he not have given him another wife sound and perfect t (xii, 487-8, F)

Bayle 's mind reached a dismaying conclusion. If you examine your system carefully, you will acknowledge two principles, the one good and the other evil. But instead of placing them as I do [Bayle assumed the rôle of the Manichee for argument's sake] in two subjects, you join them together in one and the same substance, which is

SCEPTICISM

209

monstrous and impossible. The only original principle which you admit determined from all eternity, according to your belief, that man should sin, and that the first sin should be infectious, and that it should produce all sorts of crime imaginable, and that over the whole earth. In consequence, he (your god) prepared for mankind in this life all the miseries that can be conceived, such as pestilence, war, famine, pain, and after this life a hell, wherein almost all men shall be eternally tormented in such a manner as makes one's hair stand on end. If such a being is besides perfectly good and loves holiness infinitely, must we not acknowledge that the same god is at one and the same time perfectly good and perfectly bad, and that he loves vice no less than he does virtue 1 (xii, 490) Bayle's pitiless logic was especially offensive in the picture he drew of the great Christian epic as it was surveyed in its historic development. This he did in a memorable note to the article on Xenophanes, a note which gave particular offense to the consistory. It is well worth rereading. However detestable the opinion of two principles has constantly appeared to all Christians, they have, nevertheless, acknowledged a principle of moral evil. Divines teach us that a great number of angels having sinned, made a party in the universe against God. The devil — a brief name for this party — having declared war against God from the moment of his fall, has always continued in his rebellion. . . . He succeeded in his first hostilities with regard to man. In the Garden of Eden he became the master of mankind. But God did not abandon this prey to him, but delivered them out of their bondage by virtue of the satisfaction which the second person of the Trinity (Jesus, the Son) undertook to pay to his justice. This second person engaged to become man, and to act as a mediator and redeemer. He took upon himself to combat the devil's party, so that he was the head of God's party against the devil. The design of Jesus Christ, the Mediator and Son of God, was to recover the country which had been conquered. That of the devil was to hold it. The victory of the Mediator consisted in leading men into the paths of truth and virtue, that of the devil in seducing them into the road of error and vice. So that, in order to know whether moral good equals moral evil among men, we need only compare the victories of the devil with those of Jesus Christ. But in history we find very few triumphs of Jesus Christ, and we everywhere meet with the triumphs of the devil, (xiv, 605, E) Bayle thereupon retraced his steps to show that such a judgment was correct.

SCEPTICISM

210

Sacred history tells us of but one good person in Adam's family, and so in other generations to Noah, in whose family we find three sons whom God saved from the Deluge with their father, mother, and wives. Thus at the end of 1656 years all mankind except one family of eight persons were so deeply engaged in the interests of the devil that it was necessary to destroy them. The Deluge, that terrible monument to the justice of God, is a lofty memorial of the devil's victories. And so much the more as it did not deprive him of his prey, for the souls of those who perished in the Deluge went to hell. This is the devil's aim and intention, and, therefore his triumph. In such devilish fashion did Bayle come down the course of human history. Bayle admitted there was a happy revolution at the birth of Jesus Christ; his miracles, his gospel, and his apostles made glorious conquests. Then it was that the empire of the devil received a very bad check. . . . But he was not so driven out that he did not preserve several agents and a great many creatures. Errors, schisms, disputes, and cabals introduced themselves. The heresies, superstitions, violences, frauds, extortions, and impurities, which have appeared all over the Christian world for several ages, are things which I should only be able to describe imperfectly though I was master of more eloquence than Cicero. Again at the Reformation Bayle found a halt to the work of the devil. A stop was put to this progress and he was forced to give ground in the sixteenth century, but what he lost on one side he regained on the other, and what he does not affect by lies, he brings to pass by the corruption of manners. Even among the Protestants corruption has become general. The princes and sovereigns think of nothing but their political interests, the people are void of piety, and the pastors remiss. A prodigious indifference for religion reigns everywhere. . . . There prevails among the Christians a deplorable corruption of manners. Bayle drew a very remarkable conclusion from his Historia mitatimi.

Cala-

SCEPTICISM

211

The Papists and the Protestants agree that very few people escape damnation. They allow none to be saved but only the orthodox, who lead good lives and repent of their sins at the point of death. It is plain, accordingly, that for one man saved there are, perhaps, a million damned. But the war which the devil wages with God is about the conquest of souls, and, therefore, it is certain that the victory is on the devil's side. He gains all the damned, and loses only the very few souls which are predestined to be saved. Having inspired men with an infinitely greater number of wicked actions than Jesus Christ has been able to inspire of an opposite kind, the devil has proved superior in the battle. Death, of course, puts an end to the war, for Christ does not combat in order to release the dead from the power of the devil. I admit that the devil will suffer eternal punishment for his victories, but this, f a r from obscuring my position that moral evil is greater than moral good, serves to make it more unanswerable. For the devils amidst the flames will eternally curse, and make all the damned eternally curse the name of God. There will, therefore, be more creatures who will hate than who will love God. Such was the cheerful conclusion to which this modern Manichee came as he surveyed the Christian epic of salvation ! Little wonder that the consistory felt it necessary to censure his remorseless logic ! Bayle was even more troublesome, if that were possible, when he subjected the God of Adam and E v e to the ordinary moral standards of mankind. He could not accept the idea that God permitted sin because he could not hinder it without destroying free will. Good sense and the idea of order were alike opposed to such a calamitous abuse of the benefits that followed the supposed free will of Adam and Eve. Even a ploughman clearly perceives that it is much greater goodness to hinder a man from falling into a ditch, than to let him fall in and then take him out an hour afterward. I t is much better to hinder an assassin from killing a man than to break the assassin on the wheel after he has been permitted to commit the murder. . . . If one can prevent it by changing the heart, and giving a man a relish for good things, one ought to do it. Now this God could easily have done if he would. ("Paulicians," xi, 484, E) He used this striking illustration as well. If you say that God permitted sin in order to manifest his wisdom . . . it

212

SCEPTICISM

may be answered that this is to compare the deity to a father who should suffer his children to break their legs in order to show to the whole city his great ability in setting broken bones; or to a king, who should suffer seditions and factions to increase throughout his dominions, that he might acquire the glory of quelling them, (ibid.) He drew an even sharper parallel. There is no good mother, who having given leave to her daughters to go to a ball, but would revoke the permission, if she were sure they would yield to enticements and leave their virginity behind them. Every mother, who knew that this would certainly come to pass and yet allowed them to go to the ball with only an exhortation to virtue and a threat of disgrace if they should not return maids, would at least bring on herself the blame of loving neither her daughters nor chastity. And Bayle pushed even further. If it be supposed that she has an infallible preservative against all temptations, and gives it not to her daughters when she sends them to the ball, it is most evident that she is guilty. Moreover, if that mother should go to the ball and through a window should see and hear that one of her daughters defends herself but weakly against the sollicitations of a young gallant, if even when she sees that her daughter is but one step from yielding, she should not go then to assist her, would not every one have reason to say that she acts like a cruel stepmother, and that she would not scruple to sell the honor of her own daughter f Thereupon, Bayle drew the conclusion for his reader. God knew all the particulars of the temptation of Eve, and he must needs have known a moment before Eve yielded that she was going to ruin herself, known it with such a certainty as renders him inexcusable if he does not prevent the evil, (xi, 487) Bayle also used the comparison of the soul placed in the body to a coachman upon a chariot, with leave to drive the chariot according to, or against, the "rules of the art." (xi, 504, L) To Bayle, as well as to his readers, it would seem that "all this serves to admonish us that we must not engage with the Manichees until we have first laid down the doctrine of the exaltation of faith and the abasing of reason." (xi, 484)

SCEPTICISM

213

The philosopher of Rotterdam went to great pains in showing the utter unreasonableness of the Christian position. In the main article on the Manichees he called them an "infamous sect," and yet in a long note he showed how difficult it was to answer their arguments. I n order to make it appear how difficult it would be to refute this false system, and that it is necessary to have recourse to revelation to overthrow it, let us imagine a dispute between Melissus and Zoroaster, who were both pagans and great philosophers, (x, 197)

Needless to say, the Manichee, Zoroaster, proved the stronger. Bayle 's conclusion was that the "light of reason was only fit to discover to man his ignorance and weakness, and the need of another revelation, that is, the Scripture." This pious conclusion is suspiciously like a reductio ad

absurdum.

"Who will not deplore the fate of our reason? Behold here the Manichees, who with an hypothesis altogether absurd and contradictory, explain what we experience a hundred times better than the orthodox do." (xi, 482, E) Nor did he hesitate to draw the moral after he had adorned the tale. If there were any Marcionites at this day . . . they would begin where their ancestors left off. They would first attack the last intrenchments of free will, and before they had advanced three syllogisms, would oblige their adversaries to confess they did not understand what they affirmed, and that there are unsearchable depths of the sovereignty of the Creator in which our reason is swallowed up, and nothing but faith can support us. This is, in reality, our resource. Revelation is the only magazine of arguments with which we must oppose these people. . . . Our ideas and reasoning in this matter are only just clear enough to make an eternal war. We are like those princes who cannot hinder others f r o m ravaging their frontiers, though they are strong enough to make incursions into the enemy's country. 4

Bayle believed that the church fathers, instead of disputing about this question, should have retired into their stronghold, and proved * " M a r c i o n i t e s , " X , 234, F .

214

SCEPTICISM

by the Word of God that the author of all things is but one, that he is infinitely good, and yet that man, coming out of his hands, lost his innocence by his own fault. Bayle admitted, however, that the opponents, to be overcome, must acknowledge the authority of Scripture, " f o r if one had to do with Zoroaster or Plutarch, it would be another matter. ' ' 5 Bayle recalled the admonitions of the consistory as he reread the article on the Paulicians for the second edition of the

Dictionary.

Yet he did not recall his mistreatment of the Christian position. In a new note (M), he reflected: As I was reading thi9 article again to make it ready for the second edition, some new thoughts came into my mind, which convince me anew and more strongly than ever, that the best answer that can be returned to the question, why did God permit that man should sint is this, I do not know.. . . You will stop the most obstinate disputants with such an answer, for if they go on they must talk alone, and so they will soon hold their tongues, (xi, 504) I n his apology, appended to the second edition, Bayle took this defeatist position. There was no detraction, no attempt to attack the Manichean ideas by reason, nothing but the counsel of despair. Have recourse to divine authority, subject the understanding to the obedience of faith, retire into the fortress of Scripture. ' ' The mysteries of the gospel neither can nor ought to be subjected to the rules of natural reason. . . . They would no longer be mysteries if reason could solve their difficulties." Telling use was made of Paul's statement that ' ' we walk by faith and not by sight. ' ' The writings of St. Paul taught Bayle that this greatest of the apostles could get out of the difficulties concerning predestination only by exclaiming upon the incomprehensibility of God's ways. His counsel, that Christians submit to revealed truth, was certainly not taken to heart by Bayle himself. I t might, as he suggested, silence some «"Paulicians," XI, 483, E.

SCEPTICISM

215

unhappy ecclesiastical disputes. It was for Bayle, however, merely a means of warding off the orthodox. He certainly would not have tried to improve and bolster up the Manichean position, if he really meant that one should refuse the Manichean challenge and retire into the bulwarks of revelation. We have already found that the fortress of revelation was not so strong as Bayle's advice would seem to imply. In at least one place he gave an indication of the seriousness for defenders, if a breach were once made in this fortress. Hugo of St. Victor was chided for treating the Scriptural record too freely. "The consequences are dangerous. Let us not open breaches in the Holy Scripture. Profane men would enter in that way like wolves into a sheepfold and commit a thousand outrages." ("Sarah," xiii, 108, E) His mind was incapable of submitting to the authority of faith. Philosophy, under his "profane" leading, was no longer the handmaid of theology. It was rather a viper, a serpent, that has invaded the garden in order to bring discord and confusion. ATHEISM

Was this incorrigible philosopher an atheist as well as a sceptic ? The word atheist has been very loosely used in Christian warfare. It is a weapon that has been aimed at many people who were not true atheists in the sense that they believed in no god, but atheists only in that they disbelieved in a particular god.® Bayle had laid himself open to attack on this ground by arguing that atheists could be and were morally upright. He had boldly taken this position in the essay on the comet. The Dictionary reaffirmed this stand in no uncertain terms. We have found that La Mothe le Vayer was a "man of regular conduct, 6 Voltaire, of course, was not an atheist, though the title was very commonlygiven him. There were eighteenth-century philosophers who could truly be called atheists, but Voltaire was not of their number. See below, Chap. X I I I .

216

SCEPTICISM

very like that of the ancient sages." (xiv, 286) The Sadducees, despite their denial of the immortality of the soul, were better morally than the Pharisees, (xiii, 16) Xenocrates had extraordinarily pure conduct, though he ' ' acknowledged no other gods than the seven planets and the heaven of the fixed stars." And other examples could be given. Bayle did not hesitate to affirm in his apology that the "fear and love of God are not the only spring of human conduct." (xv, 272) It is very possible that "some without religion should be strongly excited to a good moral life." The article on Knuzen, who arrived at such a degree of extravagance as publicly to maintain atheism [affirmed that], the ideas of natural religion, the ideas of virtue, the impressions of reason, in a word, the light of conscience, may subsist in the mind of man after the ideas of the existence of God and the firm belief in a life to come are extinguished, (viii, 577, B)

Bayle pretended to justify his tender treatment of atheists so far as morals are concerned by admitting that their virtues were not true virtues. I have not ascribed any true virtues to them. Their soberness, chastity, probity, contempt for riches, zeal for the public good, kindness to their neighbors, did not proceed from the love of God. . . . Self-love was the only ground and cause of it; they \vere only shining sins, splendida peccata, as St. Augustine said of the good actions of the heathen. I have therefore done no prejudice to the true religion by what I have said of some atheists, (xv, 273)

This is but an ironical restatement of the position the consistory took. He grew more sarcastic as he proceeded. " I suppose this a fully determined point, that in the true religion there is not only more virtue than elsewhere, but that outside it there is no virtue at all, nor any fruits of righteousness." The chief test of Bayle 's real position is to be found in the article on Spinoza, ' ' the first who reduced atheism to a system, though the ground of his doctrine was the same as that of several ancient and

SCEPTICISM

217

modern philosophers." (xiii, 416, and 421, A) Spinoza's system greatly attracted Bayle's attention; the article on Spinoza is one of the longest, if not the longest, in the Dictionary.7 Spinoza was sharply attacked in the lengthy article, though the attacks were usually on minor points, or were so extravagant as to arouse question as to their sincerity.8 The Tractatus

Theologico-

Politicus was declared to be a "pernicious and execrable book, which contains all the seeds of atheism." (xiii, 416) His system was called the ' ' most absurd and monstrous hypothesis that can be imagined, and contrary to the most evident notions of our minds." (418) And yet over against this Bayle informs us that "peasants of the villages where he lived a retired life for some time say that he was sociable, affable, honest, friendly, and a good moral man." (417) Bayle made mention, in language that might be applied to himself, of the "shifts and equivocation made use of by Spinoza to conceal his atheism." (438) He denied that Spinoza's followers were numerous. Few people are suspected of adhering to his doctrines. Among those who are suspected of it, few have studied it, and among the latter few have understood it. . . . Those who have little religion, and do not much scruple to own it, are called Spinozists. Thus all in France \vho are thought not to believe the mysteries of the gospel are called Socinians, though most of them never read Socinus. Moreover, the same thing happened to Spinoza, which inevitably happens to all those who frame impious systems; they secure themselves from some objections, but they are open to others even more perplexing. If they cannot be orthodox, if they are so fond of disputing, it were better for them not to dogmatize. (419)

Yet Bayle did not hesitate at times to put himself in Spinoza's ι In the Beuchot edition it occupies 52 pages. » When Jurieu later accused Bayle of atheism — see the next chapter — he did not regard Bayle'β hostile handling of Spinoza as evidence in his favor. ' ' On examination one finds it only a philosophical dispute against the principles of Spinoza. . . . He ( B a y l e ) does not destroy atheism in general, but only the atheism of Spinoza. One can be an atheist without being a S p i n o z i s t . " Le Philosophe de Rotterdam, pp. 129-30.

218

SCEPTICISM

shoes, as it were, and to indicate what Spinoza would have taught, " i f he had been so bold as to dogmatize publicly." (431, E ) The very energy that Bayle used to condemn Spinoza's system indicates a self-conscious effort to free himself from the stigma of atheism. He did not uphold atheism as a system, but simply contented himself with showing that atheists were as good or better morally than the general run of believers, and that such a belief as morality for its own sake was not, therefore, untenable. (431, E ) But Bayle had such an invincible antipathy to theological and philosophical dogmatizers that it is more reasonable to think of him, not as an atheist, but as a sceptic. Yet one cannot be certain, for he was at least the equal of Spinoza in his "shifts and equivocations." Bayle 's inquiring mind could not be curbed by the limitations of the Reformed faith. He criticized freely both the conservative and the radical, counseling both that moderation was the safer position. Hence the sceptical stand that he took on so many occasions. He pretended to counsel submission to authority, but he was unable to remain a contented refugee within the intrenchments of Scripture. He was rather like Aureolus who "covered himself with this shield in order that he might exert the whole strength of his genius." (ii, 578, C) We have tried to explore Bayle 's mind through the medium of his Dictionary.

Clearly it furnished him an opportunity for criticizing

the course of human history, for questioning classical fable and Christian legend, for showing the weakness of the church and its membership in thought and conduct, and for airing his opinions regarding philosophy and morals. There Bayle revealed an intense love of truth, remarkable intellectual courage, high standards for human thought and action. I f his strictures proved awkward for friend as well as foe, the great encyclopedist could only plead in his defence that the task of the historian was to relate the truth, whether pleasant or otherwise.

SCEPTICISM

219

For reasons that should now be clear, the audacious conclusions of the Dictionary won it much acclaim from delighted readers, and much cursing from those who did not wish to accept the logic of its thought. It was read greedily for its rich storehouse of fact interestingly told, and for the arresting opinions of its sceptical author. Inquiring and rebellious minds found offensive weapons for attacking the weakened edifice of religious certainty. The Dictionary

be-

came the great arsenal for the rationalist war on revealed religion and ecclesiastical authority, a war in which Diderot and Voltaire, Lessing and Frederick the Great, Shaftesbury and Gibbon were but the more distinguished figures. Needless to say, we shall find, as we continue the study of Bayle 's influence, that frequently the Baylian arsenal was the source for weapons which were used in a way that Bayle himself would have entirely discountenanced.

CHAPTER

XI

B A Y L E ' S LAST YEARS The great biographical Dictionary

revealed a master mind. It put

the seal to the reputation of Pierre Bayle — scattered judgments and controversial writings were followed and overshadowed by a work whose folios were the admiration of the learned, even if they aroused the ire of those whose pet opinions were roughly handled. The first edition of two folio volumes appeared in 1697. From then until 1702, when the second edition was issued in three volumes, Bayle Avas busied with corrections and additions for the new issue. After 1702 he continued to gather matter for later use. But death intervened in 1706 to take such work out of his hands. The Dictionary was not only the greatest accomplishment of his ever-busy pen ; it was a fitting climax to long mental activity. The last four years of Bayle 's life were busy, nevertheless, for the Dictionary

did not exhaust him, or lessen the attacks of his enemies.

Indeed, this closing period of Bayle 's life can be best thought of as the time when he had to defend the positions which the

Dictionary

had made clearer than ever before. Old animosities were reawakened, replies were necessary, elucidations in order. It seems to have been Bayle 's intention to avoid controversy in the Dictionary,

for he already realized that "authors pass for a

very touchy, choleric, and vindictive race of men." He admitted that it would furnish some "with pretexts for slander and for playing the zealot." Yet because the Dictionary

would only correct

errors in fact, and not errors in reasoning, it was natural to expect that his readers would easily admit as false what he would show as such, (xv, 244)

LAST YEARS

221

But Bayle did not avoid correcting "errors in reasoning," as he promised. His judgment of facts was likely to be followed by interpretations. His lives of the philosophers, in particular, were replete with the criticism of their thinking. Controversy was inevitable. This time, however, he had to face, not only orthodox theologians, but rationalists as well. The irrepressible Jurieu attacked him once more. Bayle was also faced with the criticisms of men who were ordinarily on his side. Leibnitz, the German philosopher, Le Clerc, the journalist, Jaquelot, the liberal theologian, called in question Bayle's assumption that reason was a useless defence of Christianity, that the only recourse was to retire behind the defensive walls of Holy Scripture, where divine inspiration was an impregnable fortification. The vigorous way in which he treated the problem of the origin of evil and the related question of predestination versus free will called forth numerous rejoinders. The Baylian restatement of the Manichean position not only aroused the consistory of his own sect; it stimulated a veritable literature of controversy. Bayle did not mind controversy ; it was a relaxation from the more humdrum work of the lexicographer. He wrote Lord Shaftesbury in 1706 that quarrels with theologians amused him: " I enjoy refuting Le Clerc and Jaquelot."

1

In 1704 an anonymous work appeared in Paris entitled The Distinction and the Nature of Good and Evil, "wherein the errors of the Manicheans, of Charron, and of Mr. Bayle are combated." Bayle replied in the periodical, Histoire des Ouvrages des

Sçavans,

admitting that Manicheism was refuted, but denying that the idea of a single divine, beneficent power was established.2 Much more important was the controversy with Jean Le Clerc. We have met Le Clerc before as a French refugee who came to Holland shortly after Bayle 's arrival. Le Clerc had been in England 1 Quoted by Desmaizeaux, X V I , 256. = Tliis periodical was edited by his friend Basnage. See above, Chap. V.

222

LAST YEARS

previous to his settlement in Amsterdam, was a close friend of John Locke, and of the Dutch theologian, Limborch. Like Limborch, he was a Remonstrant and was long a professor of philosophy and church history in the seminary of that sect at Amsterdam. He also edited a periodical, or series of periodicals, similar to Bayle 's News of the Republic of Letters. It was known at the time as the Bibliothèque choisie (The Select Library). Le Clerc was learned, prolific, and very independent. His theological position was not far from that of the Socinians. Under the pseudonym of Theodore Parrhase, Le Clerc replied to Bayle 's Manicheism in a brief chapter of a miscellany issued under the name of Parrhasiana. It was published in 1699. His ' ' vindication of Providence from the objections of the Manichees" was the fancied reply of an Origenist.3 Le Clerc argued that Origen, in not admitting eternal punishment, avoided the Manichean attack. Le Clerc then assumed that if a person such as Origen, "whose opinion, notwithstanding, is rejected by everybody," could confound the followers of Mani, modern rationalism need not fear Manichean presumption. Bayle replied in the second edition of the Dictionary by adding a note (E) to the article on Origen. He showed easily that Origen 's position softened the harshness of a supreme being, but did not suppress it. "They (orthodox theologians) deny the eternity of hell because they cannot see how it should agree with the infinite goodness of God. . . . But if they mean to avoid the inconsistency, they must say that under a God infinitely good there can be no hell." (xi, 260) He concluded by reaffirming the need of Christian dependence on revelation. "This is a good way of teaching those their duty, who would subject theology to philosophy . . . and by this means bring them back to their maxim of Christian humility, a See above, Chap. IX, p. 196.

LAST TEARS

223

namely that we ought to conform ourselves to the oracles of Scripture. ' ' This little difference between Bayle and Le Clerc was entirely without bitterness, but the same can hardly be said of their later relations. In 1704 Bayle wrote a Continuation

of the Thoughts

on

the Comet of 1680.* A decade earlier (1694) he had issued an Addition to his thoughts on the comet. He admitted that the

Addition

had sufficiently answered the ecclesiastical attacks of the time. Yet he could not give up the original parallel between atheism and paganism. It was again defended and elaborated. In his last years he was more than ever convinced that religious doctrines have little, if anything, to do with morals. "Show me five or six sects that have members in the same place ; their actions are as like as two drops of water. Their principles or dogmas are very different, and not one of these sects lives according to its particular principles." 5 And again, The greatest scoundrels of whom ancient history makes mention believed in the providence of the gods, and a great number of Christians have carried the most enormous crimes to excess, without leading one to question their belief in the principal truths of Christianity, (cliii, p. 777) But let us return to Le Clerc. Bayle made a passing reference in his Continuation

to the theory of the "plastic medium," set forth

not long before by the Cambridge Platonist, Ralph Cudworth. Bayle 's remarks were occasioned by Le Clerc 's publication of some selections from Cudworth. The latter, who claimed to have "confuted atheism" by his True Intellectual

System

of the

Universe,

revived the Platonic idea of a world-soul to avoid ' ' the dilemma of mere chance on the one hand or a constant divine interference on the other." Bayle held that Cudworth's theory made the attack on atheism more difficult. "He gives it arms without realizing it," * Published in 1705 in two volumes. »Vol. II, Chap. CXLIX, p. 741.

224

LAST YEARS

since it is as easy to believe that matter can exist of itself as to believe that it has automotive powers, (xxi, p. 91) This provoked what Sir Leslie Stephen has called a "famous controversy. " β Le Clerc came to the defence of Cudworth with an earnestness not apparent in the Parrhasiana.

Bayle replied by a

running fire to Le Clerc's numerous attacks that were made through the Bibliothèque

choisie.7 Le Clerc became bitter in his attacks,

accusing Bayle of atheism rather than a mere indulgence in logic shopping. His offensive defense so degenerated into harsh reproaches of Bayle that the latter offered to end the debate by submitting it to a decision of the theological faculties of Holland. Le Clerc did not accept this solution, and the contest ended only with Bayle 's death. According to Sir Leslie Stephen, "Bayle is generally thought to have had the best of the discussion. ' ' 8 Bayle 's friend and biographer, Desmaizeaux, attributed Le Clerc's extreme harshness in the dispute to his impotence in argument ; in consequence, he had loosed the reins of calumny "like parish priests" — he used Bayle 's own words — "who cry out Heretic if any of their parishioners, though agreeing in the main to the truth of their doctrine, do not agree about the force of the reasons they use to prove it." (xvi, 221) SORCERY

The most ambitious undertaking of Bayle in his last years was a miscellany entitled Réponse aux Questions d'un Provincial,

which

β Diet. Nat. Biog. X I I I , 272. 7 Bayle contributed to a rival periodical, discussed the issue in hie Replies to the Inquiries of a Country Gentleman (Vol. I l l , Chap, elxxix and following) and published two pamphlets on the question. One was the Reply of Mr. Bayle to Mr. Le Clerc ( 1 7 0 6 ) ; the other The Conversations of Maxime and of Thémiste, or Reply to what Mr. Le Clerc has written·, etc. 1707. β Le Clerc's eagerness in this controversy was later explained by Bayle 's friends as the result of personal motives, in part at least. Le Clerc was the close friend of John Locke, who lived at Oatee with Sir Francis Maeham from 1691 until his death in 1704. Masham's wife was the daughter of Dr. Cud-

LAST YEARS might be englished as Reply

to the Inquiries

225 of a Country

Gentle-

man. A first volume was published in 1704. Bayle prefaced the work by explaining that it was intended to be midway between books for study and those for recreation. ' ' I am contented to pass lightly over some things that have much depth, to go quickly from one matter to another for variety's sake. ' ' Yet it is not a collection of detached thoughts or maxims, or "bons contes." In describing the work he compared it to those writings which appeared in such great numbers in the sixteenth century under the title of "diverses leçons." The topics remind one, in their variety and subjects of Erasmus's Colloquies and of Montaigne's Essays. But Bayle did not follow the "incomparable" Montaigne in making his chapters long: "Today, nothing is more likely to cause a reader to commence a chapter than to know it is not long." He treated such topics as the antipathy of the French and the Spanish (xiv), the improper meaning of the word 'reign' (xv), whether it is advantageous to be born in a large town (i), a falsehood regarding the cause of the siege of Möns in 1691 (xix), whether Pope Innocent X I I received the English fleet in his sea ports (xxviii), the debts of Madame Mazarin (xxii), of war and peace (lxiii), of despotism (lxiv), and (in the last chapter, lxvii) the unmasking of some anonymous and pseudonymous authors. This rather light miscellany has a number of chapters on sorcery (xxxiii-xliv, liv-lviii). They serve as the chief attraction in the volume, and the only real contribution of this period to Bayle 's previous treatment of various superstitions. Bayle had not considered sorcery at length in his earlier writings, though the Dictionary revealed a keener interest in it than he had shown before. This rather surprising omission, especially in view of the cry raised worth. She had studied divinity and philosophy uuder Locke, was his close personal friend, and a devoted intellectual follower. See Diet. Xat. Biog., xxxvi, 412, under Masham, Lady Damaris.

