part i. pp. 86, 87; and at p. 88, 'Judas matrem suam uxorem

duxerat, et quòd patrem suum occiderat.'

[501] This took place in the year 798. _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 293. The historian thus concludes his relation: 'Et statutum est nunc quòd numquam extunc manus Papæ ab offerentibus deoscularetur, sed pes. Cùm ante fuerat consuetudo quòd manus, non pes, deoscularetur. In hujus miraculi memoriam reservatur adhuc manus abscissa in thesauro lateranensi, quam dominus custodit incorruptam ad laudem matris suæ.'

[502] '... Ita ut Nero se puero gravidum existimaret.... Tandem dolore nimio vexatus, medicis ait: Accelerate tempus partus, quia languore vix anhelitum habeo respirandi. Tunc ipsum ad vomitum impotionaverunt, et ranam visu terribilem, humoribus infectam, et sanguine edidit cruentatam.... Unde et pars illa civitatis, ut aliqui dicunt, ubi rana latuerat, Lateranum, à latente rana, nomen accepit.' _Matthæi Westmonast._ part i. p. 98. Compare the account given by Roger of Hoveden, of a woman who vomited two toads. _Script. post Bedam_, p. 457 rev. In the Middle Ages there were many superstitions respecting these animals, and they appear to have been used by heralds as marks of degradation. See _Lankester's Memorials of Ray_, p. 197.

It would be easy to fill volumes with similar notions, all of which were devoutly believed in those ages of darkness, or, as they have been well called, Ages of Faith. Those, indeed, were golden days for the ecclesiastical profession, since the credulity of men had reached a height which seemed to ensure to the clergy a long and universal dominion. How the prospects of the church were subsequently darkened, and how the human reason began to rebel, will be related in another part of this Introduction, where I shall endeavour to trace the rise of that secular and sceptical spirit to which European civilization owes its origin. But, before closing the present chapter, it may be well to give a few more illustrations of the opinions held in the Middle Ages; and, for this purpose, I will select the two historical accounts, which, of all others, were the most popular, exercised most influence, and were most universally believed.

The histories to which I refer, are those of Arthur and Charlemagne; both of which bear the names of dignitaries of the church, and were received with the respect due to their illustrious authors. That concerning Charlemagne is called the Chronicle of Turpin, and purports to be written by Turpin, archbishop of Rheims, a friend of the emperor and his companion in war.[503] From some passages it contains, there is reason to think that it was really composed at the beginning of the twelfth century;[504] but, in the Middle Ages, men were not nice in these matters, and no one was likely to dispute its authenticity. Indeed, the name of an archbishop of Rheims was sufficient recommendation; and we find accordingly, that in the year 1122 it received the formal approbation of the pope;[505] and that Vincent de Beauvais, one of the most celebrated writers in the thirteenth century, and tutor to the sons of Louis IX., mentions it as a work of value, and as being the principal authority for the reign of Charlemagne.[506]

[503] '... Ego Turpinus in valle Caroli loco præfato, astante rege,' &c. _De Vita Caroli Magni_, p. 74, edit. Ciampi.

[504] Turner (_History of England_, vol. vii. pp. 250-268) has attempted to prove that it was written by Calixtus II.; but his arguments, though ingenious and learned, are not decisive. Warton (_Hist. Eng. Poetry_, vol. i. p. 128) says it was composed about 1110.

[505] The pope 'statuit historiam Sancti Caroli descriptam a beato Turpino Remensi Archiepiscopo esse authenticam.' _Note in Turner_, vol. vii. p. 250.

[506] In his famous Speculum, 'il recommande spécialement les études historiques, dont il paraît que la plupart de ses contemporains méconnaissaient l'utilité; mais lorsqu'il indique les sources où il puisera ce genre d'instruction, c'est Turpin qu'il désigne comme le principal historien de Charlemagne.' _Histoire Littéraire de la France_, vol. xviii. p. 474, Paris, 1835, 4to; see also p. 517; and on its influence in Spain, see _Ticknor's History of Spanish Literature_, vol. i. pp. 222, 223.

