Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 397


<html lang="en">
<!-- __ _ _ _ __| |_ (_)__ _____
/ _` | '_/ _| ' \| |\ V / -_)
\__,_|_| \__|_||_|_| \_/\___| -->
<title>Full text of "Diderot and the encyclopdists"</title>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0"/>
<script src="//archive.org/includes/jquery-1.10.2.min.js" type="text/jav
<script src="//archive.org/includes/analytics.js?v=ae2df49" type="text/javas
<script src="//archive.org/includes/bootstrap.min.js" type="text/javascript"
<script src="/includes/archive.js?v=ae2df49" type="text/javascript"></script
<link href="//archive.org/includes/archive.min.css?v=ae2df49" rel="styleshee
t" type="text/css"/>
<link rel="SHORTCUT ICON" href="https://archive.org/images/glogo.jpg"/>
<body class="navia ">
<a href="#maincontent" class="hidden-for-screen-readers">Skip to main conten
<!-- Wraps all page content -->
<div id="wrap">
<div id="nav-tophat" class="collapse">
<div class="row toprow web" style="max-width:1000px;margin:auto;">
<div class="col-xs-12">
<div class="wayback-txt">
Search the history of over 427 billion
pages on the I
<div class="roundbox7 wayback-main">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-sm-6" style="padding-left:0; padding-right:0;">
<a style="padding-bottom:0" href="https://archive.org/web/"><i
mg src="/images/WaybackLogoSmall.png"/></a>
<div class="col-sm-6" style="padding-top:13px;">
<form style="position:relative;" onsubmit="if(''==$('#nav-wb-u
rl').val()){$('#nav-wb-url').attr('placeholder', 'enter a web address')} else {d
<span class="iconochive-search"></span>
<input id="nav-wb-url" class="form-control input-sm roundbox
20" type="text" placeholder="http://www." name="url" onclick="$(this).css('paddi

<div class="row toprow fivecolumns texts">

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-4">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/texts"><span class="iconochiv
e-texts"></span> All Texts</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=mediatype:texts&sort
=-publicdate"><span class="iconochive-latest"></span> This Just In</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/smithsonian"
title="Smithsonian Libraries">Smithsonian Libraries</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/fedlink" title="FEDLINK (US)">FEDLINK
<a href="https://archive.org/details/genea
logy" title="Genealogy">Genealogy</a>
<a href="http
s://archive.org/details/lincolncollection" title="Lincoln Collection">Lincoln Co
<a href="https://archive.org/details/a
dditional_collections" title="Additional Collections">Additional Collections</a>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-2">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/texts"><img class=" clipW clipH" src="https://archive.
org/services/img/texts" style="height:180px"></a></div><a class="stealth boxy-la
bel" href="https://archive.org/details/texts">eBooks &amp; Texts</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-2">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/americana" ti
tle="American Libraries">American Libraries</a>
href="https://archive.org/details/toronto" title="Canadian Libraries">Canadian L
<a href="https://archive.org/details/u
niversallibrary" title="Universal Library">Universal Library</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/opensource" title="Community
Texts">Community Texts</a>
<a href="https://archive
.org/details/gutenberg" title="Project Gutenberg">Project Gutenberg</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/iacl" title="Children'
s Library">Children's Library</a>
<a href="https://
archive.org/details/biodiversity" title="Biodiversity Heritage Library">Biodiver
sity Heritage Library</a>

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-4">
<div class="widgets">
<a href="https://openlibrary.org"><img src="/images/widgetOL.png" class="img-res
ponsive" style="margin-bottom:15px"/><b>Open Library</b></a></center>

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7">
<div class="linx">
<h5 class="hidden-xs">&nbsp;</h5>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/presidentialm
useumandlibrary" title="Presidential Museum and Library, Malacaan Palace">Preside
ntial Museum and Library, Malacaan Palace</a>

<div class="row toprow fivecolumns movies">
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-4">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/movies"><span class="iconochi
ve-movies"></span> All Video</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=mediatype:movies&sor
t=-publicdate"><span class="iconochive-latest"></span> This Just In</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/prelinger" ti
tle="Prelinger Archives">Prelinger Archives</a>
href="https://archive.org/details/democracy_now_vid" title="Democracy Now!">Demo
cracy Now!</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details
/occupywallstreet" title="Occupy Wall Street">Occupy Wall Street</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/nsa" title="TV NSA Clip L
ibrary">TV NSA Clip Library</a>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-2">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/tv"><img class=" clipW clipH" src="https://archive.org
/services/img/tv" style="height:180px"></a></div><a class="stealth boxy-label" h
ref="https://archive.org/details/tv">TV News</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-2">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/animationandc
artoons" title="Animation &amp; Cartoons">Animation & Cartoons</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/artsandmusicvideos" title="
Arts &amp; Music">Arts & Music</a>
<a href="https:/
/archive.org/details/opensource_movies" title="Community Video">Community Video<
<a href="https://archive.org/details/computersa
ndtechvideos" title="Computers &amp; Technology">Computers & Technology</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/culturalandacademi

cfilms" title="Cultural &amp; Academic Films">Cultural & Academic Films</a>

<a href="https://archive.org/details/ephemera" title="E
phemeral Films">Ephemeral Films</a>
<a href="https:
//archive.org/details/moviesandfilms" title="Movies">Movies</a>

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-4">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/911"><img class=" clipW" src="https://archive.org/serv
ices/img/911" style="height:135px"></a></div><a class="stealth boxy-label" href=
"https://archive.org/details/911">Understanding 9/11</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7">
<div class="linx">
<h5 class="hidden-xs">&nbsp;</h5>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/newsandpublic
affairs" title="News &amp; Public Affairs">News & Public Affairs</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/spiritualityandreligion"
title="Spirituality &amp; Religion">Spirituality & Religion</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/sports" title="Sports Videos">
Sports Videos</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/deta
ils/television" title="Television">Television</a>
a href="https://archive.org/details/gamevideos" title="Videogame Videos">Videoga
me Videos</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/
vlogs" title="Vlogs">Vlogs</a>
<a href="https://arc
hive.org/details/youth_media" title="Youth Media">Youth Media</a>

<div class="row toprow fivecolumns audio">
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-4">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/audio"><span class="iconochiv
e-audio"></span> All Audio</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=mediatype:audio&sort
=-publicdate"><span class="iconochive-latest"></span> This Just In</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/GratefulDead"
title="Grateful Dead">Grateful Dead</a>
<a href="h
ttps://archive.org/details/netlabels" title="Netlabels">Netlabels</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/oldtimeradio" title="Old
Time Radio">Old Time Radio</a>
<a href="https://ar
chive.org/details/78rpm" title="78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings">78 RPMs and Cyl
inder Recordings</a>

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-2">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/etree"><img class=" clipW clipH" src="https://archive.
org/services/img/etree" style="height:180px"></a></div><a class="stealth boxy-la
bel" href="https://archive.org/details/etree">Live Music Archive</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-2">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/audio_bookspo
etry" title="Audio Books &amp; Poetry">Audio Books & Poetry</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/opensource_audio" title="Commu
nity Audio">Community Audio</a>
<a href="https://ar
chive.org/details/audio_tech" title="Computers &amp; Technology">Computers & Tec
<a href="https://archive.org/details/au
dio_music" title="Music, Arts &amp; Culture">Music, Arts & Culture</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/audio_news" title="News
&amp; Public Affairs">News & Public Affairs</a>
href="https://archive.org/details/audio_foreign" title="Non-English Audio">NonEnglish Audio</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/deta
ils/audio_podcast" title="Podcasts">Podcasts</a>

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-4">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/librivoxaudio"><img class=" clipW clipH" src="https://
archive.org/services/img/librivoxaudio" style="height:180px"></a></div><a class=
"stealth boxy-label" href="https://archive.org/details/librivoxaudio">Librivox F
ree Audiobook</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7">
<div class="linx">
<h5 class="hidden-xs">&nbsp;</h5>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/radioprograms
" title="Radio Programs">Radio Programs</a>
<a href
="https://archive.org/details/audio_religion" title="Spirituality &amp; Religion
">Spirituality & Religion</a>

<div class="row toprow fivecolumns software">

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-4">

<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/software"><span class="iconoc
hive-software"></span> All Software</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=mediatype:software&s
ort=-publicdate"><span class="iconochive-latest"></span> This Just In</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/tosec" title=
"Old School Emulation">Old School Emulation</a>
href="https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos_games" title="MS-DOS Gam
es">MS-DOS Games</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/d
etails/historicalsoftware" title="Historical Software">Historical Software</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/classicpcgames"
title="Classic PC Games">Classic PC Games</a>
<a h
ref="https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary" title="Software Library">Softw
are Library</a>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-2">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/internetarcade"><img class=" clipW" src="https://archi
ve.org/services/img/internetarcade" style="height:80px;position:relative;left:-5
0px"></a></div><a class="stealth boxy-label" href="https://archive.org/details/i
nternetarcade">Internet Arcade</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-2">
<div class="linx">

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-4">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/consolelivingroom"><img class=" clipW" src="https://ar
chive.org/services/img/consolelivingroom" style="height:127px"></a></div><a clas
s="stealth boxy-label" href="https://archive.org/details/consolelivingroom">Cons
ole Living Room</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7">
<div class="linx">
<h5 class="hidden-xs">&nbsp;</h5>


<div class="row toprow fivecolumns image">
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-4">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/image"><span class="iconochiv
e-image"></span> All Image</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/search.php?query=mediatype:image&sort
=-publicdate"><span class="iconochive-latest"></span> This Just In</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/flickrcommons
" title="Flickr Commons">Flickr Commons</a>
<a href
="https://archive.org/details/flickr-ows" title="Occupy Wall Street Flickr">Occu
py Wall Street Flickr</a>
<a href="https://archive.
org/details/coverartarchive" title="Cover Art">Cover Art</a>
<a href="https://archive.org/details/maps_usgs" title="USGS Maps">USGS
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-2">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/metropolitanmuseumofart-gallery"><img class=" clipW cl
ipH" src="https://archive.org/services/img/metropolitanmuseumofart-gallery" styl
e="height:180px"></a></div><a class="stealth boxy-label" href="https://archive.o
rg/details/metropolitanmuseumofart-gallery">Metropolitan Museum</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7 col-sm-push-2">
<div class="linx">
<a href="https://archive.org/details/nasa">NASA Im
<a href="https://archive.org/details/solar
systemcollection">Solar System Collection</a>
<a hr
ef="https://archive.org/details/amesresearchcenterimagelibrary">Ames Research Ce

<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-5 col-sm-pull-4">
<div class="widgets">
<center class="items_list"><div class="items_list_img"><a href="ht
tps://archive.org/details/brooklynmuseum"><img class=" clipW clipH" src="https:/
/archive.org/services/img/brooklynmuseum" style="height:180px"></a></div><a clas
s="stealth boxy-label" href="https://archive.org/details/brooklynmuseum">Brookly
n Museum</a></center>
<div class="col-sm-2 col-xs-7">
<div class="linx">

<h5 class="hidden-xs">&nbsp;</h5>


<div class="navbar navbar-inverse navbar-static-top" role="navigation">

<div id="nav-tophat-helper" class="hidden-xs"></div>
<ul class="nav navbar-nav">
<form id="nav-search-in" method="post" role="search" action="https://a
rchive.org/searchresults.php" target="_top">
<input placeholder="Universal Access to Knowledge" type="text" autof
ocus="autofocus" name="search" value=""/>
<input type="submit" value=""/>
<button id="nav-search-x" type="button" class="close ghost" aria-hid
den="true" title="cancel search" alt="cancel search">&times;</button>
<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-left">
<a title="Web" class="navia-link web" data-top-kind="web" href="ht
tps://archive.org/web/" data-toggle="tooltip" target="_top" data-placement="bott
om"><span class="iconochive-web"></span></a>
<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-left">
<a title="Texts" class="navia-link texts" data-top-kind="texts" hr
ef="https://archive.org/details/texts" data-toggle="tooltip" target="_top" dataplacement="bottom"><span class="iconochive-texts"></span></a>
<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-left">
<a title="Video" class="navia-link movies" data-top-kind="movies"
href="https://archive.org/details/movies" data-toggle="tooltip" target="_top" da
ta-placement="bottom"><span class="iconochive-movies"></span></a>
<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-left">
<a title="Audio" class="navia-link audio" data-top-kind="audio" hr
ef="https://archive.org/details/audio" data-toggle="tooltip" target="_top" dataplacement="bottom"><span class="iconochive-audio"></span></a>
<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-left">
<a title="Software" class="navia-link software" data-top-kind="sof
tware" href="https://archive.org/details/software" data-toggle="tooltip" target=
"_top" data-placement="bottom"><span class="iconochive-software"></span></a>
<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-left rightmost">
<a title="Image" class="navia-link image" data-top-kind="image" hr
ef="https://archive.org/details/image" data-toggle="tooltip" target="_top" dataplacement="bottom"><span class="iconochive-image"></span></a>
<li class="navbar-brand-li"><a class="navbar-brand" href="https://arch
ive.org/" target="_top"><span class="iconochive-logo"></span></a></li>
<li class="nav-hamburger dropdown dropdown-ia pull-right hidden-sm hid

den-md hidden-lg">
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="navbar-header">
<button type="button" class="navbar-toggle collapsed" data-toggl
e="collapse" data-target="#nav-hamburger-menu" aria-expanded="false">
<span class="sr-only">Toggle navigation</span>
<span class="icon-bar"></span>
<span class="icon-bar"></span>
<span class="icon-bar"></span>
<div class="navbar-collapse collapse" id="nav-hamburger-menu" ar
<ul class="nav navbar-nav">
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/about/">ABOUT
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/about/contact
<li><a target="_top" href="//blog.archive.org">BLOG</a></li>
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/projects">PRO
<!-- <li><a target="_top" href="#coming-soon">SERVICES</a></
li> -->
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/donate" class
="donate"><span class="iconochive-heart"></span>&nbsp;DONATE</a></li>
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/help">HELP</a
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/about/terms.p
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/about/jobs.ph
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/about/volunte
<li><a target="_top" href="https://archive.org/about/bios.ph
<!-- /.navbar-collapse -->

<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-right">

<a href="https://archive.org/account/login.php" style=
"padding-right:0" _target="top"><span class="iconochive-person"></span><span cla
ss="hidden-xs-span">Sign In</span></a>
<li class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-right">
<a href="https://archive.org/create" style="padding-left:0" _target=
"top" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom" title="Upload"><span class="
<li id="nav-search" class="dropdown dropdown-ia pull-right
leftmost"><a href="https://archive.org/search.php" title="Search" data-toggle="

tooltip" data-placement="bottom" onclick="return AJS.search(this)"><span class="

<script> AJS.nav_tophat_setup(); </script>

<!-- Begin page content -->

<div class="container container-ia">
<a name="maincontent" id="maincontent"></a>
Full text of "<a href="/details/diderotandencyc04morlgoog">Diderot and t
he encyclopdists</a>"
<h2 class="pull-right">
<small><a href="/details/diderotandencyc04morlgoog">See other formats</a
<br class="clearfix" clear="right"/>

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library s
helves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter th
e public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the
public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and know
ledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear
in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials an
d make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive,
so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on
automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by

individuals, and we request that you use these files for

personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to G
oogle's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a larg
e amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential f
or in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensurin
g that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States
, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country,
and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in G
oogle Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universal
ly accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audien
ces. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http: //books .google .com/I


. I







BY .




(/I// rights reserved,)




'T^HE present work closes a series of studies on the literary

preparation for the French Revolution. It differs from the
companion volumes on Voltaire and Rousseau, in being much more
fully descriptive. In the case of those two famous writers, every
educated reader knows more or less of their performances. Of
Diderot and his circle, such knowledge cannot be taken for
granted, and I have therefore thought it best to occupy a considerable space, which I hope that those who do me the honour
to read these pages will not find excessive, with what is little
more than transcript or analysis. Such a method will at least
enable the reader to see what those ideas really were, which
the social and economic condition of France on the eve of the
convulsion made so welcome to men. The shortcomings of
the encyclopaedic group are obvious enough. They have lately
been emphasized in the ingenious and one-sided exaggerations
of that brilliant man of letters, Mr. Taine. The social significance and the positive quality of much of their writing is more
easily missed, and this side of their work it has been one of
my principal objects, alike in the case of Voltaire, of Rousseau,
and of Diderot, to bring into the prominence that it deserves
in the history of opinion.



The edition of Diderot's Works to which the references are

made, is that in twenty volumes by the late Mr. Ass^zat and
Mr. Maurice Toumeux. The only other serious book on
Diderot with which I am acquainted is Rosenkranz's valuable
Diderot's Leben^ published in 1866, and abounding in full and
patient knowledge. Of the numerous criticisms on Diderot by
Raumer, Arndt, Hettner, Damiron, Bersot, and above all by
Mr. Carlyle, I need not make more particular mention.
May, 1878.


Since the following pages were printed, an American correspondent
writes to me with reference to the dialogue between Franklin and.
Raynal, mentioned on page 382 : " I have now before me Volume IV.
of the American Law Journal, printed at Philadelphia in the year
1813, and at page 458 find in full, 'The Speech of Miss Polly Baker,
delivered before a court of judicature in Connecticut^ where she was
prosecuted.' " Raynal, therefore, would have been right if instead of
Massachusetts he had said Connecticut, and either Franklin told
an untruth, or else Silas Deane.

September, 1878.


CHAPTER I. Preliminary.
The Church in the middle of the century i
New phase in the revolt 3
The Encyclopaedia, its symbol , . 4
End of the reaction against the Encyclopaedia ,...,.;,. 6
Diderot's position in the movement . . . ^ , . . . ^ 6

Birth and birthplace (1713) . , . ^ . . ^
His family 9
Men of letters in Paris ii
Diderot joins their company . . 12
His life in Paris : his friendly character 13
Stories of his good-nature 16
His tolerance for social reprobates 19
His literary struggles 20
Marriage (1743) 22
CHAPTER in. Early Writings.
Diderot's mismanagement of his own talents 24
Apart from this, a great talker rather than a great writer ... 26
A man of the Socratic type 28
Hack-work for the booksellers 29
The Philosophical Thoughts (1746) 30
Shaftesbury's influence 32
Scope of the Philosophical Thoughts 34

the Sufficiency of Natural Religion (1747) 40

^'^^xplanation of the attraction of Natural Religion 41
Police supervision over men of letters 43

Two pictures of the literary hack 44
Seizureof the Sceptic's Walk (1747) 46
Its drift 48
A volume of stories (1748) 50
Diderot's view of the fJEite and character of women 51
CHAPTER IV.- The New Philosophy.
Voltaire's account of Cheselden's operation 54
Diderot publishes the Letter on the Blind (1749) 55
Its significance 56
Condillac and Diderot 56
Account of the Letter on the Blind 57
"**The pith of it, an application of Relativity to the conception of God . 59
Saunderson of Cambridge 60
Argument assigned to him 61
Curious anticipation of a famous modem hypothesis . . . . 63
Voltaire's criticism 64
HEffect of Diderot's philosophic position on the system of the Church . 65
Not merely a dispute in metaphysics .67
Illustration of Diderot's practical originality 6S
Points of literary interest 69
'The Letter on Deaf Mutes (1 75 1) 70
Condillac's Statue 71
Diderot imprisoned at Vincennes (1749) 72
Rousseau's visit to him 75

Breach with Madame de Puisieux 76

Diderot released from captivity 77
Previous examples of the ncyclopa.'dic idea ' 78-0
True parentage of Diderot's Encyclopxxiia 8a f '^
Origin of the imdertaking 80 '"&gt;
Co-operation of D* Alembert : his history and character . . . . 82 i "y^
Diderot and D'Alembert on the function of literature . . . . 85.1'i
Presiding characteristic of the Encyclopoxiia 87 a'?
Its more eminent contributors 88 ' ^
The unsought volunteers 90 ?'^
Voltaire's share in it 93
Its compliance with reigning prejudice 95 ; "
- Its aim, not literature but life 96 Publication of first and second volumes (175 1-2) 97
Affair of De Prades 97 '
Diderot's vindication of him (1752) 99 '

Marks rupture between the Philosophers and the Jansenists . . loo
Royal decree suppressing first two volumes (1752) loi
Failure of the Jesuits to carry on the work . . .101
Four more volumes published loi
The seventh volume (1757) , 102
Arouses violent hostility 103
The storm made fiercer by Helv^tius's V Esprit 105
Proceedings against the Encyclopaedia 105
Their significance 106

They also mark singular reaction within the school of Illumination . 107
Retirement of D'Alembert 109
Diderot continues the work alone for seven years 1 1 1
His harassing mortifications 112
The Encyclopjedia at Versailles 1 14
Reproduction and imitations . , * 116
Diderot's payment , , . , 116
Transformation of a speculative into a social attack . . . IX7
Circumstances of practical opportuneness T18
Broad features of Encyclopaedic revolution 119
Positive spirit of the Encyclopjedia 121
Why we call it the organ of a political work 121
Articles on Agriculture 123
On the Gabelle and the Taille 123
On Privilege 124
On the Corvee 125
On the Militia 126
On Endowments, Fairs, and Industrial Guilds 126
On Game and the Chase 127
Enthusiasm for the details of industry 128
Meaning of the importance assigned to industry and science . . .129
Intellectual side of the change 130
^lAttitude of the Encyclopaedia to religion 131
Diderot's intention under this head . . . . . . .132
How far the scheme fulfilled his intention 133
The Preliminary Discourse 134
Recognition of the value of discussion 136
And of toleration 136

Their immense confusion 138

Constant insinuation of soimd doctrines 139
And of practical suggestions . . . 141
Diderot not always above literary trifling 141


^ '^ ? No taste for barren erudition .

i-^N' On Montaigne and Bayle
\.K V Occasional bursts of moralising
'^ Varying attitude as to theology
/ ^ The practical arts . . .
, ) Second-hand sources
/^ Inconsistencies . . .
vt "Treatment of metaphysics
^ \ On Spinosa ....
\i^ On Leibnitz . ^ . { \Ub

x") On Liberty .
)&gt; \ Astonishing self-contradiction
\ V Political articles .
\ 4 On the mechanism of government
&gt; ) Anticipation of Cobdenic ideas
&gt;*/ o Conclusion ....


CHAPTER VL Social Life {1759-70).

Diderot's relations with Madame Voland
His letters to her

His Regrets on my Old Dressing-gown

Domestic discomfort
His indomitable industry
Life at Grandval
Meditations on human existence
Interest in the casuistry of human feeling
Various sayings
A point in rhetoric
Holbach's impressions of England .
Two cases of conscience .........
A story of human wickedness
Method and Genius : an Apologue
Conversation ...........
Characteristic of the century
Diderot's inexhaustible friendliness
The Abbe Monnier
Mademoiselle Jodin
Diderot's money afiairs
Succour rendered by Catherine of Russia
French booksellers in the eighteenth century
Dialogue between Diderot and D'Alembert
English opinion on Diderot's circle ....... 200



In "what sense Diderot the greatest genius of the century . . , 203
Mark of his theory of the drama 203
^Diderot's influence on Lessing 204
His play, Tht Natural Son {iTSl) 206
Its quality illustrated 206
His sense of the importance of pantomime 20S
The dialogues appended to The Natural Son 210
His second play, The Father of the Family 210
) One radical error of his dramatic doctrine 213
Modest opinion of his own experiments 215
His admiration for Terence 215
Diderot translates Moore's Gamester 216
On Shakespeare 217
The Paradox on the Player . . , 218
Account of Garrick . 219
On the truth of the stage * 220
His condemnation of the French classic stage 221
The foundations of dramatic art 222
^ Diderot claims to have created a new kind of drama . . . .224
No Diderotian school , '225
Why the Encyclopedists could not replace the classic drama . . . 227
The great drama of the eighteenth century 227
The moo&lt;l that inspired this composition 228
History of the text 229
Various accounts of the design of Rameatfs Nephew . . . .230
Juvenal's Parasite 231
Lucian 232
Diderot's picture of his original 233

Not without imaginative strokes 235

More than a literary diversion 236
Sarcasms on Palissot 237
The musical controversy 238
CHAPTER IX. Other Dialogues.
(1) l^he Conversations of a Father with his Children .... 240
Remarks upon it.
(2) The Incottsisteney of Public Judgment on Private Actions . . . 244
(3) Supplement to Bougainville^ s Travels 248
Philosophical qualities of the discussion not satisfactory . . . 251
Nothing gained by his.criticism on marriage 252

CHAPTER X. Romance.
BierettioD ineviUble in dealing with Diderot 255
t Kicliardson'sinlluence in Europe 256
Diderot's Elogcuponhim 257
Koossean and Ridiankon 359
Didctolwtiles 7(l/;\&gt; a6o
Circunutancei of ils composition a6o
Itt ii '

swnie 263
Diderot inMiJacquts U Fataihle ...;.,., 26+
Ilshislury 264
Gottlic's criticism on it 264
Nalure-ofDidcrot's imitation of Richardson and Steme, . . . 266
No tnicertationin /(?/; /a/ff/"ft 266

lU iTrredeemed giossncss 267

Its lack of poetry and of flavour 267

The Saieiu 269
_ QnaliEiesof their criticism 269
Deep Ibundation of Diderot's critical quality .
' French ai

Dufrcsnoy, Dubos, Webb, Andre, Batteui

Travel] '

Diderot never it. Italy

Spirit of French art in his day
Greuie, Dldctol's favourite
Greuze's AecoreWt eU Villa^
Hogarth nould have displeased Diderot
Diderot's considetateness in criticism
Fragonard 280
Diderot adds literary charm to scientific criticism 2S1
His readiness for moral asides 28a
His suggestions of pictorial subjects 2g^
His improved versions 2S5
Illustration of his variety of approach 2S6
Diderot'sEssay-on Paintinj; 287
Goethe's commentary 2S7
Diffctcnceof type between Goethe and Diderot 289
T&gt;iderot*5 Essay on Beauty 290
Hisalilicipationof Lessing 293
Husic 293


CHAPTER XII. St. Petersburg and the Hague.

Diderot's resolution to visit the Empress of Russia . . . 295
The Princess Dashkow 295
Prince Galitzin 296
Diderot in Holland (1773) 296
St. Petersburg and Russian civilisation 298
The Empress 299
Accounts of her by men of affairs 300
Her pursuit of French culture 302
Her interest in the French philosophic party 304
Partly the result of political calculadon 304
The philosophers and the Partition of Poland 306
Rulhiere's narrative of Catherine's accession 307
Falconet, the first Frenchman welcomed by her 308
Diderot arrives at St. Petersburg (1773) 309
His conversations with the Empress 309
Not successful as a politician 310
General impression of him 310
Grimm outstrips him in court favour 312
Diderot's return to the Hague 313
Bjomstahl's report of him 314
Contemporary literature in Holland 316
Hemsterhuys 316
The Princess Galitzin 317
Diderot's return to Paris 319


Three worlds of which Diderot was regarded as the inspirer . . 320
Helvetius's Z'^jr/rfc? 320
Contemporary protests against it 320
Turgot's weighty criticism 321
Real drift of the book 322
Account of Helvetius 323
The style of his book 327
The momentous principle contained in it 328
Adopted from Helvetius by Bentham 329
Helv^tius's statement of doctrine of Utility 329
Miscarriage of the doctrine in his hands 330
His fallacy 331
True side of his objectionable position 331
Helv^tius's reckless presentation of a true theory 332
Confusion of beneficence with self-love 332
Imitation from Mandeville 333
Mean anecdotes 333

Nature of Helvetius's errors '334
Explanation of them 335
Positive side of his speculation 335
Its true significance . 337
Second great paradox of Z*^jr/ri^ 337
Benjamin Constant's Adolphe 339
CHAPTER XIV. HoLBACH*s System of Nature.
Publication of the 5j'j/!fwn2/"A'fl/;/r^ 341
Its startling effect 342

Voltaire's alarm 343

He never understood Holbach's position 344
Account of Holbach 344
Disregard of historic opinion in his book 346
Its remarkable violence against the government 347
The sting of this violence 34S
The doctrine from which Holbach*s book arose 349
Account of Holbach's Naturalism 350
His proposition concerning Man . . . * . . . '353
He uses the orthodox language about the pride of man . . . 355
His treatment of Morals 356
Onslaught upon the theory of Free Will . . * . . . . 356
Connection of necessarianism with humanity in punishment . . . 35S
His answer to some objections against necessarianism .... 358
Chapter on the Inmiortality of the Soul 359
His enthusiasm for reforms 361
The literature of a political revolution . . . . . . . 362
Misrepresentation of Holbach's ethical theory ..... 363
The System of Nature^ a protest against ascetic ideals . . . .365
The subject of the second half of the book 366
Repudiation of the '^ priori method 367
Replies to the common charges against atheism ..... 36S
The chapter on the superiority of Naturalism 569
Political side of the indictment against religion 370
Holbach's propagandism .372
CHAPTER XV. Raynal's History of the Indies.
Contemporary estimate of The History of the Indies . . . -373
Account of Raynal 374
Composition of the book 375
Its varied popularity 375

Frederick the Great dislikes it . 377

Signal merit of the History 378



Its shortcomings 379
Its idyllic inventions 380
Its animation and variety 381
Superficial causes of its popularity 382
Its deeper source 384
Catholicism in contact with the lower races 385
The other side of this 386
Raynal's book a plea for justice and humanity 386
Morality towards subject races 387
Slavery 388
Raynal's conduct in the Revolution 389
His end . . , , 390
CHAPTER XVI. Diderot's Closing Years.
"^iderot's meditation on life and death 391
Age overtakes him on his return from Russia 392
Writes his life of Seneca 393
Its quality 394
Interest to Diderot of Seneca's career 394
Strange digression in the Essay 396
Reason for Diderot's anger against Rousseau 397
"^liis usual magnanimity 398
' Diderot's relations wiUi Voltaire . . . ' . . . . 399

Naigeon .&gt; 40a

Romilly's account of Diderot 401
Palissot and the conservative writers 402
The ecclesiastical champions of the old system 404
The precursors gradually disappearing 405
Galiani 406
Beaumarchais's Manage de Figaro 406
Diderot's famous couplet . . - 407
His fellow-townsmen at Langres 407
Last days 40&amp;
CHAPTER XVII. Conclusion.
The variety of Diderot's topics ; .411
(l) Tltottghts (m the InUrpretation of Nature 411
Maupertuis's /&gt;f df'.^0r^#i/ 412
General scope of Diderot's aphorisms 412
Prophecy about geometry 413
Utility made to prescribe limits to speculation . . . 415
The other side of this principle 415
On Final Causes 416
Adaptation of the Leibnitzian law of economy . . . .416



&lt;2) jyAUmberfs Dream 417
Diderot not the originator of French materialism . . . 418
Materialism of the three dialogues 419
Mdlle. ]&gt;spinasse's moral objections . . -419

{3) Plan of a University for Russia 420

Religious instruction 421
Latin and Greek 422
Letter to the Countess of Forbach 422
{4) Conversation with the Markhale de *** 422
Parable of the young Mexican 423
(5) Letters to Falconet , 424
Diderot defends the feeling for posterity . . . . . 425


Rameatis Nephew : a Translation


On p. 23;the date of Mdlle. Voland's death is given as 1774.
probably to be 1784 or 1783.

It ought


There was a moment in the last^entury when the Gallican
church hoped for a return of internal union and prosperity.
This brief era of hope coincided almost exactly with the middle
of the century. Voltaire was in exile at Berlin. The author of '^^''H
the Persian Letters and the Spirit of Laws was old and near his
end- Rousseau was copying music in a g^et The Encyclopaedia
was looked for, but only as a literary project of some associated
booksellers. The Jansenists, who had been so many in number
and so firm in spmt five-and-twenty years earlier, had now sunk
to a small minority of the French clergy. The great ecclesiastical
body at length offered an unbroken front to its rivals, the great

judicial bodies. A patriotic minister was indeed audacious

enough to propose a tax upon ecclesiastical property, but the
Church fought the battle and won. Troops had just been
despatched to hunt and scatter the Protestants of the desert, and
bigots existed in the thought of pastors swinging on gibbets, and
heretical congregations fleeing for their lives before the fire of
orthodox musketry. The house of Austria had been forced to
sufifer spoliation at the hands of the infidel Frederick, but all the
world was well aware that the haughty and devout Empress-

Queen would seize a speedy opportunity of taking a crushing
vengeance ; France would this time be on the side of righteousness
and truth. For the moment a churchman might be pardoned* if
he thought that superstition, ignorance, abusive privilege, aricj
cruelty were on the eve of the smoothest and most triumphant
days that they had known since the Reformation.
We now know how illusory this sanguine anticipation was
destined to prove, and how promptly. In little more than forty
years after the triumphant enforcement of the odious system of
confessional certificates, then the crowning event of ecclesiastical
supremacy, Paris saw the Feast of the Supreme Being, and the
adoration of the Goddess of Reason. The Church had scarcely
begun to dream before she was rudely and peremptorily awakened.
She found herself confronted by the most energetic, hardy, and
successful assailants whom the spirit of progress ever inspired.
Compared with the new attack, Jansenism was no more than a
trifling episode in a family quarrel. Thomists and Molinists
became as good as confederates, and Quietism barely seemed
a heresy. In every age, even in the very depth of the times of
faith, there had arisen disturbers of the intellectual peace. Almost
each century after the resettlement of Europe by Charlemagne
had produced some individual, or some little group, who had
ventured to question this or that article of the ecclesiastical creed,
to whom broken glimpses of new truth had come, and who had
borne witness against the error or inconsistency or inadequateness
of old ways of thinking. The questions which presented themselves to the acuter minds of a hundred years ago, were present to
the acuter minds who lived hundreds of years before that. The
more deeply we penetrate into the history of opinion, the more
strongly are we tempted to believe that in the greater matters of
speculation no question is altogether new, and hardly any answer
is altogether new. But the Church had known how to deal with
intellectual insurgents, from Abelard in the twelfth century down
to Giordano Bruno and Vanini in the seventeenth. They were
isolated ; they were for the most part submissive ; and if they
were not, the arm of the Church was very long and her grasp
mortal. And all these meritorious precursors were made weak by
one cardinal defect, for which no gifts of intellectual acuteness

could compensate. 'JThey had the scientific idea, but they lacked
^^ sqp'ai iH^Q Ttf^y could have set opinion right about the
efficacy of the syllogism, and the virtue of entities and quiddities.
They could have taught Europe earlier than the Church allowed
it to learn that the sun does not go round the earth, and that it
is the earth which goes round the sun. But they were wholly
unfitted to deal with the prodigious difficulties of moral and
social direction. This function, so immeasurably more important
than the mere discovery of any number of physical relations, it
was the glory of the Church to have discharged for some centuries
with as much success as the conditions permitted. We are told
indeed by writers ignorant alike of human history and human
nature, that only physical science can improve the social condition
of man. The common sense of the world always rejects this
gross fallacy. The acquiescence for so many centuries in the
power of the great directing organization of Western Europe, notwithstanding its intellectual inadequateness, was the decisive
expression of that rejection.
After the middle of the last century the insurrection against
the pretensions of the Church and against the doctrines of
Christianity was marked in one of its most important phases by a
new and most significant feature. In this phase it was animated
at once by the scientific idea and by the social idea. It was an
advance both in knowledge and in moral motive. It rested on a.
&lt;x&gt;nception which was crude and imperfect enough, but which
was still almost, like the great ecclesiastical conception itself, a
conception of life as a whole. Morality, positive law, social
order, economics, the nature and limits of human knowledge, the
constitution of the physical universe, had one by one disengaged
themselves from theological explanations. The final philosophical
movement of the century in France, which was represented by
Diderot, now tended to a new social synthesis resting on a purely
positive basis. If this movement had only added to its other
contents the historic iciea, its destination would have been
effectually reached. As it was, its leaders surveyed the entire
field with as much accuracy and with as wide a range as their
instruments allowed, and they scattered over the world a set of
ideas which at once entered into energetic rivalry with the ancient

...ni iK!&lt;l i!i&gt;!i!u:it );v. Til

strikes on l:uj (,;! ;; &gt; ;; &lt; &lt; iimnonplacL: .\.
vcai^ a '() in I'lanc^- ii was a wundcrful
of a new dispensation. It was the. li
asceticism in life and morals, to fonnalisi
the social ordering, to obscurantism in
improvement since has been the outcome
form or another. The conviction that t
man are indefinitely modifiable for good
antecedent to any general and energetic e.
conditions that surround him. The omnip
tion, of laws, of the method of social ore

plastic impulses of the human creaturewhich brought men of such widely differ
leanings to the common enterprise. Eve
wide and deep-reaching bearings such a do
it raised all the questions connected witl
formation of character ; how it went down
of morals ; into what fresh and unwelcome
articles of the old theology ; with what new
all the relations of real knowledge and th
intense interest it lent to every detail of
and government



kingdom of heaven. To awaken in them the spirit of social
improvement was ruin to the most scandalous and crying social
abuse then existing. The old spiritual power had lost its instinct,
once so keen and effective, of wise direction. Instead of being
the guide and corrector of the organs of the temporal power,
it was the worst of their accomplices. The Encyclopaedia was an
informal, transitory, and provisional organization of the new
spiritual power. The school of which it was the great expounder,
achieved a supreme control over opinion by the only title to
which control belongs : s^ more penetrating eye for social exigences
and for the means of satisfying them.
Our veteran humorist told us long ago in his whimsical way Oa* 'M
that the importance of the Acts of the French Philosophes recorded in whole acres of typography is fast exhausting itself, that
the famed Encyclopaedical Tree has borne no fruit, and that
Diderot the great has contracted into Diderot the easily measiurable.
The humoristic method is a potent instrument for working such
contractions and expansions at will. The greatest of men are
measurable enough, if you choose to set up a standard that is half
transcendental and half cynical. A saner and more patient
criticism measures the conspicuous figures of the past differently.
It seeks their relations to the great forward movements of the
world, and asks to what quarter of the heavens their faces were
set, whether towards the east where the new light dawns, or
towards the west after the old light has sunk irrevocably down.
Above all, a saner criticism bids us remember that piorieers in
the progressive way are rare, their lives rude and sorely tried, and
their services to mankind beyond price. " Diderot is Diderot,"
wrote ond^eater than Carlyle : " a peculiar individuality ; whoever
holds him or his doings cheaply is a Philistine, and the name of
them is legion. Men know neither from God, nor from Nature,
nor from their fellows, how to receive with gratitude what is
valuable beyond appraisement " {Goethe). An intense philistinism
underlay the great spiritual reaction that followed the Revolution*
and not even such of its apostles as Wordsworth and Cailyl^

wholly escaped the taint

Forty years ago, when Carlyle wrote, it might really
prejudiced observer as if the encyclopsedic tree had

fruit Even then, and even when the critic happened to be a
devotee of the sterile transcendentalism then in vogue, one might
have expected some recognition of the fact that the seed of all the
great improvements bestowed on France by the Revolution, in
spite of the woful evils which followed in its train, had been sown
by the Encyclopaedists. But now that the last vapours of the
transcendental reaction are clearing away, we see that the movement initiated by the Encyclopaedia is again in full progress.
Materialistic solutions in the science of man, humanitarian ends
in legislation, naturalism in art, active faith in the improvableness
of institutions all these are once more the marks of speculation
and the guiding ideas of practical energy. The philosophical
parenthesis is at an end. The interruption of eighty years counts
for no more than the twinkling of an eye in the history of the
transformation of the basis of thought. And the interruption has
for the present come to a close. Europe again sees the old
enemies face to face ; the Church, and a Social Philosophy slowly
labouring to build her foundations in positive science. It cannot
be other than interesting to examine the aims, the instruments,
and the degree of success of those who a century ago saw most
comprehensively how profound and far-reaching a metamorphosis
awaited the thought of the Western worlds We shall do this most
properly in connection with Diderot. ^
Whether we accept or question Comte's strong description of
Diderot as the greatest genius of the eighteenth century, it is act
least undeniable that he was the one member of the great party
of illumination with a real title to the name of thinker. Voltaire
and Rousseau were the heads of two important schools, and each
of them set deep and unmistakable marks both on the bpinion
and the events of the century. It would not be difficult to show
that their influence was wider than that of the philosopher who
discerned the inadequateness of both. But Rousseau was moved
by passion and sentiment; Voltaire was only the piaster of a
brilliant and penetrating rationalism, ^iderot alone of this
famous trio had in his mind the idea of scientific method ; alone
showed any feeling for a doctrine, and for large organic andconstructive conceptions. He had the rare faculty of true
philosophic meditation. Though immeasurably inferior both to


Voltaire and Rousseau in gifts of

far their superior in breadth and
was the originator of a natural,
of literary criticism. He aspired

literary expression, he was as

reality of artistic principle. He
realistic, and sympathetic school
to impose new forms upon the

drama. Both in imaginative creation and in criticism, his work

was a constant appeal from the artificial conventions of the classic
schools to the actualities of common life. The same spirit
united with the tendency of his philosophy to place him among
the very few men who have been great and genuine observers of
human nature and human existence. So singular and widely
active a genius may well interest us, even apart from the important
place that he holds in the history of literature and opinion.