226

LAST YEARS

against Bekker's books a decade earlier, was now repaired. Possibly the attack on Bekker may have been the cause of Bayle's silence at a time when he was sufficiently bedeviled on other counts. The chapters on sorcery are an interesting and remarkable analysis of one brand of that widespread human credulity which Bayle never ceased to expose. It deserves some little attention.® By sorcery Bayle meant widely various beliefs in the power of evil spirits over human beings. Witchcraft, the effect of dreams and incantations, were included under the word magic. Bayle began by admitting there were ' ' true demoniacs, since Scripture does not allow us to doubt it." (xxxiv, 285) But he immediately added that a "disordered imagination can so produce a supposed possession that it need not be the result of fraud or seductive influence. ' ' The belief in sorcery, he declared, was very widespread, a fact that helped to perpetuate the illusion. "There is hardly a little village or hamlet that has not a supposed sorcerer; stories of apparitions and evil influences are infinite. ' ' The minds of little children are so filled with such beliefs that they naturally become credulous or timid in such matters. He believed that such beliefs were deepened by the reading of religious books filled with stories of temptations and of ghostly visions. "They attribute to satanic malice the evil ideas that come. If their temptations hold on stubbornly, they think he continues to persecute them, even so far as to control their bodies." (287-88) The case of Angele de Foligni, " a great name among the mystics, ' ' illustrated some of the lamentable effects of the delusion. She believed the devil had complete empire over her body, so β For Bekker, see above, Chap. VI, p. 125. Bayle 's handling of sorcery has received little attention. The only previous biography to give it gome space is that of Serrurier (pp. 202-04). But the author appears to have glanced through the relevant chapters so hastily as to misunderstand Bayle 's viewpoint. Serrurier was so eager to prove Bayle not a sceptic that evidence to the contrary was overlooked.

LAST Y E A R S

227

stubbornly burned the "flame of impurity within her." " I dare not suspect her of lying," added Bayle, " I believe she spoke sincerely. It shows the power of the imagination in a life given over too completely to contemplation." (290) In short, Bayle met the phenomena in a way that appears uncannily modern. It is entirely possible for a woman to persuade herself that her body is the devil's. All that is needed is that she be asked when she felt herself possessed, whether the suspected sorcerer made some "passes" and mumbled some words. . . . If she be assured that this person has put others under the devil's power, she will then believe herself possessed, and shriek and act in a frenzied manner. (287)

Other illustrations of the power of the imagination but re-inforced this psychological explanation. "Everybody knows that there is nothing more necessary for one abed than full confidence in the physician." Take away the fear of approaching death, arouse confidence in the patient, and "he will have a calm mind and be healed." (291) This explained to Bayle why famous monks by their holiness, and why relics by their power, have wrought so many cures. Even impostors can do wonders with people who are credulous, and whose imaginations are lively. No superstition was more venerable, in Bayle 's opinion, than the attribution of healing powers to certain words. Yet words uttered over a sick person manifestly cannot produce a physical effect. This he believed to have been proved by the use of jargon instead of the customary formula by one who, despite his jargon, was able to heal his unsuspecting valet of the fever. (300) People read of such things so much that they are unconsciously impressed. If then a keen attention to such objects is joined to an imagination shaken by fear, be sure that the effect will be stronger than that of light on the optic nerves. Imagination will be more powerful than actual vision, and will paint as present things which are absent to the eyes, but real to the internal senses. (292)

228

LAST YEARS

Bayle found an analogy to such experiences in the imaginations of sleep ; they are but day dreams. He could not lament too strongly the power of a ridiculous and silly belief. "Mumbled words can overturn reason. An action which of itself is powerless, becomes all powerful by the feebleness of those toward whom it is aimed. Their imagination makes it effective and very pernicious."

10

How should sorcerers be treated by the law ? Bayle, after laying sorcery to the imagination, asserted that true sorcerers, "those who really have a pact with the devil," are worthy of the most severe treatment, (xxxv, 302) Even believers in toleration can say nothing in favor of such. They do not follow the light of their conscience; "they sin against their conscience, renouncing voluntarily and knowingly the service of the true God." He also held that imaginary sorcerers were as guilty as the real variety, for they believe they have seen the devil, have spoken with him, have concluded a pact, and have become a part of his "confrérie." There are those, on the other hand, who believe they are in the devil's power, despite their resistance. Such persons are innocent, "if they detest their dream, when they realize it is a dream and labor seriously to free themselves." (304) Sorcerers should be punished even if the magistrate does not believe in the delusion. Even supposing Spinoza, "who did not believe in god or devil," were a magistrate and a case of magic were brought before him, he could not rightly acquit the accused if he were found guilty. (305) Bayle 's severity to sorcerers may seem extreme. He admitted as much when he supposed his correspondent to ask why "fools and visionaries should not be sent to the physician rather than to the law court." (306) His reply was that such people usually show no signs of feeble mindedness. " I f , however, some of those imagining io 301. Bayle added some interesting cases of nuptia': unfruitfulnees, supposedly brought about by sorcerers who pronounced eretiin words during the marriage ceremony, or who were able " n o u e r l'aiguillète'' by other means.

LAST YEARS

229

themselves to be sorcerers, should be stupid . . . they should be treated with the same indulgence as crazy persons," and if they have a maniacal turn they should be confined. (307) One cannot exterminate too quickly, he declared such "public pests" as the magicians. Bayle 's disgust with credulity was in full swing when he came to the question of magic. In a later chapter Bayle returned to the matter of punishing sorcerers, but with much less certainty than he had previously shown. Or perhaps he was carrying on the discussion in leisurely fashion? Malebranche was used to support the position that, after all, the punishment of sorcerers is "inconvenient." (374)

"By

doing this one would bring many innocent people to death. Even the punishment of those only who are guilty would but strengthen the credulity of the people, that great source of disorder." Holland seemed an example ; in that country, he asserted, there is no faith in sorcery, and consequently no one believes in the witches' sabbath. 11 In the Provinces, therefore, there is more need of doctors for the body and the mind than there is use for executioners. The experience of many centuries has made it only too clear, that the punishment of magicians has not lessened their number, and that credulity and all its resulting evils only increase as the trials of the magicians multiply. It is doubtless for this reason that the Parlement of Paris dismisses all sorcerers who have not been accused of actually giving poison.

(376) Bayle also found encouraging signs of reasonableness in Prussia, though other parts of Germany were yet backward. "Germany and the North are much worse off than the provinces near the Alps and the Pyrenees. They need a congregation de propaganda

in-

cred-ulitaie, at least as badly as Japan and China have need of a congregation de propaganda

fide."

(384)

il Twenty years before, in the News for February, 1685, Art. vii, lie had made a similar statement. " H o l l a n d is not a credulous country; there everything happens quite naturally. ' '

230

LAST Y E A R S

Not the least interesting portion of Bayle 's discussion of this form of credulity is the acccount of the "antiquity and progress of magic." (Chaps, xxxvi-xxxviii) Magic had great credit over the whole earth for many centuries. (328) It was essentially an extension of pagan religion, and it had made its conquests in the most remote regions: "the discoveries of the new worlds of the East and the West show that it has been introduced everywhere." (347) Nor has Christianity been able to stop the progress of magic. Never have there been so many laws against magicians as since the name Christian became known. One must needs admit, too, that the new magic contains abominations of which the pagans were ignorant. They never mentioned nocturnal assemblies, where it is supposed that enormities are committed which surpass bestiality itself. (347)

And magic has not been the monopoly of the ignorant. In an interesting chapter many prominent persons were accused of believing in magic, such as Julian the Apostate, Marcus Aurelius, and Charles V. Even the court of France was "horribly infatuated with an interest in magic when Catherine de Medicis made it the fashion." (367) Did Bayle believe at all in magic? He started the discussion by admitting that there were true sorcerers, and that Scripture affirmed it. His historical survey, however, led him to conclude that "magic was only an offshoot of religion." (331) Bayle was in difficulty in considering the Scriptural accounts. As usual, he paid lip service to Biblical inspiration. You will ask me, doubtless, why God permitted Balaam to curse the Israelites — surely there was no better opportunity of disabusing people of the feebleness of solemn imprecations ! God might well have prospered his people despite the curses of this magician. Were there mysterious reasons for God's conduct in this instance? I am unable to say, sir, but I know that the conduct of God is infinitely perfect.

Balaam was an enigma to Bayle : "his history is composed of such discordant things, that some call him a magician and others a

LAST YEARS

231

prophet." (352) By this time, however, Bayle 's lip service to plenary inspiration and to a perfect God should not be a serious enigma to his readers. Just at the end of 1705 Bayle completed two more volumes of the seriee in which he pretended to Reply to the Inquiries of a Country Gentleman.12 These volumes differ much from the first. They were really burdened with replies, not to the country gentleman, but to Bayle 's critics. Intrinsically they are less interesting than the first volume, even if they do indicate the difficulties he had to meet. Bayle found it worth while to reply to a book published by the Bishop of Londonderry, Dr. William King. In 1702 Dr. King had written De Origine Mali in Latin. This work on the origin of evil was intended "to vindicate the author's principles against the objections of Bayle, Leibnitz, and others." The book had been favorably noticed in the News of the Republic of Letters, at that time under the editorship of Jacques Bernard. The latter replied in his journal, and thus another controversy was hatched. Bernard, on his own account, had criticized Bayle 's denial of the value of general consent as an argument for a god. There were exchanges on this subject as well. The relations between Bayle and Bernard were entirely courteous. The same can be said of Bayle 's relationship with the distinguished German thinker, Leibnitz. A phase of Leibnitz's opinions had been questioned in the Dictionary. Leibnitz replied, and Bayle added material to the discussion in the second edition. But it was only in 1710, after Bayle 's death, that Leibnitz fully worked out his position.13 Delvolvé's detailed examination of Bayle 's thinking from the purely philosophical viewpoint has given a chapter to the differences between the two men, with the conclusion that Leibnitz's " They are dated 1706. Five volumes in all appeared. See the Bibliography. 13 Essais de Theodioée, ' ' on the goodness of God, the liberty of man, and the origin of evil." This work appeared first in a French dress.

232

LAST YEARS

religious point of view was less in accord with modern conceptions than Bayle 's ideas." He regretted that Bayle could not have replied to the religious dogmatism of Leibnitz, and thus have hastened the advance of human thought. A refugee minister in Holland by the name of Jaquelot also came to differences with Bayle. Isaac Jaquelot was for a time the minister of the French church at the Hague. He was liberal in his viewpoint, so much so that Jurieu attacked Jaquelot as well as Bayle. Jaquelot was so disgusted with the theological fogs in Holland that he accepted the invitation of the King of Prussia to go to Berlin as French pastor, hoping to find that the atmosphere would be clearer. After leaving Holland in 1702, Jaquelot became an open Arminian. In 1697 he had published a Dissertation

on the

Existence

of God. And finally in 1705 he felt it necessary to reply to Bayle's seeming atheism by a further work. He opposed Bayle 's idea that the reason was so weak that the Christian should take his stand behind a divine authority." Jaquelot's defence of a reasonable faith seemed to him the more needful because the "great part of the world is always ready to revolt against religion." So much so, that it is especially unfortunate to see persons of knowledge and spirit furnish arms to libertines in favor of indifference for religion. Jaquelot disavowed any desire to attack the "person or heart" of Bayle: " I esteem his erudition, his spirit, his penetration." But the greater his reputation, the more serious are his attacks on religion. Since Mr. Bayle did not reply to his own positions in the second edition of the Dictionary,

though he was asked to do so, a reply is needed. Jaque-

lot averred that he had waited in the hope that some one more able i* * ' Il faut bien reconnaître que la marche de la pensée humaine a donné raison à Bayle, tort à Leibnitz. ' ' P. 334. 15 Conformité de la foi avec la raison, "or the defence of religion against the principal difficulties elaborated in the Historical and Critical Dictionary of Mr. Bayle." Amsterdam, 1705.

LAST YEARS

233

would take up the necessary task. But no one appearing, he had undertaken this "pious and useful enterprise." Jaquelot's laudable intention called forth a spirited reply from the author of the maligned Dictionary in the later volumes of the Reply to the· Inquiries of a Country Gentleman. Jaquelot fortified his first work by an Examination

of Mr. Bayle's Theology (1706),

and Bayle retorted with his Conversations of Maxime and Thémiste, ' ' or reply to the examination of the theology of Mr. Bayle by Mr. Jaquelot."

18

The courtesies of debate were not so well preserved in this battle of books as in the differences that Bayle sustained with Bernard and Leibnitz. Bayle felt that Jaquelot intentionally misunderstood, or was unable to grasp the intention of, the Manichean positions that Bayle took. He accused Jaquelot of gross deceitfulness and bad faith. One sample of Jaquelot's argument will suffice. The reader will recall the analogy that Bayle used to show the character of a god who allows man to fall into sin. Jaquelot's reply was that a mother, who allows her daughters to go to a ball, " i s obliged to care for the virtue of her daughters, but it is a prerogative of God to be free from preserving the virtue of men, and from opposing the progress of vice." Bayle comments sarcastically, " W h a t an admirable subject for a sermon!"

17

Bayle concluded the Conversa-

tions against Jaquelot only the evening before his death. On the last page of the work he put further questions to his critic, asking finally if it is not very bold to take the position that God fools us. Despite the death of Bayle, Jaquelot replied in the next year. Thus ended, of necessity, another controversy arising from the Dictionary. Three other replies to Bayle's Manicheism were made shortly ie The replies to Le Clerc and Jaquelot have similar titles, because these two appeared to Bayle to have made a league "offensive and defensive" against him. The opinion of Basnage in his Éloge. See toward the end of this chapter. i ' Conversations, p. 314.

LAST YEARS

234

after his death. La Placette, pastor of the French church at Copenhagen, published a Réponse in 1707, which was strictly Calvinistic. A year later Philippe Naudé, a French refugee at Berlin, who was interested in mathematics and theology, entered the lists against a silent adversary in his Sovereign Perfection of God, ' ' defended by right reason against all the objections of Manicheism dispersed in Mr. Bayle 's writings." Naudé, amusingly enough, came to the defense of God, because he believed that Bayle had triumphed over both Le Clerc and Jaquelot. J. C. Wolf of the theological faculty of Wittenberg issued a learned defence in 1707 under the title of Manichaeismms ante Manichaeos, et in Christianisme

redivivus.

It

included a detailed study " controversiae a Baelio nuper in Belgio motae." (pp. 333 ff.) Wolf established to his satisfaction the "vanity and temerity of Bayle 's belief, ' ' that one God cannot be judged infinitely wise and good unless we neglect the promptings of reason. (528) JURIEU'S LAST ASSAULT

We are not yet through with the enemies of Bayle. The list would hardly be complete without the presence of Jurieu's name. He was aroused once more to the defence of orthodoxy, or, it would be better to say, to the calumniation of the enemy of orthodoxy. His contribution to the anti-Baylian chorus was a libellous pamphlet that appeared in 1706, The Philosopher of Rotterdam Accused,

Attacked,

1

and Convicted. * Jurieu's bitter enmity did not allow of a dignified attack on Bayle 's beliefs, not even of one so dignified as those of Le Clerc, Bernard, and Jaquelot. But the occasion appeared favorable to Jurieu because of the way in which Bayle was beleaguered. Jurieu came to the aid of the enemies of Bayle, in spite of the fact that he had persecuted both Jaquelot and Bernard, and that he is Le Philosophe de ^Rotterdam accusé, atteint, et convaincu. It was a duodecimo of 137 pages published at Amsterdam. The volume bore neither Jurieu's name nor that oí the printer.

LAST YEARS

235

hated Le Clerc. In true theological style he had previously branded Le Clerc as "Pelagian and Socinian." The danger from Bayle's work, however, seemed so much greater that, for the moment, Jurieu was not unwilling to have allies with whom he would not have consorted on an ordinary occasion. Jurieu's volume is a libel. His design was to reveal the "true character of Bayle." Messieurs Jaquelot, Bernard, and Le Clerc have been careful of their language and of the names they have given to the sentiments of this author, although they have expressed themselves in such a manner as to show clearly that they think him to be most odious and dishonorable. It is to the interest of all those who believe in a God to take away the cloak from this mauvais philosophe. Such is our purpose in proving that he pushes impiety to atheism. And we promise not to mince matters, although we should have been glad to do so. In fact, our jealousy for the glory of God does not permit of any restraint. (5)

This volume made no contribution to the discussions of the time. But it deserves some notice for two reasons; it unconsciously reflects the already expanding influence of Bayle, and shows the real danger, from the theologian's point of view, of Bayle's secular attitude. The old guard made a frenzied, if somewhat futile, last stand. Jurieu complained of Bayle's growing popularity. "He has numerous flatterers who praise his name beyond that of the greatest in the republic of letters." (2) Jurieu admitted Bayle's "esprit," his ability at writing ' ' as well as any man of his century, ' ' and his prodigious knowledge. He added : ' ' his admirers compare him even to the learned Erasmus, and say they should honor him with a statute like that erected to Erasmus." (2) Jurieu was astonished that "for eight or ten years he has been left to enjoy peaceably the fruit of his boldness and impieties." (4) The theologian seemed to be taking some credit to himself in adding later on: "during the twelve or fifteen years that he has flooded the world with his writings, there have been only two or three learned men who have

236

LAST YEARS

dared to take openly the side of God. (37) Jurieu is now determined to stop once for all, if that is possible, the "dangerous progress of his writing." (6) The pastor's bitterness arose largely from the indefinite position that Bayle assumed ; he could not be easily tagged. If he had been an out-and-out atheist, it would not have mattered, but Bayle persisted in professing his belief in the ideas of the Reformed church at the same time that he was undermining them. Jurieu perceived, and he was not far wrong, that Bayle 's method tended to "push Christianity to its ruin." (6) Many evidences of Bayle 's determined attack on God were pointed out. In showing that reason and philosophy contradict what religion has said, "he makes a war on God without quarter." (12) The divinity is always exposed in his obscure and incomprehensible aspects: "he (Bayle) does not tremblingly pull aside the curtain to observe and adore the incomprehensible and infinite Being." (14) Bayle 's position destroys, in Jurieu's mind, all proof for the existence of God by denying that all men have believed in a supreme being. To assert that the argument from universal consent is not valid is to bring ruin to "toute la machine de la Religion." (30) Jurieu utterly disbelieved Bayle when he piously declared himself a good Calvinist, and affirmed the value of Scriptural authority for defending the religion of the fathers. "Can a word in passing in favor of faith over reason," he scornfully asked, "oblige men to renounce the objections that Bayle has called invincible?" (15) He makes God, the author of sin, to be the God of the Christians, the God of revelation, the God of faith. But faith and not human reason has made God the author of sin, according to Bayle. Yet he then pretends to degrade reason for a crime of which faith is to blame. In fact, faith is being degraded and reason left on the throne. "Who can believe that this subtle philosopher has not seen so selfevident a contradiction? Can one believe after this that he sends

LAST Y E A R S

237

us to revelation in good faith, since this revelation produces in us the idea of a God neither good, nor just, nor wise?" (83) Jurieu waxed sarcastic over Bayle's pretended Calvinism. "Nothing is more a mockery, more insulting, than this morsel of his book, 'He is a Calvinist of the posterity of Calvin, descended from him in the direct line.' " (103) The heresy hunter concluded that Bayle has no system, save to oppose different systems and destroy them one after another, without choosing any. They demand in vain that he fix himself in a place where they can combat him. ' ' These gentlemen surely are inconceivably blind in not seeing that he is a most determined Calvinist, of the family of Calvin, descended from him in a direct line!" Jurieu then added in a serious tone that "this man makes sport of religion and of all the truths of which it is made up, for he does not advance his claims to Calvinism with any seriousness." (107-8) Jurieu gave no source for this quotation, if it is one. It may have reference to a very interesting chapter of the Reply to the Inquiries of a Country

Gentleman

(Vol. iii, chap, cxxx), where Bayle de-

scribed the rise of rationalist theologians. Bayle observed that the earlier tendency to deny the use of reason and take refuge in Paul's exclamation, " 0 , the depth of the riches!" has been preserved by only a part of the theologians, who are considered as the legitimate posterity of Calvin, descended from him in the direct line without any mixture of foreign blood, without any marriage outside the tribe, without even being detached from the trunk of the tree. They pass for the true depositories of orthodoxy and oppose the introduction of novelties. (P. 655)

Bayle did not, of course, claim he was a true Calvinist. He showed in an interesting manner how the philosophy of Descartes caused a schism, "which still exists." The trouble at Franeker in 1686, the great disturbance raised by Bekker in 1692 were mentioned. The attack of Jurieu on the rationalizing ministers, Saurin and Jaquelot, in 1691, was another illustration.

238

LAST YEARS

Bayle quoted in his survey of these fruitless theological struggles the declaration of the Estates of the Province of Holland made in 1694, in the hope of reestablishing order. The declaration actually forbade "all professors and lecturers in theology to explain the mysteries of the Christian faith according to the rules and method of philosophy," whether in lectures, writings, or public debates. Such an extraordinary step seemed necessary lest "the churches fall into the last confusion and disorder." (p. 660) This may explain Bayle 's pious recourse to authority in the Dictionary after he has shown the inability of reason to support religion. Jurieu's analysis of the Dictionary was acute. Heretics are given arms which they had not used or imagined, and their arguments are advanced with all possible spirit and force (9). Bayle 's bad faith was shown in the evasive submission to the consistory. The explanations in the Dictionary are not corrections ; ' ' thjere is not a single line in which he has taken a step backward." (132) "They are truly fresh scandals, since they only justify what he has written." Jurieu was especially nettled by the treatment of King David; "he has made a scoundrel of the greatest saint of the Old Testament." (97) But even in correcting this article he has ordained that this "horrible original article be placed at the end of the volume so that libertines could enjoy it. A man worthy of belief has seen in Ireland a copy of the second edition of the Dictionary in which the article on David was entire!" (49) Jurieu concluded the analysis of Bayle 's Dictionary in a vigorous manner. To pursue this man one must have the faculty he has of expanding words with an effusion never before equalled. "He is an expert at throwing dust in the people's eyes; indeed, the great mass of his writings are as light as a handful of powder. . ." Yet Jurieu in the very next sentence seemed to belie the confidence of this judgment, for he insisted that "of all the writings made in favor of impiety there are few as pernicious as the writings of this

LAST YEARS

239

man." (134) They are much more pernicious, indeed, than those of the great impostors, Vanini, Hobbes, and Spinoza. In his Dictionary he has scattered ideas in which there is some Christianity. The imprudent, moreover, regard his work as a history, and ' ' boldly declare it the finest work of its kind. But the wise consider it the most detestable thing that has appeared for a century." (136) Jurieu was especially fearful because Bayle 's writing rendered impiety agreeable. Spinoza, indeed, seems to have written only to disgust his readers, both by his outrageous ideas and by the obscurities of his style. ' ' Our author has chosen a manner which has been much more successful." (137) He writes, so said Jurieu, "parfaitement bien et agréablement." Thus ended Jurieu's examination. This would-be prophet read the signs of the times with much more success in 1705 than when he tried to forecast the political future of France two decades earlier. We shall soon find that the influence of Bayle was to justify Jurieu's gloomy prognostic. Bayle did not see fit to reply to this penetrating libel. It was altogether too personal. The assertions made by Jurieu were so forthright that one might have learned more of the position of Bayle had he attempted a reply. But Jurieu would undoubtedly have complained of its "indecisiveness. " (32) Bayle was so true to his dislike for systems that he would not have allowed himself to be cornered. The writer has no desire to picture Bayle as a martyr. Yet one more persecution should be added to the list of attacks on the Rotterdam philosopher. Efforts were made in 1706 to revive the old-time accusation that he was pro-French. The year was appropriate for such a step. Holland and England were again at grips with France, this time with the question of the Spanish succession as the nominal reason for war. It was in that year that Marlborough won his famous victory at Ramillies. The revival of political

240

LAST YEARS

charges against Bayle was a close imitation of Jurieu's earlier steps. If Jurieu was connected with this plot against Bayle, he kept himself carefully in the background. Overtures were made to the English court through Lord Sunderland. 19 He was informed that Bayle had been in conference with a prominent Frenchman, that he favored absolute monarchy, praised Prance, and belittled the Allies. Desmaizeaux, Bayle's friend, was alarmed. I endeavored to undeceive him (Sunderland) but without success, for his prejudices were too strong. . . . I feared that he would persuade the Court to complain to the Estates of Holland, who could refuse nothing to England, considering the condition of affairs at the time. . . . I then turned to Lord Shaftesbury, and told him of Bayle's danger, (xvi, 245)

Shaftesbury was a warm friend and admirer of Bayle. The Englishman had spent a year in Holland only a short time before, and was in Rotterdam a part of that time. 20 The appeal to Shaftesbury proved successful. The latter explained to Sunderland that Bayle "was confined to his study and entirely taken up with his books and writings, and did not at all meddle in matters of state. . . . These accusations were but the result of some writers with whom he had disputed." (xvi, 246) Shaftesbury had hinted to Desmaizeaux that Bayle's position would be made the safer if the persecuted philosopher would take the opportunity to mention Allied successes in some of his works. Such a step, he said, could be taken without affectation, and would be pleasing to the English since their general was the victorious ι» The third Earl of Sunderland (Charlee Spencer) was a prominent Whig. He held an important place in the House of Lords at this time, was the sonin-law of the great Duke of Marlborough, and before the end of 1706 became one of the secretaries of state. Sunderland was irascible and violently assertive. The most pleasing aspect of his character was a keen interest in books; he laid the foundations of the well-known Spencer collection. 20 See Rand's edition of Life, Unpublished Letters, and Philosophical Regimen of Anthony, Earl of Shaftesbury. 1900, p. 327. Shaftesbury's point of view was strikingly like Bayle's. See below, Chap. XII.

LAST YEARS

241

leader of the Allied cause. Bayle 's reply to the suggestion handed on b y Desmaizeaux was not only a dignified and praiseworthy refusal; it introduces us to the last scene in the last act of Bayle's career. The plan which you lay down for disarming my enemies is doubtless the counsel of a good friend. I thank you with all my heart, even though it is impracticable for me to comply with it. At my age it would be unsuitable. I am fifty-nine years old, but on account of my naturally weak constitution, I am more infirm than other men at seventy or seventy-five. Besides, I have struggled f o r more than six months against a weakness of my lungs, an hereditary complaint of which both my mother and my grandmother died. It, in conequence, does not permit me to plan for a long stay in this world. It would be very unsuitable for me, I repeat, to write like a courtier and to flatter persons in office. My enemies would be only too glad to reproach me with such inconsistent conduct, (svi, 245-46) The invitation of the Earl of Albemarle, made earlier in the same year (1706), that Bayle come to live in his home at the Hague was politely refused for the same reason. 21 My lot is to have a particular pleasure presented to me when I can no longer enjoy it. I consider myself a broken down old man. My constitution is so weak that I cannot avoid being sick, or at least indisposed, if I depart in the least from that regularity of life that long habit has made necessary. . . . If good fortune had offered herself sooner, she would have made me the most contented man in the world. I should have acknowledged with eagerness the reasons that make me judge a sojourn in the capital an advantage to a man of letters. Would to God that about the year 1690 or a little after such an offer had come to me ! 2 2 The rapid decline of Bayle 's health in 1705 and 1706 was accompanied by a troublesome and persistent cough. H i s belief in the hereditary and fatal character of his trouble made him refuse any The Earl of Albemarle was a Dutch nobleman, Arnold Joost van Keppel, who eame to England with K i n g William in 1688. On the death of the K i n g in 1702 he returned to Holland. 22 X V I , 237. The " r e a s o n s " to which Bayle referred are in the first volume of the Réponse aux questions d'un provincial, where he had argued in favor of life in a large town. The date is meaningful ; 1690 was the year of the Avis important aux réfugiez.

242

LAST Y E A R S

medical help. Bayle found conversation such a burden that he retired more and more within himself. He kept to his writing, however, to the very last, hoping to live long enough to complete his reply to Jaquelot. This wish was fulfilled. Bayle's publisher wrote Desmaizeaux as follows: Mr. Bayle died in great tranquillity, and without anyone near him. The evening before, after having worked all day, he gave the copy of his reply to Mr. Jaquelot to my correcteur, saying to him that he felt very sick. The next morning (28 December, 1706) at nine his landlady entered his room. He asked her in a dying voice if his fire was kindled, and died a moment later without Mr. Basnage or myself or any of his friends being present.1»

The Journal des Sçavans (Paris) for January, 1707, reviewed hie Continuation

of the thoughts on the comet. The review recalled

Bayle 's statement in the volume that he would take up at a later time the remaining objections to his opinions on atheism and paganism. The review commented: "That time will never come. Death, which always surprises us, took Mr. Bayle the 28th of December last. The year could not have ended with a more grievous loss to the republic of letters. ' ' 2 4 Bayle died, almost pen in hand, a fighter to the last for the opinions he so boldly set forth. Yet he was buried in the French church at Rotterdam, and the church was intrusted by him with one hundred guilders for the poor. Interestingly enough, the same building was to receive, seven years later, the mortal remains of Jurieu, his bitter oponent. Could Jurieu have seen forward to the coming decades when Bayle 's power was to increase so remarkably, and his own to decrease, he might have carried his hatred to the sa XVI, 256. Bayle 's printer was Beinier Leers. There appears to be no support for Voltaire's statement that Bayle died suddenly after having written the words, ' ' Violà ce que c 'est que la vérité. ' ' It sounds too much like the rationalistic twist of the death-bed scenes which the devout BO much admired, and which Bayle despised. Nor is there any ground for Le Clerc's unworthy slur that Bayle died as a result of breaking a blood vessel. Le Clerc was much more likely to die of anger than Bayle. 2« Supplement for Jan., 1707, p. 40.