A book thus generally read, and sanctioned by such competent judges, must be a tolerable standard for testing the knowledge and opinions of those times. On this account, a short notice of it will be useful for our present purpose, as it will enable us to understand the extreme slowness with which history has improved, and the almost imperceptible steps by which it advanced, until fresh life was breathed into it by the great thinkers of the eighteenth century.

In the Chronicle of Turpin, we are informed that the invasion of Spain by Charlemagne took place in consequence of the direct instigation of St. James, the brother of St. John.[507] The apostle, being the cause of the attack, adopted measures to secure its success. When Charlemagne besieged Pamplona, that city made an obstinate resistance; but as soon as prayers were offered up by the invaders, the walls suddenly fell to the ground.[508] After this, the emperor rapidly overran the whole country, almost annihilated the Mohammedans, and built innumerable churches.[509] But, the resources of Satan are inexhaustible. On the side of the enemy, a giant now appeared, whose name was Fenacute, and who was descended from Goliath of old.[510] This Fenacute was the most formidable opponent the Christians had yet encountered. His strength was equal to that of forty men;[511] his face measured one cubit; his arms and legs four cubits; his total height was twenty cubits. Against him Charlemagne sent the most eminent warriors; but they were easily discomfited by the giant; of whose prodigious force some idea may be formed from the fact, that the length even of his fingers was three palms.[512] The Christians were filled with consternation. In vain did more than twenty chosen men advance against the giant; not one returned from the field; Fenacute took them all under his arms, and carried them off into captivity.[513] At length the celebrated Orlando came forward, and challenged him to mortal combat. An obstinate fight ensued; and the Christian, not meeting with the success he expected, engaged his adversary in a theological discussion.[514] Here the pagan was easily defeated; and Orlando, warmed by the controversy, pressed on his enemy, smote the giant with his sword, and dealt him a fatal wound. After this, the last hope of the Mohammedans was extinct; the Christian arms had finally triumphed, and Charlemagne divided Spain among those gallant followers who had aided him in effecting its conquest.[515]

[507] _Caroli Magni Historia_, edit. Ciampi, pp. 3-5.

[508] '... Muri collapsi funditus corruerunt.' _De Vita Caroli_, p. 5. On this, Ciampi, in his notes on Turpin, gravely says (pp. 94, 95): 'Questo fatto della presa di Pamplona è reso maraviglioso per la subitanea caduta delle mura, a somiglianza delle mura di Gerico.' This reminds me of a circumstance mentioned by Monconys, who, on visiting Oxford in 1663, was shown a horn which was preserved in that ancient city, because it was said to be made in the same way as that by which the walls of Jericho were blown down: 'Les Juifs tiennent que leurs ancêtres se servirent de pareilles pour abbattre les murailles de Jérico.' _Voyages de Monconys_, vol. iii. p. 95, edit. Paris, 1695.

[509] _De Vita Caroli_, cap. v. pp. 11, 12; is headed 'De ecclesiis quas Carolus fecit.'

[510] 'Gigas nomine Fenacutus, qui fuit de genere Goliat.' _De Vita Caroli_, p. 39.

[511] 'Vim xl. fortium possidebat.' p. 39.

[512] 'Erat enim statura ejus quasi cubitis xx., facies erat longa quasi unius cubiti, et nasus illius unius palmi mensurati, et brachia et crura ejus quatuor cubitorum erant, et digiti ejus tribus palmis,' p. 40.

[513] _De Vita Caroli_, p. 40.

[514] Ibid. pp. 43-47.

[515] _De Vita Caroli_, p. 52. On the twelve peers of Charlemagne, in connexion with Turpin, see _Sismondi_, _Hist. des Français_, vol. v. pp. 246, 537, 538, vol. vi. p. 534.