Denis Diderot was bom at Langres in 17 13, being thus a few

months younger than Rousseau (17 12), nearly twenty years
younger than Voltaire (1694), nearly two years younger than
Hume (17 11), and eleyen years older than Kant (1724). His
stock was ancient and of good repute. The family had been
engaged in the great local industry, the manufacture of cutlery,
for no less than two centuries in direct line. Diderot liked to
dwell on the historic prowess of his town, from the days of Julius
Caesar and the old Lingones and Sabinus, down to the time of the
Great Monarch. With the taste of his generation for tracing
moral qualities to a climatic source, he explained a certain vivacity
and mobility in the people of his district by the great frequency
and violence of its atmospheric changes from hot to cold, from
calm to storm, from rain to sunshine. ** Thus they learn from
earliest infancy to turn to every wind. The man of Langres has
a head on his shoulders like the weathercock at the top of the
church spire. It is never fixed at one point ; if it returns to the
point it has left, it is not to stop there. With an amazing
rapidity in their movements, their deshres, their plans, their
fancies, their ideas, they are cumbrous in speech. For myself,
I belong to my country side." This was thoroughly true.
He inherited all the versatility of his compatriots, all their
swift impetuosity, and something of their want of dexterity in

His father was one of the bravest, most upright, most patient,
most sensible of men. Diderot never ceased to regret that the
old man's portrait had not been taken with his apron on, his
spectacles pushed up, and a hand on the grinder's wheel. After
his death, none of his neighbours could speak of him to his son
without tears in their eyes. Diderot, wild and irregular as were
his earlier days, had always a true affection for his father. " One
of the sweetest moments of my life," he once said, " was more
than thirty years ago, and I remember it as if it were yesterday, when my father saw me coming home from school, my arms
laden with the prizes I had carried off, and my shoulders
burdened with the wreaths they had given me, which were too

big for my brow and had slipped over my head. As soon as he

caught sight of me some way off, he threw down his work, hurried
to the door to meet me, and fell a-weeping. It is a fine sight
a grave and sterling man melted to tears."' Of his mother we
know less. He had a sister, who seems to have possessed the
rough material of his own qualities. He describes her as " lively,
active, cheerful, decided, prompt to take offence, slow to come
round again, without much care for present or future, never
willing to be imposed on by people or circumstance ; free in her
ways, still more free in her talk; she is a sort of Diogenes in
petticoats. . . . She is the most original and the most
strongly-marked creature I know ; she is goodness itself, but with
a peculiar physiognomy."' His only brother showed some of the
same native stuff, but of thinner and sourer quality. He became
an abb^ and a saint, peevish, umbrageous, and as excessively
devout as his more famous brother was excessively the opposite.
** He would have been a good friend and a good brother," wrote
Diderot, ** if reh'gion had not bidden him trample under foot
such poor weaknesses as these. He is a good Christian, who
proves to me every minute of the day how much better it
would be to be a good man. He shows that what they call
evangelical perfection is only the mischievous art of stifling
nature, which would most likely have spoken as lustily in him
as in me."'
Diderot, like so many others of the eighteenth-century reformers,
' (Euvres, xviiL 505. IHd. 364. 3 jbui, 379.

was a pupil of the Jesuits^ An ardent, impetuous, over-genial
temperament was the cause of frequent irregularities in conduct
But his quick and active understanding overcame all obstacles.
His teachers, ever wisely on the alert for superior capacity, hoped
to enlist his talents in the Order. Either they or he planned his
escape from home, but his father got to hear of it. " My grandfather," says Diderot's daughter, "kept the profoundest silence,
but as he went off to bed took with him the keys of the yard door."
When he heard his son going do\sTistairs, he presented himself
before him, and asked whither he was bound at twelve o'clock at
night. " To Paris," replied the youth, " where I am to join the
Jesuits." " That will not be to-night ; but your wishes shall be
fulfilled. First let us have our sleep." The next morning his
father took two places in the coach, and carried him to Paris to
the College d'Harcourt. He made all the arrangements, and
wished his son good-bye. But the good man loved the boy too
dearly to leave him without being quite at ease how he would fare;
he had the patience to remain a whole fortnight, killing the time and
half dead of weariness in an inn, without ever seeing the one object
of his stay. At the end of the fortnight, he went to the collegCi
and Diderot used many a time to say that such a mark of tenderness and goodness would have made him go to the other end of
the world if his father had required it. " My friend," said his
father, " I am come to see if you are well, if you are satisfied with
your superiors, with your food, with your companions, and with
yourself. If you are not well or not happy, we will go back
together to your mother. If you had rather stay where you are, I

am come to give you a word, to embrace you, and to leave you my

blessing." The boy declared he was perfectly happy; and the
principal pronounced him an excellent scholar, though already
promising to be a troublesome one.'
After a couple of years the young Diderot, like other sons of
Adam, had to think of earning his bread. The usual struggle
followed between youthful genius and old prudence. His father,
who was a man of substance, gave him his choice between medicine
and law. Law he refused because he did not choose to spend his
days in doing other people's business ; and medicine, because he
* (EuvreSf i. 3a


had no turn for killing. His father resolutely declined to let him
have more money on these terms, and Diderot was thrown on his
The man of letters shortly before the middle of the century
was as much an outcast and a beggar in Paris as he was in
London. Voltaire, Gray, and Richardson were perhaps the only
three conspicuous writers of the time, who had never known what
it was to want a meal or to go without a shirt. But then none of
the three depended on his pen for his livelihood. Every other
man of that day whose writings have delighted and instructed the
world since, had begun his career, and more than one of them
continued and ended it, as a drudge and a vagabond. Fielding
and Collins, Goldsmith and Johnson, in England ; Goldoni in
Italy j Vauvenargues, Marmontel, Rousseau, in France ; VVinckelmann and Lessing in Germany, had all alike been doubtful of
dinner and trembled about a night's lodging. They all knew the
life of mean hazard, sorry shift, and petty expedient again and again
renewed. It is sorrowful to think how many of the compositions
of that time that do most to soothe and elevate some of the best
hours of our lives, were written by men with aching hearts, in the
midst of haggard perplexities. The man of letters, as distinguished
alike from the old-fashioned scholar and the systematic thinker,
now first became a distinctly marked type. Macaulay has contrasted the misery of the Grub Street hack of Johnson's time, with
the honours accorded to men like Prior and Addison at an earlier
date, and the solid sums paid by booksellers to the authors of our
own day. But these brilliant passages hardly go lower than the
surface of the great change. Its significance lay quite apart from
the prices paid for books. The all-important fact about the men
of letters in France was that they constituted a new order, that
their rise signified the transfer of the spiritual power from ecclesiastical hands, and that, while they were the organs of a new
function, they associated it with a new substitute for doctrine.

These men were not only the pupils of the Jesuits ; they were also
their immediate successors as the teachers, the guides, and the
directors of society. For two hundred years the followers of
Ignatius had taken the intellectual and moral control of Catholic
communities out of the failing hands of the Popes and the secular

clergy. Their own hour had now struck. The rationalistic
historian has seldom done justice to the services which this great
Order rendered to European civilisation. The immorality of
many of their maxims, their too frequent connivance at political
wrong for the sake of power, their inflexible malice against
opponents, and the cupidity and obstructiveness of the years of
their decrepitude, have blinded us to the many meritorious pages
of the Jesuit chronicle. Even men like Diderot and Voltaire,
whose lives were for years made bitter by Jesuit machinations,
gave many signs that they recognised the aid which had been
rendered by their old masters to the cultivation and enlightenment
of Europe. It was from the Jesuit fathers that the men of letters
whom they trained^ acquired that practical and social habit of
mind which made the world and its daily interests so real to them.
It was perhaps also his Jesuit preceptors whom the man of letters
had to blame for a certain want of rigour and exactitude on the
side of morality.
What was this new order which thus struggled into existence,
which so speedily made itself felt, and at length so completely
succeeded in seizing the lapsed inheritance of the old spiritual
organization ? Who is this man of letters ? A satirist may easily
describe him in epigrams of cheap irony ; the pedant of the
colleges may see in him a frivolous and shallow profaner of the
mysteries of learning; the intellectual coxcomb who nurses his
own dainty wits in critical sterility, despises him as Sir Piercie
Shafton would have despised Lord Lindsay of the Byres. This
notwithstanding, the man of letters has his work to do in the
critical period of social transition. He is to be distinguished
from the great systematic thinker, as well as from the great imaginative creator. He is borne on the wings neither of a broad
philosophic conception nor of a lofty poetic conception. He is
only the propagator of portions of such a conception, and of the
minor ideas which they suggest Unlike the Jesuit father whom
he replaced, he has no organic doctrine, no historic tradition, no
effective discipline, and no definite, comprehensive, far-reaching,'
concentrated aim. The characteristic of his activity is dispersiveness. Its distinction is to popularise such detached ideas as
society is in a condition to assimilate ; to interest men in these

ideas by dressing them up in varied forms of the literary art ; to
guide men through them by judging, empirically and unconnectedly, each case of conduct, of policy, or of new opinion as it
arises. We have no wish to exalt the office. On the contrary, I
accept the maxim of that deep observer who warned us that " the
mania for isolation is the plague of the human throng, and to be

strong, we must march together. You only obtain anything by

developing the spirit of discipline among men."' But there are
ages of criticism when discipline is impossible, and the evils of
isolation are less than the evils of rash and premature organization. Fontenelle was the first and in some respects the greatest
type of this important class. He was sceptical, learned, ingenious,
eloquent He stretched hands (1657-1757) from the famous
quarrel between Ancients and Modems down to the Encyclop^sedia, and from Bossuet and Corneille down to Jean Jacques
and Diderot. When he was bom, the man of letters did not
exist. When he died, the man of letters was the most conspicuous personage in France.. But when Diderot first began
to roam about the streets of Paris, this enormous change was not
yet complete.
For some ten years (i 734-1 744) Diderot's history is the old
tale of hardship and chance ; of fine constancy and excellent faith,
not wholly free from an occasional stroke of rascality. For a time
he earned a little money by teaching. If the pupil happened to
be quick and docile, he grudged no labour, and was content with
any fee or none. If the pupil happened to be dull, Diderot
never came again, and preferred going supperless to bed. His
employers paid him as they chose, in shirts, in a chair or a table,
in books, in money, and sometimes they never paid him at all.
The prodigious exuberance of his nature inspired him with a
sovereign indifference to material details. From the beginning he
belonged to those to whom it comes by nature to count life more
Wdhhcrwandschaften, pt. ii. ch. vii. The reader will do well to consult
the philosophical estimate of the function of the man of letters given by
Comte, PhUosophie Posiiive, v. 512, vi. 192, 287. The best contemporary
account of the principles and policy of the men of letters in the eighteenth
century is to be found in Condorcet* Esquisse d'un Tableau^ etc, pp. 187-9
(Ed. 1847).

than meat, and the body than raiment. The outward things of
existence were to him really outward. They never vexed or
absorbed his days and nights, nor overcame his vigorous constitutional instinct for the true proportions of external circumstance. He
was of the humour of the old philosopher who, when he heard
that all his worldly goods had been lost in a shipwreck, only made
for answer, y//^^/ mefortuna expeditius philosophari. Once he had
the good hap to be appointed tutor to the sons of a man of
wealth. He performed his duties zealously, he was well housed
and well fed, and he gave the fullest satisfaction to his employer.
At the end of three months the mechanical toil had grown unbearable to him. The father of his pupils offered him any terms
if he would remain. " Look at me, sir," replied the tutor ; " my
face is as yellow as a lemon. I am making men of your children^
but each day I am becoming a child with them. I am a thousand
times too rich and too comfortable in your house ; leave it I
must. What I want is not to live better, but to avoid dying."
Again he plunged from comfort into the life of the garret. If he
met any old friend from Langres, he borrowed, and the honest
father repaid the loan. His mother's savings were brought to him
by a faithful creature who had long served in their house, and

who now more than once trudged all the way from home on this
errand, and added her own humble earnings to the little stock.
Many a time the hours went very slowly for the necessitous man.
One Shrove Tuesday he rose in the morning, and found his
pockets empty even of so much as a halfpenny. His friends had
not invited him to join their squalid Bohemian revels. Hunger
and thoughts of old shrovetide merriment and feasting in the faroff home made work impossible. He hastened out of doors and
walked about all day visiting such public sights as were open to
the penniless. When he returned to his garret at night, his landlady found him in a swoon, and with the compassion of a good
soul she forced him to share her supper. " That day," Diderot
used to tell his children in later years, " I promised myself that if
ever happier times should come, and ever I should have anything,
I would never refuse help to any living creature, nor ever condemn
him to the misery of such a day as that." ' And the real interest
' Naigeon, p. 24.

if the story lies in the fact that no oath was ever more faithfully
Lept. There is no greater test of the essential richness of a man's
lature than that thb squalid adversity, not of the sentimental
ntrospective kind but hard and grinding, and not even kept in
Dountenance by respectability, fails to make him a savage or a miser
HT a misanthrope.
Diderot had his bitter moments. He knew the gloom and^
tespondency that have their inevitable hour in every solitary and
mordered life. But the fits did not last. They left no sour sediment,
bd this is the sign of health in temperament, provided it be not
lue to mere callousness. From that horrible quality Diderot asnredly was the farthest removed of anyone of his time. Now and
Iways he walked with a certain large carelessness of spirit. He
aeasured life with a roving and liberal eye. Circumstance and
onventions, the words under which men hide things, the oracles
f common acceptance, the infinitely diversified properties of human
haracter, the many complexities of our conduct and destiny all
bese he watched playing freely around him, and he felt no haste
[&gt; compress his experience into maxims and system. He was
bsolutely uncramped by any of the formal mannerisms of the
pirit. He was wholly uncomipted by the affectation of culture
rith which the great Goethe infected part of the world a generation
iter. His own life was never made the centre of the world. Selflevelopment and self-idealisation as ends in themselves would have
truck Diderot as effeminate drolleries. The daily and hourly
Qterrogation of experience for the sake of building up the fabric
his own character in this wise or that, would have been incorairehensible and a little odious to him in theory, and impossible as
i. matter of practice. In the midst of all the hardships of his
"ounger time, as afterwards in the midst of crushing Herculean
askwork, he was saved from moral ruin by the inexhaustible
;eniality and expansiveness of his affections. Nor did he narrow
heir play by looking only to the external forms of human reation. To Diderot it came easily to act on a principle which
aost of us only accept in words : he looked not to what
leople said, nor even to what they did, but wholly to what they

Those whom he had once found reason to love and esteem

might do him many an ill turn, without any fear of estranging hiin.|
Anyone can measure character by conduct It is a harder thingj
to be willing, in cases that touch our own interests, to interpTetj
conduct by previous knowledge of character. His father, for
instance, might easily have spared money enough to save him
from the harassing privations of Bohemian life in Paris. A less
full-blooded and generous person than Diderot would have resented
the stoutness of the old man's persistency. Diderot on the contrary felt and delighted to feel, that this conflict of wills was a
mere accident which left undisturbed the reality of old love^
* The first few years of my life in Paris," he once told an acquaintance, "had been rather irregular ; my behaviour was enough.]
to irritate my father, without there being any need to make it
worse by exaggeration. Still calumny was not wanting. People
told him ^well what did they not tell him ? An opportunity for
going to see him presented itself. I did not give it two thoughts.
I set out full of confidence in his goodness. I thought that he
would see me, that I should throw myself into his arms, that we'j
should both of us shed tears, and that all would be forgotten. I
thought rightly."* We may be sure of a stoutness of native stuff
in any stock where so much tenacity united with such fine coftfidence on one side, and such generous love on the other. It is a .
commonplace how much waste would be avoided in human life if
men would more freely allow their vision to pierce in this way
through the distorting veils of egoism, to the reality of sentiment
and motive and relationship. i
Throughout his life Diderot was blessed with that divine gift '
of pity, which one that has it could hardly be willing to barter fa
the understanding of an Aristotle. Nor was it of the sentimental
type proper for fine ladies. One of his friends had an aversion
for women with child. " What monstrous sentiment ! " Diderot
i^Tote ; " for my part, that condition has always touched me. I
cannot see a woman of the common people so, without a tender
commiseration.'* "* And Diderot had delicacy and respect in his
pity. He tells a story in one of his letters of a poor woman who
had suffered some wrong from a priest; she had not money
enough to resort to law, until a friend of Diderot took her part.
(Euvres, xix. 162, Ibid, 89.

The suit was gained ; but when the moment came for execution,
the priest had vanished with all his goods. The woman came to
thank her protector, and to regret the loss he had suffered. " As
she chatted, she pulled a shabby snufif-box out of her pocket, and
gathered up with the tip of her finger what little snuff remained at
the bottom : her benefactor says to her, * Ah, ah ! you have no
more snuflf ; give me your box, and I will fill it.' He took the
box and put into it a couple of louis, which he covered up with

snuff. Now there's an action thoroughly to my taste, and to yours

too ! Give, but, if you can, spare to the poor the shame of
holding out a hand." * And the important thing, as we have said,
is that Diderot was as good as his sentiment. Unlike most of the
fine talkers of that day, to him these homely and considerate
emotions were the most real part of life. Nobody in the world
was ever more eager to give succour to others, nor more careless
of his own ease.
One singular story of Diderot's heedlessness about himself has
often been told before, but we shall be none the worse in an
egoistic world for hearing it told again. There came to him one
morning a young man, bringing a manuscript in his hand. He
begged Diderot to do him the favour of reading it, and to make
any remarks he might think useful on the margin. Diderot
found it to be a bitter satire upon his own person and writings.
On the young man's return, Diderot asked him his grounds for
making such an attack. ^* I am without bread," the satirist
answered, " and I hoped you might perhaps give me a few crowns
not to print it" Diderot at once forgot everything in pity for the
starving scribbler. " I will tell you a way of making more than
that by it. The brother of the Duke of Orleans is one of the
pious, and he hates me. Dedicate your satire to him, get it
bound with his arms on the cover; take it to him some fine
morning, and you will certainly get assistance from him." " But
I don't know the prince, and the dedicatory epistle embarrasses
me." "Sit down," said Diderot, "and I will write one for you."
The dedication was written, the author carried it to the prince, and
received a handsome fee."*
Marmontel assures us that never was Diderot seen to such
' (EuvnSf xix. 93. Ibid, L xlviii.

advantage as when an author consulted him about a work. *' Yoa
should have seen him," he says, " take hold of the subject, pierce
to the bottom of it, and at a single glance discover of what riches
and of what beauty it was susceptible. If he saw that the author
missed the right track, instead of listening to the reading, he at
once worked up in his head all that the author had left crude and
imperfect Was it a play, he threw new scenes into it, new
incidents, new strokes of character; and thinking that he had
actually heard all that he had dreamed, he extolled to the skies
the work that had just been read to him, and in which, when it
saw the light, we found hardly anything that he had quoted from
it ... . He who was one ctf the most enlightened men of the
century, was also one of the most amiable ; and in everything that
touched moral goodness, when he spoke of it freely, I cannot
express the charm of his eloquence. His whole soul was in his
eyes and on his lips ; never did a countenance better depict the

goodness of the heart"' Morellet is equally loud in praise, not

only of Diderot's conversation, its brilliance, its vivacity, its
fertility, its suggestiveness, its sincerity, but also his facility and
indulgence to all who sought him, and of the sympathetic readiness with which he gave the very best of himself to others."
It is needless to say that such a temper was constantly abused.
Three-fourths of Diderot's life were reckoned by his family to
have been given up to people who had need of his purse, his
knowledge, or his good offices. His daughter compares his
library to a shop crowded by a succession of customers, but the
customers took whatever wares they sought, not by purchase, but
by way of free gift. Luckily for Diderot, he was thus generous
by temperament, and not because he expected gratitude. Any
necessitous knave with the gift of tears and the mask of sensibility
could dupe and prey upon him. In one case he had taken a
great deal of trouble for one of these needy and importunate
clients ; had given him money and advice, and had devoted
much time to serve him. At the end of their last interview
Diderot escorts his departing friend to the head of the staircase.
The grateful client then asks him whether he knows natural history.
* Marmontel, Mim, vol. ii. b. vii. p. 315. ' Morellet, Mim, i. p. 29.

" Well, not much," Diderot replies ; " I know an aloe from a
lettuce, and a pigeon from a humming-bird." " Do you know
about the Formica leo f No ? Well, it is a little insect that is
wonderfully industrious ; it hollows out in the ground a hole
shaped like a funnel, it covers the surface with a light fine sand, it
attracts other insects, it takes them, it sucks them dry, and then it
says to them, * M. Diderot, I have the honour to wish you goodday.' " '
Yet insolence and ingratitude made no difference to Diderot.
His ear always remained as open to every tale of distress, his
sensibility always as quickly touched, his time, money, and
service always as profusely bestowed. I know not whether to say
that this was made more, or that it was made less, of a virtue by
his excess of tolerance for social castaways and reprobates. Our
rough mode of branding a man as bad revolted him. The
common appetite for constituting ourselves public prosecutors for
the universe, was to him one of the worst of human weaknesses.
" You know," he used to say, " all the impetuosity of the passions ;
you have weighed all circumstance in your everlasting balance;
you pass sentence on the goodness or the badness of creatures ;
you set up rewards and penalties among matters which have no
proportion nor relation with one another. Are you sure that you
have never committed wrong acts, for which you pardoned yourselves because their object was so slight, though at bottom they
hnplied more wickedness than a crime prompted by misery or
fury ? Even magistrates, supported by experience, by the law, by
conventions which force them sometimes to give judgment against
the testimony of their own conscience, still tremble as they pronounce the doom of the accused. And since when has it been
lawful for the same person to be at once judge and informer ? " '
Such reasoned leniency is the noblest of traits in a man. *' I am

more affected," he said, in words of which better men than

Diderot might often be reminded, "by the charms of virtue than
by the deformity of vice. I turn mildly away from the bad, and
I fly to embrace the good. If there is in a work, in a character,
in a painting, in a statue, a single fine bit, then on that my eyes
(EuvreSy L xlviii. /W/. xix, 55.
C 2

fasten ; I see only that : that is all I remember ; the rest is as
good as forgotten." '
This is the secret of a rare and admirable temperament It
carried Diderot well through the trial and ordeal of the ragged
apprenticeship of letters. What to other men comes by culture,
came to him by inborn force and natural capaciousness. We do
not know in what way Diderot trained and nourished his understanding. The annotations to his translation of Shaftesbury,
as well as his earliest original pieces, show that he had read
Montaigne and Pascal, and not only read but meditated on them
with an independent mind. They show also that he had been
impressed by the Civitas Dei of Augustine, and had at least dipped
into Terence and Horace, Cicero and Tacitus. Hb subsequent
writings prove that, like the other men of letters of his day, he
found in our own literature the chief external stimulant to thought
Above all, he was impressed by the magnificent ideas of the
illustrious Bacon, and these ideas were the direct source of the
great undertaking of Diderof s life. He is said to have read little
and to have meditated much the right process for the few men
of his potent stamp. The work which he had to do for bread,
was of the kind that crushes anything short of the strongest faculty.
He composed sermons. A missionary once ordered half-a-dozen of
them for consumption in the Portuguese colonies, and paid him
fifty crowns apiece, which Diderot counted far from the worst
bargain of his life All this was beggarly toil for a man of genius,
but Diderot never took the trouble to think of himself as 2l man of
genius, and was quite content with life as it came. If he found
himself absolutely without food and without pence, he began
moodily to think of abandoning his books and his pen, and of
complying with the wishes of his father. A line of Homer, an
idea from the Principia, an interesting problem in algebra or
geometry, was enough to restore the eternally invincible spell of
knowledge. And no sooner was this commanding interest touched,
than the cloud of uncomfortable circumstance vanished from
before the sun, and calm and serenity filled his spirit.
Montesquieu used to declare that he had never known a
* OSuvreSf xviii. 376.

chagrin which half an hour of a book was not able to dispel

Diderot had the same fortunate temper.

Yet Diderot was not essentially a man of books. He never
fell into the characteristic weakness of the follower of letters, by
treating books as ends in themselves, or placing literature before
life. Character, passion, circumstance, the real tragi-comedy, not
its printed shadow and image, engrossed him. He was in this
respect more of the temper of Rousseau, than he was like Voltaire
or Fontenelle. " Abstraction made," he used to say, " of my
existence and of the happiness of my fellows, what does the rest
of nature matter to me ?" Yet, as we see, nobody that ever lived
was more interested in knowledge. His biographer and disciple
remarked the contrast in him between his ardent impetuous disposition and enthusiasm, and his spirit of close unwearied
observation. Faire U bien, connaitre k vraij was his formula for
the perfect life, and defined the only distinction that he cared to
recognise between one man and another. And the only motive
he ever admitted as reasonable for seeking truth, was as a means
of doing good. So strong was his sense of practical life, in the
midst of incessant theorising.
At the moment when he had most difficulty in procuring a
little bread each day for himself, Diderot conceived a violent
passion for a seamstress, Antoinnette Champion by name, who
happened to live in his neighbourhood. He instantly became
importutaate for marriage. The mother long protested with prudent
vigour against a young man of such headstrong impetuosity, who
did nothing and who had nothing, save the art of making speeches
that turned her daughter's head. At length the young man's
golden tongue won the mother as it had won the daughter. It
was agreed that his wishes should be crowned, if he could procure
the consent of his family. Diderot fared eagerly and with a
sanguine heart to Langres. His father supposed that he had seen
the evil of his ways, and was come at last to continue the honest
tradition of their name. When the son disclosed the object of
his visit, he was treated as a madman and threatened with
malediction. Without a word of remonstrance he started back one
day for Paris. Madame Champion warned him that his project

must now be for ever at an end. Such unflinching resoluteness is
often the last preliminary before surrender. Diderot fell ill The
two women could not bear to think of him lying sick in a room no
better than a dog-kennel, without broths and tisanes, lonely and
sorrowful. They hastened to nurse him, and when he got well,
what he thought the great object of his life was reached. He and
his adored were married (1743)/ As has been said, "Choice in
marriage is a great match of cajolery between purpose and
invisible hazard : deep criticism of a game of pure chance is time
wasted." In Diderot's case, destiny was hostile.
His wife was over thirty. She was dutiful, sage, and pious.
She had plenty of that devotion which in small things women so
seldom lack. While her husband went to dine out, she remained
at home to dine and sup on dry bread, and was pleased to think
that the next day she would double the little ordinary for him.
Coffee was too dear to be a household luxury, so every day she

handed him a few halfpence to have his cup, and to watch the chessplayers at the Caff de la Rdgence. When after a year or two
she went to make her peace with her father-in-law at Langres, she
wound her way round the old man's heart by her affectionate
caresses, her respect, her ready industry in the household, her
piety, her simplicity. It is, however, unfortunately possible for
even the best women to manifest their goodness, their prudence,
their devotion, in forms that exasperate. Perhaps it was so here.
Diderot at fifty was an orderly and steadfast person, but at thirty
the blood of vagabondage was still hot within him. He needed
in his companion a robust patience, to match his own too robust
activity. One may suppose that if Mirabeau had married Hannah
More, the union would have turned out ill, and Diderot's
marriage was unluckily of such a type. His wife's narrow pieties
and homely solicitudes fretted him. He had not learned to count
the cost of deranging the fragile sympathy of the hearth. While
his wife was away on her visit to his family, he formed a connection with a woman (Madame Puisieux) who seems to have
* Madame de Vandcul says 1744. But M. Jal {Dici, Crit, 495) reproduces
the certificate of the marriage. Perhaps we may charitably hope that Diderot
himself is equally mistaken, when in later years he sets down a disreputable
adventure to 1744. {(Euvres, xix. 85.)


been as bad and selfish as his wife was the opposite. She was the
authoress of some literary pieces, which the world willingly and
speedily let die ; but even very moderate pretensions to bel-esprit
may have seemed wonderfully refreshing to a man wearied to
death by the illiterate stupidity of his daily companion.' This
lasted some three or four years down to 1749. As we shall see,
he discovered the infidelity of his mistress and broke with her. But
by this time his wife's virtues seem to have gone a little sour, as
disregarded prudence and thwarted piety are so apt to do. It
was too late now to knit up again the ravelled threads of
domestic concord. During a second absence of his wife in
Champagne (1754)1 he formed a new attachment to the daughter
of a financier's widow (Mdlle. Voland). This lasted to the end
of the lad/s days (171J4).
There is probably nothing very profitable to be said about all
this domestic disorder. We do not know enough of the circumstances to be sure of allotting censure in exact and rightful
measure. We have to remember that such irregularities were in
the manners of the time. To connect them by way of effect with
the new opinions in religion, would be as impertinent as to trace
the immoralities of Dubois or Lewis the Fifteenth or the Cardinal
de Rohan to the old opinions.
' For an account of Madame de Puisieux in her later years, see Mdmc.
Roland's Memoirs^ i. 156.