LAST YEARS

243

point of persecuting the body of his irreconcilable opponent, even to opposing its interment in the sacred precincts of a church. To most persons Bayle was known only through his writings. He loved his study and his books so much that ordinary pleasures were set aside. Though he had a capacity for affection, shown in the relations with his family and with a few friends, he never cared for marriage or for the refinements of social intercourse. Though accused of too great freedom in his writings, not even his bitterest enemy ever questioned the purity of his personal life. The only recreation he allowed himself was a weekly meeting with a few friends, including the magistrate Paets, Henri Basnage, Jacques Basnage, the publisher Reinier Leers, and a few others. This little group discussed religious and scientific questions with a freedom that would appeal to Bayle. His closest friend in the last years was Henri Basnage, the refugee lawyer. He became an editor in 1687, continuing the spirit of Bayle 's News in his Histoire des ouvrages des sçavans. His splendidly succinct Éloge de Bayle in the number for December, 1706, would seem to show that there was a deep and abiding friendship between them. As Basnage put i t : " i l était un ami fidèle et obligeant. ' ' Bayle was certainly a decided sceptic, though probably not accepting the atheistic position that he seemed at times to defend. His leaning toward criticism, and the increasing doubt with which he came from the study of all systems, have left his own positive opinions in the shadow. His disgust with Christianity after seventeen hundred years of trial was founded on the deep conviction that its moral effects were slight. The spectacle of the violent odium theologicum but confirmed his pessimism, and increased his desire " t o mortify the spirit of m a n . " 2 5 He saw little, if any, personal value in those positive religious beliefs so dear to the great majority. Most theologians appeared to him altogether too cocksure ; he would 2»News, Mar. 1684, Art. II.

244

LAST YEARS

have had them speak uncertainly of things uncertain, even though this was asking much of the professors of

a subject known as

" d o g m a t i c theology." Yet Bayle was not " s o u r e d " on life. H e interpreted

motives

charitably, if at all possible. H e greatly enjoyed debating abstract questions, but was the last man to enjoy a dispute that became heated and personal. H e was not dogmatic in manner, but modest and unassuming. H i s remarkable disregard f o r riches and

glory

was the outcome of a deeply planted distrust of constraint. If he loved anything more than truth, it was the right to express that truth freely. A s Basnage put it, " L i b e r t y of conscience was his favorite d o g m a . " Some light is thrown on the character and influence of Bayle in an interesting letter written by L o r d Shaftesbury to Basnage in January, 1707, only a f e w weeks after Bayle 's death. I do not know whether I should easily give way to my grief f o r the loss of our common friend, Monsieur Bayle, on which you have so kindly condoled with m e . . . . In this case I must own my private loss makes me think less of that which the public has sustained by the death of so great a man. This weakness friendship may excuse, for whatever benefit the world in general may have received from him, I am sure no one in particular owed more to him than I, or knew his merit better. But that I should thus have esteemed him is no wonder. The prejudices roused against him on account of his sentiments in philosophy could not be expected to raise scruples in those who were in no ways concerned in religious matters. But that the hard reproaches of the world against him on this account should not have been able to lose him the friendship of so great and worthy an actor in the cause of religion as yourself, this, I must own, is highly generous and noble, and to be acknowledged, not only by all lovers of Monsieur Bayle, but of truth and philosophical liberty. Nor can anything, in my opinion, more discover the firm trust you have in the merits of your excellent cause . . . than being willing thus to do justice to the memory of a friend, who, in whatever respects esteemed erroneous, had undeniably such qualities and virtues as might grace the character of the most orthodox of our age.28 20 Basnage, in his Éloge, had qualified his praise of Bayle by saying, ' ' On

LAST YEARS

245

Shaftesbury's tribute to Bayle 's influence on his own thinking is phrased in the same grandiloquent style, and with a caution almost Bay lian. While we agreed in fundamental rules of moral practice and believed ourselves true to these, the continual differences in opinion and the constant disputes that were between us, served to improve our friendship. I had the happiness to see that they lost me nothing of his. . . . If to be confirmed in any good principle be by debate and argument, after thorough scrutiny, I may then say in truth that whatever is most valuable to me of this kind has been owing in great measure to this our friend whom the world called sceptical. Whatever opinion of mine stood not the test of his piercing reason, I learned by degrees either to discard as frivolous, or not to rely on with that boldness as before. But that which bore the trial I prized as purest gold. Shaftesbury concluded his tribute by asserting the value of an inquiring philosophy. I think the world, and in particular the learned world, much beholden to such proving spirits as these. . . .What injury such a one could do the world by such a search of truth with so much moderation, disinterestedness, integrity, and innocency of life, I know not. But what good he did I in particular know and feel, and must never cease to speak and own.27 One task remains — to inquire as to Bayle 's influence. He proved as irrepressible in death as in life. the article of religion he gave himself too freely to the spirit of doubt and of Pyrrhonism, and had pushed too far his power of finding difficulties." 27 Rand's edition of the Life, Unpublished Letters, etc., pp. 372 ff. This letter appears to have escaped the attention of Bayle 's French biographers.

CHAPTEK

XII

LIFE AFTER DEATH A biography might well conclude with the benediction at the grave. Even an obituary is hardly in order. To many of his contemporaries Bayle did not appear to deserve a panegyric nor his work to merit remembrance. Bernard, one of his last adversaries, had prepared a reply to Bayle for the January (1707) number of his journal, when he learned of Bayle 's death. The reply was published, nevertheless, even though, as Bernard admitted, he might well be accused of attacking a ' ' dead lion. ' ' Leibnitz, also, when he took occasion a few years later to correct what he felt were Baylian misconceptions, expressed at the time the pious hope that Bayle, who was clearly a man of good intentions, was probably now enjoying the benefit of that ' ' light of which we here below are deprived. ' ' Bayle 's problematical post-mortem existence in other spheres need not call for conjecture; it is his extraordinary after-life in the minds of men that deserves some attention. Bayle 's influence is surprising. He left no family. The nephew to whom were bequeathed Bayle 's earthly goods — mostly books — proved neither a moral nor an intellectual descendant of the Rotterdam philosopher. Nor did Bayle have any desire to found a school of philosophy. Yet he did much more than that. He so largely shaped the thinking of the eighteenth century and its successors that he has been called, with no great violation of the truth, the father of modern rationalism. Never was there a more surprising contrast. This self-effacing thinker, ' ' chaste in his life, grave in his speech, sober in his appetites, austere in his manner of living, ' ' had but one failing ; he had

LIFE ATTER DEATH

247

an immoderate taste for work.1 As he sat entrenched behind his books, Bayle 's free and bold thinking took a shape that proved very powerful. Brunetière's judgment has already been quoted: " T o forget Bayle or to suppress him, is to mutilate and falsify the whole history of ideas in the eighteenth century. ' ' To this might be added the judgment of Rébelliau, that "Bayle did alone the work of a whole sect, and in twenty-five years the work of a century. ' ' 1 Nor was this influence confined to eighteenth-century France. Bayle 's audacious conclusions on the riddle of life and his criticism of so many accepted certainties were effective where the French language was not current coin. Bayle was probably more influential for being in exile. Holland was a fortunate domicile since Rotterdam was a much better center for the exportation of Baylian ideas than Geneva or London or Berlin. Bayle was a citizen of the world who served no king, either in heaven or on earth, and who preferred to acknowledge allegiance only to the republic of letters. It was also fortunate for his influence that French was then regarded as more international than any other living tongue. Like Erasmus before his time and Voltaire afterward, Bayle was European in his influence, the first really cosmopolitan figure in French literature. 3 How can the extent of this influence he estimated Î For one thing, the extreme popularity of his writings in the eighteenth century witnesses to his vitality. In addition, there is the conscious indebtedness and the unacknowledged borrowings of later thinkers and writers. And there is the very movement of events. The later comparative forgetf ulness into which Bayle 's name sank can be attributed in no small degree to the very success of his ideas, as the small ι The quoted words are those of Saurin, a contemporary French Protestant minister, who deplored the workings of Bayle's mind. The words were used in a sermon preached in 1709. See Sayoue, work cited, I, 308. 2 For Brunetière, see p. 3 of this volume. For Bébelliau, his penetrating contributions to the Histoire de France, edited by Lavisse. Vol. VIII, part i, p. 399. 3 The judgment of L. P. Betz, Pierre Bayle und die Nouvelles de la République des Lettres. 1896, p. 122.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

248

and the great drew from the ample Baylian arsenal the weapons for their own battles. The books of Bayle would seem highly perishable because of the passing occasions that called them forth. He was aroused to write against superstition by a comet that appeared in 1680, to discuss the history of Calvinism in reply to a Jesuit, to consider toleration because of the revocation of a French royal edict. Much of his writing was in religious controversy. A monthly review does not usually deserve reprinting. A dictionary of biography, by its very nature, is ephemeral ; unless edition follows edition, ' ' augmented and corrected," it soon goes the way of all flesh. The writings of Jurieu, Le Clerc, Arnauld, Pellisson, Varillas, Maimbourg and numerous other contemporaries soon ceased to attract interest. But it was not so with Bayle 's writings. H i s first important work, the Miscellaneous

Thoughts

on the

comet, had gone through four editions before 1706. Three more appeared in 1721, 1722, and 1749, along with the Continuation the Addition.

In the meantime, an English translation saw the light

in 1708. The fourth edition of his Criticism of Calvinism

of Maimbourg's

History

was printed in 1714, and followed soon by a re-issue

of the New Letters mentary

and

on the same subject. The Philosophical

Com-

appeared in a new French edition in 1713, had been trans-

lated into English in 1708, and was to appear in German later in the century. The little work, France

Entirely

Catholic,

had two

French editions and an English translation to its credit. Great interest was evinced in Bayle himself, for several biographies of the philosopher appeared in the first half of the eighteenth century. In addition, his letters were collected and published a number of times, separate collections or editions appearing in 1714, 1727, 1729, 1737, and 1739. The public does not appear to have been satisfied with reprints in convenient duodecimos of certain of his better known works.

249

LIFE AFTER DEATH

In 1727 there was published in Holland a four-volume folio edition of all of Bayle's writings, save the Dictionary.

The publisher's

announcement assured his readers that the works of the late Mr. Bayle need no commendation. The fire and fecundity of his imagination; the clearness, exactness, variety, attractiveness, learning, good sense, and reasoning power which they show and which are their character, have won for them such general approbation from all people of spirit and good taste that they are above any eulogies that one could make.

Nor was this simply a publisher's " p u f f , " for a second edition of the Oeuvres diverses appeared ten years later. The man of duodecimos became the man of folios, and survived the test. The lively career of the Dictionary

is one of the interesting

phenomena in the history of eighteenth-century culture. Two editions had appeared by the time of Bayle 's death. Before the middle of the century nine distinct editions of the Dictionary — ail in folio — had been printed in French. That of 1715 was made in Geneva. Those of 1720 and 1730 were produced in Holland, each an undertaking in four folio volumes. The editions of 1720 and 1730 — the latter is usually regarded as the definitive folio edition — Avere significantly dedicated to the Prince Regent of France; this was ' ' one of the signs of the reaction against Louis XIY. " 4 In 1734, a sixth edition appeared from the press of Trévoux, a small town on the Saône, not far north of Lyon. The Dictionary

could

* C. A. Sainte-Beuve, Nouveaux lundis, 1869-78, ix, 27. The frontispiece of the 1720 edition added to the Prince Regent's portrait some verses in praise of this benign ruler under whom Trance would now cease to be afflicted, a France that had too long endured misfortunes, her treasures exhausted, her people "sane finance." The prostrate country was invited to hope, for the tears would be dried up by the abundance coming from the distant south. The rebirth of prosperity was assured by the wisdom of the ruler and by ' ' fonds certain ' ' to be furnished by the exploitation of Louisiana. Below the portrait of the Regent an American savage appropriately held a map of the Mississippi. This allusion to Law's scheme was unfortunate, for the bubble burst as the book was a-printing. The verses were promptly omitted after a few examples had been struck off.

250

LIFE AFTER DEATH

not be printed in France, but the famous press of Trévoux could be used because the enclave of Dombes, of which Trévoux was the capital, did not become French territory until 1762. This sumptuous edition in five folios was printed for the Parisian booksellers. Prudential reasons required that the title-page bear the name of Amsterdam, but Trévoux is known to have been the place of origin. Four years later (1738) an edition was printed at Bale, in 1740 there was another issued from Holland, and in 1741 a second one from Bàie. Thus before the middle of the century nine French editions of the Dictionary saw the light. The Avertissement of the 1730 printing spoke truly: "It is rare to see a work so extensive as this reprinted so often in so short a time. ' ' There were also a number of abridgments and several supplementary dictionaries, and several that were frankly based on Bayle without attempting to be reprints. In 1750-56 appeared in Holland a four-volume folio Nouveau Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, edited by Chauffepié, as a supplement to Bayle. Chauffepié was a Protestant minister of refugee parentage. The work, in consequence, was intended to be an antidote as well as a continuation. A little later, Marsy and Robinet 's eight-volume Analyse raisonnée de Bayle, "or methodical abridgment of his works, especially of his Dictionary" tried to "boil down" Bayle; the notes were made part of the text of each article.® In 1765 at Berlin, and at Amsterdam in 1780 and 1789, there appeared a two-volume selection of the more philosophical articles along with their extensive notes. The moving spirit in this publication was Frederick the Great, whom we shall find an enthusiastic follower of Bayle. An interesting prospectus was issued in 1790 for a twelve-volume quarto reprint of the Dictionary, an appropriate undertaking because of the renewed interest in Bayle during the Revolution, s For the experience of Marsy as a result of this publication, see below, Chap. XIII, p. 284.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

251

and because the earlier editions are ' ' now rare and precious. ' ' · The vicissitudes of the Revolution prevented the appearance of the Dictionary. An octavo edition of 1801, printing at Leipzig, also failed of completion. Finally in 1820, the first octavo edition and the last (11th) of the Dictionary was printed in Paris in sixteen volumes. It was left to Paris to print the best edition of the Dictionary.'' The Dictionary had an interesting history in several foreign tongues. A Dutch Groot Woorderiboek, partly based on Bayle, was issued in 1730. But the demand for such was not great, since French was well known by the learned, and there was no lack of French editions at the time. Bayle 's Historisches und Critisches Wörterbuch was translated into German in the early forties, appearing in four folios. It had an important influence on the Aufklärung, as we shall find. The work was much esteemed in England. The first English edition in four volumes appeared in 1710. During the years 1734-38, a more accurate five-volume edition was published. These two complete translations of the Dictionary were supplemented by several general dictionaries in which the spirit of Bayle was carefully preserved. There appeared in 1734, in ten folios, a General Dictionary, Historical and Critical, "in which a new and accurate translation of the celebrated Mr. Bayle . . . is included, and interspersed with several thousand lives never before published." Additional evidence of Bayle 's influence in England is furnished by the well-known Biographia Britannica in six folios. This "dictionary of national biography" proclaimed on its title-page that ' ' the lives of the most eminent persons who have flourished in Great 6 The price of the twelve volumes was to be "five guineas or 120 livres," and the books were to be sent post free to the subscribers as far as Mannheim and Frankfort on the Main. T This was edited by Beuchot. As pointed out earlier, reference has been made to this edition.

252

LIFE AFTER DEATH

Britain and Ireland" are here "collected from the best authorities . . . and digested in the manner of Mr. Bayle 's Historical

and

Critical Dictionary."

ap-

An abridgement of Bayle's Dictionary

peared in English in 1826. It was similar to the venture of Marsy and Robinet of the previous century.8 The mere statistical record of the republication of Bayle

is

nothing short of impressive. Publishers do not issue and reissue folios for the mere pleasure of using up ink and paper. The tremendous vogue for Bayle 's Dictionary

justified the ventures. It

was even a "high-class investment." A Parisian speculator, La Orange by name, had made good money in the Mississippi scheme, but felt that he held "paper" that might depreciate. He, therefore, hastened to exchange it for better paper, by buying the publishing business that was issuing the fourth edition of Bayle 's

Dictionary.

All of the de luxe copies as well as most of the ordinary ones were published by this enterprising plunger. It led one of Bayle 's admirers to say at the time: "What would Bayle think, a man so plain and so opposed to material gain, if he saw his

Dictionary

in the hands of usurers? He did not think he was laboring for such." 9 Why was Bayle so successful as a dictionary-maker ? The method he adopted of adding learned and amusing footnotes attracted those in search of knowledge and those "on pleasure bent." The learned found his information full and remarkably accurate. The pleasure was all the greater because of Bayle 's lack of affirmation and his air of moderation. Nor was his positive influence on varied types of mind any the less, since his readers could take from his non-dogmatic writings that which suited their particular tastes. There can be more in a book than the author unconsciously put there, as β For the bibliography of Bayle 's works, see the appendix. The ones hitherto prepared have not been conspicuous either for fulness or accuracy. β Marais, quoted by Sainte-Beuve, work cited, I X , 28.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

253

Thomas Hardy feelingly wrote anent the reception of Jude the Obscure. I f , as has been said, Bayle taught three generations to think, criticize — and doubt, the effects should be discernible in the men who are usually thought to express most fully the spirit of the eighteenth century, in England, in Germany, and in Prance. 10 IN

ENGLAND

Let us first cross the Channel to look about the England of postRevolution days for traces of the Baylian spirit. I t is a commonplace that England of the eighteenth century was notable for a decline of the theological, and the gradual spread of the sceptical, attitude among the educated classes. So true was this that not infrequently there was much wailing over the "present state of religion" and the "excessive growth of infidelity, heresy, and profaneness. " The revival of heart-religion by the Wesleys toward the middle of the century was an answer to the needs of the lower classes and to the incredulity of their ' ' betters. ' ' After 1740 David Hume was the most conspicuous representative of the sceptical point of view, though his actual influence at the time does not seem to have been very great. Sir Leslie Stephen, the great historian of eighteenth-century thought in England, would assume some causal relation between a Hume, apparently uninfluential, and the "cold blast of scepticism" that was then so dominant. But the "rapidity and extent of the whole body of speculation" depended on more than one man, for many influences of a date earlier than 1740 were at work, as Stephen makes clear. Among these, the present writer would place Pierre Bayle, without attempting to set up an extravagant claim for his effectiveness. By now, it is clear that Bayle was well known in England, both io Betz, work cited, p. 120.

254

LIFE ATTER DEATH

in the original French and in the English translations. Before the end of Queen Anne's reign Bayle's Philosophical Commentary, Miscellaneous Thoughts on the comet, his France Entirely

his

Catholic,

the Dictionary, and an extensive memoir had appeared in English. The Dictionary seems to have been esteemed even before the first English edition of 1710. The preface to this translation informs us that the sale of the French editions have been proportionately as great in England as on the Continent. It was again, and more accurately, englished in 1734, as we have found. In that year, also, there was a General Dictionary, also a translation of Bayle, but with additions in Bayle 's manner. The preface to this compilation noted the "uncommon applause" justly obtained by the Dictionary. Although the previous English version was defective, yet ' ' so great was Mr. Bayle 's fame that this translation, which was at first sold very cheap, was afterwards purchased at an exorbitant price." The apeing of Bayle 's method by the Biographia

Britannica

certainly shows that Bayle was ' ' in style. ' ' The interesting historical résumé in the Preface paid him high respect. Our language was soon enriched with this treasure, and though the version (of 1710) had no very high reputation, yet the excellence of the original gave it such weight that in a short time the price became excessive, and we have since seen the greatest eagerness in its favour expressed by the publick, when that work was again translated.

The preface explained later that the adoption of Bayle 's method (the extensive use of learned and attractive footnotes to the main articles) was not only out of a "blind and superstitious regard to the veneration the learned world have for his memory," but also because the method he "invented" appeared the "most natural, easy, and comprehensive, the best adapted to our purpose, and the most likely to give our readers satisfaction." (viii) Bayle was not only widely appreciated in England. We know, too, that while still living he was in touch with congenial English-

LIFE AFTER DEATH

255

men of the upper classes. This was only natural, since Holland was as convenient a land for English refugees as for French, if the need arose. Alternarle, Sunderland, Shaftesbury- had relations with Bayle. Desmaizeaux, his biographer, spent much of his life in London. Bayle himself might have enjoyed the protection of English noblemen had he been willing to forgo his personal independence. In the England of Bayle 's day the most prominent name in philosophy was that of John Locke. The English thinker had been in Holland for a time before the Revolution of 1688, but there seem to have been no personal relations between the two refugees. Locke was not so sceptical as Bayle in his thinking. The volume he wrote to prove that Christianity was reasonable revealed a sincere Christian who would use his logic with sufficient prudence. Nor was Locke in sympathy with the sharp advances toward natural religion already appearing before his death. He denied positively that he was in any way responsible for the Deistic viewpoint of a Toland. Indeed, Locke became more judicious in his later life, because of the ill use made by "Bayle and other libertines" of their dialectical powers.11 Had Locke lived farther on into the century, he would have denied that his opinions logically led to Hume's philosophical position. Yet Locke's philosophical point of view, his emphasis on the reasonableness of Christianity, was very influential in stimulating the Deistic movement. In 1696, John Toland published his Christianity not Mysterious, "shewing that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason or above it." His professed dependence on Locke was indignantly repudiated by the philosopher. Toland was, also, far from the position of Bayle. The divinity of the Bible, of the "holy penmen," was taken for granted. Toland insisted that his i l According to Hume. The Philosophical 1874, Π , 388.

Works of Oavicl Hume, 4 vols.,

256

LIFE AFTER DEATH

emphasis on reasonableness was to prove "the verity of the divine revelation against atheists and all enemies of revealed religion." Toland's influence was positive and not primarily negative; it aroused the ire of the church, which still universally acknowledged, in Bayle 's words, " t h a t the mysteries of the Gospel are above reason." (xv, 280) In fact, Toland was answered in the same year by a pamphlet which "proved that as there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason, yet there are some doctrines in it above reason." And Toland was accused of being an atheist and a Socinian. The Deistic position, by its very name, was founded on a belief in a deity who was agreeable to reason, and whose overruling goodness was not the monopoly of a particular religion. Though critical of of ceremonies and of "superstition," the Deist was not a thoroughgoing sceptic. Toland, in reply to attacks that included him in the "half-witted crew of Socinians," wrote, " I execrate and abhor atheism from the bottom of my heart."

12

The next prominent Deist was Anthony Collins, also much influenced by Locke. He published in 1713 a Discourse of Free

Thinking,

in which a lack of restraint and a display of arrogant misinformation abound. There is little evidence that his volume had any connection with Bayle. He argued that there would be fewer aethists if free thinking were permitted than if it were restrained. (35) And he made some use of Plutarch's comparison of atheism and idolatry, which lay at the basis of Bayle 's thoughts on the comet of 1680. Collins, however, found the morsel, not in Bayle, but in Shaftesbury's

Characteristics.

The high point of the Deistic influence came with the appearance of Matthew Tindal's Christianity

as Old as the Creation,

" o r the

Gospel a republication of the Religion of Nature" (1730). Again, of course, a beneficent supreme being is assumed, one who is unchangeable, and who, from the start, has given an absolutely 12 Vmdicius Liberius, 1702.

LIFE AFTER

DEATH

257

perfect religion of nature. Such emphasis is foreign to Bayle, though he occasionally reverts to the idea that an internal revelation should agree with the external one. Toland, again, makes use of Plutarch's famous paradox, and like Collins found, or professed to find it, in Shaftesbury. Tindal condemned David in Baylian fashion, and showed Bayle 's distrust of superstition and priestcraft. Yet he is far removed from Bayle 's general suspicion of mythical golden ages, and his scepticism as to the average man's ability to use reason as a guide. English Deism was a narrow intellectual discussion, neither based on physical science, nor founded on a thoroughly critical and historic attitude toward the past. Lord Shaftesbury should not be classed with the Deists, though his writings show somewhat the same dislike of priestcraft and superstition. The resemblance is but superficial. The Deistic acceptance of rewards and punishments, and the idea of a law of nature imposed by a creator are absent. Shaftesbury had, indeed, received a part of his education from Locke. But Warburton, in comparing the philosopher with the "noble author of the

Characteristics"

insisted that Shaftesbury's inveterate "rancour against Christianity" could not have come from Locke. The similarity of the thinking of Shaftesbury and Bayle, on the other hand, would seem to indicate a close relationship, if not actual influence. Shaftesbury believed that atheism does not seem to have any effect at all toward setting up a false species of right or wrong. . . . But this is certain, that by means of corrupt religion or superstition, many things the most horridly unnatural and inhuman come to be received as excellent, good, and laudable in themselves. 13

Shaftesbury's ethical standard did not depend in belief on a god, though such a belief, he felt, would enforce it. Shaftesbury may 13 Works, 3 vols., 1900, I, 262.

258

LIFE AFTER DEATH

have had Bayle in mind when he wrote : ' ' Some even of our most admired modern philosophers have fairly told us that virtue and vice have after all no other law or measure than mere custom and vogue." 14 Shaftesbury's careful neutrality in the Bayle-Le Clerc controversy shows well the way the wind was blowing. In a letter to John Le Clerc, written in March 1705/6, he replied politely to Le Clerc, who seems to have written of his defence of Christianity against the atheism of Bayle. " I am far from thinking," replied Shaftesbury, ' ' that the cause of Theism will lose anything in a fair dispute. I can never wish better for it than when I wish the establishment of an entire philosophical liberty. ' ' He later referred to the dispute between his correspondent and "my old acquaintance, Monsieur Bayle." And added, "But I am persuaded that your moderation and temper, joined with your abilities and better cause, will not only convince others but advantage even himself (i.e., Bayle). I have not read as yet what he has written." 16 Bayle, on learning that Le Clerc had written Shaftesbury of their dispute, gave the "noble lord" his side of the case. He told Shaftesbury that Le Clerc "finally took a position resembling that of Jurieu." Bayle thanked Shaftesbury for various beautiful volumes given him. In view of Shaftesbury's good relations with Bayle, the politic letter to Le Clerc appears almost a mild rebuke.18 After Bayle 's death Desmaizeaux was led to write the biography of Bayle that appeared in English in 1708 by Shaftesbury's desire Quoted by Warburton, work cited, I, 88. ι» Band's edition, cited above, p. 354. ie It might be added that Bayle was also in correspondence with the Duke of Buckingham, from whom he received a complimentary letter about the Dictionary. Bayle 's viewpoint was very like that of Buckingham. The latter's self-made epitaph might be used for his philosophic mentor: Dubius, sed non improbus vixi. Incertus morior, non perturbatus; Humanuni est nescire et errare.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

259

to have ' ' all the particulars I could collect touching Bayle 's life and work. ' ' Bayle and Shaftesbury were very congenial spirits. An astounding volume, later to cause much stir, appeared in England in 1714 — three years after the publication of Shaftesbury's Characteristics. Bernard de Mandeville's Fable of the Bees was a satire on society under the guise of a thriving and vicious hive of bees; when the hive was reformed "prosperity departed with vice." Mandeville cynically argued that private vices were public benefits, a paradox that certainly outdid the one proposed by Plutarch and revived by Bayle. Mandeville's view of life was not merely sceptical, it was caustically cynical. Neither the English nobleman, Shaftesbury, nor the French refugee, Bayle, were concerned in arguing for self-indulgence. Yet the clergy were not slow to lay the blame for the Fable of the Bees at the doors of these two men, largely because they had denied the relationship between belief and conduct. There is no doubt of Bayle 's influence on Mandeville, though Bayle would have denied any parentage as vigorously as Locke disowned Toland. Mandeville was reared in Rotterdam, where he attended the Erasmian school until 1685. He may have come into personal contact with Bayle, since Bayle was already teaching in Rotterdam. The author of the Fable held the general Baylian point of view, being sceptical as to absolute truth, and the use of reason by the majority of mankind. He also held Bayle 's conception of the failure of Christianity, the thesis that men can be good without having a religion, and that no action is virtuous if inspired by selfish emotion. Mandeville's cynical inference that private vices would benefit society seemed to him latent in the famous paradox of Bayle that appeared in the Miscellaneous Thoughts on the comet. Mandeville made much use of the work on the comet and of the Dictionary. Bayle was cited again and again in the Fable, especially in the long Remarks that, in form, remind one of Bayle 's device in

LIFE AFTER DEATH

260 the Dictionary.

In Remark 0 , for example, after quoting Montaigne

from Bayle, Mandeville added: This is making all mankind either fools or impostors, which to avoid, there is nothing left us, but to say what Mr. Bayle has endeavour'd to prove at large in his Reflexions on Comets ; that Man is so unaccountable a Creature as to act most commonly against his Principle. 17 Mjandeville's work is curiously like Bayle 's in its lip service to strict morality at the same time that he was proclaiming the impossible and undesirable moral standards he pretended to laud. Mandeville made it hard for his critics to answer him, in the same way that Bayle tantalized his enemies. The replies to Mandeville show the accepted influence of Bayle. William Law, for instance, replied in 1724 in some Remarks upon a late Book entitled The Fable of the Bees, " t o which is added a postscript containing an observation or two upon Mr. B a y l e . " The postscript was appended to show Bayle 's "absurdities and contradictions" regarding the relation of belief and conduct, " f o r the sake of such as are proselytes of Mr. Bayle's philosophy." Law believed Bayle the "principal author amongst those whose parts have been employed to arraign and expose virtue and religion as being only the blind effects of complexion, natural temper, and custom." (99) His judgment is worth repeating: " I t is not easy to imagine the fatal effects that Mr. Bayle's writings have had upon People's minds, by denying the power of reason and religion." (53) Needless to say, Bayle would have vigorously and honestly denied the paternity of Mandeville's contemptuous horse-laugh at human society.18 « See F . B. K a y o ' s edition of the Fahle, 2 vols., 1924, I, 167. This excellent piece of work has an elaborate commentary in which K a y e makes it abundantly clear that " Mandeville'β basal theories are in B a y l e , " that Bayle was the "chief

of

Dictionary Free

his teachers."