On the history of Arthur, the Middle Ages possessed information equally authentic. Different accounts had been circulated respecting this celebrated king;[516] but their comparative value was still unsettled, when, early in the twelfth century, the subject attracted the attention of Geoffrey, the well-known Archdeacon of Monmouth. This eminent man, in A.D. 1147, published the result of his inquiries, in a work which he called _History of the Britons_.[517] In this book, he takes a comprehensive view of the whole question; and not only relates the life of Arthur, but also traces the circumstances which prepared the way for the appearance of that great conqueror. In regard to the actions of Arthur, the historian was singularly fortunate, inasmuch as the materials necessary for that part of his subject were collected by Walter Archdeacon of Oxford, who was a friend of Geoffrey, and who, like him, took great interest in the study of history.[518] The work is, therefore, the joint composition of the two archdeacons; and is entitled to respect, not only on this account, but also because it was one of the most popular of all the productions of the Middle Ages.

[516] The Welsh, however, accused Gildas of having thrown his history 'into the sea.' _Palgrave's Anglo-Saxon Commonwealth_, vol. i. p. 453. The industrious Sharon Turner (_Hist. of England_, vol. i. pp. 282-295) has collected a great deal of evidence respecting Arthur; of whose existence he, of course, entertains no doubt. Indeed, at p. 292, he gives us an account of the discovery, in the twelfth century, of Arthur's body!

[517] In _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. vii. pp. 269, 270, it is said to have appeared in 1128; but Mr. Wright (_Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 144) seems to have proved that the real date is 1147.

[518] Geoffrey says, 'A Gualtero Oxinefordensi in multis historiis peritissimo viro audivit' (_i.e. ille_ Geoffrey) 'vili licet stylo, breviter tamen propalabit, quæ pr[oe]lia inclytus ille rex post victoriam istam, in Britanniam reversus, cum nepote suo commiserit.' _Galfredi Monumetensis Historia Britonum_, lib. xi. sec. i. p. 200. And in the dedication to the Earl of Gloucester, p. 1, he says, 'Walterus Oxinefordensis archidiaconus, vir in oratoria arte atque in exoticis historiis eruditus.' Compare _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. p. 248.

The earlier part of this great history is occupied with the result of those researches which the Archdeacon of Monmouth had made into the state of Britain before the accession of Arthur. With this we are not so much concerned; though it may be mentioned, that the archdeacon ascertained that, after the capture of Troy, Ascanius fled from the city, and begat a son, who became father to Brutus.[519] In those days, England was peopled by giants, all of whom were slain by Brutus; who, having extirpated the entire race, built London, settled the affairs of the country, and called it, after himself, by the name of Britain.[520] The archdeacon proceeds to relate the actions of a long line of kings who succeeded Brutus, most of whom were remarkable for their abilities, and some were famous for the prodigies which occurred in their time. Thus, during the government of Rivallo, it rained blood for three consecutive days;[521] and when Morvidus was on the throne, the coasts were infested by a horrid sea-monster, which, having devoured innumerable persons, at length swallowed the king himself.[522]

[519] _Galfredi Historia Britonum_, pp. 3, 4.

[520] 'Erat tunc nomen insulæ Albion, quæ a nemine, exceptis paucis gigantibus, inhabitabatur.... Denique Brutus de nomine suo insulam Britanniam, sociosque suos Britones appellat.' _Galf. Hist. Britonum_, p. 20.

[521] 'In tempore ejus tribus diebus cecidit pluvia sanguinea, et muscarum affluentia; quibus homines moriebantur.' _Hist. Brit._ p. 36.

[522] 'Advenerat namque ex partibus Hibernici maris inauditæ feritatis bellua, quæ incolas maritimos sine intermissione devorabat. Cumque fama aures ejus attigisset, accossit ipse ad illam, et solus cum sola congressus est. At cum omnia tela sua in illam in vanum consumpsisset, acceleravit monstrum illud, et apertis faucibus ipsum velut pisciculum devoravit.' _Hist. Brit._ p. 51.