La Rochefoucauld, expressing a commonplace with the penetrative terseness that made him a master of the apophthegm,
pronounced it " not to be enough to have great qualities : a man
must have the economy of them." Or, as another 'WTiter says:
" Empire in this world belongs not so much to wits, to talents,
and to industry, as to a certain skilful economy and to the continual management that a man has the art of applying to all his
other gifts." ' Notwithstanding the peril that haunts superlative
propositions, we are inclined to say that Diderot is the most
striking illustration of this that the history of letters or speculation
has to furnish. If there are many who have missed the mark
which they or kindly intimates thought them certain of attaining,
this is mostly not for want of economy, but for want of the great
qualities which were imputed to them by mistake. To be
mediocre, to be sterile, to be futile, are the three fatal endings of
many superbly announced potentialities. Such an end nearly
always comes of exaggerated faculty, rather than of bad administration of natural gifts. In Diderot were splendid talents.
It was the art of prudent stewardship that lay beyond his reach.
Hence this singular fact, that he perhaps alone in literature has
left a name of almost the first eminence, and impressed his
greatness upon men of the strongest and most different intelligence,
' Sainte Beuve, CauserUs, ix, 136.

ret never produced a masterpiece : many a fine page, as
ontel said, but no one fine work.
D man that ever wrote was more wholly free from that
et self-consciousness which too often makes literary genius
or odious in the flesh. He put on no airs of pretended
ation to inferior production, with bursting hints of the vast
orities that unfriendly circumstance locked up within him.
1 one occasion, and only on one, so far as evidence remains,
lulged a natural regret " And so," he wrote when revising
5t sheets of the Encyclopaedia (July 25, 1765), "in eight or ^
lys I shall see the end of an undertaking that has occupied
r twenty years ; that has not made my fortune by a long
that has exposed me many a time to the risk of having to
ny country or lose my freedom ; and that has consumed a
at I might have made both more useful and more glorious,
acrifice of talent to need would be less common, if it were
. question of self. One could easily resolve rather to drink
and eat dry crusts and follow the bidding of one^s genius in
et But for a woman and for children, what can one nojt
e ? If I sought to make myself of some account in their

I would not say I have worked thirty years for you : I

say I have for you renounced for thirty years the vocaif my nature ; I have preferred to renounce my tastes in
what was useful for you, instead of what was agreeable to
f. That is your real obligation to me, and of that you never
is a question, nevertheless, whether Diderot would have .
ed masterpieces, even if the pressure of housekeeping had
driven him to seek bread where he could find it Indeed it
ily a question. His genius was spacious and original, but
too dispersive, too facile of diversion, too little disciplined,
5 prolonged effort of combination which is indispensable to
'eater constructions whether of philosophy or art The
snt talent of economy and administration had been
I him ; that thrift of faculty, which accumulates store and
for concentrated occasions. He was not encyclopaedic
' CEuvres, xix. 159. See also Salens, 1767, No. iiS.

by accident, nor merely from external necessity. The qua%
of rapid movement, impetuous fancy, versatile idea, which he
traced to the climate of his birth-place, marked him from the
first for an encyclopsedic or some such task. His interest was
nearly as promptly and vehemently kindled in one subject as
in another; he was always boldly tentative, always fresh and
vigorous in suggestion, always instant in search. But this multiplicity of active excitements, and with Diderot every interest
rose to the warmth of excitement, was even more hostile to
masterpieces than were the exigences of a livelihood It was
not unpardonable in a moment of exhaustion and chagrin to
fancy that he had offered up the treasures of his genius to the
dull gods of the hearth. But if he had been childless and
unwedded, the result would have been the same. He is the
^T^"ifir.fint f odij^al of l etters, always believing his substance inexhaustible, never placing a limit to his fancies nor a bound to his
outlay. " It is not they who rob me of my life," he wrote ; " it is
I who give it to them. And what can I do better than accord a
portion of it to him who esteems me enough to solicit such i
gift ? I shall get no praise for it, 'tis true, either now while I am
here, nor when I shall exist no longer ; but I shall esteem myself
for it, and people will love me all the better for it 'Tis no bad
exchange, that of benevolence, against a celebrity that one does nol
always win, and that nobody wins without a drawback. I have
never once regretted the time that I have given to others ; I can
scarcely say as much for the time that I have used for m3rsclfL**
Remembering how uniformly men of letters take themselves somewhat too seriously, we may be sorry that this unique figure among
them, who was in other respects constituted to be so considerable
and so effective, did not take himself seriously enough.
Apart from his moral inaptitude for the monumental achievements of authorship, Diderot was endowed with the gifts of the
talker rather than with those of the writer. Like Dr. Johnson, he
Xv2T"pearconverser rather than the author of great books. It
we turn to his writings, we are at some loss to understand the
secret of his reputation. They are too often declamatory, ill-

' Les Rignes de Claude et de N^rm, 79.

compacted, broken by frequent apostrophes, ungainly, dislocated,
and rambling. He has been described by a consummate judge
as the most German of all the French. And his style is deeply
marked by that want of feeling for the exquisite, that dulness of
edge, that bluntness of stroke, which is the common note of all
German literature, save a little of the very highest. In conversation we do not insist on constant precision of phrase, nor on
elaborate sustention of argument. Apostrophe is made natural
by the semi-dramatic quality of the situation. Even vehement
hyperbole, which is nearly always a disfigurement in written prose,
may become impressive or delightful, when it harmonizes with the
voice, the glance, the gesture of a fervid and exuberant converser.
Hence Diderof s personality invested his talk, as happened in the
case of Johnson and of Coleridge, with an imposing interest and
a power of inspiration which we should never comprehend from
the mere perusal of his writings.
His admirers declared his head to be the ideal head of an
Aristotle or a Plato. His brow was wide, lofty, open, gently
rounded. The arch of the eyebrow was full of delicacy ; the
nose of masculine beauty ; the habitual expression of the eyes
kindly and sympathetic, but as he grew heated in talk, they
sparkled like fire ; the curves of the mouth bespoke an interesting
mixture of finesse, grace, and geniality. His bearing was nonchalant enough, but there was naturally in the carriage of his
head, especially when he talked with action, much dignity, energy,
and nobleness. It seemed as if enthusiasm were the natural
condition for his voice, for his spirit, for every feature. He was
only truly Diderot when his thoughts had transported him beyond
himself. His ideas were stronger than himself; they swept him
along without the power either to stay or to guide their movement " When I recall Diderot," wrote one of his friends, " the
immense variety of his ideas, the amazing multiplicity of his
knowledge, the rapiji flight, the warmth, the impetuous tumult of
his imagination, all the charm and all the disorder of his conversation, I venture to liken his character to nature herself, exactly
as he used to conceive her rich, fertile, abounding in germs of
every sort, gentle and fierce, simple and majestic, worthy and
sublime, but without any dominating principle, without a master

and without a God."' Gr^try, the musical composer, declares
that Diderot was one of the rare men who had the art of blowing
the spark of genius into flame ; the first impulses stirred by his
glowing imagination were of inspiration divine.' Marmontcl
warns us that he who only knows Diderot in his writings, does
not know him at alL We should have listened to his persuasive
eloquence, and seen his face aglow with the fire of enthusiasm.
It was when he grew animated in talk, and let all the abundance
of his ideas flow freely from the source, that he became truly

ravishing. In his writings, says Marmontel with obvious truth, he

never had the art of forming a whole, and this was because that
first process of arranging everything in its place was too slow and
too tiresome for him. The want of ensemble vanished in the
free and varied course of conversation.^
We have to remember then that Diderot was in this respect of
the Socratic type, though he was unlike Socrates, in being the disseminator of positive and constructive ideas. His personality
exerted a decisive force and influence. In reading the testimony
of his friends, we think of the young Aristides saying to Socrates:
" I always made progress whenever I was in your neighbourhood,
even if I were only in the same house, without being in the same
room ; but my advancement was greater if I were in the same
room -with you, and greater still if I could keep my eyes fixed
upon you."* It has been well said that Diderot, like Socrates,
had about him a something daemonic He was possessed, and so
had the first secret of possessing others. But then to reach
excellence in literature, one must also have self-possession ; a
double current of impulse and deliberation ; a free stream of ideas
spontaneously obeying a sense of order, harmony, and form.
Eloquence in the informal discourse of the parlour or the country
walk did not mean in Diderot's case the empty fluency and
nugatory emphasis of the ordinary talker of reputation. It must
have been both pregnant and copious ; declamatory in form, but
fresh and substantial in matter; excursive in arrangement, but
' Account of Diderot by Meister, printed in Grimm's Ccrresppndena
Litiiraire^ xiii. 202-11.
' Gretry, quoted in Genin's (Euv. choisies de Diderot, 42.
3 Marmontel, M^m, bk. vii. voL ii 312. * Plato, Theages, 130, c

orcible and pointed in intention. No doubt, if he was a sage,
le was sometimes a sage in a frenzy. He would wind up a
peroration by dashing his nightcap passionately against the wall
y way of clencher to the argument Yet this impetuosity, this
im for declamation, did not hinder his talk from being directly
istructive. Younger men of the most various type, from Morellet
own to Joubert, men quite competent to detect mere bombast or
rdent vagueness, were held captive by the cogency of his underxmding. His writings have none of this compulsion. We see
le flame, but through a veil of interfused smoke. The expression
; not obscure, but it is awkward ; not exactly prolix, but heavy,
vercharged, and opaque. We miss the vivid precision and the
igh spirits of Voltaire, the glow and the brooding sonorousness
f Rousseau, the pomp of Buffon. To Diderot we go not for charm
f style, but for a store of fertile ideas , for some striking studies
f human life, and for a vigorous and singular personality.
Diderot's knowledge of our language now did him good
ervice. One of the details of the method by which he taught
limself English is curious. Instead of using an Anglo-French
lictionary, he always used one in Anglo-Latin. The sense of a
^tin or Greek word, he said, is better established, more surely

ixed, more definite, less liable to capricious peculiarities of con'ention, than the vernacular words which the whim or ignorance
&gt;f the lexicographer may choose. The reader composes his own
ocabulary, and gains both correctness and energy.' However
his may be, his knowledge of English was more accurate than is
)ossessed by most French writers of our own day. Diderot's first
rork for the booksellers after his marriage seems to have been a
ranslation in three volumes of Stanyan's Histor}' of Greece. For
his, to the amazement of his wife, he got a hundred crowns.
V.bout the same time (1745) he published Principles of Moral
Philosophy, or an Essay of Mr. S. on Merit and Virtue. The
litial stands for Shaftesbury, and the book translated was his
nquiry concerning Virtue and Merit.
Towards the same tune, again, Diderot probably made acquaint' Art. Encyclopidte.

ance with Madame de Puisieux, of whom it has been said with too
patent humour that she was without either the virtue or the merit
on which her admirer had just been declaiming. We are told
that it was her need of money which inspired him with his first
original work. As his daughter's memoir, from which the tale
comes, is swarming with blunders, this may not be more true than
some of her other statements. All that we know of Diderot's
sense and sincerity entitles him to the benefit of the doubt The
Philosophical Thoughts (1746) are a continuation of the vein (J
the annotations on the Essay. He is said to have thrown these
reflections together between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.
Nor is there anything incredible in such rapid production, when
we remember the sweeping impetuosity with which he flung
himself into all that he undertook. The Thoughts are evidently
the fruits of long meditation, and the literal}* arrangement of them
may well have been an easy task. They are a robuster development of the scepticism which was the less important side of
Shaftesbur)'. The parliament of Paris ordered the book to be
burnt along with some others (July 7, 1746), partly because they
were heterodox, i^artly because the practice of publishing bodu
without oflic ial leave was gaining an unprecedented height of
license.' This was Diderot's first experience of that hand of
authority, which was for thirty years to surround him with mortification and torment. But the disapproval of authority did not
check the circulation or influence of the Thoughts. They were
translated into (lerman and Italian, and were honoured by a
shower of hostile criticism. In France they were often reprinted,
and even in our own day they are said not wholly to have lost
their vojiue as a short manual of scepticism.*
The historians of literature too often write as if a book were
the cause or tlic controlling force of controversies in which it is
rcally only a symbol, or a proclamation of feelings already in men's
minds. We should never occupy ourselves in tracing the thread
of a set of opinions, without tr}*ing to recognise the movement of
living men and concrete circumstance that accompanied and
* Sec lUrbior's Journal, iv. 160.

' II1C IxH^k was among those found in possesion of the unfortunate
La Barre.

caused the progress of thought. In watching how the beacon-fire
flamed from height to height
^aoi de Trjk7rofi7rou ovk fivalvero
^povphj 'n'po(rM$pi(ov&lt;ra irofintfiov^X^a
ve should not forget that its source and reference lie in action, in
he motion and stirring of confused hosts and multitudes of men.
V book, after all, is only the mouthpiece of its author, and the
.uthor being human is moved and drawn by the events that occur
mder his eye. It was not merely because Bacon and Hobbes
nd Locke had written certain books, that Voltaire and Diderot
became free-thinkers and assailed the church. " So long," it has
een said, " as a Bossuet, a Fdnelon, an Amauld, a Nicole, were
live, Bayle made few proselytes ; the elevation of Dubois and its
onsequences multiplied unbelievers and indiiferents." ' The
Dice of speculative literature always hangs on practical opportuneless. The economic evils of monasticism, the increasing flagrancy
nd grossness of superstition, the aggressive factiousness of the
txlesiastics, the cruelty of bigoted tribunals these things dis;usted and wearied the more enlightened spirits, and the English
&gt;hilosophy only held out an inspiring intellectual alternative.'
Nor was it accident that drew Diderot's attention to Shaftesbury, rather than to any other of our writers. That author's essay
m Enthusiasm had been suggested by the extravagances of the
Trench prophets, poor fanatics from the Cevennes, who had fled
o London after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and whose
laroxysms of religious hysteria at length brought them into trouble
rith the authorities (1707). Paris saw an outbreak of the same
* Honegger*s Kritische Geschichie dcr franzosischen Cultureinflusse in den
fttttn Jahrhunderten^ pp. 267-73.
* "Es ist nicht gleichgultig ob eine Folge grosser Gedanken' in' frischer
Jispriinglichkeit auf die Zeitgenossen wirkt, oder ob sie zu einer Mixtur mit
eichlichem Zusatz uberlieferter Vonirtheile verarbeitet ist Ebensowenig ist
St gleichgiiltig welcher Stiznmung, welchezn Zustande der Geister eine neue
&gt;ehre begegnet Man darf aber kuhn behaupten, das fiir die voile durchfiihrung
CT von Newton angebahnten Weltanschauung weder eine giinstigere Naturanige, noch eine giinstigere Stimmung getroffen werden konnte, als die der
^ranzosen im 18. Jahrhundert." (Lange's Gesch, d, MateriaJismuSf i. 303.)
lut the writer, like most historians of opinion, does not dwell sufficiently on
!ie co-operation of external social conditions with the progress of logical

kind of ecstasy, though on a much more formidable scale, among thi
Jansenist fanatics, from 1727 down to 1758, or later. Some
the best attested miracles in the whole history of the supematura.

were wrought at the tomb of the Jansenist deacon, Piris/ The woiis
of faith exalted multitudes into convulsive transports ; men anc
women underwent tlie most cruel tortures, in the hope of securing
descent upon them of the divine grace. The sober citizen, wh(
journal is so useful a guide to domestic events in France from
Regency to the Peace of 1763, tells us the effect of this hideous^
revival upon public sentiment. People began to see, he says,
what they were to think of the miracles of antiquity. The mor^
they went into these matters, whether miracles or prophecies,
the more obscurity they discovered in the one, the more doubt
about the other. Who could tell that they had not been accredited
and established in remote times with as little foundation as ifosX
was then passing under men's very eyes ? Just in the same way*
the violent and prolonged debates, the intrigue, the tergiversation,
which attended the acceptance of the famous Bull Unigenitus,
taught shrewd observers how it is that religions establish thexnselves. They also taught how little respect is due in our mind^
and consciences to the great points which the universal church
claims to have decided.'
These are the circumstances which explain the rude and
vigorous scepticism of Diderot's first performances. And thcf
explain the influence of Shaftesbury over him. Neither Diderot
nor his contemporaries were ready at once to plunge into tb^
broader and firmer negation to which they afterwards committ^
themselves. No doubt some of the politeness which he shows to
Christianity, both in the notes to his translation of Shaftesbur&gt;'
and in his own Philosophic Thoughts, is no more than an ironic^
deference to established prejudices. The notes to the Essay O^
Merit and Virtue show that Diderot, like all the other Frenc^^
revolters against established prejudice, had been deeply influenc^^
by the shrewd-witted Montaigne. But the ardour of the disdpJ-^
pressed objections home with a trenchancy that is very unlike th^^
See Montgeron's La Viriti des Miracles de M, de Pdris demontrh (173'
an interesting contribution to the pathology of the human mind.
Barbicr, 168, 244, &amp;c

ge distillations of the master. It was from Shaftesbury, however,
lat he borrowed common sense as a philosophic principle. Shaftesury had indirectly drawn it from Locke, and through Hutcheson
became the source and sponsor of the Scottish philosophy of
liat century. This was a weapon exactly adapted for dealing

ath a theology that was discredited in the eyes of all cool

observers by the hysterical extravagances of one set of religionists,
Jid the factious pretensions of their rivals. And no other weapon
wTas at hand. The historic or critical method of investigation
^'^as impossible, for the age did not possess the requisite learning.
r*lie indirect attack from the side of physical science was equally
cnpossible. The bearing of Newton's great discovery on the
urrent conceptions of the Creator and the supposed system of
He divine government, was not yet fully realised. The other
cientific ideas which have since made the old hypothesis less
rcfdible, were not at that time even conceived.
Diderot did indeed perceive even so early as this that the
'Ontroversy was passing from the metaphysicians to the physicists.
Though he for the moment misinterpreted the ultimate direction
&gt;^ the effect of experimental discovery, he discerned its potency
^ the field of theological discussion. " It is not from the hands
^^ the metaphysician," he said, " that atheism has received the
'^^eightiest strokes. The sublime meditations of Malebranche and
Descartes were less calculated to shake materialism than a single
observation of Malpighi's. If this dangerous hypothesis is totBering in our days, it is to experimental physics that such a result
*5 due. It is only in the works of Newton, of Muschenbroek, of
^^artzoeker, and of Nieuwentit, that people have found satisfactory
proofs of the existence of a being of sovereign intelligence,
"'^hanks to the works of these great men, thev world is ifo longer a
^^^ ; it is a machine with its cords, its pulleys, its springs, its
"^^^hts." ' ^ In other words, Diderot had as yet not made his way
^yond the halting-place which has been the favourite goal of
^'^gUsh physicists from Newton down to Faraday." Consistent
^^erialism had not yet established itself in his mind. Mean^^e he laid about him with his common sense, just as Voltaire
* PenUes PkiUsophiques^ xviil ' On this, sec Lange, i. 2^

did, though Diderot has more weightiness of manner. If his use
of the weapon cannot be regarded as a decisive settlement of the
true issues, we have to remember that he himself became aware in
a very short time of its inadequateness, and proceeded to the
discussion, as we shall presently see, from another side.
The scope of the Philosophical Thoughts, and the attitude of
Diderot's mind when they were written, may be shown in a few
brief passages. The opening words point to the significance of
the new time in one direction, and they are the key-note Xo
Diderot's whole character.^ "People are for ever declaiming
against the passions ; they set down to them all the pains that
man endures, and quite forget that they are also the source of afl
his pleasures. A It is regarded as an affront to reason if one dares
to say a word in favour of its rivals. V Yet it is only passions, and
strong passions, that can raise the soul to great things. Sober
passions produce only the commonplace. Deadened passions
degrade men of extraordinary quality. Constraint annihilates the
greatness and energy of nature. See that tree ; 'tis to the luxury

of its branches that you owe the freshness and the wide-spreading
breadth of its shade, which you may enjoy till winter comes to
despoil it of its leafy tresses. An end to all excellence in poetry,
in painting, in music, as soon as superstition has once wrought
upon human temperament the effect of old age ! It is the very
climax of madness to propose to oneself the ruin of the passions.
A fine design truly in your pietist, to torment himself like a convict in order to desire nothing, love nothing, feel nothing ; and he J
would end by becoming a tme monster, if he were to succeed I ' *
Many years aftenvards he Avrote in the same sense to Madame
Voland. "I have ever been the apologist of strong passions;
they alone move me. Whether they inspire me with admiration
or horror, I feel vehemently. If atrocious deeds that dishonour
our nature are due to them, it is by them also that we are borne
to the marvellous endeavour that elevates it The man of
mediocre passion lives and dies like the brute." And so forth,
until the writer is carried to the perplexing position that " if we
were bound to choose between Eacine, a bad husband, a bad
' PensSes Fhilosophiques. (Euv, i. 12S-9.

ither, a false friend, and a sublime poet, and Racine, good father,
;ood husband, good friend, and dull worthy man, I hold to the
irst Of Racine, the bad man, what remains? Nothing. Of
^cine, the man of genius? The work is eternal"' Without
Lttempting to solve this problem in casuistry, we recognise
Diderot's mood, and the hatred with which it would be sure to
nspire him for the starved and mutilated passions of the Christian
ype. The humility, chastit}', obedience, indolent solitude, which
lad for centuries been glorified by the Church, were monstrous to
his vehement and energetic spirit The church had placed
leroism in effacement Diderot, borne to the other extreme, left
mt even discipline. To turn from his maxims on the foundation
f conduct, to his maxims on opinion. As we have said, his
ttitude is that of the sceptic :
What has never been put in question, has not been proved
VTiat people have not examined without prepossessions, they have
lOt examined thoroughly. Scepticism is the touchstone. ( 31.)
Incredulity is sometimes the vice of a fool, and credulity the
iefect of a man of intelligence. The latter sees far into the
nmensity of the Possible ; the former scarcely sees anything
ossible beyond the Actual. Perhaps this is what produces the
imidity of the one, and the temerity of the other.
A demi-scepticism is the mark of a feeble understanding. It
eveals a pusillanimous reasoner, who suffers himself to be alarmed
J consequences ; a superstitious creature, who thinks he is
lonouring God by the fetters which he imposes on his reason ;
. kind of unbeliever who is afraid of unmasking himself to himself.
*or if truth has nothing to lose by examination, as is the demiceptic's conviction, what does he think in the bottom of his heart
f those privileged notions which he fears to sound, and which are
ilaced in one of the recesses of his brain, as in a sanctuary to
rhich he dares not draw nigh? ( 34.)

Scepticism does not suit everybody. It supposes profound

nd impartial examination. He who doubts because he does not
jiow the grounds of credibility, is no better than an ignoramus.
rhe true sceptic has counted and weighed the reasons. But it
' (Euvres, xix. S7. Grimm, Supp. 14S.
D 2

Is no light matter to weigh arguments. Who of us knows their
value with any nicety ? Every mind has its own telescope. An
objection that disappears in your eyes, is a colossus in mine : you
find an argument trivial that to me is overwhelming. ... If then
it is so difficult to weigh reasons, and if there are no questions
which have not two sides, and nearly always in equal measure,
how come we to decide with such rapidity? ( 24.)
When the pious cry out against scepticism, it seems to me that
they do not understand their own interest, or else that they are
inconsistent. If it is certain that a true faith to be embraced,
and a false faith to be abandoned, need only to be thoroughly
known, then surely it must be highly desirable that universal
doubt should spread over the surface of the earth, and that all
nations, should consent to have the truth of their religions
examined. Our missionaries would find a good half of their
work done for them. ( 36.)
One thing to be remembered is that Diderot, like Vauvenargues,
Voltaire, Condorcet, always had Pascal in his mind when dealing
with apologetics. They all recognised in him a thinker with a
love of truth, as distinguished from the mere priest, Catholic,
Anglican, Brahman, or another. " Pascal," says Diderot, " was
upright, but he was timid and inclined to credulity. An elegant
writer and a profound reasoner, he would doubtless have enlightened the world, if Providence had not abandoned him to
people who sacrificed his talents to their own antipathies. How
much to be regretted, that he did not leave to the theologians of his
time the task of settling their own diflerences; that he did not
give himself up to the search for truth, without reserve and without the fear of offending God by using all the intelligence that
God had given him. How much to be regretted that he took for
masters men who were not worthy to be his disciples, and was
foolish enough to think Arnauld, De Sacy, and Nicole, better
men than himself" ( 14.) The Philosophic Thoughts are
designed for an answer in form to the more famous Thoughts of
this champion of popular theology. The first of the following
extracts, for instance, recalls a memorable illustration of Pascal's
sublime pessimism. A few passages will illustrate sufficiendy
the line of argument which led the foremost men at the open-

ing of the philosophic revolution to reject the pretensions of

Christianity :
What voices ! what cries ! what groans ! Who is it that has
shut up in dungeons all these piteous souls ? What crimes have
the poor wretches committed ? Who condemns them to such
torments ? Th^ God whom ihey hcn&gt;e offended. Who then is this
God ? A God fuii of goodness. But would a God full of goodness
take delight in bathing himself in tears? If criminals had to
calm the furies of a tjn^nt, what would they do more ? . . . There
are people of whom we ought not to say that they fear God, but
that they are horribly afraid of him. . . . Judging from the picture
they paint of the Supreme Being, from his wrath, from the rigour
of his vengeance, from certain comparisons expressive of the ratio
between those whom he leaves to perish and those to whom he
deigns to stretch out a hand, the most upright soul would be
tempted to wish that such a being did not exist. ( 7-9.)
You present to an unbeliever a volume of writings of which
you claim to show him the divinity. But, before going into your
proofs, he will be sure to put some questions about your collection. Has it always been the same ? Why is it less ample
now than it was some centuries ago ? By what right have they
banished this work or that, which another sect reveres, and
preserved this or that, which the other has repudiated ? . . . You
only answer all these difficulties by the avowal that the first
foundations of the faith are purely human ; that the choice
between the manuscripts, the restoration of passages, finally the
collecrion, has been made according to rules of criticism. Well,
1 do not refuse to concede to the divinity of the sacred books a
d^ree of faith proportioned to the certainty of these rules. ( 59.)
People agree that it is of the last importance to employ none
but solid arguments for the defence of a creed. Yet they would
gladly persecute those who attempt to cry down the bad arguments.
What then, is it not enough to be a Christian ? Am I also to be
one upon wrong grounds ? (57.)
The less probability a fact has, the more does the testimony of
history lose its weight I should have no difficulty in believing a
single honest man who should tell me that the king had just won a
complete victory over the aUies. But if all Paris were to assure me

that a dead man had come to life again, I should not believe a wc^'c^
of it. That a historian should impose upon us, or that a wh^=3!l^
people should be mistaken there is no miracle in that. ( 46 )
What is God ? A question that we put to children, and tE*a^
philosophers have much trouble to answer. We know the age at
which a child ought to learn to read, to sing, to dance, to
Latin or geometry. It is only in religion that you take no accoi
of liis capacity. He scarcely hears what you say, before he is ask&lt;
What is God ? It is at the same instant, from the same lips,
he learns that there are ghosts, goblins, were-wolves and a

The diversity of religious opinions has led the deists to inv c= ^ ^t

an argument that is perhaps more singular than sound. Cice =n),
having to prove that the Romans were the most warlike people ^
the world, adroitly draws this conclusion from the lips of th ^^
rivals. Gauls, to whom if to any, do you yield the palm for coui
To the Romans. Parthians, after you, who are the bravest
men ? The Romans. Africans, whom would you fear, if
were to fear any? The Romans. Let us interrogate the
ligionists in this fashion, say the deists. Chinese, what religi
would be the best, if your own were not the best ? Naturalis:^^"^
Mussulmans, what faith would you .embrace, if you abjui *^*"
Mahomet? Naturalism. Christians, what is the true religion, ^
it be not Christianity ? Judaism. But you, O Jews, what is t -^'^
true religion, if Judaism be false ? Naturalism. Now
continues Cicero, to whom the second place is awarded
unanimous consent, and who do not in turn concede the
place to any it is those who incontestably deserve that plaC^^
( 62.)

In all this we notice one constant characteristic of tlP^^

eighteenth century controversy about revealed religion. T^^
assailant demands of the defender an answer to all the intellectu^ ^
or logical objections that could possibly be raised by one^'wi:^'^^
had never been a Christian, and who refused to become ^
Christian until these objections could be met No account ^
taken of the mental conditions by which a creed is engender^^
and limited ; nor of the train of historic circumstance whic^

prepares men to receive it The modem apologist escapes by
explaining religion ; the apologist of a hundred years ago was
required to prove it. The end of such a method was inevitably
I negation. The objective propositions of a creed with superlatural pretensions can never be demonstrated from natural or
rationalistic premisses. And if they could be so demonstrated,
t would only be on grounds that are equally good for some

3ther creeds with the same pretensions. The sceptic was left
Tiumphantly weighing one revealed system against another in an
^ual balance.*
The position- of -the- writer q the PliilQsophical Thoughts is
distinctl y theistic. Yet there is at least one striking passage to
show how forcibly some of the arguments on the other side
impressed him, " I open," says Diderot, * the pages of a celebrated professor, and I read * Atheists, I concede to you that
movement is essential to matter; what conclusion do you draw
from that? That the world results from the fortuitous concourse of atoms ? You might as well say that Homer's Iliad, or
Voltaire's Henriade, is a result of the fortuitous concourse of
written characters.' Now for my part, I should be very sorry to
use that reasoning to an atheist ; the comparison would give him
a very easy game to play. According to the laws* of the analysis
of chances, he would say-to me, I ought not to be surprised that
a thing comes to pass when it is possible, and the difficulty of
the event is compensated by the number of throws. There is a
certain number of throws in which I would safely back myself to
bring 100,000 sixes at once with 100,000 dice. Whatever the
' Volney, in a book that was famous in its day, Les Ruines^ ou Meditation
sur Us riuolutions des empires (1791), resorted to a slight difference of method
Instead of leaving the pretensions of the various creeds to cancel one another,
he invented a rather striking scene, in which the priests of each creed are made
to listen to the professions of their rival, and then inveigh against his superstition and inconsistency. The assumption on which Diderot's argument rests
is, that as so many different creeds all make the same exclusive daim, the
claim is equally false throughout. Volney's argument turns more directly on
the merits, and implies that all religions are equally morbid or pathological
products, because they all lead to conduct condenmed by their own most
characteristic maxims. Volney's concrete presentation of comparative religion
was highly efiective for destructive purposes, though it would now be justly
thought inadequate. (See (Euvres de Volney ^ L 109, &amp;c.)

definile number of the letters with which I am invited fortuitously
to produce the Iliad, there is a certain definite number of throws
which would make the proposal advantageous for me ; nay, my
advantage would be infinite if the quantity of throws accorded to
me were infinite. Now, you grant to me that matter exists ftom
all eternity, and that movement is essential to it In return for
this concession, I will suppose with you that the world has no
limits ; that the multitude of atoms is infinite, and that this
order, which astonishes you, nowhere contradicts itself Well,
from these reciprocal admissions there follows nothing else unless
it be this, that the possibility of engendering the universe fortuitously is very small, but that the number of throws is infinite,
or, in other words, that the difficulty of ilu n^ent is more thca^
sufficiently compensated by the multitude of the throws, Therefm^
if anything ought to be repugnant to reason^ it is the supposition thaty
matter being in motion from all eternity^ and there being perhaps
in the infinite number of possible combinations an infinite number oj

admirable arrangements^ none of these admirable arrangements

would have been met ivith, out of the infinite multitude of all those
which matter successively took on. Therefore the mind ought to
be more astonished at the hypothetical duration of chaos. ^ ' (21).
In a short continuation of the Philosophical Thoughts, entitled
On the Sufficiency of Natural Religion, Diderot took Jjie next
step, and turned towards that faith which the votaries of_ each
creed allow to be the best after their own. Even here h e is still
in the atmosphere of negation. He^desires no more tlian-lo-show
that revealed religion confers no advantages which are not already
secured by natural religion. " The revealed law contains no moral
precept which I do not find recommended and practised under
the law of nature ; therefore it has taught us nothing new upon
morality. The revealed law has brought us no new truth ; for
what is a truth but a proposition referring to an object, conceived
in terms which present clear ideas to me, and the connection of
which with one another is intelligible to me? Now revealed
religion has introduced no such propositions to us. \\Tiat it has
added to the natural law consists of five or six propositions which
' See on this, Lange, ii. 3081.

are not a whit more intelligible to me than if they were expressed
in ancient Carthaginian, inasmuch as the ideas represented by
the terms, and the connection among these ideas, escape me
entirely." '
There is no sign in this piece that Diderot had examined the
positive grounds of natural religion, or that he was ready with any
adequate answer to the argument which Butler had brought
forward in the previous decade of the century. We do not see
that he is aware as yet of there being as valid objections on his
own sceptical principles to the alleged data of naturalistic deism,
as to the pretensions of a supernatural religion. He was content
with Shaftesbury's position.
.Shaftesbury's i nfluence on Diderot was permanent. It did
not long remain so full and entire as it was now in the sphere of
religious belief, but the trc^ces of it never disappeared from--his
notions on morals., and art. Shaftesbury's cheerfulness and
geniality in philosophizing were thoroughly sympathetic to
Diderot. The optimistic harmony which the English philosopher, coming after Leibnitz, assumed as the starting-point of
his ethical and religious ideas, was not only highly congenial to
Diderot's sanguine temperame nt ; it was a most attractive way of
escape from the disorderly and confused theological wilderness of
sin, asceticism, miracle, and the other monkeries. This naturalistic
religion may seem a very unsafe and comfortless halting-place to
us. But to men who heard of religion only in connection with
the Bull Unigenitus and confessional certificates, with some act \
of intolerance or cruelty, with futile disputes about grace and the
Five Propositions, the naturalism which Shaftesbury taught in
, prose and Pope versified was like the dawn after the foulness of
night. Those who wished to soften the inhuman rigour of the
criminal procedure of the time ' used to appeal from customary

' De la Suffisance de la Religion Naturdle^ 5.

* It is well to remember that torture was not abolished in France until the
Revolution. A Catholic writer makes the following judicious remark : '* We
cannot study the eighteenth century without being struck by the immoral consequences that inevitably followed for the population of Paris from the frequency and the hideous details of criminal executions. In reading the journals
of the time, we are amazed at the place taken in popular life by the scenes of
the Gr&amp;ve. It was the theatre of the day. The gibbet and the wheel did their



ordinances and written laws to the law natural. The \sm natural
was announced to have preceded any law of human devising. In
the same way, those who wished to disperse the darkness of unintelligible dogmas and degraded ecclesiastical usages, appealed to
the simplicity, light, and purity of that natural religion which was
supposed to have been overlaid and depraved by the special
superstitions of the different communities of the world.
" Pope*s Essay on Man," wrote Voltaire after his return from
England (1728), " seems to me the finest didactic poem, the most
useful, the most sublime, that was ever written in any tongue
'Tis true the whole substance of it is to be found in ShaftesbuiT's
Characteristics, and I do not know why Pope gives all the honour
of it to Bolingbroke, without saying a word of the celebrated
Shaftesbury, the pupil of Locke."' The ground of this enthusiastic appreciation of the English naturalism was not
merely that it made morality independent of religion, which
Shaftesbury took great pains to do. It also identified religion
with all that is beautiful and harmonious in the universal scheme.
It surrounded the new faith with a pure and lofty poetry, that
enabled it to confront the old on more than equal terms of dignity
and elevation. Shaftesbury, and Diderot after him, ennobled
human nature by placing the principle of virtue, the sense of
goodness, within the breast of man. Diderot held to this idea
throughout, as we shall see. That he did so explains a kind of
phraseology about virtue and morality in his letters to Madame
Voland and elsewhere, which would otherwise sound disagreeably
like cant. Finally, Shaftesbur/s peculiar attribution of beauty to
morality, his reference of ethical matters to a kind of taste, the
tolerably equal importance attributed by him to a sense of beauty
and to the moral sense, all impressed Diderot with a mark th^-t
was not effaced.. In the text of the Inquiry the author pt^
nounces it a childish affectation in the eyes of any man wt^^
work almost periodically, and people looked on while poor wretches writl* .
in slow agony all day long. Sometimes the programme was varied by deca-^*'
tation and even by the stake. Torture had its legends and its heroes t^^
cvery-day talk of the generation which, having begun by seeing Damiens t^^

.by red-hot pincers, was to end by rending Foulon limb from limb." {fju^^
J'fonarchie frattfoise au i%itne Siklf, p. 493.)
* Lettres sur Us Anglais, xxiii.

gs maturely to deny that there is in moral beings, just
real objects, a true and essential beauty, a real subeagerness with which Diderot seized on this idea from.
; shown in the declamatory foot-note which he here
his original/ It was the source, by a process of inication, of that ethical colouring in his criticisms on
lade them so new and so interesting, because it carried
yond technicalities, and associated it with the real
d circumstances of human life.'
Diderot's writing? composed about our present date
Promenade du Sceptique, did not see the light until
ith. His daughter tells us that a police agent came
the house, and proceeded to search the author's room.
. manuscript, said, " Good, that is what I am looking
it into his pocket, and went away. Diderot did his
over his piece, but never succeeded.^ A copy of it
the hands of Naigeon, and it seems to have been
Malesherbes, the director of the press, out of goodluthor. If it had been printed, it would certainly have
sojourn in Vincennes.
'e at first some difficulty in realising how the police
f the contents of an obscure author's desk. For one
ave to remember that Paris, though it had been enoreased in the days of Law and the System (1719-20),
' a comparatively manageable size. In 1720, though
tion of the whole realm was only fourteen or fifteen
at of Paris had reached no less a figure than a million
After the explosion of the System, its artificial ex:urally came to an end. By the middle of the century
estimate of the population does not make it much
ir le Mirite^ I. ii. 3. CEiw, L 33.
esbury is one of the most important apparitions of the eighteenth
. the greatest spirits of that time, not only in England, but also
Itaire, Diderot, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Wieland, and Herder,
ngest nourishment from him." (Hettner, Literaturgeschickte des
ndertsx \er Theil, 188.) See also Lange's Gesch, des Mattrialis
kc An excellent account of Shaftesbury is g^ven by Mr. Leslie
is Essays on Free-thinking and Ptain-spsaking,
', L xIyL


more than eight hundred thousand/ This, unlike the socially

unwholesome and monstrous agglomerations of Paris or London

in our own time, was a population over which police supervision
might be made tolerably effective. It was more like a very large
provincial town. Again, the inhabitants were marked off into
groups or worlds with a definiteness that is now no longer possible. One-fifth of the population, for instance, consisted of
domestic servants.' There were between twenty-eight and thirty
thousand professional beggars.^ The legal circle was large, and
was deeply engrossed by its own interests and troubles. The
world of authorship, though extremely noisy and profoundly important, still made only a small group. One effect of a censorship is to produce much gossip and whispering about suspected
productions before they see the light, and these whispers let the
police into as many secrets as they choose to know.
In Diderot's case, his unsuspecting good-nature to all comers
made his affairs accessible enough. His house was the resort of
all the starving hacks in Paris, and he has left us more than one
graphic picture of the literary drudge of that time. He writes,
for instance, about a poor devil to whom he had given a manuscript to copy. " The time for which he had promised it to me
expired, and as my man did not appear, I became uneasy, and
started in search of him. I found him in a hole about as big as my
fist, almost pitch-dark, without the smallest scrap of curtain or
hanging to cover the nakedness of his walls, a couple of strawbottomed chairs, a truckle-bed with a quilt riddled by the moths,
a box in the comer of the chimney and rags of every sort stuck
upon it, a small tin lamp to which a bottle served as support, and

* Jobez, France sous Louis XV, ii. 373. There were, in 1725, 24,000
houses, 20, coo carriages, and 120,000 horses. (Martin's Hist, tie France^
XV. 116.)
' The records of Paris in this century contain more than one illustratioD of
the turbulence of this odious army of lackeys. Barbier, i. 118. For the way
in which their insolence was fostered, see Saint-Simon, xii. 354, &amp;c. The
number of lackeys retained seems to have been extraordinarily great in proportion to the total of annual expenditure, and this b a curious point in the
manners of the time. See Voltaire, Diet, Phil, v. iSconomie Domestique
(liv. 182).
3 Duclos, Mim, secrets sur le Rignc de Louis XV. iii. 306.