Mandeville used the English

and the Miscellaneous

Thoughts

on Seligion,

confesses his debt to the

Thoughts.

In

translations

1720 Mandeville

the Church and National

Happiness,

of

the

published where he

Dictionary.

K a y e has shown that Mandeville's influence was very great, in his own

261

LIFE AFTER DEATH

One of the best evidences of the widespread Baylian influence, especially after the publication of the two English versions of the Dictionary in the thirties, was the way in which Bayle aroused controversy. One need not be surprised that a divine came to the defence of King David in 1740 in reply to " M r . Bayle 's criticisms upon the conduct and character of that prince." A revival of the controversy in the sixties — related in a previous chapter — was also centered about Bayle, and even led to a reprint of the Dictionary treatment of David. But Bayle aroused much greater concern by frankly taking the position of a Manichee, and by denying the soundness of the Christian explanation of the origin of evil — a denial that cut at the very heart of the Christian system. We have found how this aroused defenders of the faith at the time that the Dictionary

first

ap-

peared. Bishop King had published a work De Origine Mali in 1702 "against the objections of Bayle," and he was but one of a number who tried to counter Bayle at that time. The increased knowledge of Bayle in England after the thirties brought about a revival of the Manichean issue. One of the most distinguished controversialists of the time was William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester. Possibly his best-known work was The Divine Legation of Moses Demonstrated.

This pond-

erous accomplishment endeavored to prove the importance of the Old Testament revelation as a basis for the Christian faith. He was deeply convinced of the "necessity of religion in general and of the doctrine of a f u t u r e state in particular," for the well-being of civil society. He paid much attention to Bayle, as an opponent worthy of combat, especially because of his paradox taken from Plutarch and his general influence. The paradox, "which in the right. In 1728 Alexander Campbell published an Inquiry into the Origins of Moral Virtue, "wherein the false notions of Machiavel, Hobbes, Spinoza and Mr. Bayle, as they are collected and digested by the author of the Fable of the Bees, are examined and confuted. ' '

262

LIFE AFTER DEATH

hands of a Toland or a Tindal ends in rank offensive impiety" is much more menacing when advanced by a "soul superior to the sharpest attacks of fortune and a heart practiced to the best philosophy." This "indulgent foster-father of infidelity" was credited with the "utmost clearness and strength of reasoning" and with an "unwearied vigor of mind." Bayle 's writings were repeatedly cited by Warburton, and carefully considered because " Bayle 's authority is so great." 19 Warburton also "manhandled" the author of the Fable of the Bees without confusing Bayle 's philosophy with that of Mandeville. An attack on the dead philosopher from a slightly different angle was made by S. Martin, rector of Gotham in Nottinghamshire in a Dissertation

on the Blasphemy

against the Holy Ghost, "to which

is added a review of the reasonings of Monsieur Bayle on the entrance of sin and misery into the world, and on the method described by him for conducting this dispute with a Manichean." One more controversialist might be called in evidence. Soame Jenyns attracted much attention by his Free Enquiry

into the Nature and Origin of

Evil. The writer declared that "few books are in more hands, or, by many, more greedily read than Bayle 's. ' ' 2 0 This phase of Bayle's influence need not be pursued further. It should be evident by now that Bayle was very widely read in England, was generally regarded as a chief of the sceptics, even before Hume strengthened the sceptical forces of the island by his acute attacks on Deism and revealed religion. Bayle was much more akin to Hume than to either of the groups that Hume demolished by his philosophical acumen. One more name cannot be left unmentioned. Edward Gibbon has won a permanent place in the hall of fame by the Decline and 1» Edition of 1846, I, pp. 123, 128, 166, etc. 2o Martin's volume was published in 1766, that of Jenyns in 1757. For the quotation from the latter, see p. 122 of volume quoted.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

263

Fall of the Roman Empire ; the first volume appeared in 1776. The distinguished English historian had all of Bayle 's scepticism as well as his high ideals of historical criticism. Their youthful experiences were strikingly similar as an earlier page has shown. Both were omnivorous readers, both were led by the logic of their early thinking into Catholicism, both came out of the Catholic faith after a short sojourn to spend the rest of their lives as sceptics. Gibbon was fully conscious of the similarity of his life and thinking to that of the great seventeenth-century refugee. In addition, he was thoroughly familiar with, and an ardent admirer of, Bayle 's various works. His judgment of Bayle is worth reprinting : A calm and lofty spectator of the religious tempest, the philosopher of Rotterdam condemned with equal firmness the persecutions of Louis XIV and the republican maxims of the Calviniste. In reviewing the controversies of the times, he turned against each other the arguments of the disputants ; successively wielding the arms of the Catholics and Protestants, he proved that neither the way of authority nor the way of examination can afford the multitude any test of religious truth; and dexterously concluded that custom and education must be the sole ground of popular belief. The ancient paradox of Plutarch, that atheism is less pernicious than superstition, acquires a ten-fold vigor when adorned with the colors of his wit, and pointed with the acuteness of his logic. His Critical Dictionary is a vast repertory of facts and opinions; and he balances the false religions in his sceptical scales, till the opposite quantities annihilate each other.21 In his Journal under the year 1764 Gibbon recorded the reading of Remarks on Bayle's

Dictionary

( J o l y ' s î ) , adding the judgment

that "intolerant superstition is more dangerous than impiety." In the same year he read Bayle 's Critique Calvimsm

of Maimbourg's History

of

and found that Bayle showed a "measure of knowledge,

precision, and candour, as well as entertainment, seldom exhibited in the lists of controversy." The Decline and Fall has indubitable Baylian ear marks, even though Bayle gave to Gibbon no actual amount of large material 2i Miscellaneous

Works, 1837, p. 32.

L I F E AFTER DEATH

264

for his use. So omnivorous a reader as Gibbon needed only a point of view. His scorn for the church and the baneful effects of superstition certainly " s p i c e d " the story of the decline and fall of Rome. Gibbon's conception of history was Bayle 's: it is " l i t t l e more than the register of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of m a n k i n d . " 2 2 And, like Bayle, Gibbon showed a moderation, a lack of dogmatism, that in its own pompous way was a replica of Bayle's "wicked w i t , " as Gibbon called it. The attitude toward Mohammedanism is strikingly similar. In his famous

fifteenth

and sixteenth

chapters,

Edward Gibbon handled the problem of miracle with Baylian finesse. He employed the same dexterity in casting doubt on the Christian record by oblique attacks, but went rather further than Bayle in wielding his ironical weapons. He announced, for example, the coming of Christianity in language that Bayle would not have employed : " I n a decisive moment the wisdom of Providence interposed a genuine revelation." They also saw eye to eye on the Manichean matter. I f Gibbon has survived the fate of most of his history-writing contemporaries, it is in no small degree because he reincarnated with remarkable faithfulness the historic method of Bayle. The decline and fall of Deism was an accepted fact by the time that Gibbon wrote his great epic of Rome. The mental timidity of the average Englishman refused to go the lengths of Hume. And by this time the evangelical movement had begun its pervasive conquest of the British classes, both upper and lower. The " h e a r t religion" of the Methodists was not disturbed by the possible unreasonableness of their faith; emotionalism and a direct and ineffable experience largely replaced the more tiresome effort to relate Christianity to reason. Thus a wide and ever widening gap developed between the faith and the sceptical point of view. Rationalism, free thought, or whatever it may be called, was driven 22 Bury edition, I, 77.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

265

underground. F r o m the evangelical point of view, the " a t h e i s t " came to bear the marks of the devil. Only slowly in the nineteenth century did reason recover to some extent its power in the ' ' illogical i s l a n d . " A n d when it did, the stimulus came largely from the rediscovery of the critical viewpoint as applied to history and the Bible, on the one hand, and to science, on the other. The lively battle that ensued between " s c i e n c e " and " r e l i g i o n " is familiar to students of modern cultural development. Shelley, Godwin, and their circle had advocated the rationalistic, liberty-loving message at the beginning of the nineteenth century — when they were no more likely to have a large audience than had Thomas Paine. Shelley's pamphlet on the Necessity of Atheism

only served to sever

his relations with University College, Oxford. He was both behind and before his time. IN

GERMANY

The extent to which Bayle 's influence operated in Germany did not depend altogether on the translation of his writings into German. There, even more than in England, French influences of a literary sort were powerful. Unfortunately f o r the Germanies, there was a lamentable lack of political u n i t y ; it kept the country in a backward state politically, and tended to make it less independent culturally. The long T h i r t y Y e a r s ' W a r had seriously paralyzed the country f o r decades after the Peace of Westphalia. The enlightened advance of France and the Low Countries in the seventeenth century

f o u n d no parallel. Superstitions

regarding

the

heavens, and the beliefs about magic and witchcraft died very slowly. The depredations of Louis X I V in Alsace-Lorraine and the Palatinate were additional evidences of weakness as well as causes for delayed advance. Culturally the Empire was l a g g i n g badly. Scholasticism

still

controlled the schools, until the powerful influence of Christian

LIFE AFTER DEATH

266

Thomasius led to the greater use of the national language in place of Latin. The change to the vernacular came very slowly, much more slowly than in France and England. "Germany, where Latin seemed to have taken refuge, commences little by little to discontinue its use," wrote D'Alembert about 1750.23 Thomasius was a contemporary of Bayle. After 1684 he attracted much attention by his ridicule of the ' ' erudite. ' ' He greatly shocked the academic circles of his time by teaching in German instead of in Latin. He also had the courage to oppose the beliefs in sorcery and witchcraft. In philosophy he was up to date, for he advocated the newer Cartesianism. To hasten the work of modernizing Germany, Thomasius consciously adopted Bayle 's device of a monthly periodical. For two years (1688-90) he issued in German a MonatsGespräche vornehmlich

über neue Bücher. It was the first learned

periodical to appear in Germany in the national language. The venture was Baylian, since it aimed not only to be learned but to entertain at the same time ; the Gedanken were announced as ' ' free, pleasing, serious, and thoughtful." The innovation was such a novelty and the Baylian standard so advanced that the work was soon burned by the common hangman, and Thomasius had to turn to other channels to attain his ends.24 Bayle 's influence in Germany was not unchallenged. Objections appeared from the pens of several French Protestants, who had become German by residence. Philip Naudé, the French minister at Berlin, had previously written against Bayle in the interests of the Sovereign Perfection of God. In 1718 he published a refutation of the Philosophical Commentary. Naudé was almost naively plaintive: " I write to sustain the rights of truth against the prerogatives with which the greatest philosopher of our days has clothed error, a thing he has done so artfully that a great number of our 23 Discours Préliminaire de l'Encyclopédie, *Betz, work cited, p. 119.

2

Picavet edition, 1912, p. 114.

L I F E AFTER D E A T H

267

best writers concur in his unfortunate beliefs." Naudé deplored the taste of the age, which has led even the younger generation of ministers and some theologians to accept this ' ' tissue of impieties. ' ' Even he himself had been on the edge of the precipice : ' ' Only after serious meditation and by the grace of God, which I have sought and which has worked powerfully in me, have I escaped from the labyrinth where this new monster has imprisoned so many." (14) Some years later, another French minister at the Prussian court, Jean Deschamps, undertook to correct the bad impression created by Bayle 's Dictionary, that "famous work, which is the terror of the systematic theologians." Until the present (1743) [he continued] no one has taken up the defence of theology against Mr. Bayle by giving a satisfactory system, well knit and incontestable. Providence must have permitted this in order to humiliate our reason and prove our faith. Let us hope, however, that it (Providence) will finally give the world an excellent theologian to counter Bayle's poison.2®

Leibnitz, the dominant German philosopher of Bayle's day, is already familiar. He had crossed swords with the dictionary-maker before the latter's death, and in 1710 undertook to defend the Christian theory of the origin of evil. Leibnitz was more affirmative than Bayle, and more conservative. Deschamps, who has just been quoted, thought it singular, that two such powerful men should live at the same time, for he distrusted Leibnitz almost as much as he feared Bayle. "The more I compare them," he wrote, "the more alike do I find them. ' ' The two men were much alike, though they disagreed on some points. Yet Leibnitz was not slow to recognize the power of this "marvellous Dictionary."

The German thinker's influence in his

country was very great, in the awakening of German culture. If 25 Cours abrégé de la philosophie Wolfienne, 2 vols., 1743. Wolff, of whom Deschampe was a disciple, was not the Wolf who had attacked Bayle's Man· icheism. See above, p. 234.

268

LIFE AFTER DEATH

his suppositions regarding the preëstablished harmony, his monadologv, and his "justification of God" in the Theodicy were not to stand the test of time, his general influence was decidedly for advance. Toward the middle of the century Frederick the Great wrote an interesting survey of Germany's development, in which he paid high tribute to Leibnitz : " Of all who have made Germany illustrious, those rendering the greatest services to the human spirit were Thomasius and Leibnitz. ' ' 2 6 But it was through the Critical Dictionary

that Bayle was to

put his mark on German development. The work was known in Germany in the French form from the start. In 1711 the learned Jacob F. Reimmann felt it necessary to issue a criticism. 27 Not until the forties, as we have found, was the Dictionary

trans-

lated into German. It was the work of the famous J. C. Gottsched, and appeared in four folio volumes during the years 1741-1744.28 Gottsched was one of the most active littérateurs

of the second

quarter of the century. He gave a powerful impulse to better standards of taste by his long-popular German grammar, and his ardent advocacy of purity in language and elegance of style. Among outside influences, Gottsched especially admired the classical French literature of the previous century, a penchant

that led him into

violent controversy. He did much in the work of translation. The Dictionary

of Bayle thus entered the Aufklärung

under distin-

guished auspices. It was carefully edited, "with a foreword and with remarks on the offensive parts." Bayle 's "most dangerous 26 Oeuvres, 30 vole., ed. of 1846-57, I, 211. 27 Versuch einer Critique über das Dictionnaire. . . . des Mr. Bayle. Reimmann was the author of numerous works in the field of literary history. Leibnitz was one of his friends. 28 Herrn P. Bayles. . . . historisches und critisch.es Wörterbuch, ' ' translated from the newest edition, that of 1740. ' ' The four folio volumes were published at Leipzig. The place of this translation in the German Aufklärung has been carefully analyzed by Dr. Erich Lichtenstein, Gottscheds Ausgabe von Bayles Dictionnaire, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Aufklärung, 1915.

LIFE ATTER DEATH

269

observations" were supplemented by Gottsched. The writings of Leibnitz were also used in this version of the Dictionary

in an

antidotal manner. Gottsched felt that his editing of Bayle would prevent the sceptical tendencies of the Dictionary from penetrating the German mind. Like Leibnitz — whose Theodicy he translated into German in the forties — Gottsched believed faith could be founded on reason. Bayle 's Dictionary, thus doctored, furnished a " weltbild" for the Aufklärung,

doing much to shape the thinking

of the century during those crucial years when a German literature in the national language was making its emergence.29 The German translation of Bayle only added further titles to the voluminous literature that he had aroused. Clugius in 1743 chided Gottsched for allowing Bayle 's mistreatment of a certain German, Hutterus, to remain unchanged. Three years later Böldicke replied to Bayle 's teaching on the origin of evil by supplementing the Theodicy of Leibnitz. Two years after that a J. A. Willemer tried to show the concordance of faith and reason "adversus Petrum Baelium. ' ' Bayle seems, indeed, to have stimulated much discussion in the theological faculties.30 Bayle 's influence on German thinking in the eighteenth century is well illustrated by his influence on Lessing, whose tolerance, love of freedom, and sharp criticism of current Christianity were rooted in Bayle 's writings.31 The two men had many similar mental characteristics and experiences. In his youth Lessing studied Bayle diligently, and " at no period of his life did he give up the custom of reading and consulting him. ' ' 3 5 Lessing was famed, among other 2» Lichtenstein, work cited, p. 47. See also Th. W. Danzel, Gottsched und seine Zeit, 1848. 30 Clugiue, C. G., Vindidae, etc., 1743. Joachim Böldicke, Einwürfe des Herrn Bayle, wider die geoffenbarte Lehre vom Ursprung und der Bestrafung des Bösen. 1745. 31 According to Betz, work cited, p. 129. 32 James Sime, Lessing, 2 vols., 1877, I, 102.

270

LIFE AFTER DEATH

things, as a reviewer. He attacked both the defenders and opponents of Christianity in true sceptical fashion in such an essay as that on Bibliolatry. In writing on Cardan he made a Mohammedan tilt against a Christian with all the force of Bayle 's Manichee. To Lessing, orthodox Christianity was a "structure of nonsense, which must needs be attacked under the pretext of giving it a new foundation." In the same spirit Lessing wrote his brother: I prefer the old orthodox theology (appealing wholly to faith) to the newer theology because the former conflicts openly with the healthy human understanding, and the latter rather seeks to confuse it. I ally myself with my open enemies in order the better to guard against my secret foes. 53

He believed morality quite independent of dogmatic belief. His deep interest in the relationship of religion and morals came out more clearly than ever before when he was appointed librarian at Wolfenbüttel in Brunswick. While there be published several Fragments that he claimed to have unearthed in the Wolfenbüttel library. They were, as a matter of fact, the extreme anti-Christian writings of Reimarus, a Hamburg professor who had died in 1765. The Fragments that Lessing began to publish in the late seventies objected to the Christian attack on reason, and showed, on the other hand, that it was impossible to have a revelation which all men can believe. The Old Testament revelation was decried and the resurrection of Christ attacked. The care with which Lessing brought these sceptical writings before the public did not ward off the bitter response of the theologians. He found himself in his last years precisely where Bayle was in the same period of his life. The Jurieu in this instance was Goeze, a Hamburg pastor. The theological controversy that resulted brought out a large literature. Lessing was attacked for publishing material which undermined faith, whether or not he believed in the things he fathered. He defended his action just as vigorously as ss Sime, work cited, Vol. I, pp. 190, 192.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

271

Bayle had in a similar situation. All his life Lessing had dwelt in the atmosphere of doubt. He believed with all the conviction of Bayle that the search for truth was more important than the truth itself. ' ' If God held enclosed in his right hand all truth, and in his left simply the everlasting impulse toward truth, although with the condition that I should eternally err, and said to me, ' Choose, ' I should bow before his left hand. " " In the whole dreary controversy Lessing assumed the Baylian position that the publication of the heresies of Reimarus could do no real harm. Consistories were appealed to, the government forbade further publication of these troublesome fragments, and Goeze, like Jurieu, achieved an uncomfortable notoriety. Lessing proved as able a controversialist as Bayle. Forbidden to carry on his publication of the

Fragments,

Lessing had recourse to the stage, and Nathan der Weise was the result." A person of quite another sort was destined to be one of the most enthusiastic preachers of Bayle 's scepticism. Probably there was no one more imbued with the ideas of the Rotterdam philosopher than Frederick the Great of Prussia. He proved himself unique among the rulers of the German states by adding to the prevailing militarism and narrow selfishness of petty politics an enlightened attitude in matters of religion and culture, a combination that put him at the head of the European rulers. The influence of Voltaire on Frederick the Great is generally known, but that of Bayle has usually been neglected. The definitive effect of Bayle 's writings on s« Sime, II, 206. soDanzel, in hie Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, sein Leben und seine Werke, 1850, has some valuable pages on the importance of Bayle in forming Leasing's thought, and on Bayle 's significance for eighteenth-century Germany. See especially pp. 220-36. It would be interesting to trace the relation of other German men of literary importance to Bayle. Goethe would prove fruitful, for he drank deeply of Bayle 's Dictionary, which he found in his father's library. To that German thinker on Wahrheit und Dichtung, das Göttliche was to be found in the earthly lives of his fellows.

272

L I F E AFTER DEATH

Frederick began before he made the acquaintance of Voltaire. Bayle was an indispensable preparation for this famous, if checkered, friendship. Before Frederick became King in 1740 the Prussian state had shown its military prowess; it was Frederick's father who so loved his tall soldiers. The Prussian government had also been indulgent in matters of religion, by accepting religious refugees whether they came from Salzburg or from France. Frederick William I, however, knew better how to kidnap men over six feet tall than to judge the disputes of the schools. Even Wolff, the disciple of Leibnitz, had to leave Halle on twenty-four hours notice because the King listened to the complaints of the theologian, Lange, one of his professorial colleagues. Yet Frederick's father made the mistake of choosing a French refugee as one of his son's tutors. 36 The supervision of the Prince was so ridiculously excessive that he naturally reacted. He was not to learn Latin, nor study history beyond that point in time when the family of Hohenzollern began to acquire fame and lands. Yet the father wanted him to have a good knowledge of French. The tutor did this for him, and much more. Duhan introduced the great works of French literature to his eager pupil. Frederick secretly formed a library of over three thousand volumes, which is known to have included the works of Bayle. The nucleus of his later famous collection of books was kept in a hired house close to the castle, in cupboards of which the French tutor kept the key. Needless to say, the tutor was later dismissed, when the Prince's zeal in "book learning" leaked out, and his " F r e n c h conceits" became known. There was no further hindrance to Frederick's intellectual inclinations after he became king. There are many signs that Bayle 's writings had an important place in his library and were a powerful 3β Duhan would seem to have been a s a f e choice, for he had been a pupil of Naudé, the Berlin pastor, whom we have found a stout anti-Baylian.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

273

influence on his mind. He had a "marked preference" for Bayle from his youth.31 His library was richly stocked with copies of Bayle 's writings. There were two editions of the Philosophical Commentary, three copies of the Miscellaneous Thoughts on the comet, all the editions of Bayle 's letters, three sets of his News, indeed, everything he wrote, save the more purely controversial works against Jurieu that appeared in early nineties. There were two sets of the folio edition of Bayle 's collected works, and no less than four sets of the Dictionary,

all in French. Gottsched 's translation did not

take a place in Frederick's library because of the King's marked preference for French. The thirty volumes of Frederick's collected works are practically all in French. The most interesting fact about the library of Frederick is the use he made of the copy of the Dictionary which was kept in his favorite castle of Sans Souci. Krieger in his Gesamtkatalog notes that this copy "appears to have been much used by the King, and contains many manuscript notes and references. ' ' 3 8 That Frederick had thumbed his Bayle is no surprise when his own voluminous writings are examined. He appended to his history of Brandenburg a significant account of "superstition and religion" in that state. In his survey, Frederick was as critical of the Protestant churches as of the Catholic. "The Reformation has not destroyed all errors, although it opened the eyes of the people to a multitude of superstitions, so insurmountable is the leaning of the human spirit toward error," Frederick was shocked that all sorts of superstition should yet exist at the commencement of a century as enlightened as the eighteenth. He was thoroughly tolerant : All sects live here in peace, and contribute equally to the well being of the state. No religion, so far as morals are concerned, is very different from any other, so that they can be all equal before the government, which, in »τ Théophile Droz, Frédéric le Grand et ses écrits, 1867, p. 12. ss Bogdan Krieger, Friedrich der Grosse und seine Biicher, 1914.

274

LIFE ATTER DEATH

its turn, gives to each one the right to go to heaven by whatever road he pleases. False zeal is a tyrant which depopulates provinces; tolerance is a tender mother who cares for the people and makes them flourish.39 An interesting philosophical work written by Frederick before Voltaire became his intimate is the Dissertation

on the Innocence of

Error. His views on error were those of the sceptical Bayle. ' ' Error is our lot, ' ' for we are not able to penetrate the eternal truths. The fault is laid at the door of early education. The only way, in Frederick's mind as well as in Bayle 's, is to doubt. " I myself go even to Pyrrhonism — the only means of certainly freeing oneself from error." (viii, 36, 40, 42) Later in life (1770) Frederick wrote an Examination Essay on Prejudice.

of the

The materialism of D'Holbach, which is back

of the Essay on Prejudice,

if he himself did not write it, led to a

sharp retort from Frederick. In a truly Baylian manner he rails at the philosopher. "Experience teaches me that no man is without error. Indeed, the greatest follies to which a delirious imagination has given birth have come in the train of the philosopher. ' ' He then instances the "tourbillons" of Descartes, the preëstablished harmony of Leibnitz, and Newton's efforts to pry into the meaning of the Apocalypse. After making it clear that the "great part of human opinions are founded on prejudice, fables, error, and impostures, " the King distinguishes, as Bayle had taught him to do, between speculative truth and the truths of practical experience. The essay concluded with a defence of monarchical government and of kings, even though a king has no more chance of being perfect than an ordinary man, "in a world where nothing is perfect." This last reach of Frederick's thought, into the realm of politics, was into a sphere where Bayle did not lead, (ix, 132, 133, 139) Even clearer proof of Frederick's interest in Bayle is the republication of some of the philosophical works under royal 3» Oeuvres, I, 209, 210, 212.

LIFE AFTER DEATH

275

auspices. In 1765 the "Solomon of Potsdam" — Voltaire's phrase — published an Extract of the Dictionary in two octavo volumes. This selection contained the biographies of the more important philosophers and Biblical characters in an unabridged form. The reason given for this publication was the need of making Bayle better known. The Dictionary, "that precious monument of our century" is to be found only in great libraries. Yet so important is Bayle 's method that it should be better known. If he is compared with his contemporaries, Descartes, Leibnitz, or Malebranche, one will find him superior; he never wanders from justice and exactitude, he better develops the consequences of his reasoning, he has the prudence never to give in to systematic principles, as did the others.

And Frederick added that the Dictionary is the "breviary of good sense, the most useful reading for persons of every rank and condition. ' ' In 1780 and again in 1789 new editions of the Extract were published with considerable additions. Voltaire felicitated Frederick on his work as editor. ' ' This hard winter has almost killed me," he wrote, "and I was about ready to go in search of Bayle to congratulate him on having an editor of such reputation." Voltaire then asked why the revised article on David, "that abominable Jew," was reprinted rather than the original one. In a reply the King promised to insert the original David article in the next edition. This was done in 1780.40 Just as the reign of Frederick was drawing to a conclusion, the King saw to the printing of Bayle 's System of Philosophy, as a guide to reasoning. The preface asserted — it was but four years before the French Revolution — that "Bayle is of the small number of our philosophers who will always be read with profit." This work, originally in Latin, was used by Bayle at Sedan in his *o A note in the Moland edition of Voltaire's works ( X L I V , 202) needs correction at this point. I also have the edition of 1780 " s o u s les yeucx," and it does contain the original David article.

276

LIFE AFTER DEATH

courses. Its first appearance in print was in the collected works of 1727. This edition was, therefore, the first separate one to appear. Such was Frederick's indebtedness, and such were his efforts to perpetuate the teachings of Bayle, teachings which this King of Prussia did not feel were out of harmony with the progress, the prosperity, and the safety of a great state.

CHAPTER X I I I T H E RETURN FROM E X I L E It is surely time to recross the French boundary that we may measure Bayle 's impress on the land of his birth. If there ever was an ' ' unrepentant soul ' ' it was this master of doubt. His body may have remained in a Rotterdam Protestant church but his spirit demanded entrance into France with a persistence that eluded those customs barriers that governments have sometimes tried to set up against ideas. There is no lack of encomiums of Bayle in the French writings of the first half of the eighteenth century. The Bibliothèque

fran-

çaise declared him to be an " illustrious philosopher, a savant of the first order, who joins a critical sense with profound knowledge," and insisted that his books "will be forever the library of the nations." (a) A writer of 1732 felt that a "style delicate and regular is perhaps the only thing he lacked." (b) Another wrote in 1740 of his "undisputed, exquisite, and vast erudition, joined with a spirit sublime and penetrating." (c) De Sallengre believed that "no one, perhaps, has known so well how to put to use the study of literature." (d) Another affirmed in 1735 that "there is no work comparable to his Dictionary."

(e) Gilles Menage, during

Bayle 's lifetime, reckoned that if Bayle were paid according to his merits one would have to use a "carosse." ( f ) 1 ι These judgments Dictionary, for which follows: (a) X X V I I I , tes grands hommes, p. Mémoires, I, p. 219; They have some value

are listed by Joly in his Remarques Critiques on the see below, p. 280. The references given by Joly are as pt. ii, p. 290 and XXVI, pt. i, p. 37; (b) Réflexions sur 32; (e) Traité de l'athéisme et de la superstition; (d) (e) Méthode pour l'étudier l'histoire·, ( f ) Menagiana. since Joly was hostile to Bayle.