These and similar matters are related by the Archdeacon of Monmouth as the fruit of his own inquiries; but in the subsequent account of Arthur, he was aided by his friend the Archdeacon of Oxford. The two archdeacons inform their readers, that King Arthur owed his existence to a magical contrivance of Merlin, the celebrated wizard; the particulars of which they relate with a minuteness which, considering the sacred character of the historians, is rather remarkable.[523] The subsequent actions of Arthur did not belie his supernatural origin. His might nothing was able to withstand. He slew an immense number of Saxons; he overran Norway, invaded Gaul, fixed his court at Paris, and made preparations to effect the conquest of all Europe.[524] He engaged two giants in single combat, and killed them both. One of these giants, who inhabited the Mount of St. Michael, was the terror of the whole country, and destroyed all the soldiers sent against him, except those he took prisoners, in order to eat them while they were yet alive.[525] But he fell a victim to the prowess of Arthur; as also did another giant, named Ritho, who was, if possible, still more formidable. For Ritho, not content with warring on men of the meaner sort, actually clothed himself in furs which were entirely made of the beards of the kings he had killed.[526]

[523] The particulars of the intrigue are in _Galf. Hist. Brit._ pp. 151, 152. For information respecting Merlin, see also _Matthæi Westmonast. Flores Historiarum_, part i. pp. 161, 162; and _Naudé_, _Apologie pour les Grands Hommes_, pp. 308, 309, 318, 319, edit. Amsterdam, 1712.

[524] _Hist. Britonum_, pp. 167-170; a brilliant chapter.

[525] 'Sed et plures capiebat quos semivivos devorabat.' _Hist. Brit._ p. 181.

[526] 'Hic namque ex barbis regum quos peremerat, fecerat sibi pelles, et mandaverat Arturo ut barbam suam diligenter excoriaret, atque excoriatam sibi dirigeret: ut quemadmodum ipse ceteris præerat regibus, ita quoque in honorem ejus ceteris barbis ipsam superponeret.' _Galf. Hist. Brit._ p. 184.

Such were the statements which, under the name of history, were laid before the world in the twelfth century; and that, too, not by obscure writers, but by high dignitaries of the church. Nor was anything wanting by which the success of the work might be ensured. Its vouchers were the Archdeacon of Monmouth, and the Archdeacon of Oxford; it was dedicated to Robert Earl of Gloucester, the son of Henry I.; and it was considered so important a contribution to the national literature, that its principal author was raised to the bishopric of Asaph,--a preferment which he is said to owe to his success in investigating the annals of English history.[527] A book thus stamped with every possible mark of approbation, is surely no bad measure of the age in which it was admired. Indeed, the feeling was so universal, that, during several centuries, there are not more than two or three instances of any critic suspecting its accuracy.[528] A Latin abridgment of it was published by the well-known historian, Alfred of Beverley;[529] and, in order that it might be more generally known, it was translated into English by Layamon,[530] and into Anglo-Norman, first by Gaimar, and afterwards by Wace;[531] zealous men, who were anxious that the important truths it contained should be diffused as widely as circumstances would allow.

[527] 'It was partly, perhaps, the reputation of this book, which procured its author the bishopric of St. Asaph.' _Life of Geoffrey of Monmouth_, in _Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 144, 8vo, 1846. According to the Welsh writers, he was Bishop of Llandaff. See _Stephens's Literature of the Kymry_, 8vo, 1849, p. 323.

[528] Mr. Wright (_Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 146) says: 'Within a century after its first publication, it was generally adopted by writers on English history; and during several centuries, only one or two rare instances occur of persons who ventured to speak against its veracity.' And Sir Henry Ellis says of Polydore Vergil, who wrote early in the sixteenth century, 'For the repudiation of Geoffrey of Monmouth's history, Polydore Vergil was considered almost as a man deprived of reason. Such were the prejudices of the time.' _Polydore Vergil's English Hist._ vol. i. p. x. edit. Ellis, 1846, 4to. See also, on its popularity, _Lappenberg's Hist. of the Anglo-Saxon Kings_, vol. i. p. 102. In the seventeenth century, which was the first sceptical century in Europe, men began to open their eyes on these matters; and Boyle, for example, classes together 'the fabulous labours of Hercules, and exploits of Arthur of Britain.' _Boyle's Works_, vol. iv. p. 425.