on a shelf some dozen first-rate books. I sat talking there for
three-quarters of an hour. My man was as bare as a worm, lean,
black, dry, but perfectly serene. He said nothing, but munched
his cnist of bread with good appetite, and bestowed a caress from
time to time on his beloved, on the miserable bedstead that took
up two-thirds of his room. If I had never learnt before that
happiness resides in the soul, my Epictetus of Hyacinth Street
would have taught it me right thoroughly." '
The history of one of these ragged clients is to our point.
"Among those," he wrote to Madame Voland,' " whom chance

and misery sent to my address was one Glenat, who knew

mathematics, wrote a good hand, and was in want of bread. I
did all I could to extricate him from his embarrassments. I went
begging for customers for him on every side. If he came at
meal-times, I would not let him go ; if he lacked shoes, I gave
him them ; now and then I slipped a shilling into his hands as
well He had the air of the worthiest man in the world, and he
even bore his neediness with a certain gaiety that used to amuse
me. I was fond of chatting with him ; he seemed to set little
store by fortune, fame, and most of the other things that charm
or dazzle us in life. Seven or eight days ago Damilaville wrote to
me to send this man to him, for one of his friends who had a
manuscript for him to copy. I send him ; the manuscript is
entrusted to him 2k work on religion and government. I do not
know how it came about, but that manuscript is now in the hands
of the lieutenant of police. Damilaville gives me word of this.
I hasten to my friend Glenat, to warn him to count no more upon
xne. ' And why am I not to count upon you ? ' ' Because you
are a marked man. The police have their eyes upon you, and
'tis impossible to send work to you.' * But, my dear sir, there's
no risk, so long as you entrust nothing reprehensible to my hands.
The police only come here when they scent game. I cannot tell
how they do it, but they are never mistaken.' 'Ah well, I at
any rate know how it is, and you have let me see much more in
the matter than I ever expected to learn from you,' and with that
I turn my back on my rascal." Diderot having occasion to visit
* (Euvns^ xix, 91. IHd. p. 13a

the lieutenant of police, introduced the matter, and could not ^
withhold an energetic remonstrance against such an odious abuse..^^
of a man's kindness of heart, as the introduction of spies to
fireside. M. de Sartine laughed and Diderot took his leave^
vowing that all the wretches who should come to him for the future,
with cuffs dirty and torn, with holes in their stockings and holes
in their shoes, with hair all unkempt, in shabby overcoats with
many rents, or scanty black suits with starting seams, with all the
tones and looks of distressed worth, would henceforth seem \q
him no better than police emissaries and scoundrels set to spy on
him. The vow, we may be siure, was soon forgotten, but the
story shows how seriously in one respect the man of letters in
France was worse off than his brother in England.
The world would have suffered no irreparable loss if the
police had thrown the Sceptic's Walk into the fire. It is an
' allegory designed to contrast the life of religion, the life of philosophy, and the life of sensual pleasure. Of all forms of composition, an allegory most depends for its success upon the rapidity
of the writer's eye for new felicities. Accuracy, verisimilitude,
sustention, count for nothing in comparison with imaginative
adroitness and variety. Bunyan had such an eye, and so, with
infinitely more vivacity, had Voltaire. Diderot had not the deep
sincerity or realism of conviction of the one ; nor had he the
inimitable power of throwing himself into a fancy, that was possessed by the other. He was the least agile, the least felicitous,
the least ready, of composers. His allegory of the avenue of

thorns, the avenue of chestnut-trees, and the avenue of flowers,

is an allegor}', unskilful, obvious, poor, and not any more amusing
than if its matter had been set forth without any attempt at
fanciful decoration. The blinded saints among the thorns, and
the voluptuous sinners among the flowers, are rather mechanical
figures. The translation into the dialect required by the allegorical situation, of a sceptic's aversion for gross superstition on
the one hand, and for gross hedonism on the other, is forced and
wooden. ^The most interesting of the three sections is the
second, containing a discussion in which the respective parts arc
taken by a deist, a pantheist, a subjective idealist, a sceptic, and
an atlieist. The allegory falls into the background, and we have

5^ plain statement of some of the objections that may be made by
the sceptical atheist both to revelation and to natural religion. A
stairy sky calls forth the usual glorification of the maker of so
much beauty. "That is all imagination," rejoins the atheist
^'It is mere presumption. We have before us an unknown
machine, on which certain observations have been made.
Ignorant people who have only examined a single wheel of it,
3f which they hardly know more than a tooth or two, form con.
lectures upon the way in which their cogs fit in with a hundred
thousand other wheels. And then to finish like artisans, they
label the work with the name of its author."
The defender justifies this by the argument from a repeaternratch, of which Paley and others have made so much use. We
eU once ascribe the structure and movement of a repeater-watch to
intelligent creation. " No things are not equal," says the atheist.
'* You are comparing a finished work, whose origin and manufacture we know, to an infinite piece of complexity, whose beginnings,
vrhose present condition, and whose end are all alike unknown,
and about whose author you have nothing better than guesses."
But does not its structure annoimce an author ? " No ; you
do not see who nor what he is. ^Vho told you that the order you
admire here belies itself nowhere else ? Are you allowed to conclude from a point in space to infinite space ? You pile a vast
piece of ground with earth-heaps thrown here or there by chance,
but among which the worm and the ant find convenient dwellingplaces enough. What would you think of these insects, if,
reasoning after your fashion, they fell into raptures over the
intelligence of the gardener who had arranged all these materials
so delightfuUy for their convenience ?" '
In this nidimentary form the chief speaker presses some of
the objections to optimistic deism from the point of view of the
xed limitations, the inevitable relativity, of human knowledge.
This kind of objection had been more pithily expressed by Pascal
long before, in the famous article of his Thoughts, on the difficulty
of demonstrating the existence of a deity by light of nature.'
' Prom, du Sceptique, CEuv, i. 229.
** If there is a God, he is infinitely incomprehensible, since, being without
parts or limits he has no relation to us : we are therefore incapable of knowing

Diderot's argument does not extend to dogmatic denial. It only
shows that the deist is exposed to an attack from the same
sceptical armoury, from which he had drai^Ti his own weapons for
attacking revelation. It is impossible to tell how far Diderot went
at this moment The trenchancy with which his atheist urges his
reasoning, proves that the writer was fully alive to its force. On
the other hand, the atheist is left in the midst of a catastrophe. On
his return home, he finds his children murdered, his house pillaged,
and his wife carried off. And we are told that he could not
complain on his own principles. If the absence of witnesses
allowed the robber to commit his crime with impunity, why should
he not ? Again, there is a passage in which the writer seems to
be speaking his own opinions. An interlocutor maintains the importance of keeping the people in bondage to certain prejudices.
" What prejudices ? If a man once admits the existence of a God,
the reality of moral good and evil, the immortality of the soul,
future rewards and punishments, what need has he of prejudices?
Supposing him initiated in all the mysteries of transubstantiation,
consubstantiation, the Trinity, hypostatical union, predestination^
incarnation, and the rest, will he be any the better citizen ? " '
In truth, Diderot^s mind was at this time floating in an
atmosphere of rationalistic negation, and the moral of his piece,
as he hints, points first to the extravagance of Catholicism, next
to the vanity of the pleasures of the world, and lastly, to Ac
imfathomable uncertainty of philosophy. Still, we may discern a
significant leaning towards the theory of the eternity of matter,
which has arranged itself and assumed variety of form by virtue
of its inherent quality of motion."
It is a characteristic and displeasing mark of the time that
Diderot in the midst of these serious speculations, should have
set himself (1748) to the composition of a story in the kind which
the author of the Sofa had made highly popular. The mechanism
of this deplorable piece is more grossly disgusting I mean
aesthetically, not morally than anything to be found elsewhere in
what he is, or if he is. That being so, who shall venture to undertake the
solution of the question ? Not we, at any rate, who have no relation to
him." PensJ^s, II. iii. i.
' Page 182. = Page 223.

the too voluminous library of impure literature. The idea would
seem to have been borrowed from one of the old Fabliaux/ But
what is tolerable in the quaint and naif verse of the t^velfth or
thirteenth century, becomes shocking when deliberately rendered
by a grave man into bald unblushing prose of the eighteenth.
The humour, the rich sparkle, the wit, the merry gaillardise^ have
all vanished ; we are left with the vapid dregs of an obscene

anachronism. Mr. Carlyle, who knows how to be manly in these

matters, and affects none of the hypocritical airs of our conventional criticism, yet has not more energetically than truly pronounced this " the beastliest of all past, present, or future dull
novels.'' As " the next mortal creature, even a Reviewer, again
compelled to glance into that book," I have felt the propriety of
our humorist's injunction to such a one, "to bathe himself in
Tunning water, put on change of raiment, and be unclean until the
ven." Diderot himself, as might have been expected, soon had
^he grace to repent him of this shameful book, and could never
liear it mentioned without a very lively embarrassment.'
As I have said before,' it was such books as this, as Crdbillon's
xiovels, as Duclos's Confessions du Comte X., and the dissoluteness
of manners indicated by them, which invested Rousseau's New
Heloisa (1761) with its delightful and irresistible fascinations.
Having pointed out elsewhere the significance of the licentiousness
from which the philosophic party did not escape untainted,* I need
not here do more than make two short remarks. First, the corruption which had seized the court after the death of Lewis xiv.
in the course of a few years had reached the middle class in
the town. The loosening of social fibre, caused by the insensate
speculation at the time of Law, no doubt furthered the spread of
demoralization. Second, the reaction against the Church involved
among its other elements a passionate contempt for all asceticism.
This happened to fall in with the general relaxation of morals that
followed Lewis's gloomy rigour. Consequently even men of pure
l^xhziaxi^ Fabliaux et Contest iii. 409 (ed. 1S08). The learned Barbazan's
first edition was published in 1756, and so Diderot may well have heard some
of the contents of the work then in progress.
^ Naigeon. ^ Jn my Rousseau, p. 243 (new ed.).
- Voitatrtf p. 108 (3rd ed.).

life, like Condorcet, carried the theoretical protest against as-.
ceticisra so far as to vindicate the practical immorality of the time.
This is one of those enormous drawbacks that people seldom take
into account when they are enumerating the blessings of superstition. Mediaeval superstition had produced some advantages,
but now came the set-off. Durable morality had been associated
with a transitory religious faith. The faith fell into intellectual
discredit, and sexual morality shared its decline for a short
season. This must always be the natural consequence of building
sound ethics on the shifting sands and rotting foundations of
Such literature as these tales of Diderot's, was the mirror both
of the ordinary practical sentiment and the philosophic theory. A
nation pays dearly for one of these outbreaks, when they happen
to stamp themselves in a literary form that endures. There are
those who hold that Louvet's Faublas is to this day a powerful
agent in the depravation of the youth of France. Diderot,
however, had not the most characteristic virtues of French
wTiting ; he was no master in the art of the naif, nor in delicate

malice, nor in sprightly cynicism. His book, consequently, has

not lived, and we need not waste more words upon it. Chaqw
esprit a sa //&gt;, wrote one who for a while had sat at Diderot's feet ; '
and we may dismiss this tale as the lees of Diderot's strong,
careless, sensualized understanding. He was afterwards the
author of a work, La Religieuse, on which the superficial critic
may easily pour out the vials of affected ^^Tath. There, however,
he was executing a profound pathological study in a serious spirit
If the subject is horrible, we have to blame the composition of
human character, or the mischievousn^ss of a human institution.
La Religieuse is no continuation of tfe. vein of defilement which
began and ended with the story of 1748 a story which is one
among so many illustrations of Guizot's saying about the
eigl&gt;teenth century, that it was the most tempting and seductive
of all centuries, for it promised full satisfaction at once to all the
greatnesses of humanity and to all its weaknesses. Hettner quotes
a passage from the minor writings of Niebuhr, in which the
historian compares Diderot with Petronius, as having both of them
* Joubert.

been honest and well-intentioned men, who in shameless times
were carried towards cynicism by their deep contempt for the
prevailing vice. " If Diderot were alive qow," says Niebuhr, " and
if Petronius had only lived in the fourth instead of the third
century, then the painting of obscenity would have been odious to
them, and the inducement to it infinitely smaller." ' There is no
trace in Diderot of this deep contempt for the viciousncss of his
time. All that can be said is that he did not escape it in his
earlier years, in spite of the natural wholesomeness and rectitude
of his character.
It is worthy of remark that the dissoluteness of the middle
jK)rtion of the century was not associated with the cynical
iind contemptuous view about women that usually goes with
xelaxed morality. There was a more or less distinct consciousness of a truth which has ever since grown into clearer
j;)rominence with the advance of thought since the Revolution.
It is that the sphere and destiny of women are among the three
or four foremost questions in social improvement This is now i^
perceived on all sides, profound as are the differences of opinion
\ipon the proper solution of the problem. A hundred years ago
this perception was vague and indefinite, but there was an
\inniistakable apprehension that the Catholic ideal of womanliood was no more adequate to the facts of life, than Catholic
\dews about science, or property, or labour, or political order and
Diderot has left some curious and striking reflections upon the
fate and character of women. He gives no signs of feeling after
social reorganization ; he only speaks as oije brooding in uneasy
meditation over a very mournful perplexity. There is no sentimentalizing, after the fiashion of Jean Jacques. He does not
neglect the plain physical facts, about which it is so difficult in an
age of morbid reserve to speak with freedom, yet about which it
is fatal to be silent. He indulged in none of those mischievous

flatteries of women, which satisfy narrow observers, or coxcombs,

or the uxorious. " Never forget," he said, " that for lack of
reflection and principles, nothing penetrates down to a certain
profoundness of conviction in the understanding of women. The
* Hettner, LiUrtUurgtschichtt des \%tm Jahrhunderts^ ii. 301.

ideas of justice, virtue, vice, goodness, badness, float on the
surface of their souls. They have preserved self-love and personal
interest with all the energy of nature. Although more civilized
than we are outwardly, they have remained true savages inwardly.
.... It is in the passion of love, the access of jealousy, the
transports of maternal tenderness, the instants of superstition, the
way in which they show epidemic and popular notions, that
women amaze us ; fair as lihe seraphin of Klopstock, terrible as
the fiends of Milton. , . . The distractions of a busy and contentious life break up our passions. A woman, on the contrary,
broods over her passions ; they are a fixed point on which her
idleness or the frivolity of her duties holds her attention fast. . . .
Impenetrable in dissimulation, cruel in vengeance, tenacious in
their designs, without scruples about the means of success,
animated by a deep and secret hatred against the despotism of
man it seems as if there were among them a sort of league, such
as exists among the priests of all nations. . . . The symbol of
women in general is that of the Apocalypse, on the front of which
is inscribed, Mystery, ... If we have more reason than women
have, they have far more instinct than we have." * All this was
said in no bitterness, but in the spirit of the strong observer.
Cynical bitterness is as misplaced as frivolous adulation.
Diderot had a deep pity for women. Their physical weaknesses
moved him to compassion. To these are added the burden of
their maternal function, and the burden of unequal laws. " The
moment which shall deliver the girl from subjection to her parents
is come; her imagination opens to a future thronged by chimgeras;
her heart swims in secret delight. Rejoice while thou canst,
luckless creature ! Time would have weakened the tyranny that
thou hast left ; time will strengthen the tyranny that awaits thee.
They choose a husband for her. She becomes a mother. It is in
anguish, at the peril of their lives, at the cost of their charms,
often to the damage of their health, that they give birth to their
little ones. The organs that mark their sex are subject to two
incurable maladies. There is, perhaps, no joy comparable to that
of the mother as she looks on her first-born : but the moment is
* CEuvres^ ii. 260, etc.

dearly bought. Time advances, beauty passes ; there come the
years of neglect, of spleen, of weariness. Tis in pain that
Nature disposes them for maternity; in pain and illness, dangerous

and prolonged, she brings maternity to its close. What is a

woman after that? Neglected by her husband, left by her
children, a nullity in society, then piety becomes her one and last
lesource. In nearly every part of the world, the cruelty of the
civil laws against women is added to the cruelty of Nature. They
iave been treated like weak-minded children. There is no sort
cf vexation which, among civilized peoples, man cannot inflict
^pon woman with impunity." '
The thought went no further, in Diderot's mind, than this
pathetic ejaculation. He left it to the next generation, to
Condorcet and others, to attack the problem practically ; effectively to assert the true theory that we must " look to social
emancipation in women, and moral discipline in men, to redress
"the physical disadvantages. Meanwhile Diderot deserves credit
for treating the position and character of women in a civilized
society with a sense of reality; and for throwing aside those
faded gallantries of poetic and literary convention, that screen
1 broad and dolorous gulf.
(Euv, ii. 258-9. De VEssai sur Us Fenintis^ par Thomas, See Grimm's
&lt;^orr. Lit, vii. 451, where the book is disparaged ; and viii. i, where Dider
'View of it is given. Thomas (1732-85) belonged to the philosophical party,
iDut not to the militant section of it. He was a serious and orderly person in
Us life, and enjoyed the closest friendship with Madame Necker. His enthu
^iasm for virtue, justice, and freedom, expressed with much magniloquence,
xsade him an idol in the respectable circle which Madame Necker gathered
x-ound her. He has been justly, though perhaps harshly, described as a
'Valetudiiiarian Grandison." (Albert's Za^. Fran^aisc au i%hjteSikU, p. 423.)




It is a common prejudice to treat Voltaire as if he had done

nothing save write the Pucelle and mock at Habakkuk. Every
serious and instructed student knows better. Voltaire^s popularization of the philosophy of Newton (1738) was a stimulus of
the greatest importance to new thought in France. In a chapter
of this work he had explained with his usual matchless terseness
\^ and lucidity Berkeley's theory of vision. The principle of this

theory is, as every one knows, that figures, magnitudes, situations,

distances, /are not sensations hyt inferences ;: they are not the
immediate revelations of sight, but the products of association
and intellectual construction ; they are not directly judged by
vision, \&gt;\it by imagination and experience. If this be so, neither
situation, nor distance, nor magnitude, nor figure, would be at
once discerned by one born blind, supposing him suddenly to
receive sight. Voltaire then describes the results of the operation
performed by Cheselden (1728) on a lad who had been blind
from his birth. This experiment was believed to confirm all that
Locke and Berkeley had foreseen, for it was long before the
patient could distinguish objects by size, distance, or shape.*
' Elhtefis de la Philosophie de Kewton^ Pt. II. ch. vii. Berkeley himself
only refers once to Cheselden's case : Theory of Vision zindicated^ 71. Professor Fraser, in his important edition of Berkeley's works (i. 444), reproduces
from the Philosophical Transactions the original account of the operation*
which is imfortunately much less clear and defmite than Voltaire's emphasize^^
version would make it, though its purport is distinct enough.


Condillac had renewed the interest which Voltaire had first
iindlcd in the subject, by referring to Cheselden's experiment in
his first work, which was published in 1746/
It happened that in 1748 Reaumur couched the eyes of a
girl who had been born blind. Diderot sought to be admitted to
the operation, but the favour was denied him, and he expressed
his resentment in terms which, as we shall see, cost him very dear. *
As he could not witness the experiment, he began to meditate
upon the subject, and the result was the Letter on the Blind for the
Use of tliose who See, published in 1749 the date, it niay be
observed in passing, of another very important work In the
development of materialistic speculation, David Hartley's /(9^jfrTotions on man, his frame, his duty, and his expectations, IJiderot's
Teal disappointment at not being admitted to the operation was
slight In a vigorous passage he shows the difficulties in the way
of conducting such an experiment under the conditions necessary
to make it conclusive. To prepare the born-blind to answer
philosophical interrogatories truly, and then to put these interrogatories rightly, would have been a feat, he declares, not unworthy
of the united talents of Newton, Descartes, Locke, and Leibnitz.
"Unless the patient were placed in such conditions as this, Diderot
thinks there would be more profit in questioning a blind person
of good sense, than in the answers of an uneducated person
receiving sight for the first time under abnormal and bewildering
circumstances.* In this he was undoubtedly right. If the experiment could be prepared under the delicate conditions proper to
make it demonstrative evidence, it would be final. But the experiment had certainly not been so prepared in his time, and
probably never will be.'
Read in the light of the rich and elaborate speculative literature which England is producing in our own day, Diderot's once
famous Letter on the Blind seems both crude and loose in its

* Essai sur T Origine des Cannaissances humaitus^ I. 6.

' Let, sur les Aveug^ef, 323-4. Condorcct attaches a higher value to
^Hieselden's operation ; (Euv, ii. 121.
3 Dr. McCosh {Exam, off, S, MilVs Philosophy^ p. 163) quotes what seems
"^o be the best reported case, by a Dr. Franz, of Leipzig ; and Prof. Fraser, in
'Jie appendix to Berkeley {loc, cU, ), quotes another good case by Mr. Nunncly.
also MilTs Exam, if Hamilton, p. 288 (3rd ed.)

thinking. Yet considering the state of philosophy in France at
the time of its appearance, we are struck by the acuteness, the
good sense, and the originality of many of its positions. It was
the first effective introduction into France of these great and
fundamental principles ; that all knowledge is relative to our I
intelligence, that thought is not the measure of existence, nor the |^
conceivableness of a proposition the test of its truth, and that our
experience is not the limit to the possibilities of things. That is
an impatient criticism which dismisses the French philosophers
with some light word as radically shallow and impotent Diderot
grasped the doctrine of Relativity in some of the most im]&gt;ortant
and far-reaching of all its bearings. The fact that he and his
allies used the doctriqe as a weapon of combat against the standing organization, is exactly what makes their history worth writing
about. The standing orgapization was the antagonistic doctrine
incarnate. It made anthropomorphism and the absolute the very
base and spring alike of individual and of social life. No growth
was possible until this speculative base had been transformed.
Hence the profound significance of what looks like a mere discussion of one of the minor problems of metaphysics. Diderot wasi
not the first to discover Relativity, nor did he establish it ; but it
was he who introduced it into the literature of his country at
the moment when circumstances were ripe for it.
Condillac, as we have said, had published his first work, the
Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge, three years before
(1746.) This was a simple and undeveloped rendering of the
doctrine of Locke, that the ultimate source of our notions lies in
impressions made upon the senses, shaped and combined by
reflection. It was not until 1754 that Condillac published his
more celebrated treatise on the Sensations, in which he advanced
a stride beyond Locke, and instead of tracing our notions to the
double source of sensation and reflection, maintained that reflection itself is nothing but sensation " differently transformed."
In the first book, again, he had disputed Berkeley's theory of
vision : in the second, he gave a reasoned adhesion to it Now
Diderot and Condillac had first been brought together by
Rousseau, when all three were needy wanderers about the streets
of Paris. They used to dine together once' a week at a tavern,.


and it was Diderot who persuaded a bookseller to give Condillac

a hundred crowns for his first manuscript "The Paris booksellers," says Rousseau, "are very arrogant and harsh to beginners ; and metaphysics, then extremely little in fashion, did not
offer a very particularly attractive subject."' The constant intercourse between Diderot and Condillac in the interval between the
two works of the great apostle of Sensationalism, may well
account for the remarkable development in doctrine. This is one
of the many examples of the share of Diderot's energetic and
stimulating intelligence, in directing and nourishing the movement of the time, its errors and precipitancies included. On the
other hand, the share of Condillac in providing a text for
Diderot's first considerable performance, is equally evident.
The Letter on the Blind is an inquiry how far a modification \
of the five senses, such as the congenital absence of one of them,^ J
would involve a corresponding modification of the ordinary /
notions acquired by men who are normally endowed in their^^^
capacity for sensation. It considers the Intellect in a case
where it is deprived of one of the senses. The \\Titer opens with
an account of a visit made by himself and some friends to a man
bom blind at Puisaux, a place seventy miles from Paris. They
asked him in what way he thought of the eyes. " They are an
organ on which the air produces the same effect as my stick upon
my hand" A mirror he described "as a machine which sets
things in relief away from themselves, if they are properly placed
in relation to it." This conception had formed itself in his mind
in the following way. The blind man only knows objects by
touch. He is aware, on the testimony of others, that we know
objects by sight as he knows them by touch ; he can form no
other notion. He is aware, again, that a man cannot see his own
face, though he can touch it. Sight, then, he concludes, is a sort
of touch, which only extends to objects different from our own
visage, and remote from us. Now touch only conveys to hini
the idea of relief. A mirror, therefore, must be a machine which
sets us in relief out of ourselves. How many philosophers, cries
J^iderot, have employed less subtlety to reach notions just as.
"^true ?
' Confessions^ II. vii.

The born-blind had a memory for sound in a surprising
degree, and countenances do not present more diversity to us
than he observed in voices. The voice has for such persons an
infinite number of delicate shades that escape us, because we have l
not the same reason for attention that the blind have. The help
that our senses lend to one another, is an obstacle to their
The blind man said he should have been tempted to regard
persons endowed with sight as superior intelligences, if he had
not found out a hundred times how inferior we are in other
respects. How do we know Diderot reflects upon this that all
the animals do not reason in the same way, and look upon themselves as our equals or superiors, notwithstanding our more complex and efficient intelligence ? They may accord to us a reason
with which we should still have much need of their instinct,

while they claim to be endowed with an instinct which enables

them to do very well without our reason.
When asked whether he should be glad to have sight, the
born-blind replied that, apart from curiosity, he would be just as
well pleased to have long arms : his hands would tell him what is
going on in the moon, better than our eyes or telescopes ; and the
eyes cease to see earlier than the hands lose the sense of touch.
It would therefore be just as good to perfect in him the organ
that he had, as to confer upon him another which he had not
This is untrue. No conceivable perfection of touch would reveal
phenomena of light, and the longest arms must leave those
phenomena undisclosed.
After recounting various other peculiarities of thought, Diderot
notices that the blind man attaches slight importance to the sense
of shame. He would hardly understand the utility of clothes, for
instance, except as a protection against cold. He frankly told his
philosophizing visitors that he could not see why one part of the
body should be covered rather than another. " I have never
doubted," says Diderot, " that the state of our organs and senses
has much influence both on our metaphysics and our morality/*
This, I may observe, does not in the least show that in a society
of human beings, not blind, but endowed with vision, the sense
of physical shame is a mere prejudice of which philosophy will


rid us. The fact that a blind man discerns no ill in nakedness,
has no bearing on the value or naturalness of shame among people
with eyes. And moreover, the fact that delicacy or shame is
not a universal human impulse, but is established, and its scope
defined, by a varying etiquette, does not in the least affect the
utility or wisdom of such an artificial establishment and definition. The grounds of delicacy, though connected with the senses,
are fixed by considerations that spring from the social reason. It
seems to be true, as Diderot says, that the bom-blind are at first
without physical delicacy; because delicacy has its root in the
consciousness that we are observed, while the bom-blind are not
conscious that they are observed. It is found that one of the
most important parts of their education is to impress this knowledge upon them.' But the artificiality of a moral acquisition is
obviously no test of its worth, nor of the reasons for preserving it.
Diderot exclaims, " Ah, madam, how different is the morality of
a blind man from ours ; and how the morality of the deaf would
diflfer from that of the blind ; and if a being should have a sense
more than we have, how wofully imperfect would he find our
morality ! " This is plainly a cmde and erroneous way of illus-*
trating the important truth of the strict relativity of ethical u
standards and maxims. Diderot speaks as if they were rela- \
tive simply and solely to our fis^ wits, and would vary with
them only. Everybody now has leamt that morality depends
not merely on the five wits) but on the mental constitution
within, and on the social conditions without. It is to these
rather than to the number of our senses, that moral ideas are
Passing over various other remarks, we come to those pages

in the Letter which apply the principle of relativity to the masterconception of God. Diderot's argument on this point naturally
drew keener attention / than the more disinterestedly scientific
parts of his contribution. People were not strongly agitated by
the question whether a blind man who had leamed to distinguish
a sphere from a cube by touch, would instantly identify each of
' Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Men and Animals^ c xiii.
p. 312, and also pp. 335-37. This fact, so far as it goes, seems to make against
the theory of transmitted sentiments.

them if he received sight' The question whether a blind mai
has as good reasons for believing in the existence of a Go&lt;
as a man with sight can find, was of more vivid interest As j
matter of fact, Diderot's treatment of the narrower questioi
(pp. 324, etc.) is more closely coherent than his treatment of th&lt;
wider one, for the simple reason that the special limitation o
experience in the bom-blind cannot fairly be made to yield an]
decisive evidence on the great, the insoluble enigma.
Here, as in the other part of his essay, Diderot followed th&lt;
method of interrogating the blind themselves. In this instance
he turned to the most extraordinary example in history, of intel
lectual mastery and scientific penetration in one who practicall]
belonged to the class of the born-blind ; and this too in dealing
with subjects where sight might be thought most indispensable
From 171 1 to 1739 one of the professors of mathematics ai
Cambridge was Nicholas Saunderson, who had lost his sigh
before he was twelve months old. He was a man of striking
mental vigour, an original and efficient teacher, and the author o
a book upon algebra which was considered meritorious in its day,
His knowledge of optics was highly remarkable. He had distinct
ideas of perspective, of the projections of the sphere, and of the
forms assumed by plane or solid figures in certain positions. Foi
performing computations he devised a machine of great ingenuity,
which also ser\'ed the purpose, with certain modifications, 01
representing geometrical diagrams. In religion he was a sceptic
or something more, and in his last hours Diderot supposes him tc
have engaged in a discussion with a minister of religion, upon the
arguments for the existence of a deity drawn from final causes.
* Locke answered that the man would not distinguish the cube from ihe
sphere, until he had identified by actual touch the source of his former tactual
impression with the object making a given visual impression. Condillac, while
making just objections to the terms in which Molyneux propounded the question,
answered it differently from Locke. Diderot expresses his own opinion thus
** I think that when the eyes of the born-blind are opened for the first time tc
the light, he will perceive nothing at all ; that some time will be necessar)
for his eye to make cxperimetits for itself ; but that it will make these experi
ments itself, and in its own way, and without the help of touch." This 1*
in harmony with the modem doctrine, that there is an inherited aptitude ol
structure (in the eye, for instance) but that experience is an essential conditi

to the development and perfecting of this aptitude.


This discussion Diderot professes to reproduce, and he makes
Saunderson discourse with much eloquence and some pathos.
By one of those mystifications which make the French
polemical literature of the eighteenth century the despair of
bibliographers, Diderot cites as his authority a Life of Saunderson,,
by Dr. Inchlif. He sets forth the title with great circumstantiality, but no such book exists or ever did exist The Royal
Society of London, however, took the jest of fathering atheism on
one of its members in bad part, and Diderot was systematically
excluded from the honour of admission to that learned body, as
he was excluded all his life from the French Academy.
The reasoning which Diderot puts into the professor's mouth
is at first a fervid enlargement of the text, that the argument
drawn from the wonders of nature is very weak evidence for
blind men. Our power of creating new objects, so to speak, by
means of a little mirror, is far more incomprehensible to them,
than the stars which they have been condemned never to behold.
The luminous ball that moves from east to west through the
heavens, is a less astonishing thing to them than the fire on the
hearth which they can lessen or augment at pleasure. " Why
talk to me," says Saunderson, " of all that fine spectacle which
has never been made for me ? I have been condemned to pass
my life in darkness ; and you cite marvels that I cannot understand, and that are only evidence ifor you and for those who see as
you do. If you want me to believe in God, you must make me
touch him." The minister replied that the sense of touch ought
to be enough to reveal the divinity to him in the admirable
mechanism of his organs. To this, Saunderson : " I repeat,
all that is not as fine for me as it is for you. But the animal
mechanism, even were it as perfect as you pretend, and as I
daresay it is what has it in common with a Being of sovereign
intelligence ? If it fills you with astonishment, that is perhaps
because you are in the habit of treating as a prodigy anything
that strikes you as being beyond your own strength. I have been
myself so often an object of admiration for you, that I have a
' A very intelligent English translation of the Letter on the Blind was published in 1773. For some reason or other, Diderot is described on the title]&gt;age as Physician to His most Christian Majesty.

poor opinion of what surprises you. I have attracted people from
all parts of England, who could not conceive by what means I
could work at geometry. Well, you must agree that such persons
had not very exact notions about the possibility of things. Is a

phenomenon in our notions beyond the power of man? Then

we instantly say 'Tis the handiwork of a God, Nothing short of
that can content our vanity. Why can we not contrive to throw
into our talk less pride and more philosophy ? If nature offers us
some knot that is hard to untie, let us leave it for what it is;
do not let us employ for cutting it the hand of a Being, who then
immediately becomes in turn a new knot for us, and a knot
harder to untie than the first An Indian tells you that our globe
is suspended in the air on the back of an elephant. And the
elephant? It stands on a tortoise. And the tortoise? what
sustains that ? . . . You pity the Indian : and yet one might yexy
well say to you as to him Mr. Holmes, my good friend, confess
your ignorance, and spare me elephant and tortoise." *
The minister very naturally then falls back upon good authority, and asks Saunderson to take the word of Newton, Clarke,
and Leibnitz. The blind man answers that though the actual
state of the universe may be the illustration of a marvellous and
admirable order, still Newton, Clarke, and Leibnitz must leave him
C freedom of opinion as to its earlier states. And then he forex^ shadows in a really singular and remarkable way that theory
'^ which is believed to be the great triumph of scientific discovery,
and which is certainly the great stimulus to speculation, in our
^" own time. As to anterior states " you have no witnesses to confront
with me, and your eyes give you no help. Imagine, if you
: choose, that the order which strikes you so profoundly has sub""' sistcd from the beginning. But leave me free to think that it has
done no such thing, and that if we went back to the birth of
things and scenes, and perceived matter in motion and chaos
slowly disentangling itself, we should come across a whole multitude of shapeless creatures, instead of a very few creatures highly
organized. If I have no objection to make to what you say
about the present condition of things, I may at least question you
as to their past condition. I may at least ask of you, for
' (EuvrcSf L 308.


example, who told you you and Leibnitz and Clarke and
Newton that in the first instances of the formation of animals,
some were not without heads and others without feet ? I may
maintain that these had no stomachs, and those no intestines ;
that some to whom a stomach, a palate, and teeth seemed to
promise permanence, came to an end through some fault of heart
or lungs ; that the monsters annihilated one another in succession,
that all the faulty {vicieuses) combinations of matter disappeared, ;v^''-''
and that those only survived whose mechanism implied no important .
mis-adaptation (contradiction), and who had tJu power of supporting
and perpetuating themselves.
" On this h)rpothesis, if the first man had happened to have
his larynx closed, or had not found suitable food, or had been
defective in the parts of generation, or had failed to find a mate,
then what would have become of the human race ? It would
have been still enfolded in the general depuration of the universe ; and that arrogant being who calls himself Man, dissolved
and scattered among the molecules of matter, would perhaps

have remained for all time hidden in the number of mere

" If shapeless creatures had never existed, you would not
fail to insist that none will ever appear, and that I am throwing
myself headlong into chimerical hypotheses. But the order is
not even now so perfect, but that monstrous products appear from
time to time."'
We have here a distinct enough conception, though in an ,'
exceedingly undigested shape, first of incessant Variability in /\
organisms as an actual circumstance, which we may see exemplifitd in its extreme form in the monstrous deviations of structure that occur from time to time before our own eyes ; second,
of Acjaptationtoenvirginment as the determining condition of \
Survival among the forms that present themselves. Even as
a bald and unsustained guess, this was an effective side-blow
at the doctrine of final causes a doctrine, as has been often
remarked, which does not survive, in any given set of phenomena, the reduction of these phenomena to terms of matter and
Pages 309, 31a

" I conjecture then," continues Saunderson, enlarging the
idea of the possibilities of matter and motion, " that in the
beginning when matter in fermentation gradually brought our
universe bursting into being, blind creatures like myself were
very common. But why should I not believe of worlds what
I believe of animals? How many worlds, mutilated and imperfect, were peradventure dispersed, then re-formed, and are
again dispersing at each moment of time in those far-off spaces
which I cannot touch and you cannot behold, but where motion
combines and will continue to combine masses of matter, until
they have chanced on some arrangement in which they may
finally persevere ! O philosophers, transport yourselves with me
on to the confines of the universe, beyond the poiiit where I
feel, and you see, organized beings ; gaze over that new ocean,
and seek across its lawless, aimless heavings some vestiges of
that intelligent Being whose wisdom strikes you with such wonder
here !
" What is this world ? A complex whole, subject to endless
revolutions. All these revolutions show a continual tendency to
destruction; a swift succession of beings who follow one another,
press forward, and vanish ; a fleeting symmetry ; the order of
a moment. I reproached you just now with estimating the
perfection of things by your own capacity ; and I might accuse
you here of measuring its duration by the length of your own
days. You judge of the continuous existence of the world, as
an ephemeral insect might judge of yours. The world is eternal
for you, as you are eternal to the being that lives but for one
instant Yet the insect is the more reasonable of the two. For
what a prodigious succession of ephemeral generations attests
your eternity I What an immeasurable tradition ! Yet shall we
all pass away, without the possibility of assigning either the real

extension that we filled in space, or the precise time that we

shall have endured. Time, matter, space all, it may be, are no
more than a point."*
Diderot sent a copy of his work to Voltaire. The poet
replied with his usual playful politeness, but declared his dissent
from Saunderson, "who denied God, because he happened to
' Page 311.