278

RETURN FROM EXILE

One of the most enthusiastic Baylists— so he called himself — of the years between the death of Bayle and the publication of the Encyclopédie was Mathieu Marais. His journal and memoirs are full of an admiration almost Boswellian. ' ' One must always honor Bayle," wrote Marais, " f o r he has said everything." His blind worship produced another judgment which helps to account for Bayle 's vogue : " He first made books of learning in our language agreeable, and books of criticism readable. ' ' 2 This is probably the place to record the interesting observation of the Danish traveler Holberg, the Molière of the north. When he was in Paris just at the beginning of the Regency, Holberg found that the press of students wanting the Dictionary at the Bibliothèque Mazarine, the first French public library, was so great that they arrived long before the doors were opened, and almost fought for a chance at the precious volumes.8 It is not straining words to say that Bayle was "extremely popular" in France even before he was "canonized," as it were, by the philosophes.* But care must be taken not to give Bayle too much credit for the new spirit of criticism and for the growth of the secular viewpoint during these years. Too often, however, Voltaire and Diderot, D'Alembert and Montesquieu, are assumed to have created a situation almost de novo. This misapprehension is quite pardonable if their predecessors remain unknown, and if it is forgotten that the philosophes were essentially popularizers. A study of the period shows that others planted what Voltaire and his contemporaries watered. As to whether God or the devil gave the increase depends on one's attitude toward the new spirit. Bayle and Fontenelle deserve more credit than they have ordinarily received, for it is a doubtful practice to pay the same reward to those who work in the 2 Sainte-Beuve, Nouveaux lundis, IX, 21, 23. s Sainte-Beuve, work cited, IX, p. 26. * See M. Wallas, Vauvenargues, 1928, p. 205.

R E T U R N FROM E X I L E

279

vineyard during the eleventh hour as those receive who have borne the heat and burden of the day. The judgments of the time point toward a readjustment. There were numerous complaints that Bayle was largely to blame for the deplorable trend of conduct and the shattered idealism of eighteenth-century France. The abbé Porée, a French Jesuit who died in 1741, paid a tribute to Bayle in condemning him. "Whence comes it and why such rapid progress among us of libertinism and atheism ? It is to be explained by a man of superior and dominating genius, who, of all the talents which make great men, lacks only that of restraint." His description of Bayle 's method does not lack power. B y an equal facility in supporting and overthrowing, he leaves nothing of truth. . . . H e is always the enemy of religion whether he attacks it or appears to defend it. H e boasts of faith only to degrade reason, he vaunts reason only to combat faith. Thus by different roads, he leads us imperceptibly to the same goal — to believe nothing, to know nothing, to despise authority, to suspect truth.®

A number of elaborate attempts were made in Catholic France to nullify the effects of Bayle 's insinuating influence. His Dictionary was widely used, even though it was forbidden. L. J. Ledere, director of the seminary of St. Sulpice in Lyon, wrote in 1733 a folio of Critical Remarks on various articles in the

Dictionary.

Ledere 's efforts were read and approved at the Sorbonne. A certain Thierry, "professeur de Sorbone ( ! ) , " gave his imprimatur, and added an unofficial and personal note to his approbation. He lauded this antidote to the venom which is spread out in Bayle's Dictionary. . . . Despite his (Bayle's) vast erudition, he is not a critic on whose word we can depend; he has the malignant, biased, and unfortunate habit of putting everything into the form of a problem. . . . H i s Dictionary should never have seen the light. . . . It is to avenge religion that these Critical » Quoted by Pierre Leroux in article " B a y l e , " Encyclopédie

nouvelle, 1839.

280

RETURN FROM EXILE

Remarks have been written, but they will not suffice to stop just complaints unless able writers incessantly give the public an entire refutation of the Dictionary of Bayle. The heroic effort of De Crousaz in the very year these words were written was a vain attempt to furnish the needed cathartic. This Swiss philosopher published in Holland a weighty folio on Pyrrhonism with the avowed purpose of confounding scepticism once and for all. His analysis of the spirit of the time is interesting if somewhat gloomy. The current inquisitiveness is deplored. The taste for luxury was spreading even more rapidly than that for ' ' politesse. ' ' De Crousaz admitted that Bayle seemed to have read accurately the temper of his age, and to have fed it so cleverly that corruption of heart and incredulity of mind have been increasing daily. Today, continued De Crousaz, there is only too much evidence of his success, though there are still some men who preserve respect for religion. De Crousaz's solid tome seems to have done little in the battle; it sank under its own weight. 6 In place of the wished-for theological champion of invincible prowess there appeared a Voltaire and a Diderot to render Bayle 's victory more certain. A few years later, P. L. Joly, a canon of Dijon, did Ledere 's work over again, publishing in two folio volumes his Remarks·,

Critical

they appeared just at the middle of the century. Joly

found Bayle a pernicious writer ; his works are a "public fountain" whence all sorts and conditions of men draw a malefic nourishment. The Dictionary

is still in need of an antidote, for it ' ' aids the spirit

of irreligion that unfortunately is only too extensive since this abominable gift was made to the public. ' ' He admitted that of all accredited authors I doubt if there is any more dangerous to attack than he whom I combat. I know the risk I run. I know the blind acceptance β Examen du pyrrhonisme ancien et moderne, 1733. There are nearly eight hundred pages of small print in double columns. Besides this, De Crousaz did much else; he was more prolific than Bayle. Gibbon was reconverted from Catholicism by De Crousaz's system of logic, but the historian later wrote :

RETURN FROM EXILE

281

he has received from a multitude of peinons in a century which pretends to be above all prejudice. Joly even doubted his ability to enlighten those who are voluntarily blinded : ' ' Happy I shall be if by my work I can at least prevent the poison from being communicated to those who are, so far, free from it." 7 A few years later Vicomte d'Ales wrote on the origin of evil. He deplored the difficulty of answering Bayle's impieties because the Dictionary

"piques the curiosity in a thous-

and places, and is in more use than any other dans tout le monde poli."8 The writer hastens to correct the impression that may have arisen from summoning such a cloud of witnesses pro and con that he would explain the difference between the age of Bossuet and that which Voltaire incarnated as the work of a single lexicographer. The Dictionary

may have seemed a "terrible work, a mountain

among books," and its author one who has written so well as "to surpass all the charlatons who have ever appeared before him." There were numerous other persons and forces to whom some of the credit, or discredit, should be given." Of the transformation there can be little question. When Bayle began writing, the principle of authority ruled without much question. There is, indeed, a wide gulf between Bossuet's Politique Montesquieu's L'Esprit

tirée de l'Écriture

Sainte and

des lois. The able bishop's famous Discours

sur l'histoire universel of 1681 assumed that the mysterious workings of Providence accounted for the changes of the past. But after "Mr. De Crousaz, the adversary oí Bayle and Pope, is not distinguished by lively fancy or profound reflection. And even in his own country at the end of a few years, his name and writings are almost obliterated." Misc. Works, p. 37. 7 Pages viii, ix. Jouly's interminable preface was fifty-four pages long. The volumes appeared at Paris, 1748, 1752. «De l'origine du mal, Paris, 1758. 9 Quotation from Lettres stir íes Anglais et les François, in Joly, pp. xviii and xix.

282

RETURN FROM EXILE

Bayle's critique of history, a decade and a half later, Providence was definitely reduced to an equivocal expression for the laws of nature. The ground had been prepared for Voltaire's survey of civilization, for Hume, and for Gibbon. This breakdown of the principle of authority is partly explainable in the events of the time. In France, the center of European culture, there were a number of untoward circumstances, during the last thirty years of Louis XIV's life, that aided the growth of incredulity and of mental independence. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes had a profound effect. It helped to call the faith into question, as well as to encourage a union of Europe against France. If the act of revocation showed the spirit of intolerance against the Protestants, the religious strife within Catholicism was hardly less important in disgusting the thinking publie with the "faith once for all delivered to the saints." Bossuet's attack on the mystical movement known as Quietism was believed by an increasing number of Frenchmen to be a move of pure ambition rather than of deep religious conviction. The bitter quarrel between the Jesuits and the Jansenists was another aid to incredulity. The demolition of Port Royal in 1710 and the bull TJnigenitus three years later completed the temporary, and costly, victory of the Jesuits. Incredulity could not but flourish in view of such unseemly quarrels. It is not surprising that Addison, for example, remarked about this time that ' ' holy men divide the world with their contests and disputes." The reaction in France and England against these "little competitions" was much the same. Of such strife Bayle took full notice. He did not hesitate to show the consequence for faith, and when he saw the same theological hates at work in Protestantism, it put him out of all patience. Bayle drew from experience the conclusions which were soon to be very widely accepted. He painted the situation in such strong and lively colors that the Dictionary was, at the least, a finishing stroke.

RETURN FROM EXILE

283

The breakdown of authority was abetted by the spirit of inquiry which was subjecting not only the history of the church to examination, but the classical past and the world of natural phenomena. Bayle was not so deeply interested in natural science as in historical studies. He cannot be credited with any marked impression on the scientific spirit which was so ably represented by Gassendi, Newton, Leeuwenhoek, and Linnaeus. Yet his observations on the comet of 1680 show that his point of view was at one with that of Halley, and that he thoroughly believed in an orderly nature, capable, at least, of rationalistic investigation. 10 His critical study of the historic past fitted admirably, as well, into the controversy that raged during his time between the classicists and the modernists. From 1688 to 1696 Charles Perrault had drawn Parallels between the ancients and the moderns, in order to show that the moderns were really the ancients, since they had all the past behind them. This blow at tradition was given powerful support by the spirit of the Critical

Dictionary.

Bayle 's insatiable curiosity and un-

quenchable scepticism helped much to banish the early golden ages when the sons of God consorted with the daughters of men. The emphasis in his Dictionary,

too, was so definitely modern, even in

the actual amount of space given to the people of his own time, that he clearly put himself among the moderns. The Dictionary,

as

well as the controversy raised by Perrault, helped to break the force of tradition and to strengthen the power of current influences. The controversy even gave the Dictionary

an added force ; it became, in

turn, a new basis for authority, even though Bayle would have objected to the assurance of Voltaire and Diderot and D'Alembert. There was but one writer in Prance who can be placed beside Bayle as an important accomplice in breaking down authority after 1685. Fontenelle was working for the same fundamental end as 10 It is going too far to say that ' ' Bayle did not believe in science, ' ' the words of Wallas, work cited, p. 167.

284

RETURN FROM EXILE

Bayle. He attacked authority with a witty and facile pen in his Dialogues of th-e Dead. When Bayle published his work on the comet, Fontenelle worked to the same purpose in his amusing comedy, La Comète. In fact, Fontenelle popularized the new science by his numerous writings, making it easy and pleasant for the general public to read about the " p l u r a l i t y of the worlds" and the physical theories of Descartes. Fontenelle long outlived Bayle. This centenarian (1657-1757), essentially a sceptic, also outlived his time. He is said to have remarked as a very old man, " I am dismayed at the conviction which reigns around m e " — a reference to the certitude of the

philosophes.11

Certainly Bayle 's influence was still strong by the middle of the century, strong in its own right. During the fifties Chauffepié's elaborate continuation appeared, in which that Protestant minister endeavored to counter Bayle's " i r r e l i g i o n . " About the same time but of a very different temper was Marsy's Analyse

raisonnée de

Bayle. Marsy had been a Jesuit, but soon left the order to make his way by his pen and his wits. In 1755 he published four volumes in octavo in which Bayle 's works, "particularly the

Dictionary,"

were re-edited, so to speak. Marsy combined the remarks and the general articles, suppressed the purely erudite notes, and arranged the material under general divisions, the λνΐιοίε " t o form an instructive and aggreeable collection of continuous readings." The editor justified his republication of Bayle because his Dictionary

is the

"most agreeable, the most learned, and, beyond all question, the most celebrated of our c e n t u r y . " But the enthusiastic editor went too f a r for one wishing to live in Paris. His Bayle was condemned by the Parlement in April of 1756 on the requisition of Joly de Fleury. And Marsy spent several months in the Bastille as a reward for his enterprize. 12 11 L. M a i g r o n , Fontenelle,

1906, p. 423.

12 M a r s y ' s v o l u m e s were republished in H o l l a n d fifteen years later by J . B.

RETURN FROM EXILE

285

The ecclesiastical fear of Bayle had been shown so clearly five j'ears earlier that Marsy might well have been deterred from his efforts. In French Alsace there was a Baylian auto-da-fé. After a sermon by a Jesuit father named Aubert, copies of Bayle 's Dictionary were burned in the public square of Colmar. The first set was consigned to the flames by an avocat-général named Muller ; he was followed by six other owners of the hated volumes. Voltaire learned of this incident when stopping at Colmar a few years later, as he was on his way back to France from Germany. While at Colmar he wrote the Count D'Argentai : " I f you have a Bayle in your library, send it by the first post, in order that I may burn it in the public square of this capital of the Hottentots, where I have the honor to be. They make such sacrifices here frequently." At the same time he wrote the Marquis D'Argens in Prussia: " S e n d me the Bayle which is in the library of Sans Souci, that I may burn it : I have no doubt the King (Frederick) will consent."

13

The church continued

its pursuit of Bayle despite, or because of, Voltaire's merrymaking over the Colmar bonfire. In the early seventies the Academy of Toulouse proposed the eulogy of Bayle as the subject for a prize. But ecclesiastical influence was used at court so effectively that a lettre de cachet forbade any proceedings praiseworthy of Bayle. The subject was changed, and St. Exupère, a fifth-century bishop of Toulouse, was eulogized instead 1 14 Voltaihe The greatest name in French literature in the mid-eighteenth century was that of Voltaire. His power and his success were enormous. Robinet, along with four more patterned on those by Marsy. Bobinet also added a biography of Bayle. He probably had both Bayle and Marey in mind when he wrote : ' ' theological hatred is a fire which does not go out. ' ' Vol. V, p. cxxx. is Oeuvres, VIII, 563, 584; X X X V I I I , 175, 182. The copy referred to was undoubtedly the well-thumbed one mentioned above. See p. 273. " Voltaire, Oeuvres, X V I I , 555n. It should be said in justice that the Par-

286

RETURN FROM EXILE

There were numerous causes, such as his extraordinary literary facility, a penchant

for making trouble, the marked manner in

which he popularized the varied and liberal flow of ideas that seemed to find partial fulfillment in the French Revolution. Voltaire was born when Bayle was just beginning work on his Dictionary; at the time of Bayle 's death, Arouet, as he was then called, had not yet left the Jesuit college of Louis-le-Grand in Paris. During the first quarter of the eighteenth century Voltaire was known largely as a dramatist of promise, but of very uncertain character. In 1722 he visited Holland after a sojourn in the Bastille, and after a second visit to the Bastille went to England to live for three years (1726-29). During the remainder of his life he was a constant thorn in the side of intolerant orthodoxy. He was at the court of Frederick the Great for three years in the early fifties. The latter part of his long life was spent in practical exile near Geneva. He died in Paris in 1778 on visiting the capital after an absence of nearly thirty years. To what extent was Voltaire's viewpoint that of Bayle, and his writings dependent on those of the philosopher of Rotterdam? It has been customary to emphasize Voltaire's dependence on English thought. His Philosophical Letters, published on the return from England, indicate that he was a sympathetic observer of the thought-forces at work on the island. Locke's philosophy, Newton's physics, the spirit of toleration, the poetry of Pope, the "shopkeeping" proclivities of Englishmen, were all of profit to Voltaire. But the English influence should not be overestimated just because Voltaire delighted to make an oblique attack on his country by praising a neighbor land. The dominating influence of English thought on Voltaire and Montesquieu has been repeated so often as lement of Toulouse had treated Bayle's memory in a different spirit some years earlier. When the validity of his will was contested on the ground that Bayle was a refugee, the Parlement declared the will valid, as that of a man who had brought honor to his country. Voltaire, IX, 396n.

RETURN FROM EXILE

287

to have become almost a truism. One writer has written, f o r example, that the great impulse of the French philosophic movement "came from England. . . . Some Frenchmen have in modern times disputed his (Locke's) claims. T o refute these disputants it is only necessary to turn from their books to those of Voltaire and his contemporaries. ' ' 1 5 The distinguished French critic, Brunetière, expressed the opposite judgment in writing that when "recognizing the English influence on Voltaire, it is well to recall how much they owe to B a y l e . " 1 " Yet entirely apart from the Baylian influence mediated by English thought to Voltaire, there seems ground f o r thinking Voltaire was much influenced by Bayle directly.

Sainte-Beuve

would find in Bayle " t h e great precursor of V o l t a i r e . " (ix, 20) Faguet felt that Voltaire more nearly approached Bayle than any other great literary figure of eighteenth-century France : " In reading Voltaire one finds himself frequently saying, 'a bilious Bayle.' " Pellissier advised his readers that the French libres penseurs preceded and inspired the English freethinkers, and that the influence of the latter on Voltaire should not be exaggerated. " I n fact, not counting Montaigne to whom Voltaire owed much, and Gassendi, whose wisdom he greatly appreciated, his chief guide was Bayle, that ' master of doubt ' f o r the whole eighteenth century. ' ' I t might be well for us to reëxamine the books of Voltaire and his contemporaries." There are superficial resemblances between the two men. Both were trained by the Jesuits and reacted against their teachers; both were refugees and persecuted. Neither could restrain his pen, though Voltaire was much more willing to stoop to flattery in order to avoid trouble. The two were alike in denying the implications of 15 Lowell, E. J., The Eve of the French Revolution,

1892, pp. 56-57.

Manuel de l'histoire de la littérature française, 1898, p. 296. " For

Faguet, work cited, p. 19. F o r

1908, p. 26.

G. Pellissier,

Voltaire

philosophe,

288

RETURN FROM EXILE

their writings, and in taking refuge behind platitudes which hardly repaired the havoc they knowingly created. Both preferred to publish their works anonymously. Both have been accused of cowardice for this practice by those who have lived in more tolerant times. Voltaire's timidity may have been great, but he knew very well that the alternative of anonymity was silence. His marvellous success as a publicist was largely the result of a shrewd understanding of the valor that was discretion. The contrasts are numerous. Bayle was sedentary, disinclined to travel, lived with his books, despised gain and glory. Voltaire was much traveled, a shrewd man of property with a keen "nose" for gain, and with an inordinate egotism that has seldom been equalled. Bayle was a doubter, chary of making affirmations, seldom aroused to bitterness, a worshipper of truth. Voltaire was certainly a dogmatist of an enlightened sort whose cocksureness was not always founded on fact, a man and writer who hated so bitterly and bitingly as to lay profane hands on the ark of the covenant. Voltaire, unlike Bayle, was willing to deceive in behalf of his prejudices and to persecute in his turn. Bayle cared not whether his ideas took concrete form; Voltaire desired intensely that his opinions take shape in the life about him. Though Bayle can hardly be called a philosopher in the technical sense, his thinking was more truly a consistent whole. The judgment of Paguet — possibly too severe — was that Voltaire had a narrow and curious, a superficial and contradictory spirit, ' ' saying very little that was new, ' ' and clearly inferior "to the philosophers. Christian and non-Christian, who had preceded him, and not going beyond the intellectual sphere of Bayle, for example. ' ' 1 8 Voltaire may owe much more to Bayle than he has admitted.19 Yet in fairness to Voltaire it should be said that he has admitted i8 Work cited, p. 235. ie Bébelliau, work cited, VIII, pt. i, p. 402.

RETURN FROM EXILE

289

his dependence on Bayle time and again. Nor has he hesitated to laud him with at least as much frequency and fervor as he has lauded Locke. To Voltaire, Bayle was " o n e of the greatest men that France has produced" (ix, 396), an author " w h o brought honor to the age of Louis X I V , even though he was a refugee in H o l l a n d . " (xiv, 546) His regard f o r Bayle 's "immortal reputat i o n " (ix, 476) as a philosopher is almost unmeasured. He was praised as " t h e father of the congregation of the wise

men"

(xxxix, 37), " t h e eternal honor of human reason" (viii, 477), an "immortal honor of the human r a c e "

(xx, 197), the " f i r s t of

sceptics" (xxvi, 502), and the " avocat-général

of the

philosophes."

(ix, 476) Bayle's distinction is found especially in his reasoning power. A s a dialectician Bayle was " a d m i r a b l e , " " j u d i c i o u s , " " a s profound as he is ingenious." (xiv, 39; xii, 538; xxxv, 287) In short, Bayle is the "greatest dialectician who has ever written, he has taught to doubt." (ix, 468) I find no comparison of Locke or other English thinkers with Bayle. Y e t Voltaire

placed Bayle

beside Cicero (ix, 476), considered his "genius more methodical than Montesquieu's" (xx, 197), and his dialectice "superior to Spinoza's."

(x, 171)

The writings of Bayle came in for much reference, though more frequently than not no particular work is mentioned when the ideas of Bayle were repeated. Of the Miscellaneous

Thoughts on the

comet, this was said: " B a y l e wrote against vulgar prejudice a famous book that the progress of reason makes less piquant today than it w a s . " (xiv, 538) He found the Philosophical

Commentary

" v e r y bold." (xlii, 448) Xor did he forget Bayle's contribution to journalism. In speaking of De Sallo, whose acquaintance we have already made as the inventor of the periodical, he added that " B a y l e perfected this genre." Journalist, 263)

(xiv, 132) A n d in his Counsels to a

he again asserted that Bayle was the best model, (xxii,

290

RETURN FROM E X I L E

But the Dictionary

was mentioned most frequently. Its distinc-

tive character is a "profound dialectic" (xix, 592), "a sort of dictionary of reasoning, the first work of this kind where one could learn to think" (xiv, 538) It seemed to Voltaire quite distinctive. Moréri's is "useful," though containing many errors (xiv, 109), but Bayle 's is of a different sort. "Some have wished to continue his Dictionary,

but it is inimitable. The continuators thought it

necessary only to compile, but the genius and dialectic of Bayle are needed." (xiv, 39) Chauffepié's sorry effort only aroused scorn: " I am disgusted with the insolence of the compiler named Chauffepié who tried to continue Bayle 's

Dictionary."

Voltaire's dispraise of Bayle was comparatively slight. He spoke of him as "diffuse," yet, in spite of that, charming his readers with whom he, like Montaigne, carried on conversation, (xxii, 263) If he was a "compiler," yet he is almost the only one who has shown some judgment. He blamed Bayle, too, for writing so rapidly on so many different subjects, a charge that Voltaire, of all men, should have made with caution. Because of this rapidity of writing, said Voltaire, Bayle 's writing was often careless and without polish, (xxxv, 288) In the Temple du Goût Voltaire made the famous statement that the library of this temple of taste would have Bayle in one tome only. Called to task for this disparaging remark, he later took pains to say that this was not at all intended as a satire ; that if Bayle was blameable for diffuseness, he was admirable in other ways, (xxxii, 458; xxxv, 288) In 1756 Voltaire published a poem on the earthquake at Lisbon, in which complimentary references were made to Bayle, both in the poem, and in the notes added by the author. J'abandonne Platon, je rejette Épicure. Bayle en sait plus qu'eux tous ; je vais consulter : La balance à la main, Bayle enseigner à douter, m See XVII, 559; XXIV, 80; XLVII, 35.

RETURN FROM EXILE

291

Assez sage, assez grand pour être sans système, Il les a tous détruits, et se combat lui-même.

So wrote Voltaire, and proceeded in the note to speak of Bayle as the ' ' avocat-général of the philosophes, ' ' having in mind, I believe, the conflagration at Colmar. He also inveighed in this note against those who had pursued Bayle with such violence for so many years. The note was most inopportune, for Colmar was not much before, and Marsy's Bayle was officially condemned while Voltaire's poem was going through the press. The cautious author hastily wrote to the printer, in order to soften a note that might appear too antigovernmental. But he was too late. Subsequently he made it clear to friends that, in wishing to change the note, he was not in any way wanting to belittle Bayle. " I t is a great error to think that I wish to disparage Bayle ; it is well known in France what I think of this facile genius, this universal savant." 2 1 No less interesting are Voltaire's indications of the influence he believed Bayle to be having in his century. There was not the least doubt in Voltaire's mind that Bayle was widely read. In a note to the poem just quoted, he twits those who for so many years have shown such violence against Bayle, and so vainly : " I am wrong to say vainly, for they cause him to be read with all the more eagerness. " (ix, 476) Voltaire contrasted Bayle with Spinoza who is "so little read" (x, 171), explained the hatred of the Jansenists for Bayle because he is read and "Nicole is not," and accounts for Jesuit spite in the same way, "Bayle is read, Croiset and Caussin are not." (xvii, 655) In the scintillating Entretien

d'Ariste

et d'Acrotol,

published

in 1761, Voltaire made much fun of this spite against Bayle. Acrotol would knock all dangerous thinkers on the head. It was too bad that Montaigne and Charron, for example, were not so handled. As to =1IX, 476; XXXV, 287.

292

RETURN FROM E X I L E

Bayle, he wished there might have been a break in the Dutch dykes, and the philosopher drowned. Has there ever been a more abominable man Τ He explains things with a disgusting fidelity, he lays out before one's eyes the pros and cons with shameful impartiality, his clearness is intolerable, and he leads people of only ordinary minds to weigh and to doubt. It is almost more than one can stand. As for myself, I go into a fit of holy anger when this man or his likes are mentioned.

Worst of all, thinks Acrotol, the philosophers used to be only discreditable citizens, such as Socrates, Pomponatius, Erasmus, Bayle, Descartes. " B u t at present philosophy has mounted the tribunals and even the thrones." (xxiv, 274-75) In another connection, Voltaire referred to Bayle 's writings as the " l i b r a r y of the nations."

22

I f Bayle 's name is scattered throughout the fifty or more volumes of Voltaire's collected works, the philosopher's influence is frequently discernible where no direct acknowledgment is made. Voltaire was interested much in the borderland of philosophy and religion, in the growing power of reason, in the " p u r i f y i n g " of history from superstition and legend, from magic and fanaticism. He had well learned the lesson that " m e n conduct themselves by custom and not by metaphysic," and proved it by declaring that Bayle find Spinoza, " w h o sought truth by different routes" were almost of the same character, (xxvi, 69) Voltaire was never tired of pointing to Bayle 's life "controlled and simple, a true philosopher in the full meaning of the w o r d " (xxvi, 502) to prove his point. The futility of reason is reaffirmed with the Manichean illustration as the obvious example. " T h e illustrious Bayle has shown how difficult it is for Christians to reply to the Manichees. The basis of the Manichean system is not reasonable, but Christian doctors do not explain any better the origin of good and evil." (xvii, 576) " T h e question of good and evil remains a chaos for those 2 X X X , 568. Only a selection of Voltaire's references to Bayle have been given, but they are representative. 2

RETURN FROM EXILE

293

who conduct an honorable search." (xvii, 586) In another place he chided Bayle for discussing original sin with Zoroaster. "The Old and New Testaments should be put under lock and key, and revered without any desire to explain them." (xx, 297) Voltaire delighted in Bayle 's treatment of David, that "Nero of the Hebrews," even going so far as to recommend to Frederick the Great that the second edition of his Extract of Bayle's Dictionary reprint the original David article. When Voltaire was accused of atheism he denied it, and showed how common was such an accusation. "With what absurd fury have they accused Bayle of atheism, that model of reason and probity, that Bayle, who alone has fully refuted Spinoza, discovering easily the weak spot of his enchanted castle. ' ' 2 3 Even though Voltaire found atheists "among all people and found them virtuous" (xxvi, 327), he did not think atheism a good thing. Voltaire thought it possible that atheists might live peaceably as a social group. On a vu souvent des athées Estimables dans leurs erreurs; Leurs opinions infecties N'avaient point corrompu leurs mœurs 24

But there is an important difference between the two thinkers at this point. Voltaire took up the question, "agitated by Bayle," as to the comparative danger of atheism and idolatry. He preferred to compare atheism with fananaticism, only to find fanaticism a thousand times worse, (xvii, 456) Voltaire was not willing to follow Bayle in entirely divorcing morality from religion. Bayle was never accused of atheism, but his hypothesis was qualified. It is certainly true that in every country the populace requires the strictest 23 Spinoza was accepted as an atheist, as we have found. XXVI, XXXII, 462. =« Ode on Fanaticism, X X V I , 327.

67;

294

RETURN FROM E X I L E

control, and that if Bayle had only five or six hundred peasants to govern, he would not have hesitated to announce to them a god who rewards and punishes, (xvii, 463; xliii, 250)

It is well known that Voltaire erected a chapel to God on his estate near Geneva. Nor was he below acting as a good Catholic if interest suggested. He attended mass, after being confessed, when in Colmar on the famous visit, already mentioned, to that "capital of the Hottentots." Voltaire hated superstition and fanaticism with much more rancour than Bayle ever showed. He had many bitter things to say of Jesus Christ, whom Bayle always respected. Catholicism came in for attack again and again, nor was Protestantism exempt. His attitude toward transubstantiation was Baylian ; his venomous attack on the pope and the priests for propagating it, was Voltairean. He is like Bayle in his enthusiasm for tolerance. Voltaire's defence of certain individuals persecuted in France during his time has made him deservedly famous. Voltaire frequently used Dutch history and Bayle 's own experiences for illustration. Of Holland he wrote : Intolerance caused much blood to flow among a people whose happiness and laws were founded on tolerance. Two Calvinistic doctors did what so many other doctors have done elsewhere. Gomaras and Arminius disputed in Leyden with fury on that which they understood not, and divided the United Provinces. The quarrel was like, in many points, those of the Thomists and Scotists, the Jansenists and Molinists, on predestination, on grace, on liberty, on obscure and frivolous questions in which they do not even know how to define the things about which they dispute, ( ¿ i i , 118).