[529] _Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. p. 156; _Turner's Hist. of England_, vol. vii. p. 282.

[530] According to Mr. Wright (_Biog. Brit._ vol. ii. p. 439), it was translated through the medium of Wace. But it would be more correct to say, that Layamon made the absurdities of Geoffrey the basis of his work, rather than translated them; for he amplifies 15,000 lines of Wace's _Brut_ into 32,000 of his own jargon. See _Sir F. Madden's Preface to Layamon's Brut_, 8vo, 1847, vol. i. p. xiii. I cannot refrain from bearing testimony to the great philological value of this work of Layamon's, by the publication of which its accomplished editor has made an important contribution towards the study of the history of the English language. So far, however, as Layamon is concerned, we can only contemplate with wonder an age of which he was considered an ornament.

[531] _Wright's Biog. Brit. Lit._ vol. ii. pp. 151, 207; _Hallam's Literature of Europe_, vol. i. p. 35.

It will hardly be necessary that I should adduce further evidence of the way in which history was written during the Middle Ages; for the preceding specimens have not been taken at random, but have been selected from the ablest and most celebrated authors; and as such present a very favourable type of the knowledge and judgment of Europe in those days. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, there appeared, for the first time, faint signs of an approaching change;[532] but this improvement was not very marked until late in the sixteenth century, or even early in the seventeenth. The principal steps of this interesting movement will be traced in another part of the Introduction, when I shall show, that although in the seventeenth century the progress was unmistakable, there was no attempt to take a comprehensive view of history until nearly the middle of the eighteenth century; when the subject was studied, first by the great French thinkers, then by one or two of the Scotch, and, some years later, by the Germans. This reformation of history was connected, as I shall point out, with other intellectual changes, which corresponded to it, and which affected the social relations of all the principal countries of Europe. But, without anticipating what will be found in another part of this volume, it is sufficient to say, that not only was no history written before the end of the sixteenth century, but that the state of society was such as to make it impossible for one to be written. The knowledge of Europe was not yet ripe enough to enable it to be successfully applied to the study of past events. For we are not to suppose that the deficiencies of the early historians were caused by a lack of natural abilities. The average intellect of men is probably always the same; but the pressure exercised on them by society is constantly varying. It was, therefore, the general condition of society, which, in former days, compelled even the ablest writers to believe the most childish absurdities. Until that condition was altered, the existence of history was impossible, because it was impossible to find any one who knew what was most important to relate, what to reject, and what to believe.

[532] Of which Froissart is the earliest instance; since he is the first who took a secular view of affairs, all the preceding historians being essentially theological. In Spain, too, we find, late in the fourteenth century, a political spirit beginning to appear among historians. See the remarks on Ayala, in _Ticknor's Hist. of Spanish Lit._ vol. i. pp. 165, 166; where, however, Mr. Ticknor represents Froissart as more unworldly than he really was.