have been born blind."* More pretentious, and infinitely less
acute critics than Voltaire, have fixed on the same point in the
argument and met it by the same answer ; namely, that, blind
as he was, Saunderson ought to have recognised an intelligent
Being who had provided him with so many substitutes for sight ;
he ought to have inferred a skilful demiurgus from those ordered
relations in the imiverse, which Thought, independently of Vision,
might well have disclosed to him. In truth, this is not the centre
of the whole argument. When Saunderson implies that he could
only admit a God on condition that he could touch him, he
makes a single sense the channel of all possible ideas, and the
arbiter of all reasoned combinations of ideas. This is absurd,
and Diderot, as we have seen, rapidly passed away from that
to the real strength of the position. All the rest of the contention against final causes would have come just as fitly from
the lips of a man with vision, as from Saunderson. The hypothetical inference of a deity from the marvels of adaptation to
be found in the universe is unjustified, among other reasons,
because it ignores or leaves unexplained the marvels of misadaptation in the universe. It makes absolute through eternity
a hypothesis which can at its best only be true relatively not
merely to the number of our senses, but ^to a few partially
chosen phenomena of our own little day. It explains a few
striking facts ; it leaves wholly unexplained a far greater number
of equally striking facts, even if it be not directly contradicted
by them. It is the invention of an imaginary agency to account
for the scanty successes of creation, and an attribution to that
agency of the kind of motives that might have animated a benevolent European living in the eighteenth century. It leaves .
wholly unaccounted for the prodigious host of monstrous or '
imperfect organisms, and the appalling law of merciless and
incessant destruction.
To us this is the familiar discussion of the day. But let us
return to the starting-point of this chapter. In France a hundred
and twenty years ago it was the first opening of a decisive breach
in the walls that had sheltered the men of Western Europe against
outer desolation for some fifteen centuries or more. The com
* Corr,^ June, 1749.

pleteness of Catholicism, as a self-containing system of life and

thought, is now harder for Protestants or Sceptics to realise, than

any other fact in the whole history of human society. Catholicism
was not only an institution, nor only a religious faith ; it was also
a philosophy and a systematized theory of the universe. The
Church during its best age directed the moral relations of individual men, and attempted, more or less successfully, to humanise
the relations of communities. It satisfied or stimulated the affections by its exaltation of the Virgin Mary as a supreme object of
worship ; it nourished the imagination on polytheistic legends of
saints and mart)rrs ; it stirred the religious emotions by touching
and impressive rites ; it surrounded its members with emblems of
a special and invincible protection. Catholicism, we have again
and again to repeat, claimed to deal with life as a whole, and to
leave no province of nature, no faculty of man, no need of intelligence or spirit, uncomprehended. But we must not forget
that, though this prodigious system had its root in the affections
and sympathies of human nature, it was also fenced roimd by a
theory of metaphysic. It rested upon authority and tradition, but
it also sought an expression in an intellectual philosophy of things.
The essence of this philosophy was to make man the final cause
of the universe. Its interpretation of the world was absolute ; its
conception of the Creator was absolute ; its account of our intellectual impressions, of our moral rules, of our spiritual ideals,
made them all absolute. Now Diderot, when he wrote the Letter
on the Blind, perceived that mere rationalistic attacks upon the
sacred books, upon the miracles, upon the moral t)rpes, of Catho&gt;
licism, could only be partially effectiv* for destruction, and could
have no effect at all in replacing the old ways of thinking by others
of more solid truth. The attack must begin in philosophy. The
first fruitful process must consist in shifting the point of view, in
enlarging the range of the facts to be considered, in pressing the
relativity of our ideas, in freeing ourselves from the tyranny of
Hobbes's witty definition of the papacy as the ghost of the old v'
Roman Empire sitting enthroned on the grave thereof, may
tempt us to forget the all-important truth that the basis of the
power of the ghost was essentially different from that. of the


dissolved body. The Empire was a political organization, resting
on military force. The Church was a social organization, made
vital by a conviction. The greatest fact in the intellectual history ^
of the eighteenth century is the decisive revolution that overtook \ \/
that sustaining conviction. The movement and the men whom \ , ^
we are studying owe all their interest to the share that they had in j
this immense task. The central conception, that the universe
was called into existence only to further its Creator's purpose
towards man, became incredible. This absolute proposition was
slowly displaced by notions of the limitation of human faculties,
and of the comparatively small portion of the whole cosmos or
chaos to which we have reason to believe that these faculties give
us access. To substitute this relative point of view for the absolute, was the all-important preliminary to the effectual breaking
up of the great Catholic construction.
What seems to careless observers a mere metaphysical dispute

was in truth, and still is, the decisive quarter of the great battle
between theology and a philosophy reconcilable with science.
When the Catholic reaction set in, Joseph de Maistre, by far its
acutest champion in the region of philosophy, at once made it his
first business to attack the principle of relativity with all his force
of dialectic, and to reinstate absolute modes of thinking, and the
absolute quality of Catholic propositions about religion, knowledge, and government' Yet neither he nor anyone else on his
side has ever effectively shaken the solid argument which Diderot
fancifully illustrated in the following passage from his reply to
Voltaire's letter of thanks for the opuscule : " This marvellous
order and these wondrous adaptations, what am I to think of
them ? That they are metaphysical entities only existing in your
own mind. You cover a vast piece of ground with a mass of
ruins falling hither or thither at hazard ; amid these the worm and
the ant find commodious shelter enough. What would you say
of these insects, if they were to take for real and final entities the
relations of the places which they inhabit to their organization,
and then fall into ecstasies over the beauty of their subterranean
architecture, and the wonderfully superior intelligence of the
' See Critical Miscellanies : First Series,

gardener who arranges things so conveniently for them ?" * This
is the notion which Voltaire himself three years afterwards illustrated in the witty fancies of Micromigas. The little animalcule
in the square cap, who makes the giant laugh in a Homeric
manner by its inflated account of itself as the final cause of the
universe, is the type of the philosophy on which Catholicism is
In the same letter Diderot avows his dissent hypocritically, we
find reason for suspecting from Saunderson's conclusion. " It \s
commonly in the night-time," he says, " that the mists arise which
obscure in me the existence of God ; the rising of the sun never
fails to scatter them. But then the darkness is ever-enduring for
the blind, and the sun only rises for those who see." Diderofs
denial of atheism seems more than suspicious, when one finds
him taking so much pains to make out Saunderson's case for him ;
when he urges the argument following, for instance : " If there
had never existed any but material beings, there would never have
been spiritual beings ; for then the spiritual beings would either
have given themselves existence, or else would have received it
from the material beings. But if there had never existed any but
spiritual beings, you will see that there would never have been
material beings. Right philosophy only allows me to suppose in
things what I can distinctly perceive in them. Now I perceive
no other faculties distinctly in the mind except those of willing
and thinking, and I no more conceive that thought and will can
act on material beings or on nothing, than I can conceive material
beings or nothing acting on spiritual beings." And he winds up
his letter thus : " It is very important not to take hemlock for
parsley ; but not important at all to believe or to disbelieve in God.
The world, said Montaigne, is a tennis-ball that he has given to

philosophers to toss hither atid thither ; and I would say nearly as

much of the Deity himself." '
In concluding our account of this piece, we may mention that
Diderot threw out a hint, which is a good illustration of the
alert and practically helpful way in which his mind was always
seeking new ideas. We have common signs, he said, appealing to
* Diderot to Voltaire, 1749. (Euvres^ xix. 421. Ibid.


the eye, namely, written characters, and others appealing to the
ear, namely, articulate sounds ; we have none appealing to touch.
" For want of such a language, communication is entirely broken
between us and those who are bom deaf^ dumb, and blind. They
grow, but they remain in a state of imbecility. Perhaps they
would acquire ideas, if we made ourselves understood by them
from childhood in a fixed, determinate, constant, and uniform
manner ; in short, if we traced on their hand the same characters
that we trace upon paper, and invariably attached the same significance to them."' The patient benevolence and ingenuity of
Dr. Howe of Boston has realised in our own day the value of
Diderof s suggestion.
One or two trifling points of literary interest may be noticed in
the Letter on the Blind. Diderot refers to "the ingenious expression of an English geometer that God geotnetrizes^^ (p. 294.)
He is unaware apparently of the tradition which attributes the expression to Plato, though it is not found in Plato's writings. Plutarch, I believe, is the first person who mentions the saying, and
discusses what Plato exactly meant by it. In truth, it is one of
that large class of dicta which look more ingenious than they are
true. There is a fine Latin passage by Barrow on the mighty
geometry of the universe, and the reader of the Rdigio Medici
(p. 42) may remember that Sir Thomas Browne pronounces God
to be " like a skilful geometrician."
An odd coincidence of simile is worth mentioning. Diderot
sajrs that " great services are like large pieces of money, that we
have seldom any occasion to use. Small attentions are a current
coin that we always carry in our hands." This is curiously like
the saying in the TatUr that " A man endowed with great perfections without good breeding is like one who has his pockets full of
gold, but wants change for his ordinary occasions." Yet if
Diderot had read the Tatler^ he would certainly have referred to
the story in No. 55, how William Jones of Newington, bom blind,
was brought to sight at the age of twenty a story told in a manner
after Diderot's own heart.
* Page 294.


It is proper in this place to mention a short philosophic piece
which Diderot wrote in 1 751, his Letter on the Deaf and Dumb
for the Use of those who Hear and Talk, This is not, like the
Letter on the Blind, the examination of a case of the Intellect
deprived of one or more of the senses. It is substantially a fragment, and a very important fragment, on -^Estheti5,-ad as such
there will be something to say about it in another chapter. But
there are, perhaps, one or two points at which the Letter on the
Deaf and Dumb touches the line of thought of the Letter on the
The Letter opens on the question of the origin and limits of
inversion in language. This at once leads to a discussion of the
-natural order of ideas and expressions, and that original order,
says Diderot, we can only ascertain by a study of the language of
gesture. Such a study can be pursued either in assiduous conversation with one who has been deaf and dumb from birth, or by
the experiment of a muet de convention, a man who foregoes the use
of articulate sounds for the sake of experiment as to the process
of the formation of language. Generalising this idea, Diderot
proceeds to consider man as distributed into as many distinct and
separate beings as he has senses. " My idea would be to decompose a man, so to speak, and to examine what he derives from
each of the senses with which he is endowed. I have sometimes
amused myself with this kind of metaphysical anatomy ; and I
found that of all the senses, the eye was the most superficial ; the
ear, the proudest ; smell, the most voluptuous ; taste, the most
superstitious and the most inconstant ; touchy the profoundest and
the most of a philosopher. It would be amusing to get together
a societ}^ each member of which should have no more than one
sense ; there can be no doubt that they would all treat one
another as out of their wits."
This is interesting, because it was said at the time to be the
source of one of the most famous fancies in the philosophical
literature of the century, the Statue in Condillac's Treatise on the


Sensations. Condillac imagined a statue organized like a man,
but each sense unfolding itself singly, at the will of an eternal
arbiter. The philosopher first admits the exercise of smell to his
Frankenstein, and enumerates the mental faculties which might be
expected to be set in operation under the changing impressions
made upon that one sense. The other senses are imparted to it in
turn, one by one, each adding a new group of ideas to the previous
stock, until at length the mental equipment is complete.
We may see tlie extent of the resemblance between Condillac's
Statue and Diderot's muei de convention^ but Diderot at least is
free from the charge of borrowing. Condillac's book was published three years (1754) after the Letter on the Deaf and Dumb,
and he afterwards wrote a pamphlet defending himself from the
charge of having taken the fancy of his Statue from Diderot ;
nor, for that matter, did Diderot ever make sign or claim in the
matter. We have already spoken of the relations between

the two philosophers, and though it is a mistake to describe

Diderot as one of Condillac's most celebrated pupils,' yet there
\s just as little reason to invert the connection, or to doubt Condillac's own assertion that the Statue was suggested to him by
Mademoiselle Ferrand, that remarkable woman to whose stimulating and directing influence he always professed such deep
obligation. Attention has been called to the fact that in 167 1 a
Parisian bookseller published a Latin version of a much more intelligent and scientific fancy than the Statue the Philosophus
Autodidacttis of the Arabian, Ibn Tophail. This was a romance,
m which a human being is suckled by a gazelle on a desert island
in the tropics, and grows up in the manner of some Robinson
Crusoe with a turn for psychological speculation, and gradually
becomes conscious, through observation, of the peculiar properties
belonging to his senses.'
Of the part of the Letter that concerns gesture, one can only
say that it appears astonishingly crude to those who know the
progress that has been made since Diderot's time in collecting and
generalising the curious groups of fact connected with gesturelanguage. We can imagine the eager interest that Diderot would

' Lewes's HisL Philos, il 342. " Rosenkranz, i. 102.

have had In such curious observations as that gesture-language has
something like a definite syntax; that it furnishes no means of
distinguishing causation from sequence or simultaneity; that
savages can understand and be understood with ease and certainty
in a deaf-and-dumb school/ Diderot was acute enough to see that
the questions of language could only be solved, not by the old
^metaphysical methods, but experientially. For the experiential
method in this matter the time was not ripe. It was no wonder,
then, that after a few pages, he broke away and hastened to
Penalties on the publication of heretical opinion did not cease
in England with the disappearance of the Licensing Act But
they were at least inflicted by law. It was the Court of King's
Bench which, in 1730, visited Woolston with fine and imprisonment, after all the forms of a prosecution had been duly gone
through. It was no Bishop's court nor Star Chamber, much less
a warrant signed by George the Third or by Bute, which in 1762
condemned Peter Annet to the pillory and the gaol for his Free

Inquirer. The only evil which overtook Mandeville for his Fable
of the Bees was to be harmlessly presented (1723) as a public
nuisance by the Grand Jury of Middlesex. We may contrast with
this the state of things which prepared a revolution in France.
One morning in July, 1749 almost exactly forty years before
that July of '89, so memorable in the annals of arbitrary government and state-prisons a commissary of police and three attendants came to Diderot's house, made a vigorous scrutiny of
his papers, and then produced a warrant for his detention. The
philosopher, without any ado, told his wife not to expect him
home for dinner, stepped into the chaise, and was driven off with
his escort to Vincennes. His real offence was a light sneer in the
Letter on the Blind at the mistress of a minister." The atheistical
* Tylor*s Researches into the Early History of Mankindy chaps. iL and iiL ;
Lubbock's Origin of Civilization^ chap. ix.
* Madame Dupre de
Count d'Argenson.
been dismissed in
his alleged share

Saint Maur, who had found favour in the eyes of the

D*Argenson, younger brother of the Marquis who had
1747, was in power from 1743 to 1757. Notwithstanding
in Diderot's imprisonment, he was a tolerably steady protector

of the philosophical party.


substance of the essay, however, apart from the pique of a
favourite, would have given sufficiently good grounds for a prosecution in England, and in France for that vile substitute for
prosecution, the lettre-de-cachet. And there happened to be
special causes for harshness towards the press at this moment.
Verses had been published satirising the king and his manner
of life in bitter terms, and a stem raid was made upon all the
scribblers in Paris. At the court there had just taken place one
of those reactions in favour of the ecclesiastical party, which for
thirty years in the court history alternated so frequently with
movements in the opposite direction. The gossip of the town
set down Diderot's imprisonment to a satire against the Jesuits, of
which he was wrongly supposed to be the author/ It is not
worth while to seek far for a reason, when authority was as able
and as ready to thrust men into gaol for a bad reason as for a good
one. The writer or the printer of a philosophical treatise was
at this moment looked upon in France much as a magistrate now
looks on the wretch who vends infamous prints.
The lieutenant of police (Berryer) treated the miserable author
-with additional severity, for stubbornly refusing to give up the
name of the printer. Diderot was well aware that the printer
would be sent to the galleys for life, if the lieutenant of police
could once lay hands upon him. This personage, we may mention, was afterwards raised to the dignified office of keeper of the
seals, as a reward for his industry and skill in providing victims
for the royal seraglio at Versailles.' The man who had ventured
to use his mind, was thrown into the dungeon at Vincennes by
the man who played spy and pander for the Pompadour. The
official record of a dialogue between Berryer and Denis Diderot,
" of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion," is a singular

piece of reading, if we remember that the prisoner's answers were

made, " after oath taken by the respondent to speak and answer
the truth."
" Interrogated if he has not composed a work entitled Letters on the Blind,
" Answered no.
* Barbier, iv. 337.
' There is a picture of Berryer, under the name of Orgon, in that very
carious book, VEcde de VHomme^ ii. 73.

** Interrogated by whom he had caused said work to be printed.
** Answered that he had not caused the said work to be printed.
" Interrogated if he knows the name of the author of the said work.
** Answered that he knows nothing about it.
** Interrogated whether he has not had said work in manuscript in his
possession before it was printed.
" Answered that he had not had the said manuscript in his possession before
or after it was printed.
* Interrogated whether he has not composed a work which appeared some
years ago, entitled Philosophic Thoughts,
"Answered no."
And so, after a dozen more replies of equal veracity, on reading
being made to the respondent of the present interrogatory,
Diderot "said that the answers contain the truth, persisted in
them, and signed," as witness his hand. A sorrowful picture,
indeed, of the plight of an apostle of a new doctrine. On the
other hand, the apostle of the new doctrine was perhaps good
enough for the preachers of the old. Two years before this, the
priest of the church of Saint Mddard had thought it worth while
to turn spy and informer. This is the report which the base
creature sent to the lieutenant of police (1747) :
* Diderot, a man of no profession, living, &amp;c, is a young man who plays
the free-thinker, and glories in impiety. He is the author of several works of
philosophy, in which he attacks religion. His talk is like his books. He is
busy at the composition of one now, which is very dangerous."
The priest's delation was confirmed presently by a still lower
agent of authority, who, in bad grammar and bad spelling,
describes "this wretch Diderot as a very dangerous man, who
speaks of the holy mysteries of our religion with contempt ; who
corrupts manners, and who says that when he comes to the last
moment of his life, he will have to do like others, will confess,
and will receive what we call our God, but it will only be for the
sake of his family." '

All these things had prepared an unfriendly fate for Diderot

when his time at last came, as it came to most of his friends. For
a month he was cut off from the outer world. His only company
was the Paradise Lost, which he happened to have in his pocket
* Pieces given in Diderot's Works, xx. 12 1 -3.


at the moment of his arrest He compounded an ink for himself,
by scraping the slate at the side of his window, grinding it very
fine, and mixing with wine in a broken glass. A toothpick, found
by happy accident in the pocket of his waistcoat, served him for
pen, and the fly-leaves and margins of the Milton made a repository for his thoughts. With a simple but very characteristic interest in others who might be as unfortunate as himself, he ^v^ote
upon the walls of his prison his short recipe for writing materials.'
Diderot might easily have been buried here for months or
even years. But, as it happened, the governor of Vincennes
was a kinsman of Voltaire's divine Emily, the Marquise du
ChiteleL When Voltaure, who was then at Luneville, heard of
Diderofs ill-fortune, he proclaimed as usual his detestation of a
land where bigots can shut up philosophers under lock and key,
and as usual he at once set to work to lessen the wrong. Madame
du Chitelet was made to write to the governor, praying him to
soften the imprisonment of Socrates-Diderot as much as he could.*
It was the last of her good deeds, for she died in circumstances
of grotesque tragedy in the following month (Sept. 1749), and her
husband, her son, Voltaire, and Saint Lambert, alternately consoled and reproached one another over her grave. Diderot
meanwhile had the benefit of her intervention. He was transferred from the dungeon to the chiteau, was allowed to wander
about the park on his parole, and to receive visits from his
friends. One of the most impulsive of these friends was Jean
Jacques. Their first meeting after Diderot's imprisonment
has been described by Rousseau himself, in terms at which the
phlegmatic will smile ^not wisely, for the manner of expressing
emotion, like all else, is relative. " After three or four centuries
of impatience, I flew into the arms of my friend. O indescribable
moment ! He was not alone ; D'Alembert and the treasurer of the
Sainte Chapelle were with him. As I went iii, I saw no one but
himself. With a single bound and a cry, I pressed his face close
to mine, I clasped him tightly in my arms, without speaking to
him save by my tears and sobs ; I was choking with tenderness
and joy."^ After this Rousseau used to walk over to see him two
' Naigeon, p. 131.
Voltaire's Corr, July and Aug. 1749. 3 Conf, II. viii.

or three times a week. It was during one of these walks on a hot
summer afternoon, that he first thought of that memorable literary
effort, the essay against civilization. He sank down at the foot of
a tree, and feverishly wrote a page or two to show to his friend.
He tells us that but for Diderot's encouragement he should hardly

have executed his design. There is a story that it was Diderot

who first suggested to Rousseau to affirm that arts and sciences
had corrupted manners. There is no violent improbability in this.
Diderot, for all the robustness and penetration of his judgment,
was yet often borne by his natural impetuosity towards the region
of paradox. His own curious and bold Supplement au Voyage de
Bougainville is entirely in the vein of Rousseau's discourse on the
superiority of primitive over civilized life. " Prodigious sibyl of
the eighteenth century," cries Michelet, "the mighty magician
Diderot I He breathed out one day a breath ; lo, there sprang
up a man Rousseau."' It is hard to believe that such an
astonishing genius for literature as Rousseau's could have lain
concealed, after he had once inhaled the vivifying air of Paris.
Yet the fire and inspiring energy of Diderot may well have been
the quickening accident that brought his genius into productive
life. All the testimony goes to show that it was so. Whether,
however, Diderot is really responsible for the perverse direction
of Rousseau's argument is a question of fact, and the evidence is
not decisive.' It would be an odd example of that giant's nonchalance which is always so amazing in Diderot, if he really
instigated the most eloquent and passionate writer then alive to
denounce art and science as the scourge of mankind, at the very
moment when he was himself straining his whole effort to spread
the arts and sciences, and to cover them with glory in men's
Among Diderot's other visitors was Madame de Puisieux.
One day she came clad in gay apparel, bound for a merrymaking at a neighbouring village. Diderot, conceiving jealous
doubts of her fidelity, received assurance that she would be
solitary and companionless at the feast, thinking mournfully of
her persecuted philosopher lying in prison. She forgot that one
* Michelet's Louis XV. p. 258.
* See the present author's Roussecu^ p. 91.


of the parents of philosophy is curiosity, and that Diderot had
trained himself in the school of the sceptics. That evening he
scaled the walls of the park of Vincennes, flew to the scene of the
festival, and there found what he had expected. In vain for her
had he written upon virtue and merit, and the unhallowed friendship came to an end.
After three months of captivity, Diderot was released. The
booksellers who were interested in the Encyclopaedia were importtmate with the authorities to restore its head and chief to an
enterprise that stirred universal curiosity.* For the first volume
of that famous work was now almost ready to appear, and expectation was keen. The idea of the book had occurred to
Diderot in 1745, and from 1745 to 1765 it was the absorbing
occupation of his life. Of the value and significance of the conception underlying this immense operation, I shall speak in the
next chapter. There also I shall describe its history. The circumstances under which these five-and-thirty volumes were given to r
the world, mark Diderot for one of the^few true heroes of literatiu'e.

They called into play some of the mostadmirable of human

qualities. They required a laboriousness as steady and as prolonged, a wariness as alert, a grasp of plan as firm, a fortitude as
patient, unvarying, and unshaken, as men are accustomed to
applaud in the engineer who constructs some vast and difficult
work, or the commander who directs a hardy and dangerous
' For the two petitions of the booksellers to D'Argenson praying for
Diderot's liberty, see M. Asset's preliminary notice. (Etc/, xiiL 112, etc

1 .



The history of the enqrclopaedic conception of human knowledge

is a much more interesting and important object of inquiry than
a list of the various encyclopaedic enterprises to be found in the
annals of literature. Yet it is proper here to mention some of the
attempts in this direction, which preceded our memorable book of
the eighteenth ceutury. It is to ^ristotle, no doubt, that we must
look for the first glimpse of the idea that human knowledge is a
totality, whose parts are all closely and orgai;iically connected with
one another. But the idea that only dawned in that gigantic
understanding, was-lost for many centiu-ies. The compilations of
Pliny are not in a right sense encyclopaedic, being presided over
by no definite idea of informing order. It was not until the later
middle age that any attempt was made to present knowledge as a
whole. Albertus Magnus, "the ape of Aristotle" (i 193-1280),
left for a season the three great questions of the existence of
universals, of the modes of the existence of species and genus,
and of their place in or out of the bosom of the individuals, and
executed a compilation of such physical facts as had been then
discovered.' A more distinctly encyclopaedic work was the book
of Vincent de Beauvais (d. 1264), called Speculum naturaie, morale^
doctrinale^ et historialc a compilation from Aquinas in some parts,
and from Aristotle in others. Hallam mentions three other com Jourdain's Recherches sur Us traductions latines d^Aristote, p. 325.

pflations of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and observes
that their laborious authors did not much improve the materials
which they had amassed in their studies, though they sometimes
arranged them conveniently. In the mediaeval period, as he
remarks, the want of capacity to discern probable truths was a
very great drawback from the value of their compilations/

Far the most striking production of the thirteenth century in

this kind was the Opus Majus of Roger Bacon (1267), of which it
has been said that it is at once the Encyclopaedia and the Novum
Organum of that age ;' at once a summary of knowledge, and the
suggestion of a truer method. This however was merely the introductory sketch to a vaster encyclopaedic work, the Compejidiitm
Philosophic^ which was not perfected. " In common with minds
of great and comprehensive grasp, his vivid perception of the
intimate relationship of the different parts of philosophy, and his
desire to raise himself from the dead level of every individual
science, induced Bacon to grasp at and embrace the whole." ^
In truth, the encyclopaedic spirit was in the air throughout the
thirteenth century. It was the century of books bearing the
significant titles of Summa, or Universitas, or Speculum.
The same spirit revived towards the middle of the sixteenth
century. In 1541 a book was published at Basel by one Ringelberg, which first took the name of Cyclopaedia that has since then
become so familiar a word in Western Europe. This was followed
within sixty years by several other works of the same kind. The
movement reached its height in a book which remained the best
in its order for a century. A German, one J. H. Alsted (15 131638), published in 1620 an Encyclopedia scientiarum omnium, A
hundred years later the illustrious Leibnitz pronounced it a worthy
task to perfect and amend Alsted's book. What was wanting to
the excellent man, he said, was neither labour nor judgment, but
material, and the good fortune of such days as ours. And I-.eibnitz wrote a paper of suggestions for its extension and improvement^ Alsted's Encyclopaedia is of course written in Latin, and
* Lit, of Europe, pt i. ch. ii. 39.
Whcweirs Hist. Induct, Sci, xii. c. 7.
* Fr. Roger Bacon ; J. S. Brcwer*s Pref. pp. 57, 63.
^ Leibnitii, Opera v. 184.

he prefixes to it by way of motto the celebrated lines in which
Lucretius declares that nothing is sweeter than to dwell apart in the
serene temples of the wise. Though he informs us in the preface
that his object was to trace the outlines of the great " latifundium
regni philosophici " in a single syntagma, yet he really does no
more than arrange a number of separate treatises or manuals, and
even dictionaries, within the limits of a couple of folios. As is
natural to the spirit of the age in which he wrote, great predominance is given to the verbal sciences of grammar, rhetoric,
and formal logic, and a verbal or logical division regulates the
distribution of the matter, rather than a scientific regard for its
objective relations.
For the true parentage, however, of the Encyclopaedia of

Diderot and D'Alembert, it is unnecessary to prolong this list. It

\ \j jwas Fcands-Bacon's idea of the systematic classification of knowledge which inspired Diderot, and guided his hand throughout.
" If we emerge from this vast operation," he wrote in the Prospectus, " our principal debt will be to the chancellor Bacon, who
sketched the plan of a universal dictionary of sciences and arts at
a time when there were not, so to say, either arts or sciences."
This sense of profound and devoted obligation \Vas shared by
D'Alembert, and was expressed a hundred times in the course of
the work. No more striking panegyric has ever been passed
upon our immortal countryman than is to be found in the Preliminary Discourse.' The French Encyclopaedia was the direct
fruit of Bacon's magnificent conceptions. And if the efficient
origin of the Encyclopaedia was English, so did the occasion rise
in England also.
\ In 1727 Ephraim Chambers, a Westmoreland Quaker, published in London two folios, entitled, a Cyclopaedia or Universal
Dictionary of the Arts and Sciences. The- idea of it was broad
I and excellent. " Our view," says Chambers, " was to consider
the several matters, not only in themselves, but relatively, or as
they respect each other ; both to treat them as so many wholes,
and as so many parts of some greater whole." The compiler
lacked the grasp necessary to realise this laudable purpose. The
* (Euvres de D^Alenibtrt^ i. 63,

book has, however, the merit of conciseness, and is a singular
monument of literary industry, for it was entirely compiled by
Chambers himself. It had a great success, and though its price
was high (four guineas), it ran through five editions in eighteen
years. On the whole, however, it is meagre, and more like a
dictionary than an encyclopaedia, such as Alsted's for instance.
Some fifteen years after the publication of Chambers's
Cyclopaedia, an Englishman (Mills) and a German (Sellius) '
went to Le Breton with a project for its translation into French.
The bookseller obtained the requisite privilege from the government, but he obtained it for himself, and not for the projectors.
This trick led to a quarrel, and before it was settled the German
died and the Englishman returned to his own country. They
left the translation behind them duly executed.' Le Breton then
carried the undertaking to a certain abb^, Gua de Halves. Gua
de Malves (li. 171 2) seems to have been a man of a busy and
ingenious mind. He was the translator of Berkeley's Hylas and
Fhilotwus^ of Anson's Voyages, and of various English tracts
on currency and political economy. It is said that he first
suggested the idea of a cyclopaedia on a fuller plan,' but we
have no evidence of this. In any case, the project made no
advance in his hands. The embarrassed bookseller next applied
to Diderot, who was then much in need of work that should
bripg him bread. His fertile and energetic intelligence transformed the scheme. By an admirable intuition, he divined the!
opportunity which would be given by the encyclopaedic form, of^

gathering up into a whole all that new thought and modem'

knowledge, which existed as yet in unsystematic and uninter-/
preted fragments. His enthusiasm fired Le Breton. It was
resolved to make Chambers's work a mere starting-point for a
new enterprise of far wider scope.
*Whe old and learned D'Aguesseau," says Michelet, "notwithstai\ding the pitiable, the wretched sides of his character,
had two lofty sides, his reform of the laws, and a personal passion,
' Mhn. pour J. P. F. Luneau dc Boisjcrmain, 4to, Paris, 1771. See also
Diderot's Prospectus^ " La traduction cnti^re de Chambers nous a passe sous
les yeux," etc
" Biog, Universelle, s. v.

\ the taste and urgent need of universality, a certain encyclo
psedic sense. A young man came to him one day, a man of
letters living by his pen, and somewhat under a cloud for one
or two hazardous books that lack of bread had driven him to
write. Yet this stranger of dubious repute wrought a miracle.
With bewilderment the old sage listened to him unrolling the
gigantic scheme of a book that should be all books. On his lips,
sciences were light and life. It was more than speech, it was
creation. One would have said that he had made these sciences,
and was still at work, adding, extending, fertilising, ever engendering. The effect was incredible. D'Aguesseau, a moment
above himself, forgot the old man, received the infection of
genius, and became great with the greatness of the other. He
had faith in the young man, and protected the Encyclopaedia."'
A fresh privilege was procured (Jan. 21, 1746), and as Le
Breton's capital was insufficient for a project of this magnitude,
he invited three other booksellers to join him, retaining a half
share for himself, and allotting the other moiety to them. As
Le Breton was not strong enough to bear the material burdens
of producing a work on so gigantic a scale as was now proposed,
so Diderot felt himself unequal to the task of arranging and
supervising every department of a book that was to include the
whole cirde of the sciences. He was not skilled enough in
mathematics, nor in physics, which were then for the most part
mathematically conceived. For that province, he associated with
himself as an editorial colleague one of the most conspicuous
and active members of the philosophical party. Of this eminent
man, whose relations with Diderot were for some years so intimate, it is proper that we should say something.
D'Alembert was the natural son of Madame de Tencin, by
rhom he had been barbarously exposed immediately after his


* Michclet, Louis XV. 258. D'Agucsseau (1668-1751) has left one

piece which ought to be extricated from the thirteen quartos of his works
his memoir of his father ((/f. xiiu). This is one of those records of solid
and elevated character, which do more to refresh and invigorate the reader
than a whole library of religious or ethical exhortations can do. It has the
loftiness, the refined austerity, the touching impressiveness of Tacitus*s
Agricda or Condorcet's Turgot, together with a certain grave sweetness that
was almost peculiar to the Jansenist school of the seventeenth century.

birth. " The true ancestors of a man of genius," says Condorcet
finely upon this circumstance, " are the masters who have gone
before him, and his true descendants are disciples that are worthy
of him." He was discovered on a November night in the year
1717, by the beadle, in a nearly dying condition on the steps
of the church of St John the Round, from which he afterwards
took his Christian name. An honest woman of the common
people, with that personal devotion which is less rare among
the poor than among the rich, took charge of the foundling.
The father, who was an officer of artillery and brother of
Destouches, the author of some poor comedies, by-and-by advanced the small sums required to pay for the boy's schooling.
lyAlembert proved a brilliant student. Unlike nearly every
other member of the encyclopaedic party, he was a pupil, not
of the Jesuits but of their rivals. The Jansenists recognised the
keenness and force of their pupil, and hoped that they had
discovered a new Pascal. But he was less docile than his great
predecessor in their ranks. When his studies were completed,
he devoted himself to geometry, for which he had a passion that
nothing could extinguish. For the old monastic vow of poverty,
chastity, and obedience, he adopted the manlier substitute of
poverty, truth, and liberty the worthy device of 'every
man of
letters. When he awoke in the morning, he thought with delight
of the work that had been begun the previous day and would
occupy the day before him. In the necessary intervals of his
meditations, he recalled the lively pleasure that he felt at the play :
at the play, between the acts, he thought of the still greater
pleasure that was promised to him by the work of the morrow.
His mathematical labours led to valuable results in the principles
of equilibrium and the movement of fluids, in a new calculus,
and in a new solution of the problem of the precession of the
These contributions to what was then the most popular of the
sciences brought him fame, and fame brought him its usual
distractions. As soon as a writer has shown himself the possessor
of gifts that may be of value to society, then society straightway
' A short estimate of D'Alembert's principal scientific pieces, by M. Bertram,
is to be found in the Rtvm des Deux Mondes^ for October, 1865.


sets to work to seduce and hinder him from diligently exercising

them. D'Alembert resisted these influences steadfastly. His
means were very limited, yet he could never be induced to increase
them at the cost either of his social independence or of his
scientific pursuits. He lived for forty years under the humble
roof of the poor woman who had treated him as a son. " You
will never be anything better than a philosopher," she used to cry
reproachfully, " and what is a philosopher ? Tis a madman who
torments himself all his life, that people may talk about him when
he is dead." D'Alembert zealously adhered to his destination.
Frederick the Great vainly tempted him by an offer of the succession to Maupertuis as president of the Academy of Berlin.
Although, however, he declined to accept the post, he enjoyed all
its authority and prerogative. Frederick always consulted him in
filling up vacancies and making appointments. It is a magnanimous trait in D'Alembert's history that he should have procured
for Lagrange a position and livelihood at Berlin, warmly commending him as a man of rare and superior genius, although
Lagrange had vigorously opposed some of his own mathematical
theories. Ten years after Frederick's offer, the other great potentate of the north, Catherine of Russia, besought him to undertake the education of the young grand duke, her son. But
neither urgent flatteries and solicitations under the imperial hand,
nor the munificent offer of a hundred thousand francs a year,
availed to draw him away from his independence and his friends.
The great Frederick used to compare him to one of those oriental
monarchs, who cherish a strict seclusion in order to enhance their
importance and majesty. He did not refuse a pension of some
fifty pounds a year from Berlin, and the same amount was bestowed upon him from the privy purse at Versailles. He received
a small annual sum in addition from the Academy.
Though the mathematical sciences remained the objects of
his special study, D'Alembert was as firee as the other great men
of the encyclopaedic school from the narrowness of the pure
specialist. He naturally reminds us of the remarkable saying
imputed to Leibnitz, that he only attributed importance to science,
because it enabled him to speak with authority in philosophy and
religion. His correspondence with Voltaire, extending over the

third quarter of the century, is the most instructive record that we
possess of the many-sided doings of that busy time. His series of
^oges on the academicians who died between 1700 and 1772 is
one of the most interesting works in the department of literary
history. He paid the keenest attention to the great and difficult
art of writing. Translations from Tacitus, Bacon, and Addison,
show his industry in a useful practice. A long collection of
synonyms bears witness to his fine discrimination in the use of
words. And the clearness, precision, and reserved energy of his
own prose mark the success of the pains that he took with style.
&lt;He knew the secret. Have lofty sentiments, he said, and your)
manner of writing will be firm and noble.' Yet he did not ignore
the other side and half of the truth, which is expressed in the
saying of another important writer of that day By taking trouble ^
to speak with precision, one gains the habit of thinking rightly.