Jurieu was handled pitilessly, and made the excuse for numerous caustic remarks on theological hatred. "Jurieu attacks Bayle, Arnauld attacks Jurieu, the Jesuits call Arnauld an enemy of religion, and all Paris sees that the Jesuits are the corrupters of religion and morals, and the makers of lettres de cachet."

(ix, 476)

An interesting distinction between Voltaire and Bayle is the

RETURN FROM EXILE

295

different way in which they looked at non-Christian antiquity. Bayle was consistent in elaborating the superstitions in the Greek and Roman religions as well as elsewhere. Hence he posed the question as to whether atheism is worse than idolatry. Voltaire, out of his blinding hatred for Christian superstition, argued that religion was useful to the Romans, and that the true religion of the ancients lay in the belief that Jupiter punished transgressors in hell. Voltaire seems to have approximated to the unhistoric Deism of England which would make Christianity the chief corrupter of a natural religion, one of whose fundamental bases was a belief in rewards and punishments. In this regard, Voltaire's "philosophy of history" was less modern than that of his predecessor of the previous century. Bayle was not concerned in eulogizing paganism nor the tolerance of ancient times. Enough has been said to make clear that Voltaire sat at the feet of Bayle, even though the brilliant pupil modified in some respects the lessons he learned, modified them as a result of his own bitter experiences, his marked capacity for hatred, and his intense desire to possess glory, property, and influence. The writings of Voltaire that especially repay the searcher for Bayle are the Treatise upon Toleration, the Philosophy

of History, and the Essay on Customs.

Candide and the other "romances," as well as numerous shorter pieces, are fruitful as well, for Voltaire could seldom leave off preaching his gospel message. And he did it so ably that rationalism won many a victory under his leadership. Truly in his case the "sword yielded before the p e n . " It has been well said that free thought and tolerance took the offensive with Bayle, who had his soldiers in the eighteenth century, " u n d e r the generalship of Voltaire."

23

25 Paul Souquet, "Pierre Bayle, Libre-Penseur" in La Révolution X V I I I , IOS.

française,

296

RETURN FROM THE

EXILE

ENCYCLOPEDISTS

Voltaire was not the only propagandist of the Baylian ideas. This survey cannot conclude without brief notice, at least, of the Encyclopedists. Their influential summary of knowledge was the work chiefly of Diderot and D'Alembert. The stupendous character of the undertaking is one that Bayle would have appreciated to the full. A later encyclopedist (Larousse) has called it the "greatest literary enterprise since the invention of p r i n t i n g . " In its completed form there were no less than seventeen folios of articles and eleven additional ones containing illustrative plates of figures. In the forties a Parisian publisher decided to bring out a French translation of the English Cyclopaedia

of Ephraim

Chambers.

A f t e r several disappointments the work was suggested to Diderot, but he and his collaborator, D'Alembert preferred to do a more original task on a grander scale. The latter's famous

Preliminary

Discourse referred to Chambers as the stimulus only of the great French work, and depreciated the English cyclopaedia because of its many borrowings from " w o r k s in our language." They disclaimed making Chambers the " o n l y base on which we have b u i l t " ; it ivas rather to be put " i n the class of authors whom we have especially consulted. ' ' 2 e This relation to Chambers' Cyclopaedia difference between Bayle 's Dictionary

indicates an important

and the Encyclopédie

of

Diderot. The latter also included natural science and the developments of industry. On the title-page two names only appeared, those of Diderot, as general editor, and of D'Alembert. Diderot took particular care of the " a r t s et métiers," and the history of philosophy, in which he was widely read. D'Alembert was responsible in particular for the mathematical sciences. Many others 2« Pp. 129, 131 of the Pica vet edition of the Discourse. E. L. Cru in his Diderot as a Disciple of English Thought ( 1 9 1 3 ) m a k e s the point that Diderot was much more indebted t o Chambers than he w a s w i l l i n g to admit.

RETURN FROM EXILE

297

enthusiastically aided the enterprise, including Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau and the Abbé Mallet (for theology). The story of its publication has often been told. The first two volumes appeared in the winter of 1751-52. The church immediately perceived the danger, so clearly that for once the Jansenists and Jesuits were united against a work in which they had hoped to take part. The two volumes were suppressed, the clericals published attack after attack on the "anti-Christian" and "atheistic" Encyclopédie. At the end of a decade it was again interrupted. After the issuance of the seventh volume — not long subsequent to the suppression of Marsy's Bayle — the opponents of the Encyclopedists were aroused by D'Alembert 's article on Geneva, and by the appearance of Helvetius's De l'esprit. The latter was declared an abridgment of the Encyclopédie,

which in itself was held to be

nothing but an attack on morals and religion. The work of Diderot was again condemned as tending "to ruin all society, all government, and all morality," as the decree put it. In the meantime, D'Alembert had quit in disgust at the venomous opposition of their enemies and the vacillating attitude of those who might have protected them. He retired to Berlin to become the president of Frederick's Academy. The end of the alphabet, and the seventeenth volume, was reached in 1765. The supplementary folios containing the plates appeared a decade later. The checkered careers of Diderot and D'Alembert show that the Encyclopédie

was not a mere objective account of the natural

sciences like Chambers, but that it had some affinities, at least, with the Critical Dictionary

of Bayle. The conception was a much

broader one, of course, for Bayle's limitation to a biographical dictionary was not retained, yet the "voice was the voice of Jacob." It may surprise the reader to learn that D'Alembert 's famous Preliminary Discourse contains not a single reference to Bayle or

298

his Dictionary.

RETURN FROM EXILE

Bacon, Descartes, Newton, Locke, and Leibnitz

were lauded. "One can say that Locke has created metaphysics in much the same way that Newton created physics, ' ' wrote D'Alembert, only to qualify this gracious compliment by adding that "England owes to us the birth of that philosophy which we have received from her." (103, 105) D'Alembert declared that "philosophy forms the dominant taste of our century." (112) Most of the thinkers mentioned were found to have limitations. Leibnitz added only one more difficulty to Cartesian opinions by his preëstablished harmony, and Descartes, himself, was clearly outdated even if he showed "good spirits how to shake off the yoke of scholasticism, opinion, authority, in a word, prejudice and barbarism." (99) In this century "the irreligious spirit is found in some writers, the accusations of irreligion in others. Be Christian, we would say to the latter, on the condition that you will be enough so as not to accuse too easily those who are not." (7) He wrote in another place : The nature of man . . . is an impenetrable mystery to man himself, when it is sought by reason only; the greatest minds, reflecting on so important a matter, only too often conclude with knowing a little less than their fellows. One can say the same of our existence now and in the future, of the nature of the Being to whom we owe life, and of the nature of the worship which he expects of us. (34) [He then added with true Baylian caution that] nothing could be more necessary than a revealed religion to instruct us on such things.

D'Alembert wrote Voltaire in 1769 that he found scepticism "the only position to take," and in the following year told Frederick, "The motto of Montaigne, Que sais jel appears to me the response to almost all metaphysical questions." And he added that "those who deny the existence of a supreme intelligence advance much more than they can prove. . . . D'Holbach appears to me altogether too sure and dogmatic; to me, the only position is a reasonable scepticism." His correspondence gives abundant illus-

RETURN FROM EXILE

299

tration of a religious and philosophical doubt which was usually veiled in his published writings. Nor was D'Alembert silent about Bayle whose attitude he assumed. In his eulogy of Cousin he declared that Bayle 's journals are yet read after a century of existence. In his Destruction Jesuits

of the

Bayle is spoken of as a great man ; he is lauded along with

Gassendi as a "creative spirit" whose reasoning faculty was especially pronounced, (p. 248-49) Bayle, therefore, found no place in the Preliminary Discourse, not because D'Alembert despised him, but rather because Bayle had not contributed to the mathematical sciences to which D'Alembert had given his chief attention. The necessity for caution in view of the official attitude toward Bayle may have played a part as well. It has been said that D'Alembert 's article on Geneva in the seventh volume of the Encyclopédie

was a principal cause for the

second official attack on the work. He wrote it after visiting Voltaire at Ferney near Geneva, whence he was able to make a personal acquaintance of the city and its ways. He found it a city with but a small territory "not containing thirty villages" and yet "rich by its liberty and commerce," with "all the advantages and none of the inconveniences of democracy." The account concluded with a statement of its religion, "the part of this article which will interest philosophers the most." He then went into detail. " T h e clergy have exemplary manners. . . . One does not find as in other countries sharp disputes among them on unintelligible matters. . . . Many of them do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ." A s to Calvin's action in burning Servetus, D'Alembert found that they "do not try to justify it, but content themselves in citing that abominable day of St. Bartholomew, which every good Frenchman would like to blot from our history with his own blood." The "noble liberty of thought and publication" in Geneva led D'Alembert to reflect : How many countries are there where philosophy has made as much

RETURN FROM EXILE

300

progress, but where truth is yet captive, where reason dares not raise its voice, and where cowardly writers, who are called sages, respect prejudices which they could combat with as much decency as s a f e t y !

The French visitor found that hell, "one of the principal points of our belief," was not accepted by many Genevan ministers. In short they are Socinian, "rejecting all which they call mysteries, and believing that the first principle of a true religion is to ask of belief nothing that counters reason." He found them tolerant, minding their own business, not mixing in affairs of state — "the cause of so much trouble in recent centuries" — and conducting a "worship more decent than that in our churches." He concluded by apologizing for so long ail article, "but in the eye of a philosopher the republic of bees is not less interesting than the history of great empires." The last sentence reads: " I f religion does not allow us to think that the Genevans are working effectively for their happiness in the world to come, reason requires us to believe that they are almost as happy in this world as one can well be. ' ' Little wonder that this oblique attack on French Catholicism in so " philosophic ' ' a fashion produced the decree of 1759 ! If Bayle was not mentioned in the Preliminary Discourse of D'Alembert, the mathematician, he did figure in Diderot's Prospectus, appearing shortly before. In it he was included among the dozen who had served as "pioneers" when "true philosophy was yet in the cradle. "

27

In fact, Diderot thought very highly of Bayle,

so highly that Bayle's spirit and dialectic were infused throughout the great work in the person of its editor-in-chief. This is shown, for one thing, in the very make-up of the work. Diderot had learned well from Bayle the lesson that, if an encyclopedia is to be read, it must be interesting. Thus the dry uniformity and purely informative character of a Chambers

or a Moréri

were largely

supplemented by articles that were primarily entertaining. Mar27 D. Diderot, Oeuvres complètes, 20 vols., 1875-77. See XIII, 131.

RETURN FROM EXILE

301

montel wrote on Comedy, Eulogies, Glory, Grand, Grandeur, etc. ; Duelos had interesting things to say on the Declamations of the Ancients, and on Etiquette. There were articles on Gayety, Fantasy, and Fragility. Objection was made to the lighthearted and entertaining article on Woman, morally considered (femme, morale), in which much space was given to woman as lover under the fanciful name of Chloe. Diderot's assistants must have greatly enjoyed themselves in composing the essays on hell, conceived from the theological and mythological angles. The two aspects were delightfully confused, with cross references from the theological part to the mythological section. The former part concluded that reason would not be sufficient to decide the vexed question of hell: "one must of necessity have recourse to revelation to prove the eternity and justness of the punishments in the future life." Voltaire wrote to Diderot in his customary vein, questioning the statement, in the article, that Moses believed in hell: "Now, by all the devils, that is not true. Why lie about it ? Hell is an excellent thing, to be sure, but Moses did not know it." 28 The treatment of Superstition was biting. It was defined as all excess of religion in general. . . . Ignorance and barbarism introduce it, hypocrisy continues its ceremonies, false zeal causes it to spread, and self-interest keeps it going. The monarch cannot too carefully chain the monster, superstition, for this monster, much more than irréligion — always inexcusable (!) — threatens the authority of the throne.

Nor was there an uncertain trend in the long article on Fanaticism. Many of the articles by the editor-in-chief would hardly have had a place were not the Encyclopédie an entertaining propagandist for "philosophy." "Genius" is an interesting literary essay. "Frivolous" is just that, and a similar touch is present in such articles as those on Gallantry, Importance, Melancholy, Envy. 1757. Quoted by Morley, I, 142.

302

RETURN FROM EXILE

" P a r d o n " was largely an attack on the clericals, and so was "Prostitution," strangely enough: "Philosophy has been defamed by a troop of little brigands without knowledge, spirit, or morals, who prostitute themselves to men angered at those (the

philosophes)

that bring into the public light their wrongdoing and littleness." Diderot's opinion of, and dependence on, Bayle are found on many pages. A few examples must suffice to make this plain. The lengthy account of M]anicheism is an orderly arrangement of Bayle 's arguments : " I will take them from Bayle himself, who has employed all the force of his spirit to give a color of reality to this evil hypothesis, so much so that the philosophers and theologians have been terrified by this new monster. ' ' 2 9 The retorts of such antagonists as Jaquelot, Le Clerc, and Leibnitz were marshalled in reply. After thirty pages of discussion the sceptical conclusion of Bayle is reaffirmed. "God has removed only a portion of the veil which conceals from us this great mystery of the origin of evil." The article on Spinoza is equally long, and equally a marshalling of Bayle's arguments against Spinoza's atheism. "Many people have thought that Bayle did not understand Spinoza's doctrine — very strange indeed for one so subtle and penetrating. Bayle has proved, at the expense of this system, that he perfectly understood i t . " (xvii, 187) This article, as well as many others, shows that the Encyclopédie

was not atheistic, but sceptical ; like Bayle 's Diction-

ary, it may have led some readers to atheism, but it did not advocate such a position. This is clearly revealed in treating the atheism of antiquity (Hylopathianism). The fathers were chided for speaking so affirmatively of the beliefs of the ancients. Ordinarily, men of letters do not enjoy suspension of judgment any more than the common people. They love generalized and universal affirmations. The bold manner of a theological doctor has the same effect on them as 2» Diderot, Oeuvres, where his contributions to the Encyclopédie reprinted, X V I , 69, 83.

have been

RETURN FROM EXILE

303

actual evidence. . . . The common people have always judged poorly in snch matters, and condemned as atheists those who believed in a divinity.

Of especial value in this connection is the article on Pyrrhonism. Diderot traced sceptical beliefs from the days of Pyrrho to the modern thinkers of similar leanings, such as La Mothe le Vayer, Huet, and Montaigne. The Essays were praised as "the touchstone of a good intelligence. Be sure that any one displeased with them has some vice of the heart or understanding. There is hardly any question both sides of which this author has not discussed, and always with the same persuasiveness." (xvi, 485) The climax of Pyrrhonism, however, is reached with Bayle: "Scepticism has never had among the ancients or moderns a more powerful athlete than Bayle." (xvi, 486) The article concludes with an extended and laudatory account of Bayle 's career and ideas. The

Dictionary,

in particular, showed his spirit, his ability, his dialectic, the immensity of his leaning toward Pyrrhonism. . . . Bayle had few equals in the art of reasoning, perhaps no superior. No one could detect more clearly the weakness of a system; no one could bring out more plainly its strength. He was powerful when he proved, and still more so when he objected. With an imagination gay and fecund, at the same time that he proved, he amused, depicted, seduced. . . . Whatever his thesis, everything came to his aid — history, learning, philosophy. (490)

Two more judgments of Diderot on Bayle, and we shall conclude. The extended article on Encyclopédie,

of ninety pages, showed that

the progress of reason had been so great that most works before the present century had fallen into oblivion. "There are, however, some exceptional men who have lived before their time. We have had, so to speak, some contemporaries in the reign of Louis XIV. ' ' Bayle is then mentioned as one who has lost in some ways, because of less interest in controversy, but, has gained much more in others. But if this has been the lot of Bayle, one can imagine what would have happened to an encyclopedia in his time.

304

R E T U R N FROM E X I L E

If one excepts Perrault and some few others . . . there was perhaps not a man who could have written a page of it worth reading to-day. (xiv, 425)

Bayle figured interestingly in the article on Leibnitz. It began, The moderns have some men, such as Bayle, Descartes, Leibnitz, and Newton, whom they can, with success, set up against the most astonishing geniuses of antiquity. If there exists above our heads an order of beings who observe our labors as we observe those beings who crawl at our feet, with what surprise would they not have gazed upon these four marvellous insects, (xv, 436)

It is clear that articles on philosophy were especially the concern of Diderot, whose knowledge of the history of philosophy was broad and fairly deep. According to Faguet, he knew it well. He can be considered as the initiator of this science among the French, who before him — I except Bayle — did not suspect its existence. . . . H e is full of Bayle, that Bible of the eighteenth century, and knows the sources of Bayle, and that is much. 30

The stress put on the Baylian side of the great

Encyclopédie

should not blind one to the aspects, other than philosophical, which were so powerfully fostered by the Encyclopedists.

Tolerance,

suspension of judgment, the application of reason to all the facts of human life, were joined with the fullest explanation of natural phenomena and the natural sciences that had yet been made.31 Yet Bayle 's large place in creating the atmosphere of the eighteenth century, in shaping the viewpoint and suggesting many of the ideas of the philosophes

is incontestable. The wholehearted

manner in which Bayle 's spirit found expression in the

Encyclo-

pédie was only possible because its editors saw that this critic of history and theology, this master of doubt, was essentially in harmony with the new natural science. Could Bayle have com30 Work cited, pp. 293-94. Compare also, De Tocqueville, Histoire philosophique du règne de Louis XV, 1847, I, 259, where Bayle is credited with establishing a general Pyrrhonism, and furnishing the philosophes with almost all their arguments. 31 For this side of the Encyclopédie, see Lynn Thorndike, ' ' L'Encyclopédie and History of Science" in Isis, Vol. VI (3) 1924.

RETURN FROM

305

EXILE

municated with those "marvellous insects," the Encyclopedists, he might have chided them for making him too entirely one of their contemporaries. He would have been especially uncomfortable in the company of Voltaire, and would have disparaged Diderot's earnest desire to make "philosophy" the dominant power in eighteenth-century France. The perpetuation of his influence might have been observed with a quiet satisfaction, and he would have admitted, probably, the truth of that fine sentence of Diderot: "What the other world is for the religious man, posterity is for the philosopher." (xviii, 101) T H E AFTERMATH

There can be no unanimity as to the effect of Bayle and his successors on the French Revolution, which broke out two decades after the Encyclopédie

was completed. A revolutionary spirit was

running high at various times from the forties on. Even before the appearance of the Encyclopédie

the imminence of revolution was

forecast. D 'Argenson wrote in 1751 : ' ' One hears nothing but the need for a revolution because of the bad condition of the internal government. " 3 2 In the fifties the tension was even greater. The year 1754 was rife with ill feeling against governmental tyranny allied with ecclesiastical despotism. "The danger of revolution is greater than ever," wrote D'Argenson. " I t will commence by the mistreatment of the clergy and the ministers as the true authors of our misfortunes. ' ' 3 3 The ever approaching event, postponed by expedients until it could no longer be held off, was nourished by the growing influence of "philosophy." More and more, its anti-clerical viewpoint became the accepted gospel of the reading classes. The impassioned appeals of the philosophes

were burned indelibly on many minds.

s 2 Félix Rocquain, L'esprit révolutionnaire s 3 Rocquain, work cited, p. 180.

avant la Révolution,

1878, p. 145.

306

RETURN FROM EXILE

The Encyclopédie, indeed, had preached liberty of speech with an evangelical fervor. The splendid article on Tolerance was the work of the younger Romilli. It is an eloquent plea for the right of the erring conscience: "Will a proposition that appears to me absurd and contradictory become clear on the scaffold Î" The dangers of combining "two jurisdictions" were eloquently pictured. This ' ' double authority forms a state within a state, breaks the political unity. . . . Everything is lost if you leave for an instant in the same hand the sword and the censer." There was no effort to fix the precise limits of tolerance: " W e preach practical and not speculative tolerance." In conclusion the reader was referred to Bayle's Philosophical

Commentary,

beau génie has surpassed himself."

"where, in our opinion, this 34

Diderot, who thought Bayle 's Philosophical Commentary a "chef d'oeuvre d'éloquence" (xvi, 488), wrote the bitter article on Intolerance. In it, he cited book and page from the history of the early church for a tolerance "too much forgotten in our time," and λ\^Γηβά his readers if he did not actually exhort them to action. If the ruler says the unbelieving subject is unworthy to live, will not the subject say the unfaithful prince is unworthy of ruling î Intolérants (the italics are Diderot's), men of blood, see the results of your principles, and tremble. Men whom I love, whatever your ideas, for you I have gathered these thoughts, upon which I plead that you meditate.Think upon them and abjure an atrocious belief which agrees neither with a true mind nor a kind heart, (xv, 239-40) s* Morley 'β assertion (work cited, I, 207) that this article is baeed on Locke seems quite without justification. Romilli's whole point, the right of the erring conscience to be free from conversion by force, is the approach of Bayle. One hears the echo of Bayle 's voice and the witness of his experience in the assertion that it is not confined to one group ; ' ' each sect will use violence and constraint . . . those oppressed in one place becoming oppressors in another." Compare the quotation taken from Bayle'β Dictionary on p. 145. Romilli's plea for practical tolerance is based on the actual situation in France — Rousseau and Montesquieu were quoted, with no reference to Locke — and is far removed from Locke's defence of toleration. The author was a French Calviniet minister.

RETURN FROM EXILE

307

In 1771 Diderot wrote a friend that the spirit of the century seemed to be for liberty. The first attack against religion has been violent and unmeasured. Once that men have in some manner assaulted the barriers of religion, they cannot be stopped. After they have turned their menacing looks against the sovereign of the skies, they will next direct them against the sovereigns of the earth. The cable which represses humanity is of two strands; the one cannot give way without the other soon snapping, (xx, 28)

The present writer would not sustain for a moment the thesis that the secularized philosophy of liberty was the only or even the chief cause for the calling of the Estates General in 1789. Th.e misgovernment of Louis XY, the financial chaos revealed by Necker'e audit of the national resources, the ineptitude of Louis XVI, oppressive taxation, an unwise foreign policy, the breakdown of respect for religion, all played a part. But as soon as the Revolution was precipitated — whatever its immediate causes — the regnant ideas of the philosophes came into their own. The men who believed they were doing the work of six centuries in six years found congenial thought-patterns in the language of Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire, Bayle, Cicero, and Plutarch. So closely kin seemed Bayle that a re-issue of his Dictionary was proposed in 1790; a twelve-volume quarto edition was to serve for spreading revolutionary ideas. "Furious and uncontroled fanaticism would relight the torches of ignorance and barbarism, ' ' declared the Prospectus. And in such a state of affairs what can the friends of peace and humanity desire more than the rebirth of one of its superior geniuses? Is there a thinker more profound and wise, a critic more impartial and fini He was the implacable enemy of prejudices, and braved them when they reigned from one end of Europe to another.

The flow of events prevented the fulfillment of the plan. Changes came apace. Monarch limited was succeeded by a "despotism of liberty." The church fell before the dominant philosophic gospel —

308

RETURN FROM EXILE

to finance the reorganizing state. Toleration was announced, privilege swept away. Not the least interesting phase of the cultural changes was the attempt to furnish substitutes for Christianity. Robespierre would have established Rousseau's Deism. A later substitute included the worship of great men by a religion that was benevolent in its intentions. To all such efforts the spirit of Bayle would have expressed a vigorous dissent, and have denied that he was in any way to " b l a m e " for the concrete affirmations which his scepticism had made possible. He would have criticized Robespierre's spick-and-span Supreme Being just as quickly as did many of Robespierre's contemporaries. No where would he have been more uncomfortable than in the circles of those "reasonable" men who re-established during the Revolution varying forms of worship for the purpose of better policing the minds of the people, and insuring "public safety." Bayle would even have objected to the considered judgment of Souquet that " t h e Revolution was prepared in the seventeenth century by the European publicity of the writings of Bayle. ' ' 3 5 And what would have been his reaction to the oft-repeated saying that the French Revolution, long in preparation, owed its chief stimulus to Plutarch's Lives and Bayle 's Dictionary!

One may be

sure that the " a n c i e n t " and the " m o d e r n " would have joined in vigorous denial, could their observations of the French Revolution have found expression. Yet, despite the probable dissent of Plutarch and Bayle, the striking phrase restates picturesquely the persistence of such thinkers as Bayle, whose influence we have tried to indicate in that contentious and pregnant century bounded at one end by the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and at the other by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen. What of Bayle since the Revolution? In order to trace his impress on the nineteenth century one would need, in part, to 35 Work cited, X V I I I , 97.

RETURN FROM EXILE follow the fortunes of the philosophes

309

of 1750, of the thinkers of

eighty-nine, to detect the growth of an historical sense in the decades posterior to Voltaire and Gibbon, to record a growing acceptance of the free expression of opinion — in short, to note the secularization of thought. W i l l Bayle live ? Assessments are much safer than anticipations. His writings were seemingly ephemeral — a monthly review, timely attacks on current superstitions, works of controversy, a dictionary of biography. His attitude was certainly much more timeless than the productions in which it was incarnated, so much more so that he has lived in spite of the changes of two centuries. Should Bayle live ? That cannot safely be left to the descendants of Jurieu; for the fanatics of all times will object to one who made liberty of thought his point of departure, and toleration his goal. Were he living to-day, he would say again what he said in reply to Jurieu's attacks: " T h e public has judged my books. . . . Whether they are praised or blamed, I care not. ' ' Were he living to-day, he would still be a freedom-loving thinker, who would refuse to be regimented into any intellectual coterie, and would be unpopular for his refusal to assert as positive what he considered doubtful. His sharp dialectic would still find much to pillory. Y e t he might take a quiet satisfaction in the wider diffusion of the historical and scientific attitude, and the pervasiveness among educated people of that "unobtrusive scepticism which seems to render offensive warfare superfluous."

APPENDIX A — T H E WRITINGS OF PIERRE

BAYLE

The works of Bayle, save the Dictionary and the writings directly relating to it, were collected in the Oeuvres diverses, of which two editions appeared, the first in 1727-31, the second in 1737. See last item of this section of the Appendix. These collections are referred to as O.D.i and O.D.ii. The definitive edition of the Dictionary, and the publications that appeared with it, is that of Beuchot, Paris, 1820. It is referred to as Beuchot. 1

Dissertation sur les temps, 1675, rehandled under the title, Thèses philosophiques, 1684. 2 Systema totius philosophiae, 1675-78. First printed in O.D.i. Separate French edition, Système de philosophie contenant la logique et la métaphysique par Mr. Pierre Bayle. Imprimé par order du Roi, 8vo, Berlin, 1785. 3 Objectiones in libros P. Poiret. An answer to Poiret's Cogitationes rationales de Deo, anima, et malo. It was printed with a reply by Poiret, Amsterdam, 1685. Written in 1679, and reprinted in O.D.i. and O.D.ii. 4 Harangue pour le duc de Luxembourg et critique de cette harangue. Written in 1680. Ms in Bibliothèque Nationale, no. 25,669. 5 Dissertation sur l'essence des corps, en faveur des Cartésiens contre Louis de la Ville, 1680. In O.D. 6 Lettre à M.L.A.D.C., docteur de Sorbonne : où il est prouvé par plusieurs raisons tirées de la philosophie et de la théologie que les comètes ne sont point le présage d'aucun malheur. Avec plusieurs réflexions morales et politiques et plusieurs observations historiques et la réfutation de quelques erreurs populaires. A Cologne, chez Pierre Marteau (Rotterdam, Reinier Leers), 12mo, 1682. 2d ed., with title, Pensées diverses, écrites à un docteur de Sorbonne, à l'occasion de la comète qui parut au mois de Décembre 1680. 2v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1682.