The consequence was, that even when history was studied by men of such eminent abilities as Macchiavelli and Bodin, they could turn it to no better account than to use it as a vehicle for political speculations; and in none of their works do we find the least attempt to rise to generalizations large enough to include all the social phenomena. The same remark applies to Comines, who, though inferior to Macchiavelli and Bodin, was an observer of no ordinary acuteness, and certainly displays a rare sagacity in his estimation of particular characters. But this was due to his own intellect; while the age in which he lived made him superstitious, and, for the larger purposes of history, miserably shortsighted. His shortsightedness is strikingly shown in his utter ignorance of that great intellectual movement, which, in his own time, was rapidly overthrowing the feudal institutions of the Middle Ages; but to which he never once alludes, reserving his attention for those trivial political intrigues in the relation of which he believed history to consist.[533] As to his superstition, it would be idle to give many instances of that; since no man could live in the fifteenth century without having his mind enfeebled by the universal credulity. It may, however, be observed, that though he was personally acquainted with statesmen and diplomatists, and had, therefore, the fullest opportunity of seeing how enterprises of the fairest promise are constantly ruined, merely by the incapacity of those who undertake them, he, on all important occasions, ascribes such failure, not to the real cause, but to the immediate interference of the Deity. So marked, and so irresistible, was the tendency of the fifteenth century, that this eminent politician, a man of the world, and well skilled in the arts of life, deliberately asserts that battles are lost, not because the army is ill supplied, nor because the campaign is ill conceived, nor because the general is incompetent; but because the people or their prince are wicked, and Providence seeks to punish them. For, says Comines, war is a great mystery; and being used by God as the means of accomplishing his wishes, He gives victory, sometimes to one side, sometimes to the other.[534] Hence, too, disturbances occur in the state, solely by divine disposition; and they never would happen, except that princes or kingdoms, having become prosperous, forget the source from which their prosperity proceeded.[535]

[533] On this, Arnold says, truly enough, 'Comines's Memoirs are striking from their perfect unconsciousness: the knell of the Middle Ages had been already sounded, yet Comines has no other notions than such as they had tended to foster; he describes their events, their characters, their relations, as if they were to continue for centuries.' _Arnold's Lectures on Modern History_, p. 118. To this I may add, that whenever Comines has occasion to mention the lower classes, which is very rarely the case, he speaks of them with great contempt. See two striking instances in _Mémoires de Philippe de Comines_, vol. ii. pp. 277, 287, edit. Paris, 1826.

[534] He says, that a field of battle is 'un des accomplissemens des [oe]uvres que Dieu a commencées aucunes fois par petites mouvetez et occasions, et en donnant la victoire aucunes fois à l'un, et aucunes fois à l'autre: et est cecy mystère si grand, que les royaumes et grandes seigneuries en prennent aucunes fois fins et désolations, et les autres accroissement, et commencement de régner.' _Mém. de Comines_, vol. i. pp. 361, 362. Respecting the wanton invasion of Italy, he says, that the expedition might have been easily ruined if the enemy had thought of poisoning the wells or the food: 'mais ils n'y eussent point failly, s'ils y eussent voulu essayer; mais il est de croire que nostre sauveur et rédempteur Jésus-Christ leur ostoit leur vouloir.' vol. iii. p. 154. So, he adds, p. 155, 'pour conclure l'article, semble que nostre seigneur Jésus-Christ ait voulu que toute la gloire du voyage ait esté attribuée à luy.' Compare the _Institutes of Timour_, p. 7; an instructive combination of superstition and ferocity.

[535] 'Mais mon advis est que cela ne se fait que par disposition divine; car quand les princes ou royaumes out esté en grande prospérité ou richesses, et ils ont mesconnoissance dont procède telle grâce, Dieu leur dresse un ennemi ou ennemie, dont nul ne se douteroit, comme vous pouvez voir par les rois nommez en la Bible, et par ce que puis peu d'années en avez veu en cette Angleterre, et en cette maison de Bourgogne et autres lieux que avez veu et voyez tous les jours.' _Mém. de Comines_, vol. i. pp. 388, 389. See also his remarks on the Duke of Burgundy, vol. ii. p. 179; and in particular, his extraordinary digression, livre v. chap. xviii. vol. ii. pp. 290-298.

Such attempts as these, to make politics a mere branch of theology,[536] are characteristic of the time; and they are the more interesting, as the work of a man of great ability, and of one, too, who had grown old in the experience of public life. When views of this sort were advocated, not by a monk in his cloister, but by a distinguished statesman, well versed in public affairs, we may easily imagine what was the average intellectual condition of those who were every way his inferiors. It is but too evident, that from them nothing could be expected; and that many steps had yet to be taken, before Europe could emerge from the superstition in which it was sunk, and break through those grievous impediments which hindered its future progress.