Like so many others to whom literature owes much, D'Alembert was all his life fighting against bad health. Like Voltaire and
Rousseau, he was bom dying, and he remained delicate and
valetudinarian to the end. He had the mental infirmities belonging to his temperament. He was restless, impatient, mobile,
susceptible of irritation. When the young Mademoiselle Phlipon,
in after years famous as wife of the virtuous Roland, was taken to
a sitting of the Academy, she was curious to see the author of the '
Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopaedia, but his small face and
sharp thin voice made her reflect with some disappointment, that
the writings of a philosopher are better to know than his mask.'
In everything except zeal for light and emancipation, D'AJembert
was the opposite of Diderot. Where Diderot was exuberant,
prodigal, and disordered, D'Alembert was a precisian. Difference
of temperament, however, did not prevent their friendship from
being for many years cordial and intimate. When the Encyclopaedia was planned, it was to D'Alembert, as we have said, that
Diderot turned for aid in the mathematical sciences, where his
own knowledge was not sufficiently full nor well grounded. They
were in strong and singular agreement in their idea of the proper
* (Euures de D^Alembert, iv. 367.
' CEttvres dej. Ph. Rolafid^ L 230 (edit 1800).

place and function of the man of letters. One of the most
striking facts about their alliance, and one of the most important
facts in the history of the Encyclopaedia, is that henceforth the
profession of letters became at once ^rfinitf* "*^^ indeppnd fnf^
Diderot and D'Alembert both of them remained poor, but they
were never hangers-on. They did not look to patrons, nor did
they bound their vision by Versailles. They were the first to
assert the lawful authority of the new priesthood. They revolted
deliberately and in set form against the old system of suitorship
and protection. " Happy are men of letters," wrote D'Alembert,
" if they recognise at last that the surest way of making themselves
respectable is to live united and almost shut up among themselves;
that by this union they will come, without any trouble, to give the
law to the rest of the nation in all affairs of taste and philosophy ;
that the true esteem b that which is awarded by men who are
themselves worthy of esteem As if the art of instructing
and enlightening men were not, after the too rare art of good
government, the noblest portion and gift in human reach." ^This consciousness of the power and exaltation of their
cxdling, which men of letters now acquired, is much more than the
superficial fact which it may at first seem to be. It marked the
rise of a new teaching order and the supersession of the old.
The highest moral ideas now belonged no longer to the clergy,

but to the writers ; no longer to official Catholicism, but to that

fertilising medley of new notions about human knowledge and
human society which then went by the name of philosophy.
What is striking is that the ideas sown by philosophy became
eventually the source of higher life in Catholicism. If the church
of the revolution showed something that we may justly admire, it
was because the encyclopaedic band had involuntarily and inevitably imparted a measure of their own clearsightedness, fortitude, moral energy, and spirit of social improvement, to a church
which was, when they began their work, an abominable burden on
' Es5(d sur la Sociki des Gens de Ldtres et des Grands^ etc Qluv, iv. 372.
"Write," he says, "as if you loved glory ; in conduct, act as if it were indifferent to you." Compare, with reference to the passage in the text, Duclos's
remark {Coftsid, sur Us MantrSf ch. xi.) : " The man in power commands, but
the intelligent govern, because in time they form public opinion, and that
sooner or later subjugates every kind of despotism." Only partially true.

the spiritual life of the nation. If the Catholicism of Chateaubriand, of Lamennais, of Montalembert, was a different thing
from the Catholicism of a Dubois or a Rohan, from the vile
corruptions of the Jesuits and the grovelling superstitions of the
later Jansenists, it was the execrated freethinkers whom the
church and mankind had to thank for the change. . The most V
enlightened Catholic of to-day ought to admit that Voltaire, /\
Diderot, Rousseau, were the true reformers of his creed. They
supplied it with ideas which saved it from becoming finally a
curse to civilization. It was no Christian prelate, but Diderot
who burst the bonds of a paralyzing dogma by the magnificent cry,
Detruisez us enceintes qui reirecissent vos idees I Elargissez Dieu I '
We see the same phenomenon in our own day. The Christian
churches are assimilating as rapidly as their formulae will permit,
the new light and the more generous moral ideas and th^ higher
spirituality of teachers who have abandoned all churches, and
who are systematically denounced as enemies of the souls of men.
Sic vos non vohis meliificatis apes I These transformations of
religion by leavening elements contributed from a foreign doctrine,
are the most interesting process in the history of truth.
The Encyclopaedia became a powerful engine for aiding such I
a transformation. Because it was this, and because it rallied all
that was then best in France round the standard of light and
social hope, we ought hardly to grudge time or pains to its
history. For it was not m grely in the field , of xeligious ideas that ,
the Encyclopaedists led France in a new way. They affected the
n^frionnl lifp nn every side, pressing forward with enlightened
principles in all the branches of material and political organization. Their union in a great p hilosoph ical band gave an impressive significance to their work. The collection within a single set
of volumes of a body of new truths, relating to so many of the
main interests of men, invested the book and its \vriters with an
aspect of universality, of collective and organic doctrine, jwrhich
the writers themselves would without doubt have disowned, and
which it is easy to dissolve by tests of logic. But tne popular
impression that the Encyclopaedists constituted a single body with

' Pensto PhUos. 26.

a common doctrine and a common aim was practically sound.
Comte has pointed out with admirable clearness the merit of the
conception of an encyclopaedic workshop.' It united the members
of rival destructive schools in a great constructive task. It
furnished a rallying-point for efforts otherwise the most divergent.
Their influence was precisely what it would have been, if popular
impressions had been literally true. Diderot and D'Alembert did
their best to heighten this feeling. They missed no occasion of
fixing a sentiment of co-operation and fellowship. They spoke of
their dictionary as the transactions of an Academy.' Each
writer was answerable for his own contribution, but he was in tlie
position . of a member of some learned corporation. To every
volume, until the great crisis of 1759, was prefixed a list of those
who had contributed to it. If a colleague died, the public was
informed of the loss that the work had sustained, and his
services were worthily commemorated in a formal ^loge.' Feuds,
epigrams, and offences were not absent, but on the whole there
was steadfast and generous fraternity.
As Voltaire eloquently said, officers of war by land and by
sea, magistrates, physicians who knew nature, men of letters
whose taste purified knowledge, geometers, physicists, all united in
a work that was as useful as it was laborious, without any view of
interest, without even seeking fame, as many of them concealed
their names; finally without any common understanding and
agreement, and therefore without anything of the spirit of party/
Turning over the pages on which the list of writers is inscribed,
we find in one place or another nearly every name that has
helped to make the literature of the time famous. Montes quieu ,
who died in the beginning of 1755, left behind him the unfinished
firagment of an article on Taste, and it may be noticed in passing
that our good-natured Diderot was the only man of letters who attended the remains of the illustrious writer to the grave.^ The
article itself, though no more than a fragment, has all the charms of
Montesquieu's delightful style; it is serious without pedantry,
PhU. Pos. V. 520. Polit, Pos, iii. 584.
See Pref, to vol. iii. ^ For instance, see Pref. to vol. vi.
4 SikU de Lotas XV. ch. 43.
5 Grimm, Corr, UU i. 273. Diderot, (Euv, iv. 15.

graceful without levity, and is rich in obsen^ations that are precise
and pointed without the vice of emphasis. The great Turgot,\.

diligently solicitous for the success of every enterprise that promised to improve human happiness by adding to knowledge and
spreading enlightenment, wrote some of the most valuable articles
that the work contained, and his discussion of Endowments
perhaps still remains the weightiest contribution to that important
subject Oddly enough, he was one of the very few writers who
refused to sign his name to his contributions.' His assistance
only ceased, when he perceived that the scheme was being coloured
by that spirit of sect, which he always counted the worst enemy of
the spirit of truth." Jeaa Jarques Rettsseau, who had just won a ^^i^
singular reputation by his paradoxes on natural equality and the *
corruptions of civilization, furnished the articles on music in the
first half-dozen volumes. They were not free from mistakes,
but his colleagues chivalrously defended him by the plea of careless printing or indifferent copying.^ The stately guffqn very, '
early in the history of the Encyclopaedia sent them an article upo:^ r .
Nature, and the editors made haste to announce to their subscribers
the advent of so superb a colleague.^ The articles on natural
history, however, were left by BufTon in his usual majestic fashion
to his faithful lieutenant and squire-at-arms, Da ubento n. And ^^
even his own article seems not to have been printed. Before the
eleventh volume appeared, terrible storms had arisen, not a few
of the shipmen had parted company, and Buffon may well have
been one of them. Certainly the article on Nature, as it stands,
can hardly be his.
In th^ supplementary volumes, which appeared in 1776 ten
years after the completion of the original undertaking two new
labourers came into the vineyard, whose names add fresh lustre
and give still more serious value to the work. One of these was
the prince of the physiologists of the eighteenth century, the great

* AverUssement to vol. vi. ; also to vol. vii. Turgot's articles were Etymologie. Existence, Expansibilite, Foires, Fondations. The text of these is
wrongly inserted among Diderot's contributions to the Encyclopaedia, in the
new edition of his Works, xv. 12.
* Condoccet's Vte de Turgot.
* Eic to voL iiL (1752), and to voL vL (1756).

Pref. to vol ii.

J* JJaller, who contributed an elaborate history of those who had
K. beenTiis predecessors in unfolding the intricate mechanism of the
human frame, and analyzing its marvels of complex function.
y^ The other was the austere and generous ^nndf^r^^t Ever loyal
to good causes, and resolute against despairing of the human
commonwealth, he began in the pages of the Encyclopaedia a
career that was brilliant with good promise and high hopes, and
ended in the grim hall of the Convention and a nobly tragic death
amid the red storm of the Terror.
Among the lesser stars in the encyclopaedic firmament are some

\^ whose names ought not to be wholly omitted. EQrbonnai, one of

the most instructive economic writers of the century, contributed
articles to the early volumes, which were afterwards republished in
N^ his Elements of Commerce.* The light-hearted Marmontgl wrote
cheerful articles on Comedy, Eloges, Eclogues, Glory, and other
V matters of literature and taste. Que5liaL.the eminent founder of
the economic sect, dealt with two agricultural subjects, and reproduced both his theoretical paradoxes, and his admirable practical
y maxims, on the material prosperity of nations. JEioIhad), not
yet author of the memorable System of Nature, compiled a vast
number of the articles on chemistry and mineralogy, chiefly and
avowedly from German sources, he being the only writer of the
band with a mastery of a language which was at that moment
hardly more essential to culture than Russian is now. The name
"l^v of JJuclos^hould not be passed over, in the list of the foremost
men who helped to raise the encyclopaedic monument He was
one of the shrewdest and most vigorous intelligences of the time,
being in the front rank of men of the second order. His quality
was coarse, but this was only the effect of a thoroughly penetrating
and masculine understanding. His articles in the Encyclopcedia
(Declamation des Anciens, Etiquette^ etc.) are not very remarkable ;
but the reflections on conduct which he styled Considerations stir
les Moeurs de ce Sihle (i*]^o\ though rather hard in tone, abound
in an acuteness, a breadth, a soundness of perception, that entitle
the book to the rare distinction, among the writings of moralists
and social observers, of still being worth reading. ^Ifljgllet Avrote

* Grimm, Corr, Lit, i. 13a Forbonnais's chief work is his Recherches et

Considirations sur lesjinatuts de la France.

upon some of the subjects of theology, and his contributions are
remarkable as being the chief examples in the record of the encydopsedic body of a distinctly and deliberately historic treatment
of religion. " I let people see," he wrote many years after, " that
m such a collection as the Encyclopaedia we ought to treat the
history and experience of the dogmas and discipline of the Christian, exactly like those of the religion of Brahma or Mahomet." '
This sage and philosophic principle enabled him to write the
article, Fils de Dieu (vol. vi.), without sliding into Arian, Nestorian,
Socinian, or other heretical view on that fantastic theme. We
need not linger over the names of other writers, who indeed are
now little more than mere shadows of namefe, such as La^Condamine, a scientific traveller of fame and merit in his day and generation ; of DuMarsaiS) the poverty-stricken and unlucky scholar who

wrote articles on grammar ; of the President Des_BiQSses, who was

unfortunate enough to be in the right in a quarrel about money with
Voltaire, and who has since been better known to readers through
the fury of the provoked patriarch, than through his own meritorious contributions to the early history of civilization.
The name of one faithful worker in the building of this new
Jerusalem ought not to be omitted, though his writings were
multa non tnuUutn. The Chevalier de Jau court (1704-17 7 9), as y.
his title shows, was the younger son of a noble house. He
studied at Geneva, Cambridge, and Leyden, and published in
1734 a useful account of the life and writings of Leibnitz. When
the Encyclopaedia was projected, his services were at once
secured, and he became its slave from the beginning of A to the
end of Z. He wrote articles in his own special subjects of
natural history and physical science, but he was always ready to
lend his help in other departments, in writing, re-writing, reading,
correcting, and all those other humbler necessities of editorship
of which the inconsiderate reader knows little and thinks less.
Jaucourt revelled in this drudgery. God made him for grinding
articles, said Diderot For six or seven years, he wrote one day,
laucoiurt has been in the middle of half-a-dozen secretaries,
reading, dictating, slaving, for thirteen or fourteen hours a day,
* Avert, to vol. iu

and he is not tired of it even now. When he was told that the
work must positively be brought to an end, his countenance fell,
and the prospect of release from such happy bondage filled his
heart with desolation.' " If," says Diderot in the preface to the
eighth volume (1765), "we have raised a shout of joy like the
sailor when he espies land after a sombre night that has kept him
midway between sky and flood, it is to M. de Jaucourt that we
are indebted for it. What has he not done for us, especially in
these latter times ? With what constancy has he not refused all
the solicitations, whether of friendship or of authority, that sought
to take him away from us? Never has sacrifice of repose, of
health, of interest been more absolute and more entire."' These
modest and unwearying helpers in good works ought not to
be wholly forgotten, in a commemoration of more far-shining
Besides those who were known to the conductors of the
Encyclopaedia, was a host of unsought volunteers. " The further
we proceed," the editors announced in the preface to the sixth
volume (1756), " the more are we sensible of the increase both in
matter and in number of those who are good enough to second
our efforts." They received many articles on the same subject.
They were constantly embarrassed by an emulation which, however flattering as a testimony to their work, obliged them to make
a difficult choice, or to lose a good article, or to sacrifice one of
their regular contributors, or to offend some influential newcomer.
Everyone who had a new idea in his head, or what he thought a
new idea, sent them an article upon it. Men who were priests or
pastors by profession and unbelievers in their hearts, sent them
sheaves of articles in which they permitted themselves the de-

licious luxury of saying a little of what they thought Women,

too, pressed into the great work. Unknown ladies volunteered
sprightly explanations of the technicalities of costume, from the
falbala which adorned the bottom of their skirts, up to that
little knot of riband in the hair, which had come to replace the
old appalling edifice of ten stones high, in hierarchic succession
of duchess, solitary, musketeer, crescent, firmament, tenth heaven,
' Nov. 10, 1760, xix. 24. Also, Oct 7, 1 761, xix. 35.
See also Preface to voL iii.

and mouse.' The oldest contributor ^'as Lenglet du_JFjesnay,
whose book on the Method of Studying History is still kno\^Ti
to those who have examined the development of men's ideas
about the relations of the present to the past Lenglet was born
in 1674. The youngest of the band was Condorcet, who was
bom nearly seventy years later (1743). One veteran, Morellet,
who had been the schoolmate of Turgot and Lome'nie de Brienne,
lived to think of many things more urgent than Faith, Fils de
Dieu, and Fundamentals. He survived the Revolution, the
Terror, the Empire, Waterloo, the Restoration, and died in 18 19,
within sight of the Holy Alliance and the Peterloo massacre.
From the birth of Lenglet to the death of Morellet ^what an arc
of the cirde of western experience !
No one will ask whether the keen eye, and stimulating word,
and helpful hand of Voltaire were wanting to an enterprise which
was to awaken men to new love of tolerance, enlightenment,
charity, and justice. Voltaire was playing the refractory courtier at
Potsdam when the first two volumes appeared. With characteristic
vehemence, he instantly pronounced it a work which should be
the glory of France, and the shame of its persecutors. Diderot
and D'Alembert were raising an immortal edifice, and he would
gladly furnish them with a little stone here or there, which they
might find convenient to stuff into some corner or crevice in the
walL He was incessant in his industry. Unlike those feebler
and more consequential spirits, the petits-maUres of thought, by
whom editors are harassed and hindered, this great writer was as
willing to imdertake small subjects as large ones, and to submit
to all the mutilations and modifications which the exigences of
the work and the difficulties of its conductors recommended
to them.' As the structure progresses, his enthusiasm waxes
warmer. Diderot and his colleague are cutting their wings for a
flight to posterity. They are Atlas and Hercules bearing a world
upon their shoulders. It is the greatest work in the world ; it is
a superb pyramid ; its printing-office is the office for the instruction of the human race ; and - so forth, in every phrase of
stimulating sympathy and energetic interest. Nor does his
' Avert, to vol. vi., and s. v. Fontange, Grimm, i. 451.
Corrasp. avec D' Alembert ((Euv. Ixxv.), Sept. 1755, Feb. 1757, etc


sympathy blind him to faults of execution. Voltaire's good

sense and sound judgment were as much at the service of his
friends in warning them of shortcomings, as in eulogising what
they achieved And he had good faith enough to complain to
his friends, instead of complaining of them. In one place he tells
them, what is perfectly true, that their journeymen are far too
declamatory, and too much addicted to substitute vague and
puerile dissertations for that solid instruction which is what the
reader of an Encyclopaedia seeks. In another he remonstrates
against certain frivolous affectations, and some of the coxcombries
of literary modishness. Everywhere he recommends them to
insist on a firm and distinct method in their contributors
etymologies, definitions, examples, reasons, clearness, brevity.
** You are badly seconded," he writes ; " there are bad soldiers in
the army of a great general"' " I am sorry to see that the writer
of the article Hell declares that hell was a point in the doctrine of
Moses ; now by all the devils that is not true. Why lie about
it ? Hell is an excellent thing, to be sure, but it is evident that
Moses did not know it 'Tis this world that is hell."'
D*Alembert in reply always admitted the blemishes for which
the patriarch and master reproached them, but urged various pleas
in extenuation. He explains that Diderot is not always the
master, either to reject or to prune the articles that are offered to
him.3 A writer who happened to be useful fr many excellent
articles would insist as the price of good work that they should
find room for his bad work also ; and so forth. " No doubt we
have bad articles in theology and metaphysics, but with theologians
for censors, and a privilege, I defy you to make them any better.
There are other articles that are less exposed to the daylight, and
in them all is repaired. Time will enable people to distinguish
what we have thought from what we have said." * This last is a
bitter and humiliating word, but before any man hastens to cast a
stone, let him first make sure that his own life is free firom every
trace of hypocritical conformity and mendacious compliance.
Condorcet seems to make the only remark that is worth making,
when he says that the true shame and disgrace of these dis* Dec. 22, 1757. May 24, 1757.
3 Dec. 13, 1756, April, 1756.

July 21, 1757.

semblings lay not with the writers, whose only other alternative
was to leave the stagnation of opinion undisturbed, but with the
[ecclesiastics and -^aiaisters whose tyranny made dissimulation
Inecessary. And the veil imposed by authority did not really
serve any purpose of concealment. Every reader was let into the
secret of the writer's true opinion of the old mysteries, by means of
a piquant phrase, an adroit parallel, a significant reference, an
equivocal word of dubious paneg&gt;Tic. Diderot openly explains
this in the pages of the Encyclopaedia itself. " In all cases," he
says, " where a national prejudice would seem to deserve respect,
the particular article ought to set it respectfully forth, with its whole
procession of attractions and probabilities. But the edifice of
mud ought to be overthrown and an unprofitable heap of dust

scattered to the wind, by references to articles in which solid

principles serve as a base for the opposite truths. This way of
undeceiving men operates promptly on minds of the right stamp,
and it operates infallibly and without any troublesome consequences, secretly and without disturbance, on minds of every
description." ' " Our fanatics feel the blows," cried D'Alembert
complacently, " though they are sorely puzzled to tell from which
side they come."'
It is one of the most deplorable things in the history of
literature to see a man endowed with Diderot's generous conceptions and high social aims, forced to stoop to these odious
economies. In reading hb Prospectus, and still more directly in
his article, Encyclopediey we are struck by the beneficence and
breadth of the great designs which inspire and support him. The
Encyclopaedia, it has been said, was no peaceful storehouse in
which schola^ and thinkers of all kinds could survey the riches
they had acquire^^ it was. a, gigantic siege-engine and armoury of j
weapons of j^ttacJc."* This is only true in a limited sense of one
part of the work, and that not the most important part. Such a
judgment is only possible for one who has not studied the book
itselfi or else who is ignorant of the social requirements of France
at the time. We shall show this presently in detail. Meanwhile
it is enough to make t\^'0 observations. The implements which
KrixcXt EncyclopMie, To Volt., Feb. 1$, 1757.
3 Hettner's LitertUurgesch, des iZten Jahrhunderts, ii. 277.

the circumstances of the time made it necessary to use as weapons
\ of attack, were equally fitted for the acquisition in a happier
season of those treasures of thought and knowledge which are the
object of disinterested research. And what is still more important,
we have to observe that it was the characteristic note and signal
l glory of the French revolutionary school, to subordinate mere
knowledge to the practical work of raising society up from the
corruption and paralysis to which it had been brought by the
double action of civil and ecclesiastical authority. The efforts of
the Encyclopaedists were not disinterested in the sense of being
vague blows in the air. Their aim was not theory but practice, not
literature but life. The Encyclopaedists were no doubt all men of
battle, and some of them were hardly more than mere partisans.
But Diderot at least had constantly in mind the great work which
remained after the battle should be won. He was profoundly
conscious that the mere accumulation of knowledge of the directly
physical facts of the universe would take men a very short way
towards reconstruction. And he struck the key-note in such
admirable passages as this : " One consideration especially that we
ought never to lose from sight is that, if we ever banish man, or
the thinking and contemplative being, from above the surface of
the earth, this pathetic and sublime spectacle of nature becomes
no more than a scene of melancholy and silence. The universe is

dumb ; the darkness and silence of the night take possession of

it. ... It is the presence of man that gives its interest to the
existence of other beings; and what better object can we set
before ourselves in the history of these beings, than to accept such
a consideration ? Why shall we not introduce man into our work
in the same place which he holds in the universe ? Why shall we
not make him a common centre ? Is there in infinite space any
other point from which we can with greater advantage draw those
immense lines that we propose to extend to all other points?
What a vivid and softening reaction must result between man and
the beings by whom he is surrounded? . . . Man is the single
term from which we ought to set out, and to which we ought to
trace all back, if we would please, interest, touch, even in the most
arid reflections and the driest details. If you take away my own

existence and the happiness of my fellows, of what concern to me i
is all the rest of nature ?" '
In this we hear the voice of the new time, as we do in his
exclamation that the perfection of an Encyclopaedia is the work of
centuries ; centuries had to elapse before the foundations could be
laid ; centuries would have to elapse before its completion : '^ mats
d la postMtk^ et A. l'I:tre qui ne meurt point ! " ' These
exalted ideas were not a substitute for arduous labour. In all that
Diderot writes upon his magnificent undertaking, we are struck by
his singular imion of common sense with elevation, of simplicity
with grasp, of suppleness with strength, of modesty with hopeful
confidence. On occasions that would have tempted a man of
less sincerity and less seriousness to bombast and inflation, his
sense of the unavoidable imperfections of so vast a work always
makes itself felt through his pride in its lofty aim and beneficent
design. The weight of the burden steadied him, and the anxiety
of the honest and laborious craftsman mastered the impulses of
Before going further into the general contents of the Encyclopaedia, we shall briefly describe the extraordinary succession of
obstacles and embarrassments against which its intrepid conductor
was compelled to fight his way. The project was fully conceived
and its details worked out between 14^45^ tnrd 17^. The Encyclo- \
paedia was announced in 1^1:^, in a Prospectus of which Diderot
was the author. At length in 1 751 the first volume of the work
itself was given to the public, followed by the second in January,
1752. The clerical party at once discerned what tremendous
fortifications, with how deadly an armament, were rising up in face of
their camp. The Jesuits had always been jealous of an enterprise
in which they had not been invited to take a part They had
expected at least to have the control of the articles on theology.
They now were bent on taking the work into their own hands, and
orthodoxy hastily set all the machinery of its ally, authority, in
vigorous motion.
The first attack was indirect An abb^ de Prades sustained a^
certain thesis in an official exercise at the Sorbonne, and Diderot
' Alt Encyclopidie. ' Prospectus,

was suspected, without good reason, of being its trae author. An
examination of its propositions was ordered. It was pronounced
pernicious, dangerous, and tending to deism, chiefly on account of
some too suggestive comparisons between the miraculous healings in the New Testament, and those ascribed in the more ancient
legend to iEsculapius. Other grounds of vehement objection
were found in the writer's maintenance of the Lockian theory of the
origin of our ideas. To deny the innateness of ideas was roundly \
asserted to be materialism and atheism. The abb^ de Prades was '
condemned, and deprived of his licence (Jan. 27, 1752). As he
was known to be a friend of Diderot, and was suspected of being
the writer of articles on theology in the Encyclopaedia, the design
of the Jesuit cabal in ruining De Prades was to discredit the new
undertaking, and to induce the government to prohibit it. Their
next step was to procure a pastoral from the archbishop of Paris.
This document not only condemned the heretical propositions of
De Prades, but referred in sombre terms to unnamed works teeming with error and impiety. Everyone understood the reference,
and among its effects was an extension of the vpgue and notoriety
of the Encyclopaedia.' The Jesuits were not allowed to retain a
monopoly of persecuting zeal, and the Jansenists refused to be
left behind in the race of hypocritical intrigue. The bishop of
Auxerre, who belonged to this party, followed his brother prelate
of Paris in a more direct attack, in which he included not only the
Encyclopaedia, but Montesquieu and Buffon. De Prades took to
flight. D'Alembert commended him to Voltaire, then at Berlin.
The king was absent, but Voltaire gave royal protection to the
fugitive until Frederick's return. De Prades was then at once
taken into favour and appointed reader to the king. He proved
but a poor martyr, however, for he afterwards retracted his
heresies, got a benefice, and was put into prison by Frederick for
giving information to his French countrymen during the Seven
Years' War." Unfortunately neither orthodoxy nor heterodoxy has
any exclusive patent for monopoly of rascals.
Meanwhile Diderot wrote on his behalf an energetic and dignified reply to the aggressive pastoral. This apology is not such a
* Barbier, v. 151, 153.
' Diderot to Voland, (Emf. xviiL 361, Carlylc's Frederick, bk. 18, ch. Ii.

masterpiece of eloquence as the magnificent letter addressed by
Rousseau ten years later to the archbishop of Paris, after the
pastoral against Emilius. But Diderof s vindication of De Prades
is firm, moderate, and closely argumentative. The piece is worth

turning to in our own day, when great dignitaries of the churches

too often show the same ignorance, the same temerity, and the
same reckless want of charity, a^ the bishop of Auxerre showed a
hundred and twenty years ago. They resort to the very same
fallacies by way of shield against scientific truths or philosophical
speculations that happen not to be easily reconcilable with theii
official opinions. " I know nothing so indecent," says Diderot,
" and nothing so injurious to religion as these vague declamations
of theologians against reason. One would suppose, to hear them,
that men could only enter into the bosom of Christianity as a herd
of cattle enter into a stable ; and that we must renounce our
common sense either to embrace our religion or to remain in
it Such principles as yours are made to frighten small
souls ; everything alarms them, because they perceive clearly the
consequences of nothing ; they set up connections among things
which have nothing to do with one another ; they spy danger in
any method of arguing which is strange to them ; they float at
hazard between truths and prejudices which they never distinguish,
and to which they are equally attached ; and all their life is passed
in crying out either miracle or impiety." In an eloquent peroration, which is not more eloquent than it is instructive, De Prades
is made to turn round on his Jansenist censor, and reproach him
with the disturbance with which the intestine rivalries of Jansenist
and Jesuit had afHicled the faithful. " It is the abominable testimony of your convulsions," he cries, " that has overthrown the
testimony of miracles. It is the fatuous audacity with which your
fanatics have confronted persecution, that has annihilated the
evidence of the martyrs. It is your declamations against sovereign
pontiffs, against bishops, against all the orders of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy, that have covered priest, altar, and creed with opprobrium. If the pope, the bishops, the priests, the simple faithful, the
whole church, if its mysteries, its sacraments, its temples, its ceremonies, have fallen into contempt, yours, yours, is the handiwork." '
AfclegU dt PAbbi dt Pradit. &lt;Emi. i. 48a.
II 9

100 DIDEROT. ^
Bourdaloue more than half a century before had taunted the
free-thinkers of his day with falseness and inconsistency in taking
sides with the Jansenists, whose superstitions they notoriously held
in open contempt. The motive for the alliance was tolerably
obvious. The Jansenists, apart from their theology, were above
all else the representatives of opposition to authority. It was for
this that Lewis xiv. counted them worse than atheists. The
Jesuits, it has been well said, in keeping doi^Ti their enemies by
force, became the partisans of absolute government, and upheld it
on every occasion. The Jansenists, after they had been crushed
by violence, began to feel to what excesses power might be
brought. From being speculative enemies to freedom as a theory,
they became, through the education of persecution, the partisans of
freedom in practice. The quarrel of Molinists and Jansenists,
from a question of theology, grew into a question of human

Circumstances had now changed. The free-thinkers were

becoming strong enough to represent opposition to authority on
their own principles and in their own persons. Diderot's vigorous
remonstrance with the bishop of Auxerre incidentally marks for us
the definite rupture of philosophic sympathy for the Jansenist
champions. "It is your disputatiousness," he said, "which
within the last forty years has made far more unbelievers than all
the productions of philosophy." As we cannot too clearly realise,
it was the flagrant social incompetence of the church which brought
what they called Philosophy, that is to say Liberalism, into vogue
and power. Locke's Essay had been translated in 1700, but it
had made no mark, and as late as 1725 the first edition of the
translation remained unsold. It was the weakness and unsightly
decrepitude of the ecclesiastics which opened the way for the
This victory, however, was not yet Diderot had still a dismal
wilderness to traverse. He was not without secret friends even in
the camp of his enemies. After his reply to P^re Berthier s attack
on the Prospectus, he received an anonymous letter to the effect
that if he wished to avenge himself on the Jesuits, there were both
important documents and money at his command. Diderot
* Sec Jobez, i. 358.


replied that he was in no want of money, and that he had no time
to spare for Jesuit documents.' He trusted to reason. Neither
reason nor eloquence availed against the credit at court of the
ecclesiastical cabaL The sale of the second volume of the Encyclopaedia was stopped by orders which Malesherbes was reluctantly
compelled to issue. A decree of the king's council (Feb. 7, 1752)
suppressed both volumes, as containing maxims hostile to the
royal authority and to religion. The publishers were forbidden to
reprint them, and the booksellers were forbidden to deliver any
copies that might still be in hand. The decree, however, contained no prohibition of the continuance of the work. It was probably not meant to do anything more serious than to pacify the
Jesuits, and lend an apparent justification to the officious pastorals
of the great prelates. Some even thought that the aim of the
government was to forestall severer proceedings on the part of the
p&gt;arliament of lawyers ; ' for corporations of lawyers have seldom
been less bigoted or obstructive than corporations of churchmen.
Nor were lawyers and priests the only foes. Even the base and
despicable jealousies of booksellers counted for something in the
A curious triumph awaited the harassed Diderot. He was
compelled, under pain of a second incarceration, to hand over to
the authorities all the papers, proof-sheets, and plates in his
possession. The Jesuit cabal supposed that if they could obtain
the materials for the future volumes, they could easily arrange and
manipulate them to suit their own purposes. Their ignorance and
presumption were speedily confounded. In taking Diderot's
papers, they had forgotten, as Grimm says, to take his head and
his genius : they had forgotten to ask him for a key to articles

which, so far from understanding, they with some confusion vainly

strove even to decipher. The government was obliged (May, 1752)
to appeal to Diderot and D'Alembert to resume a work for which
their enemies had thus proved themselves incompetent. Yet, by
one of the meannesses of decaying authority, the decree of three
months before was left suspended over their heads.*
The third volume of the Encyclopaedia appeared in the autumn
' xix. 425. Barbier, v. 160. 3 Jind, v. 169.
* Grimm, Corr, Lit, i. 81. Barbier, v. 170.

of 1753. D'Alembert prefixed an introduction, vindicating himself
and his colleague with a manliness, a sincerity, a gravity, a fire,
that are admirable and touching. " What," he concluded, " can
malignity henceforth devise against two men of letters, trained long
since by their meditations to fear neither injustice nor poverty ;
who having learnt by a long and mournful experience, not to
despise, but to mistrust and dread men, have the courage to love
them, and the prudence to flee them ? . . . After having been the
stormy and painful occupation of the most precious years of our
life, this work will perhaps be the solace of its close. May it,
when both we and our enemies alike have ceased to exist, be a
durable jnonument of the good intention of the one, and the
injustice of the other. . . . Let us remember the fable of
Bocalini : * A traveller was disturbed by the importunate chirrupings
of the grasshoppers ; he would fain have slain them every one, but
only got belated and missed his way ; he need only have fared
peacefully on his road, and the grasshoppers would have died of
themselves before the end of a week.' " '
A volume was now produced in each year, until the autumn of
1757 and the issue of the seventh volume. This brought the
work down to Gyromancy and Gythium. Then there arose
storms and divisions which marked a memorable epoch alike in
the history of the book, in the life of Diderot and others, and in
the thought of the century. The progress of the work in popularity during the five years between 1752 and 1757 had been
steady and unbroken. The original subscribers we;.re barely two
thousand. When the fourth volume appeared, there were three
thousand. The seventh volume found nearly a thousand more."
Such prodigious success wrought the chagrin of the party of
superstition to fever heat As each annual volume came from the
press and found a wider circle of readers than its predecessor,
their malice and irritation waxed a degree more intense. They
scattered malignant rumours abroad ; they showered i)amphlets ;
no imputation was too odious or too ridiculous for them.
Diderot, D'Alembert, Voltaire, Rousseau, BufTon, were declared to
have organized a league of writers, with the deliberate purpose of
* Avert, to vol. iii. CEuv, de D^Aletnhert^ iv. 410.
Barbier, v. 17a Grimm, Corr. Lit. i. 201 ; lb, ii. 197.


attacking the public tranquillity and overthrowing society. They '
were denounced as heads of a formal conspiracy, a clandestine /
association, a midnight band, united in a horrible community of
pestilent opinions and sombre interests.
In the seventh volume an article appeared which made the
ferment angrier than it had ever been. D'Alembert had lately
been the guest of Voltaire at Ferney, whence he had made
frequent visits to Geneva. In his intercourse with the ministers
of that famous city, he came to the conclusion that their religious
opinions were really Socinian, and when he wrote the article on
Geneva he stated this. He stated it in such a way as to make
their heterodox opinions a credit to Genevese pastors, because he
associated disbelief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, in mysteries of
faith, and in eternal punishment, with a practical life of admirable
simplicity, purity, and tolerance. Each line of this eulogy on the
Socinian preachers of Geneva, veiled a burning and contemptuous
reproach against the cruel and darkened spirit of the churchmen
in France. Jesuit and Jansenist, loose abb^s and debauched
prelates, felt the quivering of the arrow in the quick, as they
read that the morals of the Genevese pastors were exemplary ;
that they did not pass their lives in furious disputes upon unintelligible pomts ; that they brought no indecent and persecuting
accusation against one another before the civil magistrate. There
was gaU and wormwood to the orthodox bigot in the harmless
statement that " Hell, which is one of the principal articles of our
belief, has ceased to be one with many of the ministers of
Geneva ; it would be, according to them, a great insult to the
divinity, to imagine that this Being, so full of justice and goodness,
is capable of punishing our faults by an eternity of torment : they
explain in as good a sense as they can the formal passages of
scripture which are contrary to their opinion, declaring that we
ought never in the sacred books to take anything literally, that
seems to wound humanity and reason." And we may be sure
that D'Alembert was thinking less of the consistory and the great
council of Geneva, than of the priests and the parliament of
Paris, when he praised the protestant pastors, not only for their
tolerance, but for confining themselves within their proper functions, and for being the first to set an example of submission to

the magistrates and the laws. The intention of this elaborate
and reasoned account of the creed and practice of a handful of
preachers in a heretical town, could not be mistaken by those at
whom it was directed. It produced in the black ranks of official
orthodoxy fully as angry a shock as its writer could have
The church had not yet, we must remember, borrowed the
principles of humanity and tolerance from atheists. It was not
the comparatively purified Christian doctrine of our own time
with which the Encyclopaedists did battle, but an organized
corporation, with exceptional tribunals, with special material
privileges^ with dungeons and chains at their disposal. We have

to realise that official religion was then a strange union of

Byzantine decrepitude, with the energetic ferocity of the Holy
Office. Within five years of this indirect plea of D'Alembert for
tolerance and humanity, Calas was murdered by the orthodoxy
of Toulouse. Nearly ten years later (1766), we find Lewis xv.,
with the steam of the Pare aux Cerfs about him, rewarded by
the loyal acclamations of a Parisian crowd, for descending
from his carriage as a priest passed bearing the sacrament,
and prostrating himself in the mud before the holy symbol.*
In the same year the youth La Barre was first tortured, then
beheaded, then burnt, for some presumed disrespect to the
same holy symbol then become the hateful ensign of human
degradation, of fanatical cruelty, of rancorous superstition. Yet
I shoufd be sorry to be unjust. It is to be said that even in
these bad days when religion meant cruelty and cabal, the one
or two men who boldly withstood to the face the king and the
Pompadour for the vileness of their lives, were priests of the
D*Alembert's article hardly goes beyond what to us seem the
axioms of all men of sense. We must remember the time. Even
members of the philosophic party itself, like Grimm, thought the
article misplaced and hardy." The Genevese ministers indignantly
repudiated the compliment of Socinianism, and the eulogy of being
rather less irrational than their neighbours. Voltaire read and
. Hardy, quoted by Aubertin, 407-S. Corr. Lit. ii. 271.


read again with delight, and plied the writer with reiterated exhortations in every key, not to allow himself to be driven from the
great woric by the raging of the heathen and the vain imaginings
of the people.'
While the storm seemed to be at its height, an incident
occurred which let loose a new flood of violent passion. Helv^tius ^
published that memorable book in which he was thought to have
told all the world its own secret. His De V Esprit came out in=
1758.' It provoked a general insurrection of public opinion.
The devout and the heedless agreed in denouncing it as scandalous,
licentious, impious, and pregnant with peril. The philosophic
party felt that their ally had dealt a sore blow to liberty of thought
and the free expression of opinion. " Philosophy," said Grimm,
.by philosophy, as I have said, meaning Liberalism, " will long feel
the effect of the rising of opinion which this author has caused by
his book ; and for having described too freely a morality that is
bad and false in itself, M. Helvdtius will have to reproach himself
with all the restraints that are now sure to be imposed on the
few men of lofty genius who still are left to us, whose destiny
was to enlighten their fellows; and to spread truth over the
earth." ^
At the beginning of 1759 the procureur-gen^ral laid an information before the court against Helv^tius's book, against halfa-dozen minor publications, and finally against the Encyclopaedia.
The De P Esprit was alleged to be a mere abridgment of the
Encyclopaedia, and the Encyclopaedia was denounced as being the

opprobrium of the nation by its impious maxims and its hostility

to morals and religion. The court appointed nine commissaries
to examine the seven volumes, suspending their further sale or
dehvery in the meanwhile. When the commissaries sent in their
report a month later, the parliament was dissatisfied with its
tenoiu:, and appointed four new examiners, two of them being
theologians and two of them lawyers. Before the new censors
had time to do their work, the Council of State interposed with
an arbitrary decree (March, 1759) suppressing the privilege which
To D'Alembcrt, Dec 29, 1757, Jan. 1758.
* For a short account of Helvetius's book, see a later chapter.
3 Corr, Lit, il 292-3.

had been conceded in 1746; prohibiting the sale of the seven
volumes already printed, and the printing of any future volumes
under pain of exemplary punishment.* The motive for this intervention has never been made plain. One view is that the king's
government resented the action of the law courts, and that the
royal decree was only an episode in the quarrel then raging
between the crown and the parliaments. Another opinion is that
Malesherbes or Choiseul was anxious to please the dauphin and
the Jesuit party at Versailles. The most probable explanation is
that the authorities were eager to silence one at least of the three
elements of opposition, the Jansenists, the lawyers, and the
philosophers, who were then distracting the realm. The two
former were beyond their direct reach. They threw themselves
upon the foe who happened to be most accessible.
The government, however, had no intention of finally exterminating an enemy who might at some future day happen to be a
convenient ally. They encouraged or repressed the philosophers
according to the political calculations of the moment, sometimes
according to the caprices of the king's mistress, or even a minister's
mistress. When the clergy braved the royal authority, the hardiest
productions were received with indulgence. If the government
were reduced to satisfy the clergy, then even the very commonplaces of the new philosophy became ground for accusation. The
Encyclopaedia was naturally exposed in a special degree to such
alternations of favour and suspicion.' The crisis of 1759 furnishes
a curious illustration of this. As we have seen, in the spring of
that year the privilege was withdrawn from the four associated
booksellers, and the continuance of the work strictly prohibited.
Yet the printing was not suspended for a week. Fifty compositors
were busily setting up a book which the ordinance of the government had decisively forbidden under heavy penalties. The same
kind of connivance was practised to the advantage of other
branches of the opposition. Thirty years before this, the organ of
the Jansenist party was peremptorily suppressed. The police
instituted a rigorous search, and seized the very presses on which
the Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques was being printed. But the journal
' Barbier, vil 125-42.