APPENDIX

7

8

311

3d ed., called troisième édition, 2v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1699. With it was bound the Addition. See item 26. 4th ed., called quatrième édition, 2v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1704. Addition included. 5th ed., called nouvelle édition, corrigée, 4v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1721. With it were bound the Addition and the Continuation. See items 26 and 29. 6th ed., called Cinquième édition, 4v., 12mo, Amsterdam, 1722. See item 29. 7th ed., in O.D.i. 8th ed., in O.D.ii. 9th ed., 4v., 12mo, Amsterdam, 1749. This has not been seen, but it is listed by Krieger in his Gesamtkatalog of Frederick the Great's libraries. 10th ed., Pensées diverses sur la comète. Édition critique avec une introduction et des notes, publiée par A. Prat, 2v., 8vo, Paris, 1911, 1912. In the series "Société des textes français modernes." Eng. trans., Miscellaneous Reflections occasion'd by the Comet which appear'd in December 1680, chiefly tending to explode Popular Superstitions. Written to a Doctor of the Sorbon. . . . To which is added the Author's Life. 2v., 8vo, London, 1708. The life is entitled, The Life of Mr. Bayle in a Letter to a Peer of Great Britain. Critique générale de l'Histoire du Calvinisme du P. Maimbourg. A Vi lief ranche, chez Pierre Le Blanc (Amsterdam), 12mo, 1682. 2d ed., revue et beaucoup augmentée. À Villefranche chez Pierre Le Blanc, 12mo, 1683. 3d ed., revue et corrigée par l'Auteur. A Villefranche, chez Pierre Le Blanc, 2v., 12mo, 1684. 4th ed., 2v., 12mo, Amsterdam, 1714. 5th ed., in O.D.i. 6th ed., in O.D.ii. Nouvelles lettre de l'auteur de la Critique Générale de l'Histoire du Calvinisme du P. Maimbourg. Première partie, où en justifiant quelques endroits de la Critique qui ont semblé contenir des contradictions, de faux raisonnements et autres méprises semblables ; on traite par occasion de plusieurs

312

APPENDIX

choses curieuses, qui ont du rapport à ces matières. À Villefranche, chez Pierre Le Blanc, 2v., 12mo, 1685. 2d ed., Nouvelles lettres de Mr. Bayle, au sujet de sa Critique Générale. . . . 2v., 12mo, Amsterdam, 1715. Appears to be an exact typographical reprint of the first edition. 3d ed., in O.D.i. 4th ed., in O.D.ii. • 9 Recueil de quelques pièces curieuses concernant la philosophie de Mr. Descartes. 12mo, Amsterdam, 1684. 10 Nouvelles de la république des lettres. 12mo, Amsterdam. Written by Bayle from March 1684 to February 1687, and then continued by D. Larroque, J. Barrin, and others. From January 1699 to December 1710, written by J. Bernard. La réponse de l'auteur des Nouvelles de la république des lettres à l'avis qui lui a été donné sur ce qu'il a dit en faveur du P. Malebranche touchant le plaisir des sens. This appeared in the Nouvelles for Dec. 1685, and was later published separately, 12mo, Rotterdam, 1686. 11 Ce que c'est que la France toute catholique sous le règne de Louis-le-Grand. 12mo, St. Omer (Amsterdam) 1685. The copy in the British Museum is dated 1686. Eng. tr., London, 1708, along with the Philosophical Commentary. 12 Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles de Jesus-Christ : Contrains les d'entrer ; où l'on prouve par plusieurs raisons démonstratives qu'il n'y a rien de plus abominable que de faire des conversions par la contrainte, et où l'on réfute tous les sophismes des convertisseurs à contrainte et l'apologie que St. Augustin a faite des persécutions. Traduit de l'anglais du Sieur Jean Fox de Bruggs par M.F.S.A. À Cantorbery, chez Thomas Litwel. 12mo (Amsterdam). The first and second parts appeared in 1686, the third in 1687. Supplément du Commentaire philosophique. . . . où entre autres choses on achève de ruiner la seule échappatoire qui restait aux adversaires, en démontrant le droit légal des hérétiques pour persécuter à celui des orthodoxes. On parle aussi de la nature et origine des erreurs. À Hambourg, chez Thomas Litwel. 12mo (Amsterdam), 1688.

APPENDIX

313

2d ed., Commentaire philosophique sur ces paroles ou traité de la tolérance universelle. Par Mr. Bayle. Nouvelle édition. 2v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1713. Preceded by Ce que c'est que la France toute catholique. Includes three parts and the Supplément. The faults of the first edition are "corrected," presumably by Prosper Marchand. 3d ed., in O.D.i. 4th ed., in O.D.ii. Eng. tr., A Philosophical Commentary on these Words of the Gospel, Luke XIV, 23 : Compel them to come in, that my house may be full. Translated from the French of Mr. Bayle, Author of the great Critical and Historical Dictionary. 2v., 8vo, London, 1708. All four parts. Ger. tr., Tractat von der allgemeinen Toleranz, 8vo, Wittenberg, 1771. 13 Préface du Dictionnaire de Furetière, 1688. 14 Réponse d'un nouveau converti à la lettre d'un réfugié. Pour servir d'addition au livre de Dom Denys de Ste. Marthe intitulé: Réponse aux plaintes des protestants. 12mo, Paris, 1689. This work was later included in the O.D., though it is probably not by Bayle. See p. 118. 15 Avis important aux réfugiez sur leur prochain retour en France. Donné pour étrennes à l'un d'eux en 1690. Par M.C.L.A.A.P.D.P. 12mo, Amsterdam, chez Jacques le Censeur, 1690. 2d ed., 12mo, Paris, Martin, 1692. With preface by Pellisson and some changes in the text. 3rd ed., is a reprint of the Paris issue, and published with a lengthy Réponse by De Larrey, 2v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1709. This work was later included in the O.D., though it is probably not by Bayle. See p. 119. 16 La Cabale chimérique, ou réfutation de l'histoire fabuleuse qu'on vient de publier malicieusement touchant un certain projet de paix et touchant le libelle intitulé : Avis important. . . . 12mo, à Cologne, chez Pierre Marteau (Rotterdam), 1691. 2d ed., the same year. 17 Lettre sur les petits livrets publiés contre la Cabale chimérique. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1691.

314 18

APPENDIX

Déclaration de Mr. Bayle touchant la Courte Revue des maximes. . . . 12mo, Rotterdam, 1691. 19 Chimère de la cabale de Rotterdam. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1691. 20 Entretiens sur le grand scandale causé par un livre intitulé: la Cabale chimérique. . . . 12mo, à Cologne, chez Pierre Marteau, 1691. 21 Avis au petit auteur des petits livrets sur son Philosophe dégradé. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1692. 22 Janua coelorum reserata cunctis religionibus a celebri admodum viro domino Petro Jurieu, 12mo, Rotterdam, 1692. 23 Nouvel avis au petit auteur des petits livrets. . . . 12mo, Rotterdam, 1692. 24 Projet et fragments d'un Dictionnaire critique. 8vo, Rotterdam, 1692. Reprinted in Beuchot. 25 Nouvelle hérésie dans la morale touchant la haine du prochain, 12mo, Rotterdam, 1694. See p. 000. 26 Addition aux pensées diverses sur les comètes, ou réponse à un libelle intitulé, Courte revue des maximes de morale et des principes de religion de l'auteur des Pensées diverses sur les comètes. . . . Pour servir d'instruction aux juges ecclésiastiques qui en voudront conôitre. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1694. Reprinted with the third edition of the Pensées diverses in 1699, and in all subsequent editions, except the tenth. See item 6. 27a Dictionnaire historique et critique. 2v., folio, Rotterdam, 1697. 2d ed., corrigée et augmentée, 3v., folio, Rotterdam, 1702. 3d ed., à laquelle on a ajouté la vie de l'auteur et mis ses additions et corrections à leur place. 3v., folio, Rotterdam, 1715. Preceded by Histoire de Mr. Bayle et de ses ouvrages (13 pp.). According to Desmaizeaux, this life was written by M. l'Abbé du Revest, who sent it to De la Monnoye for corrections. Two articles were added in the body of the Dictionary. Does not call itself the third edition. It was printed at Geneva. In 1722 there appeared at Geneva a single folio volume, entitled Supplément au Dictionnaire historique de Mr. Bayle, pour les éditions de 1702 et de 1715. The "Histoire de Mr.

APPENDIX

315

Bayle et de ses ouvrages" of the 1715 edition is "revue, corrigée et augmentée sur de nouveaux mémoires" (47 pp.) 4th ed., called troisième édition. 4v., folio, Rotterdam, 1720. Leers sold his rights to Fritsch and Böhm, who published in 1714 a prospectus of a new edition, Projet de la nouvelle édition du Dictionnaire . . . ( f o l i o ) . The editor was Prosper Marchand. Completed in 1720 and bears that date. The two David articles are side by side. Dedicated to the Duke of Orléans. For this faux pas, see p. 249. 5th ed., called quatrième édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. Avec la vie de l'auteur par Mr. Desmaizeaux. 4v., folio, Amsterdam and Leide, 1730. Original David article at the end. Some regard this as the best folio edition. 6th ed., 5v., folio, Amsterdam, 1734. Really printed at Trévoux f o r the Parisian booksellers. Original David article in place, and the revised one at end of the volume. A t end of each volume critical remarks by Abbé L. J. Ledere. Beuchot regards this as the best folio edition. 7th ed., 4v., folio, Bàie, 1738. 8th ed., called cinquième édition. 4v., folio, Amsterdam, Leide, L a Haye, Utrecht, 1740. A reprint of the edition of 1730. 9th ed., 4v., folio, Bale, 1741. Said to be poorly printed. 10th ed., 8vo, Leipzig, 1801-04. Eight parts only appeared. I t ended with the article "Hoornbeck. " A careful piece of work, poorly printed. 11th ed., nouvelle édition, 16v., 8vo, Paris, 1820. The preface is signed by Beuchot and dated 1 May, 1824. Use made of earlier criticisms. Definitive. Extrait du Dictionnaire historique et critique de Bayle. 2v., 8vo, Berlin, 1765. The work of Frederick the Great. A Nouvelle édition augmentée was published in 2v., 8vo, Amsterdam, 1780, and again in 1789. Translated into German, 2v., 8vo, Lübeck, 1798, and reprinted at Leipzig, 1815. Analyse raisonnée de Bayle, ou abrégé méthodique de ses ouvrages, particulièrement de son Dictionaire historique et critique, dont les remarques ont été fondues dans le texte. . . . 8v., 12mo, 1755-1770. First half done by F. M. de Marsy in 1755, the last half by J. Β. R. Robinet in 1770. Robinet

316

APPENDIX

added an Histoire abrégée de la vie et de ses ouvrages de Bayle (181 pp.) Nouveau dictionnaire historique et critique, pour servir de supplément ou de continuation au Dictionnaire historique de Pierre Bayle. 4v., folio, Amsterdam and La Haye, 175056. Edited by J. G. de Chauffepié. Prompted by the English General Dictionary, which was largely used. Sur les obcénités . . . . avec une notice bio-bibliographique. 16mo, Bruxelles, 1879. A reprint of that part of Bayle's defence of his Dictionary appended to the second edition. 27b German translation. Herrn P. Bayles. . . . historisches und critisches Wörterbuch nach der neueste Ausgabe von 1740 ins Deutch übersetzt. . . . 4v., folio, Leipzig, 1741-44. The work of J. C. Gottsched. 27b English translations. An Historical and Critical Dictionary by Monsieur Bayle. Translated into English with many additions and corrections made by the author himself, that are not in the French editions. 4v., folio, London, 1710. Dedicated to Algernon, Earl of Essex. 2d ed., The Dictionary Historical and Critical of Mr. Peter Bayle. The Second Edition. . . . to which is prefixed the Life of the Author, revised, corrected, and enlarged by Mr. Des Maizeaux. 5v., folio, London, 1734-38. A General Dictionary, Historical and Critical : in which a new and accurate translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle with the corrections and observations printed in the late edition at Paris is included; and interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. . . . with reflections on such passages of Mr. Bayle as seem to favour scepticism and the Manichee system. By the Reverend Mr. John Peter Bernard, the Reverend Mr. Thomas Birch, Mr. John Lockman, and other hands. 10v., folio, London, 1734-41. Dedicated to Sir Hans Sloane and the Royal Society. The Paris edition referred to is probably the edition of 1734. An Historical and Critical Dictionary, selected and abridged from the great work of Peter Bayle. 4v., 12mo, London, 1826. Includes a life of Bayle. The Analyse raisonnée of Marsy "in some degree led to the present undertaking."

APPENDIX

317

The Life indicated, as the best French editions of the Dictionary, those of 1720, 1746 (?), and 1820. The Life of David exactly reprinted. . . . 8vo., London, 1861. Réflexions sur un Imprimé qui a pour titre : Judgement du Public et particulièrement de Mr. l'Abbé Renaudot sur le Dictionnaire critique du Sr. Bayle. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1697. Continuation des Pensées diverses . . . ou Réponse à plusieurs difficultéz que Md. *** a proposées à l'Auteur. 2v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1705. 2d ed., 2v., 12mo, 1721 with Pensées diverses and the Addition. See item 6. 3d ed., 2v., 12mo, 1736, 1737, being the additions to the — sixth edition of the Pensées. Reprinted in O.D.i and O.D.ii. Réponse aux Questions d'un Provincial. 5v., 12mo, Rotterdam, 1704-07. Vol. 1, 1704, including chaps. I-LXVII. Vol. 2, 1706, including chaps. LXVIII-CXXIV. Vol. 3, 1706, including chaps. CXXV-CLXXXIV. Vols. 2 and 3 issued at the same time with a single preface, dated Dec. 2, 1705. Vol. 4, 1707, including chaps. I-XXIX. Preface dated Nov. 25, 1706. At end is added, with separate title-page and pagination, Réponse pour Mr. Bayle à Mr. Le Clerc au sujet du 3 et du 13 articles du IX tome de la Bibliothèque Choisie. Dated April 25, 1706. Vol. 5, 1707, including chaps. I-XXIX. No preface but Avis au Lecteur informs reader that the work was completed "plusieurs mois avant sa mort." Entretiens de Maxime et de Thémiste, ou Réponse à ce que Mr. Le Clerc a écrit dans son X. tome de la Bibliothèque Choisie contre Mr. Bayle. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1707. Entretiens de Maxime et de Thémiste, ou Réponse à l'examen de la Théologie de Mr. Bayle par Mr. Jaquelot. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1707. Letters of Bayle. Lettres choisies de Bayle. 3v. 12mo, Rotterdam, 1714. Contains 253 letters. Edited by Prosper Marchand. Lettres choisies de Bayle in O.D.i. 351 letters.

318

APPENDIX

Lettres de Mr. Bayle publiées sur les originaux avec des remarques par Desmaizeaux. 3v., 12mo, Amsterdam, 1729. 295 letters. Lettres de Bayle à sa famille in O.D.ii. 150 letters. Nouvelles Lettres de Mr. P. Bayle. 2v., 12mo, La Haye, 1739. A reimpression, with some changes, of the new letters in O.D.ii. It is preceded by an Apologie de Mr. Bayle, ou lettre d'un sceptique. . . . pour servir de réponse au livre de Mr. De Crousaz. Choix de la correspondance inédite de Pierre Bayle, 1670-1706, publié d'après les originaux conservés à la Bibliothèque Royale de Copenhague, par E. Gigas. 8vo, Copenhague, 1890. Quelques lettres de Bayle et de Baluze, recueillies dans les bibliothèques florentines et publiées par Léon G. Pélissier. 8vo, Toulouse, 1891. 34 Oeuvres diverses de Pierre Bayle. . . . contenant tout ce que cet auteur a publié. . . . excepté son Dictionnaire historique et critique. 4v., folio, La Haye and Rotterdam, 1727-31. 2d ed., 4v., folio, La Haye (Trévoux), 1737. Β — R E L A T E D W O R K S A P P E A R I N G IN B A Y L E ' S L I F E T I M E

Abbadie, J., Défense de la nation brittanique. . . contre l'auteur de l'Avis important aux réfugiés, 1693. Arnauld, Α., Avis à l'auteur de Nouvelles de la république des lettres, 1686. Dissertation sur le prétendu bonheur des sens, pour servir de réplique à la réponse qu'a faite M. Bayle . . . en faveur du P. Malebranche contre M. Arnauld, 1687. Basnage, Henri, Lettre sur les différends de M. Jurieu et de M. Bayle, 1691. Basnage, Jaques, Traité de la conscience, 2v., 1696. Bernard, J., attacked Bayle through his Nouvelles de la république des lettres. See p. 231. [Coulan, le ministre], La défense des réfugiez contre un livre intitulé Avis important. . . . Deventer, 1691. La distinction et la nature du bien et du mal, Paris, 1704. Du Rondel, L'histoire du foetus humain recueillie des extraits de Monsieur de Bayle. . . . et publié par Monsieur Du Rondel, 1688.

APPENDIX

319

Huet, Géd., Lettre d'un des amis de M. Bayle aux amis de M. Jurieu, 1691. Jaquelot, I., Conformité de la foi avec la raison ; ou défense de la religion contre les principales difficultés répandues dans le Dictionnaire . . . de M. Bayle, 1705. Examen de la théologie de M. Bayle répandue dans le Dictionnaire critique, dans ses pensées sur les comètes, et dans la réponse aux questions d'un provincial, où l'on défend la conformité de la foi avec la raison contre sa réponse, 1706. Réponse aux Entretiens composés par M. Bayle contre la conformité de la foi avec la raison et l'Examen de la théologie, 1707. Jurieu, P., Le vrai système de l'église, 1686. L'accomplissement des prophéties, ou la délivrance prochaine de l'église. . . . par le S. P. J., 1686. This was followed by an Apologie pour l'Accomplissement, etc., in 1687, and that by a Suite de l'Accomplissement, etc., in the same year. Des droits des deux souverains en matière de religion, la conscience et le prince, 1687. Examen d'un libelle contre, la religion, contre l'État et contre la révolution d'Angleterre, intitulé l'Avis aux réfugiés, 1691. Nouvelles convictions contre l'auteur de l'Avis aux réfugiés, 1691. This was followed by a Dernière conviction in the same year. Courte revue des maximes de morale et des principes de religion de l'auteur des Pensées diverses. . . . et de la Critique générale, 1691. Jugement du public et particulièrement de l'abbé Renaudot sur le Dictionnaire de M. Bayle, 1697. Le philosophe de Roterdam ( !) accusé, atteint et convaincu, 1706. An Apologie du Sieur Jurieu appeared in 1691, of which Jurieu professed ignorance. King, Dr. William, Bishop of Londonderry, De Origine Mali, 1702. Later reprinted in English as an Essay on the Origin of Evil. . . . to. . . . vindicate the author's principles against the objections of Bayle, 1731. Le Clerc, Jean, Parrhasiana, 1699. He also attacked Bayle through his journal, La Bibliothèque choisie. Naudeana et Patiniana, edited by Bayle in 1703.

320

APPENDIX

Ρ, Lettre de M. H. Y., à M. B. sur les derniers troubles d'Angleterre; où il est parlé de la tolérance de ceux qui ne suivent point la religion dominante, 12mo, Rotterdam, 1686. This letter was written by Hadrian van Paets to Bayle. See p. 68. Robethon, Le philosophe dégradé, 1691. See the writings of Bayle, no. 21. C — W O R K S ON B A Y L E AND H I S W R I T I N G S A P P E A R I N G FROM 1 7 0 6 - 1 7 8 9

The arrangement is chronological. Basnage, Henri, Éloge de Bayle in his journal, Histoire des ouvrages des sçavans for December, 1706. Reprinted in O.D.i. La Placette, J., Réponse à deux objections qu'on oppose de la part de la raison à ce que la foi nous apprend sur l'origine du mal. . . . 1707. Wolf, J. C., Manichaeismus ante Manichaeos, et in Christianismus redivivus, 1707. (This Wolf, despite having the same initials, is not the J. C. Wolff of Halle.) [Desmaizeaux, P.], The Life of Bayle in a Letter to a Peer of Great Britain. Published with the Miscellaneous Reflections in 1708. Naudé, Philippe, La souveraine perfection de Dieu. . . . at la parfaite intégrité de l'Écriture. . . . défendue par la droite raison contre toutes les objections. . . . de M. Bayle. 2v., 1708. R, M. D. L., Réponse à l'Avis important aux réfugiés, 1709. The work of De Larrey. See section A of the Appendix, no. 15. Leibnitz, G. W., Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme, et l'origine du mal, 1710. Reimmann, J. F., Versuch einer Critique über das Dictionnaire historique et critique des Mr. Bayle, 1711. [Du Revest], Histoire de Mr. Bayle et de ses ouvrages. This brief biographical notice appeared in the third edition of the Dictionnaire, was separately published in the year following, 1716, and reappeared in the Supplément of 1722, "corrigée et augmentée sur de nouveaux mémoires." Naudé, Philippe, Réfutation du Commentaire philosophique de Bayle, 2v., 8vo, 1718. Pfaffius, C. M., Dissertationes antibaelianae, in quibus Petrus Baelius, philosophus roterdamensis . . . refellitur. 1719.

APPENDIX

321

Schlotterbeck, G. P., Dissertation de P. Baelii, 1719. Law, William, Remarks upon a Late Book entitled The Fable of the Bees. . . . To which is added a Postscript containing an Observation or two upon Mr. Bayle, 1724. Campbell, Alexander, Αρετη-Λογια, or an Enquiry into the Origins of Moral Virtue, wherein the false Notions of Machiavel, Hobbes, Spinoza and Mr. Bayle. . . . are examined and confuted, 1728. An attack on Mandeville. Published under name of Alexander Innes. Desmaizeaux, P., Vie de Bayle. Appeared first in the fifth edition of the Dictionnaire (1730). Separately printed in 2v., 12mo, La Haye, 1732. In English in the second English edition of the Dictionary, 1734. In German under the title, Das Leben des Weltberühmten Peter Bayle, translated by J. B. Kohl, 1731. The Life of Vanini. . . . and Mr. Bayle 's Arguments in behalf of Vanini compleatly answered. Translated from French into English, London, 1730. Crousaz, J. P. de, Examen du pyrrhonisme ancien et moderne, lv., folio, 1733. Ledere, L. J., Remarques critiques sur divers articles. . . . du Dictionnaire de Bayle, lv., folio, 1733. Merlin, le P., Réfutation des critiques de M. Bayle sur SaintAugustin, où l'on fait voir que c'est très faussement que Bayle accusé l'Église romaine. . . . 1733. The same author contributed to the Journal de Trévoux during 1736-1738 various articles on the Dictionnaire. L'Apologie du David, 1737. Baumeister, P. C., Nonnulla singularia P. Baelio, 1738. Ducatiana, ou Remarques de feu M. le Duchat (who died in 1735) sur divers sujects. 2 v., 1738. Nearly one hundred pages of vol. 1 concern the "famous Dictionary of Bayle." Lefèbvre, Le P. Jacques, Bayle en petit, ou anatomie de ses ouvrages. Entretien d'un docteur avec un bibliothécaire et un abbé. 1738 and again in 1747. Apologie de Mr. Bayle, ou lettre d'un sceptique. . . . pour servir de réponse au livre de Mr. De Crousaz. At head of the Nouvelles Letters of 1739. See first section of the bibliography, no. 33. An Historical Account of the Life and Reign of David, King

322

APPENDIX

of I s r a e l . . . in which Mr. Bayle's Criticisms upon the Conduct and Character of that Prince are fully Considered, 1740, etc. Colonia, P. de, Réponse à la Bibliothèque Janseniste . . . avec des remarques sur la réfutation des critiques de M. Bayle. . . . 1740. Delany, Patrick, An Historical Account of the Life and Reign of David, 3v., 1740. Clugius, C. G., Vindiciae Hutterianae . . . qua Leonardus Hutterus a Petr. Baelii . . . criminatione vindieatur, 1743. Deschamps, J . , Cours abrégée de la philosophie Wolfienne, 2v., 1743. Böldicke, J . , Einwürfe des H e r r n Bayle, wider die geoffenbarte Lehre vom Ursprünge und der Bestrafung des Bösen nebst der Beantwortung des Herrn von Leibnitz, 1745. Joly, P. L., Remarques critiques sur le Dictionnaire de Bayle, 2v., folio, 1748, 1752. 2d vol., published in 1748. Willemerus, J . II., Specimen concordiae fidei et rationis in vindiciis Religionis Christianae adversus P. Baelium. . . . 1748. D'Artigny, l'Abbé, Nouveaux Mémoires d'histoire, de critique, et de littérature, 1749. Vol. ii, art. 25 on Bayle. D'Alès de Courbet, M. le Vicomte, De l'origine du mal, ou examen des principales difficultés de Bayle sur cette matière, 2v., 1757-8. Chandler, S., A Critical History of the Life of David, 1761. Patten, David, King David Vindicated, etc. 1762. Martin S., Rector of Gotham in Nottinghamshire, A Dissertation on the Nature, Effects, and Consequences of the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, to which is added a Review of the Reasonings in Monsieur Bayle, on the E n t r a n c e of Sin and Misery into the World. And on the Method prescribed by him for conducting this Dispute with a Manichean, 1766. [Robinet, J . B. R . ] , " H i s t o i r e abrégée de la Vie et des ouvrages de B a y l e , " at beginning of fifth volume of Analyse raisonnée de Bayle, 1770. See first section of the appendix, no. 27a. D — P R I N C I P A L MODERN STUDIES OF B A Y L E AND H I S W R I T I N G S

Bastide, Ch., Bayle, est'il l'auteur de l'Avis aux réfugiés? In " B u l l e t i n de la Société de l'histoire du Protestantisme franç a i s , " 1907.

APPENDIX

323

Betz, L. P., Pierre Bayle und die Nouvelles de la Républic des Lettres, 1896. Bolin, Wilhelm, Pierre Bayle, Sein Leben und seine Schriften, 1905. Reprinted as a separate work, but originally the biographical introduction to vol. 5 of Feuerbach 's Sämtliche Werke, published at Stuttgart. Brunetière, Ferd., Études critiques sur l'histoire de la littérature française, 5th series, 1893. Manuel de l'histoire de la littérature française, 1898. Cazes, Α., Pierre Bayle. Sa vie, ses idées, son influence, son oeuvre, 1905. Damiron, J. P., Mémoire sur Bayle et ses doctrines, in "Mémoires de l'Académie des sciences morales et politiques," 1850. Delvolvé, Jean, Religion critique et philosophie positive chez Pierre Bayle, 1906. Deschamps, Α., La genèse du scepticisme érudit chez Bayle, 1878. Faguet, Émile, Dix-huitième siècle. Études littéraires, 1890. Feuerbach, L. Α., P. Bayle, seine Verdienste für die Geschichte der Philosophie, 1838, appearing in 1844 under the title, P. Bayle, nach seinen für Geschichte der Philosophie und Menscheit interessantesten momenten dargestellt und gewürdigt. Jeanmaire, Émile, Essai sur la critique religieuse de P. Bayle, 1862. Lanfrey, Pierre, L'Église et les philosophes au dixhuitième siècle, 1855. Lenient, C., Étude sur Bayle, 1855. Lichtenstein, E., Gottscheds Ausgabe von Bayles Dictionnaire. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Aufklärung, in ' ' Beiträge zur neuren Literaturgeschichte," Heft viii, 1915. Picavet, F., articles " B a y l e , " "Pyrrhoniens," "Scepticisme," in La Grande Encyclopédie. Pillon, F., a series of articles, "La Critique de Bayle," in l'Année philosophique, 1896-1902. Puaux, Jean, Les précurseurs française de la tolérance, 1881. Robinson, Howard, The Great Comet of 1680. An Episode in the History of Rationalism, 1916. Sainte-Beuve, C. Α., " D u génie critique et de Bayle," in Revue des Deux Mondes, 1 Dec., 1835. Nouveaux lundis, vol. 9, 1867.

324

APPENDIX

Sayous, P. Α., Histoire de la littérature française à l'étranger depuis le commencement du XVIIe siècle, 2v., 1853. Schoell, Th., Pierre Bayle à propos de deux livres récents, in "Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du protestantisme français," 1908. Serrurier, C., Pierre Bayle en Hollande, 1913. Souquet, Paul, "Pierre Bayle, Libre-Penseur," in La Révolution française, vol. xviii. Smith, H. E., The Literary Criticism of Pierre Bayle, 1912. Was, H., P. Bayle, De Strijd tusschen Geloof en Rede (The Struggle between Faith and Reason), Utrecht, 1868.