[536] Dr. Lingard (_Hist. of England_, vol. i. p. 357) says, 'From the doctrine of a superintending providence, the piety of our ancestors had drawn a rash but very convenient inference, that success is an indication of the Divine will, and that, of course, to resist a victorious competitor, is to resist the judgment of heaven:' see also p. 114. The last vestige of this once universal opinion is the expression, which is gradually falling into disuse, of 'appealing to the God of Battles.'

But, though much remained to be done, there can be no doubt that the movement onward was uninterrupted, and that, even while Comines was writing, there were unequivocal symptoms of a great and decisive change. Still, they were only indications of what was approaching; and about a hundred years elapsed, after his death, before the progress was apparent in the whole of its results. For, though the Protestant Reformation was a consequence of this progress, it was for some time unfavourable to it, by encouraging the ablest men in the discussion of questions inaccessible to human reason, and thus diverting them from subjects in which their efforts would have been available for the general purposes of civilization. Hence we find, that little was really accomplished until the end of the sixteenth century, when, as we shall see in the next two chapters, the theological fervour began to subside in England and France, and the way was prepared for that purely secular philosophy, of which Bacon and Descartes were the exponents, but by no means the creators.[537] This epoch belongs to the seventeenth century, and from it we may date the intellectual regeneration of Europe; just as from the eighteenth century we may date its social regeneration. But during the greater part of the sixteenth century, the credulity was still universal, since it affected not merely the lowest and most ignorant classes, but even those who were best educated. Of this innumerable proofs might be given; though, for the sake of brevity, I will confine myself to two instances, which are particularly striking, from the circumstances attending them, and from the influence they exercised over men who might be supposed little liable to similar delusions.

[537] See _Guizot_, _Civilisation en Europe_, p. 166; the best passage in that able, but rather unequal work: 'Parcourez l'histoire du v^e au xvi^e siècle; c'est la théologie qui possède et dirige l'esprit humain; toutes les opinions sont empreintes de théologie; les questions philosophiques, politiques, historiques, sont toujours considérées sous un point de vue théologique. L'église est tellement souveraine dans l'ordre intellectuel, que même les sciences mathématiques et physiques sont tenues de se soumettre à ses doctrines. L'esprit théologique est en quelque sort le sang qui a coulé dans les veines du monde européen jusqu'à Bacon et Descartes. Pour la première fois, Bacon en Angleterre, et Descartes en France, ont jeté l'intelligence hors des voies de la théologie.' A noble passage, and perfectly true: but what would have been the effect produced by Bacon and Descartes, if, instead of living in the seventeenth century, they had lived in the seventh? Would their philosophy have been equally secular; or, being equally secular, would it have been equally successful?

At the end of the fifteenth, and early in the sixteenth century, St[oe]ffler, the celebrated astronomer, was professor of mathematics at Tübingen. This eminent man rendered great services to astronomy, and was one of the first who pointed out the way of remedying the errors in the Julian calendar, according to which time was then computed.[538] But neither his abilities nor his knowledge could protect him against the spirit of his age. In 1524, he published the result of some abstruse calculations, in which he had been long engaged, and by which he had ascertained the remarkable fact, that in that same year the world would again be destroyed by a deluge. This announcement, made by a man of such eminence, and made, too, with the utmost confidence, caused a lively and universal alarm.[539] News of the approaching event was rapidly circulated, and Europe was filled with consternation. To avoid the first shock, those who had houses by the sea, or on rivers, abandoned them;[540] while others, perceiving that such measures could only be temporary, adopted more active precautions. It was suggested that, as a preliminary step, the Emperor Charles V. should appoint inspectors to survey the country, and mark those places which, being least exposed to the coming flood, would be most likely to afford a shelter. That this should be done, was the wish of the imperial general, who was then stationed at Florence, and by whose desire a work was written recommending it.[541] But the minds of men were too distracted for so deliberate a plan; and besides, as the height of the flood was uncertain, it was impossible to say whether it would not reach the top of the most elevated mountains. In the midst of these and similar schemes, the fatal day drew near, and nothing had yet been contrived on a scale large enough to meet the evil. To enumerate the different proposals which were made and rejected, would fill a long chapter. One proposal is, however, worth noticing, because it was carried into effect with great zeal, and is, moreover, very characteristic of the age. An ecclesiastic of the name of Auriol, who was then professor of canon law at the University of Toulouse, revolved in his own mind various expedients by which this universal disaster might be mitigated. At length it occurred to him that it was practicable to imitate the course which, on a similar emergency, Noah had adopted with eminent success. Scarcely was the idea conceived, when it was put into execution. The inhabitants of Toulouse lent their aid; and an ark was built, in the hope that some part, at least, of the human species might be preserved, to continue their race, and repeople the earth, after the waters should have subsided, and the land again become dry.[542]