Lacretelle's France pendant le \%ime SUcle, iii. 89.


continued to appear, and was circulated, just as regularly as
The history of the policy of authority towards the Encyclopaedia is only one episode in the great lesson of the reign of
Lewis XV. It was long a common mistake to think of this king's
system of government as violent and tyrannical. In truth, its
failure and confusion resulted less from the arbitrariness of its
procedure, than from the hopeless absence of tenacity, conviction,
and consistency in the substance and direction of its objects.
And this, again, was the result partly of the complex and intractable nature of the opposition with which successive ministers had
to deal, and partly of the overpowering strength of those Asiatic
maxims of government which Richelieu and Lewis xiv. had invested with such ruinous prestige. The impatience and charlatanry
of emotional or pseudo-scientific admirers of a personal system
blind them to the permanent truth, of which the succession of the
decrepitude of Lewis xv. to the strengtli of his great-grandfather,
and of the decrepitude of Napoleon in. to the strength of his
uncle, are only illustrations.
The true interest of all these details about a mere book lies in
the immense significance of the movement of political idea&amp;-and
forces t o which they belong. The true interest of all history lies
in the spectacle which it furnishes of the growth and dissolution,
the shock and the transformation, incessantly at work among the
great groups of human conceptions. The decree against the
Encyclopaedia marks the central moment of a collision between
two antagonistic conceptions which disputed, and in France still
dispute, with- one another the shaping and control of institutions.
One of these ideas is the exclusion of political authority from the
sphere and function of directing opinion ; it implies the absolute
secularization of government. The rj yal idea^ prompted the
massacre of St Bartholomew, the dragonnades, the revocation of
the Edict of Nantes, and all the other acts of the same policy,
which not only deprived France of thousands of the most
conscientious and most ingenious of her sons, but warped and
corrupted the integrity of the national conscience. It is natural
Jobez, ii 464, 538.

that we should feel anger at the arbitrary attempt to arrest Diderot's
courageous and enlightened undertaking. Yet in truth it was only
the customary inference from an accepted principle, that it is the
business or the right of governments to guide thought and regulate
its expression. The Jesuits acted on this theory, and resorted to
repressive power and the secular arm whenever they could. The
Jansenists repudiated the principle, but eagerly practised it whenever the turn of intrigue gave them the chance.

An extraordinary and unforeseen circumstance changed the

external bearings of this critical conflict of ideas. The conception
of the duties of the temporal authority ia the spiritual sphere had
been associated hitherto with Catholic doctrine. The decay of
that doctrine was rapidly discrediting the conception allied with it.
But the movement was interrupted. And it was interrupted by a
man who suddenly steppecj out from the ranks of the Encyclopaedists themselves. Rousseau from his solitary cottage at Montmorency (1758) fulminated the celebrated letter to D'Alembert on
Stage-plays. The article on Geneva in the seventh volume of the
Encyclopaedia had not only praised the pastors for their unbelief ;
it also assailed the time-honoured doctrine of the churches that
the theatre is an institution from hell and an invention of devils.
D'Alembert paid a compliment to his patriarch and master at
Femey, as well as shot a bolt at his ecclesiastical foes in Paris, by
urging the people of Geneva to shake off irrational prejudices and
straightway to set up a playhouse. Rousseau had long been
brooding over certain private grievances of his o^ti against
Diderot ; the dreary story has been told by me before, and happily
need not be repeated' He took the occasion of D'Alembert's
mischievous suggestion to his native Geneva, not merely to
denounce the drama with all the force and eloquence at his command, but formally to declare the breach between himself and
Diderot From this moment he treated the Holbachians, so he
contemptuously styled the Encyclopaedists, as enemies of the
human race and disseminators of the deadliest poisons.
This was no mere quarrel of rival authors. It marked a fundamental divergence in thought, and proclaimed the beginning of a
V^ ' See Rousseau^ chaps. 7 and 9.


disastrous reaction in the very heart of the school of illumination.
Among the most conspicuous elements of the reaction were these :
the subordination of reason to emotion ; the displacement of in-',
dustry, science, energetic and mahy-sided ingenuity, by dreamy
indolence ; and finally, what brings us back to our starting-point,
the suppression of opinions deemed to be anti-social by the secular
arm. The old idea was brought back in a new dress ; the absolutist conception of the function of authority, associated with a
theistic doctrine. Unfortunately for France, Rousseau^s idea
prospered, and ended by vanquishing its antagonist The reason
is plain. Rousseau's idea exactly fitted in with the political traditions and institutions of the country. It was more easily and
directly compatible than was the contending idea, with that temper
and set of men's minds which tradition and institutions had fixed
so disastrously deep in the national character.
The crisis of T 7j?^-i^p ^ thpn^ is a date of the highest importance. It marks a collision between the old principle of
Lewis XIV., of the Bartholomew Massacre, of the revocation of
the Edict of Nantes* and the new rationalistic principle of spiritual
emancipation. The old principle was decrepit, it was no longer
able to maintain itself; the hounds were furious, but their fury
was toothless. Before the new principle could achieve mastery,
Rousseau had made mastery impossible. Two men came into

the world at this very moment, whom destiny made incarnations

of the discordant principles. E)antoa and Robespierre were both
bom in 1759. Diderot seems to have had a biblical presentiment,
says MicheleL " We feel that he saw, beyond Rousseau, something sinister, a spectre of the future. Diderot-Danton already
looks in the face of Rousseau-Robespierre."'
A more vexatious incident now befell the all-daring, all-enduring
Diderot, than either the decree of the Council or the schism of the
heresiarch at Montmorency. D'Alembert declared his intention ; /
of abandofiing the work, and urged his colleague to do the same. '
His letters to Voltaire show intelligibly enough how he brought
himself to this resolution. " I am worn out," he says, "with the
afironts and vexations of every kind that this work draws down
Louis XV. et Louis XVL p. 50.

upon us. The hateful and even infamous satires which they print
against us, and which are not only tolerated, but protected, authorised, applauded, nay, actually commanded by the people with
p&gt;ower in their hands ; the sermons, or rather the tocsins that are
rung against us at Versailles in the presence of the king, ncmine
recktmante ; the new intolerable inquisition that they are bent on
practising against the Encyclopaedia, by giving us new censors
who are more absurd and more intractable than could be found at
Goa ; all these reasons, joined to some others, drive me to give
up this accursed work once for all." He cared nothing for lib
or stinging pamphlets in themselves, but libels fj^iiiitted or
ordered by those who could instantly have suppressed them,* were
a different thing, especially when they vomited forth the vilest
personalities. He admitted that there were other reasons why he
was bent on retiring, and it would appear that one of these
reasons was dissatisfaction with the financial arrangements of the
Voltaire for some time remonstrated against this retreat before
the hated InfcLme, At length his opinion came round to D'Alembert's reiterated assertions of the shame and baseness of men of
letters subjecting themselves to the humiliating yoke of ministers,
priests, and police. Voltaire wrote to Diderot, protesting that
before all things it was necessary to present a firm front to the
foe ; it would be atrocious weakness to continue the work after
D' Alembert had quitted it ; it was monstrous that such a genius
as Diderot should make himself the slave of booksellers and the
victim of fanatics. Must this dictionary, h^ asked, which is a
hundred times more useful than Bayle's, be fettered with the
superstition which it should annihilate; must they make terms
with scoundrels who keep terms with none ; could the enemies of
reason, the persecutors of philosophers, the assassins of our kings,
still dare to lift up their voices in such a century as that ? " Men
are on the eve of a great revolution in the human mind, and it is
you to whom they are most of all indebted for it." ^
' Jan. II, 1758. Jan. 20, 1 758. Diderot to Mile. Voland, Oct. 11, 1759.
See the following chapter.

Voltaire to D'AIembcrt, Jan. to May, 1758. Voltaire to Diderot, Jan.



More than once Voltaire entreated Diderot to finish his work
in a foreign country where his hands would be free. " No," said
Diderot in a reply of pathetic energy ; " to abandon the work is
turning our back upon the breach, and to do precisely what the
villains who persecute us desire. If you knew with what joy they
have learnt D'Alembert's desertion ! It is not for us to wait until
the government have punished the brigands to whom they have
given us up. Is it for us to complain, when they associate with
us in their insults men who are so much better than ever we shall
be ? What ought we to do then ? Do what becomes men of
courage, despise our foes, follow them up, and take advantage,
as we have done, of the feebleness of our censors. If D*Alembert
resumes, and we complete our work, is not that vengeance
enough ? . . . . After all this, you will believe that I cling at any
price to the Encyclopaedia, and you will be mistaken. My dear
master, I am over forty. I am tired out with tricks and shufflings.
I cry from morning till night for rest, rest ; and scarcely a day
passes when I am not tempted to go and live in obscurity and die
in peace in the depths of my old country. There comes a time
when all ashes are mingled. Then what will it boot me to have
been Voltaire or Diderot, or whether it is your three syllables or
my three syllables that survive ? One must work, one must be
useful, one owes an account of one's gifts, etcetera, etcetera. Be
useful to men ! Is it quite clear that one does more than amuse
them, and that there is much difference between the philosopher
and the flute-player ? They listen to one or the other with pleasure or disdain, and remain what they were. The Athenians were
never wickeder than in the time of Socrates, and perhaps all that
they owe to his existence is a crime the more. That there is more
spleen than good sense in all this, I admit and back I go to the
Encyclopaedia." '
Thus for seveqj ears the labour of conducting the vast enterprise fell upon P fderoL ateilgr^ He had not only to write articles
upon the most exhausting and various kinds of subjects ; he had
also to distribute topics among his writers, to shape their manuscripts, to correct proof-sheets, to supervise the preparation of
' Diderot to Voltaire, Feb. 19, 1758, xix. 452.

the engravings, to write the text explanatory of them, and all this
amid constant apprehension and alarm from the government and
the police. He would have been free from persecution at
Lausanne or at Leyden, The two great sovereigns of the north
who thought it part of the trade of a king to patronise the new
philosophy, offered him shelter at Petersburg or Berlin.' But
how could he transport to the banks of the Neva or the Spree his
fifty skilled compositors, his crafty engravers on copper-plate, and
all the host of his industrial army ? How could he find in those

half-barbarous lands the looms and engines and thousand cunning

implements and marvellous processes which he had under his eye
and ready to his hand in France ? And so he held fast to his
post on the fifth floor of the house in the Rue Saint Benoit, a
standing marvel to the world of letters for all time.
As his toil was drawing to a close, he suddenly received the
most mortifying of all the blows that were struck at him in the
course of his prolonged, hazardous, and tormenting adventure.
After the interruption in 1759, it was resolved to bring out the
ten volumes which were still wanting, in a single issue. Le Breton
was entrusted with the business of printing them. The manuscript was set in type, Diderot corrected the proof-sheets, saw the
revises, and returned each sheet duly marked with his signature
for the press. At this point the nefarious operation of Le Breton
began. He and his foreman took possession of the sheets, and
proceeded to retrench, cut out, and suppress every passage, line,
or phrase, that appeared to them to be likely to provoke clamour
or the anger of the government They thus, of their own brute
authority, reduced most of the best articles to the condition of
fragments mutilated and despoiled of all that had been most
valuable in them. The miscreants did not even trouble themselves
to secure any appearance of order or continuity in these mangled
skeletons of articles. Their murderous work done, they sent the
pages to the press, and to make the mischief beyond remedy, they
committed all the original manuscripts and proof-sheets to the
flames. One day, when the printing was nearly completed (1764),
Diderot having occasion to consult an article under the letter S,
' To Volaiy!, (Etw, xix. 146.


found it entirely spoiled. He stood confounded. An instant's
thought revealed the printer's atrocity. He eagerly turned to the
articles on which he and his subordinates had taken most pains,
and found everywhere the same ravages and disorder. "The
discovery/' says Grimm, " threw him into a state of frenzy and
despair which I shall never forget." * He wept tears of rage and
torment in the presence of the criminal himself, and before wife
and children and sympathising domestics. For weeks he could
neither eat nor sleep. " For years," he cried to Le Breton,
"you have been basely cheating me. You have massacred,
or got a brute beast to massacre, the work of twenty good
men who have devoted to you their time, their talents, their
vigils, from love of right and truth, from the simple hope of seeing
their ideas given to the public, and reaping from them a little
consideration richly earned, which your injustice and thanklessness
have now stolen from them for ever. . . . You and your book
will be dragged through the mire ; you will henceforth be cited as
a man who has been guilty of an act of treachery, an act of vile
hardihood, to which nothing that has ever happened in this world
can be compared. Then you will be able to judge your panic
terror, and the cowardly counsels of those barbarous Ostrogoths
and stupid Vandals who helped you in the havoc you have
Yet he remained imdaunted to the very last. His first move-

ment to throw up the work, and denounce Le Breton's outrage

to the subscribers and the world, was controlled. His labour had
lost its charm. The monument was disfigured and defaced. He
never forgot the horrible chagrin, and he never forgave the ignoble
author of it But the last stone was at length laid. In 1765 the |
subscribers received the concluding ten volumes of letter-press.
The eleven volumes of plates were not completed until 1772.
The copies bore Neufchitel on the title-page, and were distributed
privately. The clergy in their assembly at once levelled a decree
at the new book. The parliament quashed this, not from love
of the book, but from hatred of the clergy. The government, however, ordered all who possessed the Encyclopaedia to deliver it
Onr, IM. viL 146. Ibid.

over forthwith to the police. EventuaDy the copies were returned
to their owners with some petty curtailments.
Voltaire has left us a vivacious picture of authority in grave
consultation over the great engine of destruction. With that we
may conclude our account of its strange eventful history.
A servant of Lewis XV. told me that one day the king his master supping
at Trianon with a small party, the talk happened to turn first upon the chase,
and next on gunpowder. Some one said that the best powder was made of
equal parts of saltpetre, of sulphur, and of charcoaL The Duke de la Valli^,
better informed, maintained that to make good gunpowder you required one
part of sulphur and one of charcoal to five parts of saltpetre.
*' It b curious," said the Duke de Nivemois, *' that we should amuse ourselres every day in killing partridges at Versailles, and sometimes in killing
men or getting ourselves killed on the frontier, without knowing exactly how
the killing is done."
*' Alas," said Madame de Pompadour, "we are all reduced to that about
everything in the world : I don't know how they compound the rouge that I
put on my cheeks, and I should be vastly puzzled if they were to ask me how
they make my silk stockings."
"'Tis a pity, then," said the Duke de la ValU^re, "that his Majesty
should have confiscated our Encyclopaedias, which cost us a hundred pistoles
apiece : we should soon find there an answer to all our difficulties."
The king justified the confiscation: he had been warned that one-andtwcnty folios, that were to be found on the dressing-tables of all the ladies,
were the most dangerous thing in all the world for the kingdom of France ;
and he meant to find out for himself whether this were true or not, before
letting people read the book. When supper was over, he sent three lackeys
for the book, and they returned each with a good deal of difficulty carrying
seven volumes.
It was then seen from the article Powder that the Duke de la Valliere
was right ; and then Madame de Pompadour learnt the difference between the
old rouge of Spain, with which the ladies of Madrid coloured their faces, and
the rouge of the ladies of Paris. She knew that the Greek and Roman ladies
were painted with the purple that came from the murex^ and that therefore our

scarlet is the purple of the ancients ; that there was more saffron in the rouge
of Spiiin, and more cochineal in tliat of France.
She saw how they made her stockings by loom ; and the machine transported her with amazement
Everyone threw himself on the volumes like the daughters of Lycomedes
on the ornaments of Ulysses ; everyone immediately found all he sought.
Those who were at law were surprised to sec their affair decided. The king
read all about the rights of his crown. " But upon my word," he said, " I
can't tell why they spoke so ill of this book." ** Do you not see, sire," said
the Duke de Nivemois, " it is because the book is so good ; people never cry
out against what is mediocre or common in anything. If women seek to throw
ridicule on a new arrivalt she is sore to be prettier than they are."


All this time they kept on turning over the leaves ; and the Count de
C said aloud ** Sire, how happy you are, that under your reign men
should be found capable of understanding all the arts an transmitting them to
posterity. Everything is here, from the way to make a pin down to the art of
casting and pointing your guns ; from the infinitely little up to the infinitely
great Thank God for having brought into the world in your kingdom the
men who have done such good work for the whole universe. Other nations
must either buy the Encyclopcedia, or else they must pirate it. Take all my
property if you will, but give me back my Encyclopaedia."
" Yet they say," replied the king, " that there are many faults in this work,
necessary and admirable as it is."
" Sire," said the Count de C ^ ** there were at your supper two ragouts
which were failures ; we left them uneaten, and yet we had excellent cheer.
Would you have had them throw all the supper out of the window because of
those two ragouts ? . . ."
Envy and Ignorance did n9t coimt themselves beaten ; the two immortal
sisters continued their cries, their cabals, their persecutions. What happened ?
Foreigners brought out four editions of this French book which in France was
proscribed, and they gained about 1,800,000 crowns.*

In a monotonous world it is a pity to spoil a striking effect,

yet one must be vigilant It has escaped the attention of writers
who have reproduced this lively scene, that Madame de Pompadour was dead before the volumes containing Powder and Rouge
were bom. The twenty-one volumes were not published until
1765, and she died in the spring of the previous year. But the

substance of the story is probably true, though Voltaire has only

made a slip in a name.
As to the reference with which Voltaire impatiently concludes,
we have to remember that the work was being printed at Geneva \
as it came out in Paris. It was afterwards reprinted as a whole
both at Geneva (1777) and at Lausanne (1778). An edition
appeared at Leghorn in 1770, and another at Lucca in 1771.
Immediately after the completion of the Encyclopaedia there
began to appear volumes of selections from it The compilers of
these anthologies (for instance of an Esprit de V Encydopkdie
published at Geneva in 1768), were free from all intention of
proselytizing. They meant only to turn a more or less honest
penny by serving up in neat duodecimos the liveliest, most
' (Euvrcs de Voltaire, Published sometimes among Fadties^ sometimes
among Milanges,
1 2

curious, and most amusing pieces to be found in the inunense
mass of the folios of the original.
The Encyclopaedia of Diderot, though not itself the most
prodigious achievement on which French booksellers may pride
themselves, yet inspired that achievement. In 1782 Panckoucke
a familiar name in the correspondence of Voltaire and the
Voltairean family conceived the plan of a Methodical Encyclopaedia. This colossal work, which really consists of a collection
of special cyclopaedias for each of the special sciences, was not
completed until 1832, and comprises one hundred and sixty-six
volumes of text, with a score more volumes of plates. It has no
unity of doctrine, no equal application of any set of philosophic
principles, and no definite social* aim. The only encyclopaedia
since 1772 with which I am acquainted, that is planned with a
view to the presentation of a general body of doctrine, is the
unfinished Encyclopddie Nouvelle of Pierre Leroux and Jean
Reynaud. This work was intended to apply the socialistic and
spiritualistic ideas of its authors over the whole field of knowledge
and speculation. The result is that it furnishes only a series of
dissertations, and is not an encyclopaedia in the ordinary sense.'
The booksellers at first spoke of the Encyclopaedia as an
affair of two million livres. It appeared, however, that its cost
did not go much beyond one million one hundred and forty
thousand livres. The gross return was calculated to be nearly
twice as much. The price to the subscriber of the seven volumes
up to 1757, of the ten volumes issued in 1765, and of the eleven
volumes of plates completed in 1772, amounted to nine hundred
and eighty livres,' or about forty-three pounds sterling of that
date, equivalent in value to more than three times the sum in
money of to-day.
The payment received by Diderot is a little doubtful, and the
terms were evidently changed from time to time. His average
salary, after D*Alembert had quitted him, seems to have amounted

to about three thousand livres, or one hundred and thirty pounds

' See (Etw, Choisus dejean Reynaud^ reprinted in 1866. The article on
EncydopMie (vol. i.) b an interesting attempt to vindicate Cartesian principles
of classification.
" See fly-leaf of vol. xxviil


sterling, per annum. This coincides with Grimm's statement that
the total sum received by Diderot was sixty thousand livres, or
about two thousand six hundred pounds sterling.' And to think,
cried Voltaire, when he heard of Diderot's humble wage, that an
army contractor makes twenty thousand livres a day ! Voltaire
himself had made a profit of more than half a million livres by
a share in an army contract in the war of 1734, and his yearly
income derived from such gains and their prudent investment was
as high as seventy thousand livres, representing in value a sum
not ar short of ten thousand pounds a year of our present
All writers on the movement of illumination in France in the
eighteenth century, call our attention to the quick transformation,
which took place after the middle of the century, of a speculative
or philosophical agitation into a political or social one. Readers
often find some difficulty in understanding plainly how or why
this metamorphosis was brought about The metaphysical question which men were then so fond of discussing, whether matter
can think, appears very far removed indeed from the sphere of
political conceptions. The psychological question whether our
ideas are innate, or are solely given to us by experience through
the sensations, may strike the publicist as having the least possible
to do with the type of a government or the aims of a community.
Yet it is really the conclusions to which men come in this region,
that determine the quality of the civil sentiment and the significance of political organization. The theological doctors who
persecuted De ?rades for suggestions of Locke's psychology, and
for high treason against Cartesianism, were guided by a right
instinct of self-preservation. De Maistre, by far the most acute
and penetrating of the Catholic school, was never more clearsighted than when he made a vigorous and deliberate onslaught
upon Bacon the centre of his movement against revolutionary
' Mim, iu 115. Grimm, vii. 145.
^ De Maistre says that the reputation of Bacon does not really go further
back than the Encyclopaedia, and that no true discoverer either knew him or
leaned on him for support {Examen de la Phil, de Bacon^ iL no). Diderot


As we have said before, the immediate force of speculative
literature hangs on practical opportuneness. It was not merely
because Bacon and Hobbes and Locke had written certain books,
that the Encyclopaedists, who took up their philosophic succession,
inevitably became a powerful political party, and multiplied their
adherents in an increasing proportion as the years went on.
From various circumstances the attack acquired a significance
and a weight in France which it had never possessed in England.
For one thing, physical science had in the interval taken immense
strides. This both dwarfed the sovereignty of theology and theo^ 1 logical metaphysics, and indirectiy disposed men's minds for nontheological theories of moral as well as of physical phenomena. In
France, again, the objects of the attack were inelastic and unyielding. Political speculation in England followed, and did not precede, political innovation and reform. In France its light played
round institutions which were too deeply rooted in absolutism and
privilege to be capable of substantial modification. Deism was
comparatively impotent against the Church of England, first,
because it was an intellectual movement, and not a social one ;
second, because the constitutional doctrines of the church were
flexible. Deism in the hands of its French propagators became
connected with social liberalism, because the Catholic church in
those days was identified with all the ideas of repression. And
the tendencies of deism in France grew more violently destructive,
not only because religious superstition was grosser, but because
that superstition was incorporated in a strong and inexpansible
social structure.
says : "I think I have taught my fellow-citizens to esteem and read Bacon ;
^ople have turned over the pages of this profound author more since the last
five or six years than has ever been the case before." (xiv. 494). In Professor
Fowler's careful and elaborate edition of the Novum Organum {Introduce
p. 104), he disputes the statement of Montucla and others, that the celebrity of
Bacon dates from the Encyclopaedia. All turns upon what we mean by celebrity. What the Encyclopanlists certainly did was to raise Bacon, for a time,
to the popular throne from which Voltaire's Newtonianism had pushed
Descartes. Mr. Fowler traces a chain of Baconian tradition, no doubt, but he
|&gt;erhaps surrenders nearly as much as is claimed when he admits that "tlie
patronage of Voltaire and the Elncydopaedists did much to extend the study of
Bacon*s writings, besides producing a considerable controversy as to his true
meaning on many questions of philosophy and theolc^."



"It would be a mistake," wrote that sagacious and wellZDformed observer, D'Argenson, so early as 1753, "to attribute

the loss of religion in France to the English philosophy, which has

not gained more than a hundred philosophers or so in Paris,
instead of setting it down to the hatred against the priests, which
goes to the very last extreme. All minds are turning to discontent
and disobedience, and everything is on the high road to a great
revolution, both in religion and in government. And it will be a
very different thing to that rude Reformation, a medley of superstition and freedom, which came to us from Germany in the sixteenth century ! As our nation and our century are enlightened
in so very different a fashion, they will go whither they ought to
go ; they will banish every priest, all priesthood, all revelation, all
mystery." This, however, only represents the destructive side of
the vast change which D'Argenson then foresaw, six-and-thirty
years before its consummation. That change had also a constructive side. If one of its elements was hate, another and more
important element was hope. This constructive and reforming
spirit which made its way in the intelligence of the leading men
in France from 1750 to 1789, was represented in the encyclopaedic confederation, and embodied in their forty folios. And,
to return to our first point, it was directly and inseparably
associated with the philosophy of Bacon and Locke. What is the \ ^
connection between their speculations and a vehement and energetic spirit of social reform ? We have no space here to do more
than barely hint the line of answer.
The broad features of the speculative revolution of which the
Encyclopaedia was the outcome, lie on the surface of its pages and
cannot be mistaken. The transition from Descartes to Newton
meant the definite substitution ^f. observatioa.jjorjiiypothesi&amp;. -.
The exaltation of Bacon meant the advance from supernatural
explanations to expknations from ex^ The acceptance
and development of the Lockian psychology meant the reference
of our ideas to bodily sensations, and led men by what they
thought a tolerably direct path to the identification of mind with
functions of matter. We need not here discuss the philosophical
truth or adequateness of these ways of considering the origin and
nature of knowledge, or the composition of human character. All

that now concerns us is to mark their tendency. That tendency
clearly is to expel -Magic^l^Jhe decisive influence among us, m
favour of ordered relations of cause and effect, only to be discovered by intelligent search. The universe began to be more
directly conceived as a group of phenomena that are capable of
rational and connected explanation. Then, the wider the area of
law, the greater is man's consciousness of his power of controlling
forces, and securing the results that he desires. Objective interests
and their conditions acquire an increasing preponderance in his
mind. On the other hand, as the limits of science expand, so do
the limits of nescience become more definite. The more we know
of the universal order, the more are we persuaded, however
gradually and insensibly, that certain matters which men believed
themselves to know outside of this phenomenal order, are in truth
inaccessible by those instruments of experience and observation
to which we are indebted for other knowledge. Hence, a natural
inclination to devote our faculty to the forces within our control,

and to withdraw it from vain industry about forces if they be

forces which are beyond our control and beyond our apprehension. Thus man becomes the centre of the world to himself^
nature his servant and minister, human society the field of his
interests and his exertions. The sensational psychology, again,
whether scientifically defensible or not, clearly tends to heighten
our idea of the power of education and institutions upon character.
The more vividly we realise the share of external impressions in
making men what they are, the more ready we shall be to concern
ourselves with external conditions and their improvement. The
introduction of the positive spirit into the observation of the facts
of society was not to be expected until the Cartesian philosophy,
with its reliance on inexplicable intuitions and its exaggeration of
the method of hypothesis, had been laid aside.
Diderot struck a key-note of difference between the old
Catholic spirit an*d the new social spirit, between quietist superstition and energetic science, in the casual sentence in his article
(on alms-houses and hospitals : " // would be far more important to
'work at the prevention of misery, than to multiply places of refuge for
the miserable.**
It is very easy to show that the Encyclopaedists had not


established an impregnable scientific basis for their philosophy.
Anybody can now see that their metaphysic and psychology were
imperfectly thought out. The important thing is that their
metaphysic and psychology were calculated, notwithstanding all
their superficialities, to inspire an energetic sociaLgjirit, because
they were pregnant with humanistic sentiment. To represent the
Encyclopaedia as the gospel of negation and denial is to omit fourfifths of its contents. Men may certainly, if they please, describe
it as merely negative work, for example, to denounce such
institutions as examination and punishment by Torture (Sec
Question, Peine), but if so, what gospel of affirmation can bring
better blessings ? ' If the metaphysic of these writers had been a
thousandfold more superficial than it was, what mattered that, so
long as they had vision for every one of the great social improvements on which the progress and even the very life of the nation
depended? It would be obviously unfair to say that reasoned
interest in social improvement is incompatible with a spiritualistic
doctrine, but we are justified in saying that energetic faith in
possibilities of social progress has been first reached through the
philosophy of sensation and experience.
In describing the encyclopaedic movement as being, among
other things, the development of political interest under the
presiding influence of a humanistic philosophy, we are using the
iiame of politics in its widest sense. The economic conditions of
a country, and the administration of its laws, are far more vitally
related to its well-being than the form of its government. The
form of government is indeed a question of the first importance,
but then this is owing in a paramount degree to the influence

which it may have upon the other two sets of elements in the
national life. Form of government is like the fashion of a man's
clothes ; it may fret or may comfort him, may be imposing or
mean, may react upon his spirits to elate or depress them. In
either case it is less intimately related to his welfare than the state
of his blood and tissues. In saying, then, that the Encyclopnedists
began a political work, what is meant is that they drew into the
' See above, p. 41, tuie.

light of new ideas, groups of institutions, usages, and arrangements
which affected the real wellbeing and happiness of France, as
closely as nutrition affected the health and strength of an individual Frenchman. It was the Encyclopaedists who first stirred
opinion in France against the iniquities of ^^^i^r^'ni f^n-r.r&gt;y ^^^^ ^y^^
abominatiens-of-the slaYe.Jtra de. They demonstrated the folly and
wastefulness and cruelty of a fiscal system that was eating the life
out of the land. They protested in season and out of season
against arrangements which made the administration of justice a
matter of sale and purchase. They lifted up a strong voice against
the atrocious barbarities of an antiquated penal code. It was
this band of writers, organized by a harassed man of letters, and
not the nobles swarming round Lewis xv., nor the churchmen
singing masses, who first grasped the great principle of modem
society, the honour that is owed to prod uctive industr y. They
were vehement for the glories of peace, and passionate against the
brazen glories of war.'
We are not to suppose that the Encyclopaedia was the
originating organ of either new methods or new social ideas. The
exalted and peculiarly modem views about peace, for instance,
were plainly inspired from the WTitings of the Abb^ Saint Pierre
(1658-1743) one of the most original spirits of the century, who
deserves to be remembered among other good services as the
inventor of the word bienfaisance. Again, in the mass of the
political articles we feel the immense impulse that was given to
sociological discussion by the Esprit des Lois, Few questions are
debated here, which Montesquieu had not raised, and none are debated without reference to Montesquieu's line of argument. The
change of which we are conscious in turning from the Esprit des
Lois to the Encyclopaedia is that political ideas have been grasped
as instniments. ^Philosophy has become patriotism. The Encyclopaedists advanced with grave solidtade to ihe consideration of

' D'Alembert was not afraid to contend against the great captain of the age,
that the military spirit of Lewis XI V. had been a great curse to Europe. He
showed a true appreciation of Frederick's character and conception of his duties
OS a ruler, in believing that the King of Prussia would rather have had a
hundred thousand labourers more, and as many soldiers fewer, if his situation
had allowed it. Carresp, avec U roide Prussc^ CEuv,, v. 305.