INDEX Abbreviation : Β for Bayle Abel, in Β ' s Dictionary, 163 Abelard, 196 Abimelech, in Β ' s Dictionary, 155, 164 Abraham, in Β 's Dictionary, 156, 160, 163-64 Accarei, a restless teacher, 178 Accomplishment of the Prophecies, of Jurieu, 115; popularity, 116 Accords, obscene writer, 190 Acta Eruditorum, Leipzig periodical, 97 Adam, in Β 's Dictionary, 162 Addition, continuation of B ' s work on comet, issued, 223 ; editions, 248 Agreement of the Conduct of the French Church, etc., 72 Albemarle, Earl of, invites B, 241 Albertus Magnus, belittled, 198 Alciatus, a restless teacher, 178 Alembert, Jean le Rond d ' , quoted, 266; Preliminary Discourse to Encyclopédie, 296, 298 ; retires to Berlin, 297; praises B, 299; article on Geneva, 299-300 Ales, Vicomte d ' , on B ' s Dictionary, 281 Alsted, Encyclopedia, 130 Amboise, conspiracy of, 44 Amsterdam, toleration in, 67; B ' s periodical printed in, 94 ; Mercure Savant, 98 ; ΛTews of Republic of Letters, 106 Amyraut, doctrines of, 179 Anatomy, in B ' s periodical, 101 Annet, Peter, attacks character of King David, 169

Anti-Christ, J u r i e u ' s ideas on, 116; futile prophecy about, 145 Apollonius of Tyana, pretended miracles, 173-74 Ariège, 4 ; in B ' s Dictionary, 136 Arminius, 66 Arnauld, his Frequent Communion, 7; opposed B, 104 Astrology, attacked by B, 21 Athanasius, St., quoted, 79 Atheism, in B ' s work on comet, 27-32; no worse than idolatory, 28 ; lauded, 32; of Vanini, 32; J u r i e u ' s attitude to, 53; intolerance of Locke, 91; Jurieu accuses Β of, 124; not common among women, 184; in B ' s Dictionary, 200, 215-18; denied by Voltaire, 293; of antiquity, 302; Shelley's Xecessity of Atheism, 265 Aufklärung, influence of Β on, 268-69 Augustine, St., hie argument for intolerance, 72; refuted by B, 86-87; his position criticized, 171, 183; belittled in Dictionary, 197 Ausonius, obscene poet, 190 Averroës, a moral atheist, 180 Avis important aux réfugiez, see Important Advice to the Refugees Bacon, Roger, 175 Balaam, enigma to B, 230 Bale, B ' s Dictionary published at, 250 Baronius, Annals of, full of errors, 134 Basle, see Bale Basnage, Henri, author of Tolérance des Religions, 68; as Rotterdam

326

INDEX

journalist, 105; quoted, 121, 244; defends Β, 125, 243, 318 Basnage, Jacques, assists Β to teaching position, 12; in Rotterdam, 243 Bastille, Marsy sent to, 284; Voltaire sent to, 286 Bayle, Jacob, elder brother of Pierre B, 9, 10; letter of Pierre Β to, 16; death, 56 Bayle, Pierre, birth, 4; education, 612; turns Catholic, 9 ; professor of philosophy a t Sedan, 12 ; goes to Rotterdam, 14; his Thoughts on the Cvmet, 19-34; offer of post a t Franeker, 37; his General Criticism, 4152 ; his New Letters, 54 ; misfortunes of hie family, 55-57; publishes Philosophical Commentary, 71; would tolerate Catholics, 83, 114; hatred f o r Augustine's influence, 87; and Locke, 89, 91; publishes learned periodical, 94; a true cosmopolitan, 98 ; breakdown of health in 1687, 95, 107 ; interest in science, 101; not familiar with Dutch language, 101 ; manner of writing, 102; as a journalist, 100, 289; and Christina of Sweden, 103; correspondence, 105, 248; controversy with Jurieu, 109 ff. ; Supplement to Philosophical Commentary, 113; not author of Important Advice, 120 ; relation to Project of Peace, 123-24 ; deprived of professorship, 127 ; opportunity for marriage, 128; qualifications for writing Dictionary, 135; preference for anonymity, 142; replies to J u r i e u ' s attacks on Dictionary, 146, 235-39; censured by Walloon consistory of Rotterdam, 147-49; not a technical philosopher, 152; as historical writer, 153-55; moral conduct, 194, 243; not an atheist, 218 ; controversy with Le Clerc, 221-24; publishes Reply to Inquiries of a Country Gentleman, 225; differences with Leibnitz, 231;

controversy witli Jaquelot, 232-33; publishes Conversations of Maxime and Thémiste, 233; last controversies, 234; declining health and death, 241-42 Bayle, Pierre, influence, in England, 253-65; in Germany, 265-76; on Frederick the Great, 271-76; on Voltaire, 285-95; on French Encyclopedists, 296-305; on Diderot, 300¡>04; on French Revolution, 305-9 Bekker, Balthasar, 125, 226; publishes The World Bewitched, 126; unfrocked, 126; attack, on magic, 175 Bernard, Jacques, editor of News of Republic of Letters, 231, 312; attacks B, 246 Bernard of Clairvaux, belittled in Dictionary, 197 Beza, alleged obscenity, 190 Bible, Holy, opposed to idolatry, 24; witness to infallibility, 49 ; interpretation, 74, 86; opposed to intolerance, 75; J u r i e u ' s prophesying based on, 115; in B ' s Dictionary, 140, 155 ff.; obscenity of parts of, 191 ; endangered by Socinianism, 204; needed against Manichees, 213 Bibliothèque universelle, journal of Le Clerc, 106 Biographia Britannica, 251, 254 Biographical Dictionaries, see Juigné, Alsted, Moréri, Historical and Critical Dictionary of Β Bossuet, Bishop, bulwark of French Catholicism, 7; and Gibbon, 10; his judgment of Jurieu, 109; declining influence, 281 Britannica, the English Encyclopedia, 133, 134 η Bruuetière, Ferdinand, quoted, 3, 247, 287 Buckingham, Duke of, 258 Bury, J . B., quoted, 89 Cabale chimérique, Cabal

La, see

Chimerical

327

INDEX Cain, suppositions about, in Dictionary, 156-57 Calvin, in Juigné's Dictionary, 131; and Bayle, 202 Calvinism, History of, by Maimbourg, 40; of B, doubted by Jurieu, 236. See also, Protestantism, French Carla-Bayle, birthplace of B, 4, 5 Cartesianism, see Descartes Catholic Church, right to revolt, 47; and Bible, 48; defended by France All Catholic, 57; not to be tolerated, 73, 90; puts Philosophical Commentary on Index, 88; Fontanelle satirizes, 104 ; Β would tolerate, 114; the Anti-Christ of Jurieu, 115; use of miracles, 172; treatment in Dictionary, 198 Ce que c 'est que la France toute catholique of Β, see France Entirely Catholic Chambers' Cyclopaedia, 133, 134n, 296 Chandler, Samuel, defends David, 169 Character of France Entirely Catholic, see France Entirely Catholic Charron, author of Treatise on Wisdom, 33, 201, 221, 291 Chauffepié, edits B 's Dictionary, 250 ; disgust of Voltaire, 290 Chauvin, Étienne, friend of B, 106 Chillingworth, 11, 70 Chimerical Cabal of B, 121, 124, 125 China, illustrative use of, 61, 77, 86 Christianity, effects of paganism on, 26; low moral standard of many believers in, 29, 179 ; and war, 30 ; condemned in B's work on comet, 32; its effects criticized, 78; its doctrines criticized, 209, 211, 212; has not stopped magic, 230 ; being ruined by B, 236 Christina, Queen of Sweden, and B, 103 Clirysostom, St. John, 79 Cicero, influence, 28, 33; no article on, in B's Dictionary, 137

Clerc, Jean le, 106; work in Holland, 221-22; controversy with B, 224; and Shaftesbury, 258 Coercion, see Intolerance Collins, Anthony, Deist, 256 Colmar, B's Dictionary burned at, 285, 291 Comets, superstition regarding, 16-19; supposed effects of, denied by B, 20-24; comedy of Fontenelle on, 284 Commentaire philosophique, of Β, see Philosophical Commentary "Compel them to come i n , " saying of Jesus Christ, a basis for intolerance, 71, 72; not to be taken literally, 75, 76 Conscience, rights of individual, championed by B, 50; Jurieu's conception of, 53, 112; defence by Β of erring, 54, 85, 86, 110, 182-83; Important Advice not treat erring, 120 ; curious case of, 183 Continuation of Thoughts on Comet of B, published, 223 ; editions, 248 Conversations of Maxime and Thémiste, of B, 233 Coulan, replies to Important Advice, 318 Critical Remarks, of Ledere, on B's Dictionary, 279; of Joly, on B's Dictionary, 280-81 Critique générale, see General Criticism Crousaz, J. P. de, reconverts Gibbon, 11; defends David, 168; attacks B, 280

Cudworth, Ralph, Platonic ideas of, 223 Custom, powerful effect of, 179, 292; retards progress, 181 ; of Icelanders, 182 ; its place in religion, 195 Cyclopaedia of Chambers, 133, 134 n, 296 David, King, referred to by Jurieu, 112, 238; article on, in B's Die-

328

INDEX

tionary, condemned, 143, 148 ; character of this article, 157, 16468; Β censured by Walloon consUttory for article on, 166-67 ; revised article, 167; B ' s treatment revives controversy, 168-70, 261; Voltaire's attack on, 168, 275, 293 De Blégny, editor in Holland, 98 De Boekzaal van Europa, inspired by B, 101 Deism, 47, 81, 179; persecution fosters, 60 ; growth asserted, 73 ; affirmed, 75 ; Β accused of, 144 ; use of pagan examples, 173, 174: character of English, 255-57 Delany, Patrick, defends David, 168 Descartes, revolt against Aristotle, 2 ; influence of his Discourse on Method, 6, 12, 237; accused of atheism, 66 ; ideas spread by Fontenelle, 284 Deschamps, Jean, attacks B, 267 Des droits des deux souveraine, 110 Desmaizeaux, biographer of B, quoted, 8, 10, 121, 122, 224, 240; life in London, 255; writes biography of B, 258 Devil, supposed preference for atheism, 28 ; Bekker denies existence of, 126 ; his victorious war against God, 209-10 Dictionaries, early history of encyclopedic, 129-34 Dictionnaire historique et critique of Β, see Historical and Critical Dictionary Diderot, commends B ' s tolerance, 88; Encyclopédie of, 133, 134 η ; influence of Β on, 300-304 Dragonnades, the French, 13, 38, 5960 Dutch Reformed Church, conservatism of, 125; aids in J u r i e u ' s attack on B, 125; unfrocks Bekker, 126; imprisons Walten, 127 Eclipses, popular fear of, ridiculed by B , 22

École Illustre of Rotterdam, established, 14; character of, 36; Β dismissed, 127 Edict of Nantes, 5, 37-39 Elisha, in B ' s Dictionary, 172 Encyclopedia, history of rise of, 12934; becomes alphabetical, 131; importance of Β in history of, 133 Encyclopedia Britannica, 133, 134 η Encyclopédie, the French, article on Tolerance, 88; character of, 133, 134 n, 296 ff., 301-2 Encyclopedists, the French, influence of Β on, 296-305 England, tolerance, 68-70; periodical journalism, 97; libertinism, 111; Β ' s influence, 253-65 Epicurus, 32, morality of his sect, 180 Eppendorf, example of dangers of neutrality, 177 Erasmus, 33, 94, 247; treated by Juigné, 131 ; by Moréri, 133 ; by B, 137, 225 Eve, Biblical character, treated in Dictionary, 156, 159, 162, 212 Ezekiel, treated in B ' s Dictionary, 172 Fable of the Bees, 259-60 Faguet, Émile, quoted, 3, 139, 287 Fleury, Joly de, imprisons Marsy, 284 Fontenelle, satirizes cometary superstition, 18, 284; letter published by B, 104; importance of, 278, 283-84 France, conditions between 1685-1715, 2 ; intolerant methods used, 8 ; freedom of upper classes f r o m superstition, 19 ; origin of periodical journalism in, 95; literary dominance in Europe, 102 ; prophetic wave a f t e r 1685, 115 ; Jurieu actively plots against, 117 ; influence of B, 277-309 France All Catholic, a reply to Jur i e u ' s attack on Haimbourg, 53-54, 57; arouses B, 57 France Entirely Catholic of B, analy-

INDEX sis, 57-63, 72; quoted, 71; editions, 248 France toute catholique, La, see France All Catholic Franeker, offer from University of, to Β, 37 Frederick the Great, quoted, 268; Baylian ideas of, 271-76 French Revolution, 305 Freedom of Thought, see Toleration Fundamentals of religion, not to be overturned, 69; difficulty of agreement on, 84-85 Gallicanism, 46, 96 Garasse, an obscene writer, 190 Gassendi, revolt against Aristotle, 2, 6, 287 Gazette, the French, 95; the London, 97 General Criticism of the History of Calvinism by Maimbourg, work of B, analysis, 41-52; publicly burned in France, 51; editions, 248; liking of Gibbon for, 263 Geneva, flight of Β to, 10; in 17th century, 11 ; Fontenelle satirizes, 104; Dictionary of Β published, 249; article in Encyclopédie, 299300 George I, of England, compared to David, 168-69 Germany, influence of Β in, 265-76 Gibbon, Edward, conversion to Catholicism, 10; respect for B, 11; quoted, 10, 14, 34; his judgment of B's General Criticism, 55; influence of Β on, 262-63 Goethe, relation to B, 271 Goeze, antagonist of Lessing, 270 Gottsched, J. C., translates B's Dictionary into German, 268-69 Goudet, issues Project of Peace in 1691, 122 Grand Dictionnaire historique of Moréri, see Moréri Habits, power of, 28-29

329

Halley, Edmund, cometary observations of, 18 Hatin, E., historian of periodical journalism, quoted, 95-97, 100, 102 Hell, fear of, no moral deterrent, 182 ; certainty of, for sceptics, 206 ; place in Christian system, 222; disbelief in, at Geneva, 300; in Encyclopédie, 301 Henry IV, of France, 193 Histoire des ouvrages des sçavans, journal of Basnage, 105, 221, 243 Historical and Critical Dictionary of B, called " B i b l e of the 18th cent u r y , " 3; aim, 129, 134; first edition, 134 ; general nature, 136-41 ; omissions, 137 ; importance of notes, 138; readability, 139; forbidden in France, 143; treatment of Biblical narratives, 155-66; handling of miracles, 170-75; mirrors human shortcomings, 176 ff. ; charge of obscenity against, 187-94; treatment of scepticism, 200 ft. ; Jurieu 's analysis, 234-39 ; editions, 249-51, 31417; influence, 251-52; appearance in German, 268; extract published by Frederick the Great, 275; attacked by Ledere, 279; attacked by Joly, 280; burned publicly at Colmar, 285, 291 ; reissued in 1790, 307 History, Maimbourg's method of writing, 40, 43; B ' s scepticism of current works on, 43; prejudice in treatment of, 44 ; mythological treatment by Moréri, 133; Annals of Baronius as, 134; B ' s conception, 153-55; B's treatment of Bible as, 155 ff. ; need of honesty, 192 ; likened to judgments of the law, 193 Holbach, baron d', 298 Holberg, witness to B's vogue in France, 278 Holland, golden age in 17th century, 35, 247 ; toleration in, 35, 65 ; periodical journalism, 97; and France,

INDEX

330 98ι; not 19, 229 Hollandsche

a

country,

289 ; rise of learned, in Germany,

inspired by B,

Judgment of the Public, against B ' s Dictionary, 143 Juigné, Dictionary of, 130 Jurieu, career of, 12, 107-9; pastor of Walloon church in Rotterdam, 36, 108 ; his Last Efforts of Afflicted Innocence, 52 ; replies to Maimbourg, 52-54; and erring conscience, 53 ; hates Socinians, 65 ; opposes toleration, 67; judgment of Bossuet on, 109 ; replies to Philosophical Commentary, 109-110 ; intolerant ideas, 111 ; essays prophecy, 11416 ; political activities, 117 ; writes Examination of a Libel, 122 ; Short Review, 124 ; further attacks on B, 125, 143-44; treatment in B ' s Dictionary, 144-46; defended by Walloon consistory, 149 ; belief in miracles, 173; reenters lists against Β in 1706, 234; death, 242; pilloried by Voltaire, 294; writings listed, 319

superstitious

266 Spectator,

102 Huisseau, d 67

Reunion of

Christendom,

Holy Scripture, see Bible Huet, defends Β against Jurieu, 125 Huguenots, see Protestants, French Hume, David, 253, 262 Hylopathianism, name f o r atheism, 302 Important Advice to the Refugees, published in 1690, 119, 122; authorship, 120-23; answer of Coulan, 318 Infallibility, claim of Catholic Church to, 48, 161 Inspiration of the Bible, see Bible Intolerance, for Protestants in France, 60 ; contrary to Scripture, 63 ; practiced by Protestants, 64-65, 82-83; in England, 69-71; of St, Augustine, 72 ; no limit to, if practiced, 78; breeds hypocrisy, 81. See also, Toleration Ishmael, treated in B ' s Dictionary, 156, 174 Jansenism, 7, 96 Jaquelot, attacks B, 232-33 ; Β replies, 242 Jesuits, as educators, 9, 131 ; oust Protestants at Sedan, 13; object to De Sallo's Journal, 96 Jews, Β would grant'toleration to, 84 Joly, P . L., defends David, 168; quoted, 277; Critical Remaries on B ' s Dictionary, 280-81 Jonah, treated in B ' s Dictionary, 158, 171 Journal des Sçavans, on cometary superstition, 18 ; established, 95-96 ; pirated in Holland, 97; imitated, 99 Journalism, rise of modern, 94-98; model character of Β as journalist,

King, Bishop, on origin of evil, 231,

261 Labadists, a sect in Holland, 66 L a Grange, speculates on B 's Dictionary, 252 Lamech, treated in B 's Dictionary, 159 La Mothe le Vayer, sceptical precursor of Β and Voltaire, 33, 180, 194, 203, 215 La Placette, replies to B 's Manicheism, 234 Larousse, quoted, 129, 191, 296 Larroque, edits a News of the Republic of Letters in Amsterdam, 106, 312 Larroque, de, possible author of Important Advice, 122 Larrey, de, replies to Important Advice, 122 Latin, persistence of, in Germany, 266

INDEX Law, William, replies to Fable of the Bees, 260 Lecky, W. E. H., quoted, 87, 88, 142, 150 Ledere, L. J., opposes B ' s influence, 279 Leers, Eeinier, Β 's printer and friend, 20, 121, 242, 243, 310 Leibnitz, German philosopher, differences with B, 231-32, 267; importance of, 268; treatment in JEncyclopédie, 304 Lessing, Baylian ideas of, 269-71 Limborch, Dutch theologian, 89, 222 Locke, John, his Letter on Toleration, 89-91; and Le Clerc, 106, 222; religious conceptions, 255; influence on Voltaire, 286; praised, 298 Louis X I , 31 Luther, 87 Magic, treatment of, by B, 230. See also Sorcery: Witchcraft Magicians, treated in B ' s Dictionary, 174-75 Maimbourg, Jesuit author, his historical method, 39-40; his History of Calvinism, 40-41; opponent of Janséniste, 42 ; General Criticism of Β directed against, 41-52; other Protestant replies to, 51-52 Malebranche, 61, 104, 229 Mandeville, Bernard de, his Fable of the Bees, 259-60 Manicheism, founding of, 206; consistory condemns Β for, 206-7 ; Paulicans, a sect of, 208; fancied debate on, 213 ; Β engaged in controversy on, 221, 233-34; Gibbon's ideas of, 264; Voltaire commends B ' s treatment of, 292; in French Encyclopédie, 302 ; attacked in English General Dictionary, 316 Marais, Mathieu, a Baylist, 252, 278 Marchand, Prosper, edits Philosophical Commentary, 313; edits Dictionary of B, 315

331

Marsy, edits Bayle, 250, 284, 291 Menage, Gilles, quoted, 53, 277 Mennonites, 66 Mercure Galant, 20; established, 96; imitated, 99; offers to print replies to B, 103 Mercure Savant of De Blégny, 98 Milton, John, Areopagitica, 70 Miracles, Β reluctant to believe in, 25 ; not to be multiplied without need, 26 ; attacked by Β in Dictionary, 170-75; incurableness of belief in, 173 Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Comet of 1680 of B, analysis, 19-34; basis of dismissal of Β from École Illustre, 127; editions, 248; Voltaire's judgment, 289 Mohammedans, 79, 195; Β would tolerate, 84 ; Locke would not tolerate, 90; David compared with, 166; example of Averroës, 181 Montaigne, 141, 225, 291, 298; influence on B, 33; on Voltaire, 287 Morality, and atheism, see under Atheism; based on judgment of moment, 29; of Crusaders, 30; in Paris, 47; basis of, according to B, 74, 176, 182, 223; not dependent on religion, 179 ; of atheists, defended, 180 ; corruption among Christians, 210 Moréri, Louis, author of Grand dictionnaire historique, 131 ; Vogue, 132; faults, 132-35; corrected by B, 140 Morley, John, quoted, 129, 306 Moses, in B ' s Dictionary, 158 Mythology, relations to history, 133; in B ' s Dictionary, 136, 140 Nantes, Edict of, 5, 37; Chambers of, suppressed, 38 ; revocation, 39 Natural Causes, belief of Β in, 25, 170 ff., 175 Natural Law, asserted by B, 75-76 Naudé, Philippe, his Refutation of the

332

INDEX

Philosophical Commentary, 92, 234, 266, 272 Netherlands, see Holland New Letters, a supplement to the General Criticism, 54, 248 News of the Republic of Letters of B, publication begun, 94 ; significance of title, 98; character, 100 105; journal of this name edited by Larroque, 106 Noah, in 3 ' s Dictionary, 158 Nouveau dictionnaire historique et critique, published, 250 Nouvelles de la république des see News, etc.

lettres,

Obscenity, consistory censures Β for, 187; difficulty of determining, 188; Β defends self against charge of, in Dictionary, 146, 188-94; Β defender by Larousse, 191 Odium theologicum, prevalence of, 196, 243 Origen, 79; victim of ecclesiastical hatred, 196; basis of controversy with Le Clerc, 222 Original Sin, 76 ; analysis by B, 208 ; treated by Bishop King, 231; English controversy, 261-62; Vicomte d 'Ales on, 281 Paets, Hadrian van, 36, 127, 243; benefactor of B, 14 ; letter on toleration, 68 Pagans, effects of comets on, 24; religion of, has tinctured Christianity, 26; praised by Voltaire, 294 Pajonism, variant of Arminianism, 67 Pamiers, Protestants expelled, 5-6 ; imprisonment of Jacob Bayle, 56 Parrhase, pseudonym of Le Clerc Parrhasiana, 222 Paulicians, 208 Pelisson, possible author of Important Advice, 121-22 Pensées diverses sur la comète, see under Miscellaneous Thoughts

Perrault, Charles, on ancients and moderns, 283 Persecution, see Intolerance Peter of Abano, 174 Philosopher i>f Rotterdam Accused, eie., of Jurieu, 234-39 Philosophes, the, 1, 3, 305 Philosophical Commentary of B, analysis, 71-88; character of the Preliminary Discourse, 72-73; popularity and influence, 88 ; p u t on Catholic Index, 88; reply of Naudé, 92; commended in England, 93; arouses J u r i e u ' s suspicions, 110; Supplement, 113; editions, 248; Voltaire's judgment, 289; praised by Encyclopédie, 306 Philosophical Transactions of London, established, 97 Plutarch, influence on B, 8 ; essay on superstition, 28, 214; famous paradox, 257, 261, 263; criticized by B, 153; and French Revolution, 208 Porée, the abbé, on B, 279 Predestination, see Original Sin Priestcraft, and superstition, 27; B ' s treatment of, 194-99 Prince Regent of France, edition of B ' s Dictionary dedicated to, 249 Progress, idea of, 2 Project of Peace of Goudet, 123-24 Prostitution, prevalence of, 181 ; examples of loose women, 184; scandalous games to celebrate Flora, 185 Protestantism, importance of Bible to, 49; intolerance, 82-83 Protestants, French, in southern France in 16th century, 5 ; persecution in 1685, 55; prosperity, 3738; persecution a f t e r 1660, 38; effects of Revocation of Edict of Nantes on, 39, 45; mistreatment, characterized, 45, 59-60, 81 Prussia, see Germany: Frederick the Great Puaux, John, quoted, 68, 88 Pyrrhonism, definition, 201 ; histori-

INDEX cal, 44 ; interest of Β in, 144, 200 ; of Frederick the Great, 274; attacked by De Crousaz, 280; Dide r o t ' s treatment of, 303 Rébelliau, quoted, 247 Reformation, Protestant, supposed motives, 46 ; baited work of devil, 210 ; E p p e n d o r f s experience, 177 Beformed religion, see Dutch Reformed Church : Protestants, French Remarques Critiques, of P . L. Joly, 277 Renaudot, first editor of French Gaiette, 95 ; condemns Β 'β Dictionary, 143 Reply of a New Convert, published in 1689, 118 Bepiy to Inquiries of a Country Gentleman, publication, 225; continued, 231 Réponse aux questions d'un Provincial, see Reply to the Inquiries of a Country Gentleman Réponse d'un nouveau converti, 118 η Revelation, Β 's attitude toward, 74 Revocation of Edict of Nantes, 39 Richelieu, 5 Revert, abbé du, writes life of Bayle, 314, 320 Rights of the Two Sovereigns, of Jurieu, 110 Robinet, 250 Rocoles, of Geneva, replies to Maimbourg's History of Calvinism, 52 Roque, abbé de la, editor of Joui-nal des Sçavans, 96 Rotterdam, becomes home of Bayle, 14; popularity of, for French refugees, 35; recognition by Β in his learned review, 94 ; attractiveness to B, 105 ; authorities dismiss, 127 ; B ' s preference for, 128; in B ' s Dictionary, 136 Rou, Jean, replies to Maimbourg's History of Calvinism, 51

333

Sadducees, 32, 159, 216; Bekker accused of being, 126 St. Athanasius, quoted, 79 St. Bartholomew, massacre of, 44, 53, 80, 299 Saint-Evremond, friend of B, 147 Sallo, Denys de, begins Journal des Sçavans, 95, 106 Sarah, in B ' s Dictionary, 160, 16364, 171 Saul, in B ' s Dictionary, 157; Volt a i r e ' s tragedy, 168 Saumur, Protestant school at, 13 ; J u rieu at, 108 Scepticism, called Pyrrhonism, 201; unlikely to be prevalent, 202; of Zeno, 202; of B, 214, 218, 303; growth in France, 282-83 Science, Natural, interest of Β in, 101 ; revival in 17th century, 116; in B ' s Dictionary, 141 Sedan, Protestant Academy at, 12; closed by Louis XIV, 13 Selfishness, of college teachers, 178; of churchmen, 179; of women, 185 Servetus, controversy over execution of, 53, 65, 82, 84, 299 Shaftesbury, Lord, befriends B, 240; letter quoted, 244-45; influence of Β on, 257-59 Shrewbury, Duke of, friend of B, 155 Socinianism, founding, 65, 203; treatment in Holland, 66; Β would tolerate, 84; Locke's attitude toward, 90; J u r i e u ' s conception, 111; supposed dangers, 204-5, 109, 217 Sorcery, treatment of, by B, 225-31 Sovereignty, not endangered by toleration, 82 ; of kings defended, 119 Spinoza, importance of his famous Tractate, 6-7; attack of intolérants, 67; a moral man, 180; reduced atheism to a system, 216; B ' s criticism of, 217; not so influential as B, 239, 291; inferior to B, 289; in Encyclopédie, 302

334

INDEX

Stephen, Sir Leslie, quoted, 224, 253 Sunderland, Lord, 240 Superstition, cometary, see Comets; regarding lucky days and numbers, 22 ; as to names, 22 ; maintained by priests, 27; attacked by Bekker, 126; B ' s treatment of sorcery, 22531 ; not prevalent in Holland, 229 Tacitus, criticized by B, 153 Taylor, Jeremy, Liberty of Prophesying, 70 Tertullian, apology of, 62 ; example of odium theologicum, 196 Thomasiue, Christian, influence of B, 266; importance, 268 Tindal, Matthew, English Deist, 25Θ Toland, John, English Deist, 255 56 Toleration, dangers to Jurieu, 52 ; in Holland, 35, 65; in Amsterdam, 67; plea of Henri Basnage for, 68; rise in England, 70 ; B 's arguments for, 75-88; article in Encyclopédie, 88, 306; English Act of (1689), 90 ; defended by Β in Supplement to Philosophical Commentary, 113 ; of Socinians, not dangerous, 205; attitude of Frederick the Great, 273; Voltaire's enthusiasm, 294. See also, Intolerance Toulouse, Β attended academy in, 8 ; Β not eulogized at, 285 Traneubstantiation, B ' s difficulties with, 9; treated in the General Criticism, 48; Voltaire on, 294 Trévoux, publishing activity, 249-50 Turks, see Mohammedans Vanini, burned for atheism, 32 Visé, de, editor of Mercure Galant, 96 Varillas, in B ' s Dictionary, 144, 153 Vaudois, massacre of, 46, 80, 120 Vayer, see La Mothe le Vayer Vincent of Beauvais, Biblioteca Mundi, 130

Voltaire, influence of Β on, 3, 28595 ; quoted as to B 's work on comet, 34; judgment of Β as journalist, 106; attacks character of King David, 168, 275; at Colmar, 285 ; contributor to Encyclopédie, 297 Walloon (French Calvinist) Church, in Rotterdam, 35; in Holland, torn by strife, 109; consistory of, refuses to condemn B, 125; later criticizes Β regarding Dictionary, 14749 ; directs Β to reform article on David, 166-67; and obscenity in Dictionary, 187; and B ' s leniency for Catholics, 198; and B ' s treatment of atheism, 200 ; and Manicheism, 206 Walten, follower of Bekker, persecuted, 126-27, 175 War, condemnation of, 205 Warburton, William, his Divine Legation of Moses, quoted, 203, 261-62 William of Orange, Joshua of Protestantism, 117, 119 Witchcraft, decried in B ' s Dictionary, 175; examples, 226-27. See also Sorcery Wolf, J . C., attacks B ' s Manicheism, 234 Wolfenbüttel Fragments, 270 Women, Β 's low opinion of, 30, 183 ; examples of learned, 184 ; difficulty of curbing, 185 ; should not govern, 186 World Bewitched, The, of Bekker, 126 Xenophanes, in Dictionary, 209 Xenophanes, in Dictionary, 209 Zeno, the sceptic, 202 Zoelen, van, friend of Β at Sedan, 14 Zoroaster, 213-14, 293

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

PRESS

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY N E W YORK

FOREIGN AGENT OXFORD

UNIVERSITY

HUMPHREY

PRESS

MILFORD

AMEN HOUSE, LONDON, E . C .