[538] Compare _Biog. Univ._ vol. xliii. p. 577, with _Montucla_, _Hist. des Mathématiques_, vol. i. p. 678.

[539] Naudé mentions, that in France it drove many persons almost mad: 'In Gallia parum afuit quin ad insaniam homines non paucos periculi metu (diluvium) adegerit.' _Bayle_, in voce _Stofflerus_, note B.

[540] 'Nam Petrus Cirvellus Hispanorum omnium sui temporis doctissimus, cum theologiæ, in almo Complutensi gymnasio, lectoris munere fungeretur, et vero multos, ut ipsemet inquit, fluviis vel mari finitimos populos, jam stupido metu perculsos, domicilia ac sedes mutare vidisset, ac prædia, supellectilem, bonaque omnia, contra justum valorem sub actione distrahere, ac alia loca vel altitudine, vel siccitate magis secura requirere, sui officii esse putavit, in publica illa consternatione, quam de nihilo excitare persuasum non habebat,' &c. _Bayle_, note B.

[541] Ibid.

[542] In addition to the account in Bayle, the reader may refer to _Biog. Univ._ vol. iii. p. 88, vol. xxxi. p. 283, vol. xliii. pp. 577, 578; _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. iii. p. 251; _Delambre_, _Hist. de l'Astronomie du Moyen Age_, Paris, 1819, 4to, p. 376; _Montucla_, _Hist. des Mathématiques_, vol. i. p. 622; _Dict. Philosoph._, article _Astrologie_, in _[OE]uvres de Voltaire_, vol. xxxvii. pp. 148, 149.

About seventy years after this alarm had passed away, there happened another circumstance, which for a time afforded occupation to the most celebrated men in one of the principal countries of Europe. At the end of the sixteenth century, terrible excitement was caused by a report that a golden tooth had appeared in the jaw of a child born in Silesia. The rumour, on being investigated, turned out to be too true. It became impossible to conceal it from the public; and the miracle was soon known all over Germany, where, being looked on as a mysterious omen, universal anxiety was felt as to what this new thing might mean. Its real import was first unfolded by Dr. Horst. In 1595, this eminent physician published the result of his researches, by which it appears that, at the birth of the child, the sun was in conjunction with Saturn, at the sign Aries. The event, therefore, though supernatural, was by no means alarming. The golden tooth was the precursor of a golden age, in which the emperor would drive the Turks from Christendom, and lay the foundations of an empire that would last for thousands of years. And this, says Horst, is clearly alluded to by Daniel, in his well-known second chapter, where the prophet speaks of a statue with a golden head.[543]

[543] This history of the golden tooth is partly related by De Thou: see his _Hist. Univ._ vol. xi. pp. 634, 635. And on the controversy to which it gave rise, compare _Hist. des Oracles_, chap. iv., in _[OE]uvres de Fontenelle_, vol. ii. pp. 219, 220, ed. Paris, 1766; _Sprengel_, _Hist. de la Médecine_, vol. iii. pp. 247-249; _Biog. Univ._, vol. xx. p. 579.