evils, to which the red-heeled parasites of Versailles were insolently
and incorrigibly blind.
The articles on AgEiailtUIfiiu.for example, are admirable alike
for the fulness and precision with which they expose the actual
state of France; for the clearness with which they trace its
deplorable inadequateness back to the true sources ; and for the
strong interest and sympathy in the subject, which they both
exhibit and inspire. If now and again the touch is too idyllic, it
was still a prodigious gain to let the country know in a definite
ray that of the fifty million arpents of cultivable land in the realm,
more than one quarter lay either unbroken or abandoned. And it
was a prodigious gain to arouse the attention of the general public
to the causes of the forced deterioration of French agriculture,
namely, the restrictions on trade in grain, the arbitrariness of the
imposts, and the flight of the population to the large towns. Then
the demonstration, corroborated in the pages of the Encyclopaedia
by the too patriotic vaunts of contemporary English writers, of the
stimulus given to agriculture by our system of free exports, contained one of the most useful lessons that the French had to
learn. .
Again, there are some abuses which cannot be more effectively '
attacked, than by a mere statement of the facts in the plainest and
least argumentative terms. The history of such an impost as the
tax upon salt (Gabeiie), and a bold outline of the random and
incongruous fashions in which it was levied, were equivalent to
a formal indictment It needed no rhetoric nor discussion to
heighten the harsh injustice of the rule that " persons who have
changed domicile are still taxed for a certain time in the seat of
their former abode, namely, farmers and labourers for one year,
and all other tax-payers for two years, provided the parish to
which they have removed is within the same district; and if
otherwise, then farmers to pay for t^vo years, and other persons
for three years " (Tailii), Thus a man under the given circumstances would have to pay double taxes for three years as a
penalty for changing his dwelling. We already hear the murmur
of the cahiers of five-and-twenty years later in the account of the
transports of joy with which the citizens of Lisieux saw the iaille
proparHorulU established (17 18), and how numerous other cities

sent up prayers that the same blessing might be conferred on them.
" Reasons that it is not for us to divine, caused the rejection of
these demands ; so hard is it to do a good act, which everybody
talks about, much more in order to seem to desire it, than from
any intention of really doing it. . . . To illustrate the advantages
of this plan, the impost of 1718 with all arrears for five years was
discharged in twelve months without needless cost or dispute.
By an extravagance more proper than any other to degrade
humanity, the common happiness made malcontents of all that
class whose prosperity depends on the misery of others," that is
the privileged class.*
It is no innate factiousness, as flighty critics of French affairs

sometimes imply, that has made civil equality the passion of

inodem France. The root of this passion is an undying memory
( of the curse that was inflicted on its citizens, morally and mate\rially, by the fiscal inequalities of the old regime. The article,
Privilege^ urges the desirableness of inquiring into the grounds of
the vast" multitude of fiscal exemptions, and of abolishing all that
were no longer associated with the performance of real and useful
service. " A bourgeois," says the &gt;\Titer, anticipating a cry that
was so soon to ring through the land, " a bourgeois in comfortable
circumstances, and who could himself pay half of the taille of a
whole parish, if it were imposed in its due proportion, on payment of the amount of his taxes for one or for two years, and
often for less ; without birth, education, or talents, buys a place in
a local salt office, or some useless charge at court, or in the household of some prince. . . . This man proceeds to enjoy in the
public eye all the exemptions possessed by the nobility and the
high magistracy. . . . From such an abuse of privileges spring
two very considerable evils ; the poorer part of the citizens are
always burdened beyond their strength, though they are the most
useful to the State, since this class is composed of those who
cultivate the land, and procure a subsistence for the upper classes ;
the other evil is that privileges disgust persons of education and
talent with the idea of entering the magistracy or other professions
demanding labour and application, and lead them to prefer small
' See Essay on Turgot in my Criiual Miscellanies^ Second Series.


posts and paltry offices." And so forth, with a gravity and moderation, that were then common in political discussion in France. It
gradually disappeared in 1789, when it was found that the privileged orders, even at that time, in their cahiers steadily demanded
the maintenance of every one of their most odious and iniquitous
rights.* When it is said, then, that the Encyclopaedists deliberately
prepared the way for a political revolution, let us remember that
what they really did was to shed the light of rational discussion on
such practical grievances as even the most fatuous conservative in
France does not now dream of bringing back.
Let us turn to two other of the most oppressive institutions
that then scourged France. First the Corvee^ or feudal- iaaIc
which forced every unprivileged farmer and peasant in France to
furnish so many days' labour for the maintenance of the highways.
Arthur Young tells us, and the statement is confirmed by the
Minutes of Turgot, that this wasteful, cruel, and inefficient system
was annually the ruin of many hundreds of persons, and he mentions that no less than three hundred farmers were reduced to
beggary in filling up a single vale in Lorraine.' Under this allimportant head, the Encyclopaedia has an article that does not
merely add to the knowledge of its readers by a history of the
corvies^ but proceeds to discuss, as in a pamphlet or review article,
the inconveniences of the prevailing system, and presses schemes
for avoiding them. Turgot had not yet shown in practice the
only right substitute. The article was printed in 1754, and it was
not until ten years later that this great administrator, then become
intendant of the Limousin, did away in his district with compulsory personal service on the roads, and required in its place a

money payment assessed on the parishes. ^ The writer of the

article in the Encyclopaedia does not anticipate this obviously
rational plan, but he paints a striking picture of the thousand
* Such as that their feudal rights should be confirmed ; that none but nobles
should carry arms, or be eligible for the army; that lettres-de-cachit should
continue ; that the press should not be free ; that the wine trade should not be
jfrcc internally or for export ; that breaking up \?astes and enclosing
conmions should be prohibited ; that the old arrangement of the militia should
remain. Arthur Young's France^ ch. xxi. p. 607.
Travels in France^ ch. xxi.
s Critical Miscellanies^ Second Series, p. 202.

abuses and miserable inefficiencies of the practice of corvhs^ and
his piece illustrates that vigorous discussion of social subjects
which the Encyclopaedia stimulated. It is worth remarking that
this writer was a sub-engineer of roads and bridges in the generality of Tours. The case is one example among others of the
importance of the Encyclopaedia as a centre, to which activeminded men of all kinds might bring the fruits of their thought
and observation.
Next to the corvkes^ the monster grievance of the third estate
was the system of enrolments for the militia. The ar ticle, Mi/ice^
is very short, but it goes to ihe fbonjT the matter. The only son
of a cultivator of moderate means, forced to quit the paternal
roof at the moment when his labour might recompense his
straitened parents for the expense of having brought him up, is
justly described as an irreparable loss. The WTiter, after hinting
that it would be well, if such an institution were wholly dispensed
with, urges that at least its object might be more effectively and
more humanely reached by allowing each parish to provide its due
contingent of men in its own way. This change was indeed
already (1765) being carried out by Turgot in the Limousin, and
with excellent results. The writer concludes with the highly
civilized remark, that we ought to weigh whether the good of the
rural districts, the culture of the land, and population, are not
preferable objects to the glory of setting enormous hosts of armed
men on foot after the example of Xerxes. Alas, it is one of the
discouragements of the student of history, that he often finds
highly civilized remarks made one or two or twenty centuries ago,
which are just as useful and just as little heeded now as they were
when they were made.
The same reflection occurs to one in reading the article on
Foundations. As I have already said, this carefully written and
sagacious piece still remains the most masterly discussion we
possess of the advantages and disadvantages of endowments.
Even now, and in our own coimtry, the most fertile and beneficent
work to which a statesman of energy and courage could devote
himself, would be an application of the wise principles which were
established in the Encyclopaedia. Passing from Fondation to
Foirc in the same volume, also from the pen of Turgot, we see an



almost equally striking example of the economic wisdom of the
encyclopaedic school. The provincial fairs, with their privileges,
exemptions, exclusions, were a conspicuous case of the mischief
done by that "mania for regulating and guiding everything,"
which then infected commercial administration, and interrupted
the natural course of trade by imbecile vexations of police.
Another vicious example of the same principle is exposed in the
article on Maitrises, This must have convinced every reader
capable' of rising above " the holy laws of prejudice," how bad
fisdth, idleness, disorder, and all the other evils of monopoly were
fomented by a system of jealous trade-guilds, carrying compulsory
subdivision and restriction of all kinds of skilled labour down to
a degree that would have been laughable enough, if it had only
been less destructive.
One of the loudest cries in 1789 was for the destruction of
game and the great manorial chases or capitaineries. " By game,"
says Arthur Young, " must be understood whole droves of wild
boars, and herds of deer not confined by any wall or pale, but
wandering at pleasure over the whole country to the destruction of
crops, and to the peopling of the galleys by the \vretched peasants
who presumed to kill them, in order to save that food which was
to support their helpless children." * In the same place he enumerates the outrageous and incredible niles which ruined agriculture
over hundreds of leagues of country, in order that the seigneurs
might have sport. In most matters the seven volumes of the
Encyclopaedia which were printed before 1757, are more reserved
than the ten volumes which were conducted by Diderot alone after
the great schism of 1759. On the subject of sport, however, the
writer of the article Chasst enumerates all the considerations
which a patriotic minister could desire to see impressed on public
opinion. Some of the paragraphs startle us by their directness
and freedom of complaint, and even a very cool reader would
still be likely to feel some of the &gt;vrath that was stirred in the
breast of our shrewd and sober Arthur Young a generation
later (1787). "Go to the residence of these great nobles,'* he
says, " wherever it may be, and you would probably find them in
* Travels in France, p. 60a

the midst of a forest, very well peopled with deer, wild boar, and
wolves. Oh! if I were the legislator of France for a day, I
would make such great lords skip ! " '
This brings us to what is perhaps the most striking of all the

guiding sentiments of the book. VirgiFs Georgics have been

described as a glorifiration of labour. The Encyclopaedia seems
inspired by the same motive, the same earnest f;^frusiasrn ^^^^^
the purposes^ interests, and details of productive industty. . Diderot,
as has been justly said, himself the son of a cutler, might well
bring handiwork into honour ; assuredly he had inherited from
his good father's workshop sympathy and regard for skill and
labour.' The illustrative plates to which Diderot gave the most
laborious attention for a period of almost thirty years, are not
only remarkable for their copiousness, their clearness, their finish ;
and in all these respects they are truly admirable; but they
strike us even more by the semi-poetic feeling that transforms the
mere representation of a process into an animated scene of
human life, stirring the sympathy and touching the imagination of
the onlooker as by something dramatic The bustle, the dexterity, the alert force of the iron foundr}% the glass furnace, the
gunpowder mill, the silk calendry, are as skilfully reproduced as
the more tranquil toil of the dairywoman, the embroiderer, the
confectioner, the setter of types, the compounder of drugs, the
chaser of metals. The drawings recall that eager and personal
interest in his work, that nimble complacency, which is so
charming a trait in the best French craftsman. The animation
of these great folios of plates is prodigious. They affect one like
looking down on the world of Paris from the heights of Montmartre. To turn over volume after volume is like watching a
splendid panorama of all the busy life of the time. Minute care
is as striking in them as their comprehensiveness. The smallest
tool, the knot in a thread, the ply in a cord, the curve of wrist
or finger, each has special and proper delineation. The reader
smiles at a complete and elaborate set of tailor's patterns. He
shudders as he comes upon the knives, the probes, the bandages,
the posture, of the wretch about to undergo the most dangerous
* Travels in France^ i. 63. Rosenkranz, L 219.


operation in surgery. In all the chief departments of industry
there are plates good enough to serve for practical specifications
and working drawings. It has often been told how Diderot
himself used to visit the workshops, to watch the men at work,
to put a thousand questions, to sit down at the loom, to have the
machine pulled to pieces and set together again before his eyes,
to slave like any apprentice, and to do bad work, in order, as he
says, to be able to instruct others how to do good work. That
was no movement of empty rhetoric which made him cry out
for the Encyclopaedia to become a sanctuary in which human
knowledge might find shelter against time and revolutions. He
actually took the pains to make it a complete storehouse of the
arts, so perfect in detail that they could be at once reconstructed
after a deluge in which everything had perished save a single
copy of the Encyclopaedia. Such details, said D*Alembert, will
perhaps seem extremely out of place to certain scholars, for
whom a long dissertation on the cookery or the hair-dressing
of the ancients, or on the site of a ruined hamlet, or on the
baptismal name of some obscure writer of the tenth century,
would be vastly interesting and precious. He suggests that
details of economy, and of arts and trades, have as good a right

to a place as the scholastic philosophy, or some system of

rhetoric still in use, or the mysteries of heraldry. Yet none
even of these had been passed over.'
The importance given to physical science and the., practical
n rti i j in thi^F n" J" ' ] ' ^ Pf^dinJ is the sign and exemplification of two
elements of the great modem transition. It marks both a social
and nnJiTtPJl firtnal 1 1" 1 1 rlni ii m We see in it, first, the distinct
association with pacific labour, of honour and a kind of glory,
such as had hitherto been reserved for knights and friars, for
war and asceticism, for fighting and prajing. It is the definite
recognition of the basis of a new society. If the nobles and the
churchmen could only have understood, as clearly as Diderot
and D'Alembert understood, the irresistible forces that were
making against the maintenance of the worn-out system, all the
worst of the evils attending the great political changes of the last
decade of the century would have been avoided. That the nobles
* Avert, to vol. iii.

and churchmen would not see this, was the fatality of the Revolution. We have a glimpse of the profound transformation of
social ideas which was at work, in the ^\^ or six lines of the
article, Journalier. " Journeyman a workman who labours with
his hands, and is paid day-wages. This description of men forms
the great part of a nation ; it is their lot which a good government ought to keep principally in sight If the journeyman is
miserable, the nation is miserable." And again : " The net
profit of a society, if equally distributed, may be preferable to
a larger profit, if it be distributed unequally, and have the effect
of dividing the people into two classes, one gorged with riches,
the other perishing in misery" (Homme),
The second element in the modem transition is only the
intellectual side of the first. It is the substitution of interest in
things for interest in wwds^ of positi v e- knowtedg e-ibr verbal^
disgutation. Few now dispute the services of the schoolmen
to the intellectual development of Europe. But conditions had
fully ripened, and it was time to complete the movement of
Bacon and Descartes by finally placing verbal analysis, verbal
definition, verbal inferences, in their right position. Form was
no longer to take precedence of matter. The Encyclopaedists
are never weary of contrasting their own age of practical
rationalism with "the pusillanimous ages of taste." A great
collection of books is described in one article {Bibliomanie) as
a collection of material for the history of the blindness and
infatuation of mankind. The gatherer of books is compared to
one who should place five or six gems under a pile of common
pebbles. If a man of sense buys a work in a dozen volumes,
and finds that only half-a-dozen pages are worth reading, he
does well to cut out the half-dozen pages and fling the rest into
the fire. Finally, it would be no unbecoming device for every
great library to have inscribed over its portal, The Bedlam of
the Human Mind. At this point one might perhaps suggest to
D'Alembert that study of the pathology of the mind is no bad
means of surprising the secrets of humanity and life. For his

hour, however, the need was not knowledge of the thoughts,

dreams, and mental methods of the past, but better mastery of
the aids and instruments of active life. In any case Diderot



was right when he expressed his preference for the essay over
the treatise : " an essay where the writer throws me one or two
ideas of genius, almost isolated, rather than a treatise where the
precious gems are stifled beneath a mass of iteration. ... A
man had only one idea; the idea demanded no more than a
phrase ; this phrase, full of marrow and meaning, would have been
seized with relish; washed out in a deluge of words, it wearies
and disgusts."' Rousseau himself does not surpass Diderot
or D'Alembert in contempt for mere bookishness. We wholly
misjudge the Encyclopaedia, if we treat it either as literature or

The attitude of the Encyclopaedia to religion is almost universally misrepresented in the common accounts. We are always
told that the aim of its conductors was to preach dogmatic atheism.
Such a statement could not be made by anyone who had read the
theological articles, whether the more or the less important among'
them. Whether Diderot had himself advanced definitely to the
dogma of atheism at this time or not, it is certain that the Encyclopaedia represents only the phase of gtionajigti^^^^cismji
ThaFtEe^criticism was destructive of much ortnSaDnc"of popular
belief, and was designed to destroy it, is undeniable, as it was
inevitable. But when the excesses of '93 and '94 and all the revolutionary excesses put together are but a drop compared with the
oceans of bloodshed with which Catholicism and absolutism have
made history crimson when the crimes and confusion of the end of
the century are traced by historians to the materialism and atheism
of the Encyclopaedia, we can only say that such an account is a
misrepresentation. The materialism and atheism are not there.
The religious attack was prompted and guided by the same social
feeling that inspired the economic articles. The priest was the
enemy of society, the patron of indolence, the hater of knowledge,
the mutineerjygainstJhe. civil laws, the unprofitable devourer'of
the national substance, the persecutor. Sac e f dotelia ff i ' g ^Thix
object- of theencydo po B dio' att a c k. To undermine this, it was
necessary first to establish the principle of toleration, because the
priest claims to be recognised as the exclusive possessor of saving

* Diderot, (Euvres, iv. 24.

^ a

\ doctrine. Second, it was necessary to destroy the principle of
miraclgjjMeaiise the priest professes himself in his daily rites the
consecrated instrument of thaumaturgy. " Let a man," says
Rosenkranz very truly, " turn over hundreds of histories of church,
of state, of literature, and in everyone of them he will read that
the Encyclopaedia spread abroad an irreligious spirit The
accusation has only a relative truth, to the extent that the
Encyclopaedia assailed the belief in miracles, and the oppression
of conscience supported by a priestly aristocracy." '
It must be admitted that no consistent and definite language
is adhered to from beginning to end. D'Alembert's prophecy that
time would disclose to people what the writers really thought,
behind what fear of the censorship compelled them to say, is only
partially fulfilled.
The idea of miracle is sapped not by direct arguments, but by
the indirect influences of science, and the exposition of the successes of scientific method. It was here that the Encyclopaedia
exerted really destructive power, and it did so in the only way in
which power of that kind can be exerted either wisely or effectually.
The miracle of a divine revelation, of grace, of the mass, began to
wear a different look in men^s eyes, as they learned more of the
physical processes of the universe. We should describe the work
/of the Encyclopaedia as being to make its readers lose their
"^ \interest, rather than their belief, in mysteries. This is the normal
process of theological dissolution. It unfolded a vast number of
scientific conceptions in all branches of human activity, a surprising series of acquisitions, a vivid panorama of victories won by the
ingenuity and travail of man. A contemplation of the wonders
that man had ^vrought for himself, replaced meditation on the
wonders that were alleged to have been wrought by the gods. The
latter were not so much denied by the plain reader, as they were
gradually left out of sight and forgotten. Nobody now cares to
disprove Jupiter and Juno, Satyrs and Hamadryads.
Diderot constantly insists j)n_ the piQprietyy-theLiinportance,
the indispensableness, of keeping ihe provinces, .of ience and
philosophy apart from th^ -provi nce o f t heology * This separation
is much sought in our own day as a means of saving theology.
' Diderot's Leben^ I 157.


Diderot designed it to save philosophy. He felt that the distinct
recognition of positive thought as supreme within the widest limits
then covered by it, would ultimately lead to the banishment of
theological thought to a region of its own, too distant and too
infertile for men to weary themselves in pursuit of it. His conception was to supplant the old ways of thinking and the old
objects of intellectual interest by new ones. He trusted to the

intrinsic fitness and value of the new knowledge and new views of
human life, to displace the old. T his marks him for a co nstructive
thinker. He replaced barren theological interests that had*outlived^their time, by all those great groups of living and fruitful
interests which glow and sparkle in the volumes of the Encyclopaedia. Here was the effective damage that the Encyclopaedia
inflicted on the church as the organ of a stationary superstition.
Some of the articles remind us on what a strange borderland
France stood in those days, between debasing credulity and
wholesome light. We are so sensible of the new air that breathes
impalpably over the book, that when the old theological fancies
appear for form's sake, and are solemnly marshalled in orthodox
state, the contrast and the incongruity are so marked that one is
amused by what looks like a subtle irony, mocking the censor
under his very eyes. Who can help smiling at the grave question,
Adam, U premier de tons les hommesy a-i-il etc philosophe 1 Such
disputes as whether it is proper to baptize abortions, ceased to
interest a public that had begun to educate itself by discussions
on the virtue of Inoculation.
Of the gross defects in the execution of the Encyclopaedia
nobody was so sensible as Diderot himself. He drew up a truly
formidable list of the departments where the work was badly
done.* But when the blunders and omissions in each subject
were all counted, the value of the vast grouping of the subjects
was hardly diminished. The union of all these secular acquisitions in a single colossal work invested them with something
imposing. Secular knowledge was made to present a massive and
sumptuous front It was pictured before the curious eyes of that
generation as a great city of glittering palaces and stately
mansions; or else as an immense landscape, with mountains,
* (EuvreSf xx. 132.



plains, rocks, waters, forests, animals, and a thousand objects,

gloriouo''and beautiful in the sunlight Theology became visibly
a shrivelled thing. Men grew to be conscious of the vastness of
the universe. At the same time and by the same process, the
Encyclopaedia gave them a key to the plan, a guiding thread in
the immense labyrinth. The genealogical tree, or classification of
arts and sciences, which with a few modifications was borrowed
from Bacon and appeared at the end of the Prospectus, is seen to

be faulty and inadequate. It distributes the various branches of

knowledge with reference to faculties of the human understanding, instead of grouping them according to their objective relations to one another. This led to many awkward results, as when
the art of printing is placed by the side of orthography as a subdivision of Logic, to which also is given the. art of heraldry or
emblazonment There is awkwardness too in dividing architecture into three heads, and then placing civil architecture under
national jurisprudence, and naval architecture under social jurisprudence, while under fine arts no kind of architecture has any
place. But when we have multiplied these objections to the
uttermost, the effect of the magnificence and vastness of the
scheme remains exactly what it was.
/' Even more important than the exposition of human knowledge, was the exposition of the degrees by which it had been
slowly reared. The Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopaedia,
of which by far the greater and more valuable portion was written
by D'Alembert, contains a fine survey of the p rogress of science,
thpught, and letters since the revival of learning. Tf^" a
generous canonization of the great heroes of secular knowledge.
It is rapid, but the contributions of Bacon, Descartes, Newton,
Locke, Leibnitz, are thrown into a series that penetrates the
reader's mind with the idea of ordered growth and measured
progress. This excited a vivid hopefulness of interest, which
insensibly but most effectually pressed the sterile propositions of
dogmatic theology into a dim and squalid background. Nor was
this all. The Preliminary Discourse and the host of articles
marshalled behind it, showed that the triumphs of knowledge and
true opinion had all been gained on two conditions. The first of
these conditions was a firm disregard of authority; the secon d


was an abstention from the premature concoction of system.
The reign of ignorance and prejudice was made inveterate
by deference to tradition : the reign of truth was hindered by the
artificial boundary-marks set mischievously deep by the authors of
systems. As the whole spirit of theology is both essentially
authoritative and essentially systematic, this disparagement was full
of tolerably direct significance. ; It told in another way. The
Sorbonne, the universities, the doctors, had identified orthodoxy
with Cartesianism. " It is hard to believe," says D'Alembert in
17501 " ^^t it is only within the last thirty years that people have
even begun to renounce Cartesianism." He might have added
that one of the most powerful of his contemporaries, Montesquieu
himself, remained a rigid Cartesian to the end of his days. ** Our
nation," he says, " singularly eager as it is for novelties in all
matters of taste, is in matters of science extremely attached to old
opinions." This remark remains true of France to the present
hour, and it would be an interesting digression, did time allow, to
consider its significance. France can at all events count one
master innovator, the founder of Cartesianism himself. D'Alembert points out that the disciples violate the first maxims of their
chief. He describes the hypothesis of vortices and the doctrine
of innate ideas as no longer tenable, and even as ridiculous ; but
do not let us forget, he says with a fine movement of candour,
that it was Descartes who opened the way ; he who set an
example to men of intelligence, of shaking off the yoke of

scholasticism, of opinion, of authority in a word, of prejudices

and barbarism. Those who remain faithful to his hypothetical
system, while they abandon his method, may be the last of his
partisans, but they would assuredly never have been the first of
his disciples.
By system the Encyclopaedists meant more or less coherent
bodies of frivolous conjecture. The true merit of the philosopher
or the physicist is described as being to have the spirit of system,
yet never to construct a system. The notion expressed in this
sentence promises a union of the advantages of an organic
synthesis, with the advantages of an open mind and unfettered
inquiry. It would be ridiculous to think, says D'Alembert,
that there is nothing more to discover in anatomy, because

anatomists devote themselves to researches that may seem to be
of no use, and yet often prove to be full of use in their consequences. Nor would it be less absurd to lay a ban on erudition,
on the pretext that our learned men often give themselves up to
matters of trivial import.
We are constantly struck in the Encyclopaedia by a genuine
desire to reach the best opinion by the only right way, the way of
/^abwKiant, ma ny-sid ed, and l iberal discussion. The article, for
instance, on Fermes GentrcUes contains an examination of the
question whether it is more expedient that the taxes of a nation
should be gathered by farmers of the revenue, or directly by the
agents of the government acting on its behalf and under its
supervision. Montesquieu had argued strongly in favour of a
R^gie, the second of these methods. The writer of the article
sets out the nine considerations by which Montesquieu had
endeavoured to establish his position, and then he offers on each
of them the strongest observations that occur to him in support
of the opposite conclusion. At the conclusion of the article, the
editors of the Encyclopaedia append the following note : " Our
professed impartiality and our desire to promote the discussion
and clearing up of an important question, have induced us to
insert this article. As the Encyclopaedia has for its principal aim

the publicjadya &gt;ntage and instruction, we will insert in the article,

Regie^ without taking any side, all such reasons for and against, as
people may be willing to submit to us, provided they are stated
with due sense and moderation." Alas, when we turn to the
article on R^gie, the promise is unfulfilled, and a dozen meagre
lines disappoint the seeker. But eight years of storm had passed,
and many a beneficent intention had been wrecked. The
announcement at least shows us tlie aim and spirit of the original
Of the line of argument taken in the Encyclopaedia as to
/ Toleration we need say nothing. The Encyclopaedists were the
most ardent propagators of the modem principles of tolerance.
No one has to be reminded that this was something more than an
abstract discussion among the doctors of social philosophy, in a
country where youths were broken on the wheel for levity in face
of an ecclesiastical procession, where nearly every considerable


man of the century had been either banished or imprisoned for
daring to use his mind, and which had been half ruined by the
great proscription of Protestants more than once renewed. The
article Tolerance was greatly admired in its day, and it is an
eloquent and earnest reproduction of the pleas of Locke. One
rather curious feature in it is the reproduction of the passage
from the Social Contract, in which Rousseau explains the right of
the magistrate to banish any citizen who has not got religion
enough to make him do his duties, and who will not make a profession of civil faith. The writer of the article interprets this as
implying that " atheists in particular, who remove from the
powerful the only rein, and from the weak their only hope," have
no right to claim toleration. This is an unexpected stroke in a
work that is vulgarly supposed to be a violent manifesto on behalf
of atheism.'
Diderot himself in an earlier article {Intolerance) had treated
the subject with more trenchant energy. He does not argue his
points systematically, but launches a series of maxims, as with set
teeth, clenched hands, and a brow like a thundercloud. He hails
the oppressors of his life, the priests and the parliaments, with a
pungency that is exhilarating, and winds up with a description of
the intolerant as one who forgets that a man is his fellow, and for
holding a different opinion, treats him like a ravening brute ; as
one who sacrifices the spirit and precepts of his religion to his
pride ; as the rash fool who thinks that the arch can only be
upheld by his hands ; as a man who is generally without religion,
and to whom it comes easier to have zeal than morals. Every [
page of the Encyclopaedia was, in fact, a plea for toleration.
This embittered the hostility of the churchmen to the work more

than its attack upon dogma. For most ecclesiastics valued

power more dearly than truth. And in power they valued most
dearly the atrocious right of silencing, by foul means or fair, all
opinions that were not official.
' The writer was one Romilly, who had been elected a minister of one of
the French Protestant churches in London. See Memoirs of Sir Samuel
Romilly^ vol. L


Having thus described the general character and purport of
the Encyclopaedia, we have still to look at a special portion of it
from a more particular point of view. We have already shown
how multifarious were Diderot's labours as editor. It remains
to give a short account of his labours as a contributor. Everything was on the same vast scale. His industry in wTiting w^ould
have been in itself most astonishing, even if it had not been
accompanied by the more depressing fatigue of revising what
others had written. Diderot's articles fill more than iJQur-pf the
large volumes of his collected works.
The confusion is immense. The spirit is sometimes historical,
sometimes controversial ; now critical, now dogmatic In one
place Diderot speaks in his own proper person, in another as the
neutral scribe writing to the dictation of an unseen authority.
There is no rigorous measure and ordered proportion. We constantly pass from a serious treatise to a sally, from an elaborate
history to a caprice. There are not a few pages where we know
that Diderot is saying what he does not think. Some of the
articles seem only to have found a place because Diderot happened to have taken an interest in their subjects at the moment.
After reading Voltaire's concise account of Imagination, we are
amazed to find Diderot devoting a larger space than Voltaire had
needed for the subject at large, to so subordinate and remote a
branch of the matter as the Power of the Imagination in Pregnant
Women upon the Unborn Young. The article on Theosophs
would hardly have been so disproportionately long as it is, merely
for the sake of Paracelsus and Van Helmont and Poiret and the
Rosicrucians, unless Diderot happened to be curiously and halfsympathetically brooding over the mixture of inspiration and
madness, of charlatanry and generous aim, of which these semimystic, semi-scientific characters were composed.'
Many of Diderot's articles, again, have no rightful place in an
I have no space to quote an interesting page in this article on the characteristics and the varying destinies of genius. " We must rank in this class
Pindar, i^schylus, Moses, Jesus Christ, Mahomet, Shakesi&gt;eare, Roger Bacon,
.and Paracelsus." xviL 265-7.


Enqrclopaedia. Genius, for instance, is dealt with in what is
neither more nor less than a literary essay, vigorous, suggestive,
diffuse ; and containing, by the way, the curious assertion that,
although there are few errors in Locke and too few truths in
Shaftesbury, yet Locke is only an acute and comprehensive
intelligence, while Shaftesbury is a genius of the first order.
Under the word Laborious, we have only a dozen lines of
angry reproach against the despotism that makes men idle by
making property uncertain. Under such words as Frivolous,
GcUlantry, Perfection, Importance, Politeness, Melancholy, Glorieux,
the reader is amused and edified by miniature essays on manners
and character, seldom ending without some pithy sentence and
pointed moral. Sometimes (e.g. Grandeur) we have a charming
piece after the manner of La Bruy^re. Under the verb NaUre,
which is placed in the department of grammar, we find a passage
so far removed from grammar as the following :
" The terms of life and death have nothing absolute ; they
only designate the successive states of one and the same being ;
for him who has been strongly nourished in this philosophy, the
um that contains the ashes of a father, a mother, a husband,
a mistress, is truly a touching object. There still remains in
it life and warmth ; these ashes may perhaps even yet feel our
tears and give them response; who knows if the movement
that our tears stir, as they water those ashes, is wholly without
sensibility ? "
This littie burst of grotesque sentimentalism is one of the
pieces that justify the description of Diderot as the most German
of all the French.' Equally characteristic and more sensible is
the writer's outbreak against Formalists. " The formalist knows
exactly the proper interval between receiving and returning a
visit ; he expects you on the exact day at the exact time ; if you
fail, he thinks himself neglected and takes offence. A single man
of this stamp is enough to chill and embarrass a whole company.
There is nothing so repugnant to simple and upright souls as
' The same idea is found still more ardently expressed in one of his letters
to Mdlle. de Voland (Oct. 15, 1759, xviiu 408), where he defends the eagerness of those who have loved one another during life, to be placed side by side
after death

formalities; as such people have within themselves the consciousness of the good-will they bear to everybody, they neither
plague themselves to be constantly displaying a sentiment that
is habitual, nor to be constantly on the watch for it in others."
This is analogous to his contempt for the pedants who object to
the use of a hybrid word : " If it happens that a composite of a
Greek word and a Latin word renders the idea as well, and is
easier to pronounce or pleasanter to the ear than a compound

of two Greek words and two Latin words, why prefer the latter ? "
(Hibrides). Some articles are simply diatribes against the enemy.
Pardon, for instance : " It needs much attention, much modesty,
much skill to wring from others pardon for our superiority. The
men who have executed a foolish work, have never been able to
pardon us for projecting a better. We could have got from them
pardon for a crime, but never for a good action." And so forth,
with much magnanimous acrimony. Prostitution is only introduced for the pleasure of applying the unsavoury word to certain
critics " of whom we have so many in these days, and of whom
we say that they prostitute their pens to money, to favour,
to lying, and to all the vices most unworthy of an honourable
We are constantly being puzzled and diverted by Diderot's
ing^nuitjr in wandering away from the topic nominally in hand,
to insinuate some oi those doctrines of tolerance, of suspended
judgment, or of liberty, which lay so much nearer to his heart
than any point of mere erudition. There is a little article on
Aius-Locutius, the Announcixig Speaker, one of the minor Roman
gods. Diderot begins by a few lines describmg the rise of the
deity into repute. He then quotes Cicero's pleasantry on the
friendly divinity, that when nobody in the world had ever heard
of him, he delivered a salutary oracle, but after people had built
him a fine temple, then the god of speech fell dumb. This
suggests to Diderot to wonder with edifying innocence how so
religious a people as the Romans endured these irreverent jests
in their philosophers. By an easy step we pass to the conditions
on which modern philosophers should be allowed by authority to
publish their speculations. Diderot throws out the curious hint
that it would be best to forbid any writing against government


and religion in the vulgar tongue, and to allow those who write in
a learned tongue to publish what they please. And so we bid
farewell to Aius-Locutius. In passing, we ask ourselves whether
Diderot's suggestion is not available in the discussion of certain
questions, where freedom of speech in the vernacular tongue is
scarcely compatible with the reverentia qucc debetur pueris ?
Diderot is never prevented by any mistaken sense of the
dignity of his enterprise from interspersing his disquisitions on
science and philosophy with such practical thoughts on the
common matters of daily life as come into his ingenious head.
He suggests, for instance, by way of preventing the frauds of cabdrivers on their masters and on the public, that all payments of
fares should be made to appointed officers at the various cabstations, and that no driver should take up a fare except at one of
these stations.' In writing about lackeys, after a word on their
insolence and on the wretched case in which most of them end
their days, he points out that the multitude of them is causing the
depopulation of the fields. They are countrymen who have
thronged to Paris to avoid military service. Peasants turned
lackeys to escape the conscription, just as in our own days they
turn priests. Then, says Diderot, this evil ought to be checked
by a tax upon liveries ; but such a tax is far too sensible ever to
be imposed.

Yet, notwithstanding the practical and fervid temper of his

understanding, Diderot is not above literary trifling when the
humour seizes him. If he can write an exhaustive article on
Encyclopaedia, or Spinoza, or Academies, or Weaving, he can also
stoop to Anagrams, and can tell us that the letters of Fr^re
Jacques C16ment, the assassin of Henry in., make up the sinister
words, Cest Venfer quitn^a crte. He can write a couple of amusing
pages on Onomatomancy, or divination of a man's fortune from
his name; and can record with neutral gravity how frequentiy
great empires have been destroyed under princes bearing the
same name as their first founders ; how, again, certain names are
-unlucky for princes, as Caius among the Romans, John in France,
England, and Scotland, and Henry in France.
We have now and then an anecdote that is worth reading and
xiv. 32.

worth preserving. Thus, under Machiavellist : "I have heard
that a philosopher, being asked by a great prince about a refutation of Machiavellism, which the latter had just published, replied,
* Sire, I fancy that the first lesson that Machiavelli would have
given to his disciple, would have been to refute his work."^
Whether Voltaire ever did say this to the great Frederick, is very
questionable, but it would not have been ill said. After the
reader has been taken through a short course of Arabian philosophy, he is enlivened by a selection of poetic sayings about
human life from the Rose-garden of Sadi, and the whole article
winds up with an eastern fable, of no particular relevancy, of three
men finding a treasure, and of one of them poisoning the food for
which the other two had sent him ; on his return they suddenly
fell on him and slew him, and then ate the poisoned food, and so
the treasure fell to none of them.*
We have spoken in the previous section of the contempt
expressed by D^Alembert for mere literary antiquarianism a
very different thing, let us remember, from scientific inquiry into
the origin and classification of institutions and social organs.
Diderot's a^rticle on the Germans is an excellent illustration of
this wholesome predominance of the scientific spirit over the
superficialities of barren erudition. The word " AUemand," says
Diderot, " has a great many etymologies, but they are so forced,
that it is almost as well to know none of them, as to know them
all. As for the origin of this famous stock, all that has been said
on that matter, between Tacitus and Clovis, is simply" a tissue of
guesses without foundation." Of course in this, some persons
will see a shameful levity ; others will regard it as showing very
good sense, and a right estimate of what is knowable and worth
knowing, and what is neither one nor the other. In the article on
Celibacy we notice the same temper. A few sentences are enough
for the antiquarianism of the subject, what the Egyptians, Greeks,
and Romans thought and ordained about celibacy. The substance
of the article is a reproduction of the Abb^ Saint Pierre's discussion of the advantages that would be gained for France, with her

&gt; S. V. Sarrasins, xvii. 82. See also xviii. 429, for Diderot's admiration of


^ declining population, if her forty thousand cur^s were allowed to
many, and to bring into the world eight}- thousand children. We
may believe that Diderot smiled as he transcribed the Abbd's
cunning suggestion that a dispensing power to relieve from the
obligation of celibacy should be recognised in the Pope, and
that the Roman court should receive a sum of money for every
dispensation so granted.
Although, however, Diderot despised mere bookishness, his
article on Libraries is one of the longest and most painstaking,
fiumishing a tolerably complete list of the most famous collections,
from the beginning of books down to the latest additions to the
King's Library in the Rue Vivienne. In the course of this article
he quotes with seeming approval the quaint words in which old
Richard of Bury, the author of the Philobiblon (1340), praised
books as the best of masters, much as the immortal defender of
the poet Archias had praised them : " Hi sunt magistri qui nos
instruunt sine virgis et ferulis, sine cholera, sine pecunia ; si
accedis non dormiunt ; si inquiris non se abscondunt ; non
obmurmurant si oberres ; cachinnos nesciunt si ignores."
In literature proper, as in philosophy, Diderot loses no opportunity^-of insisting on the need of being content w ith B tis p ended
judgmentjfor instance, he blames historians of opinion for the
less with which they attribute notions found in one or two
rabbis to the whole of the Jews, or because two or three Fathers
say something, boldly set this down as the sentiments of a whole
century, although perhaps we have nothing else save these two or
three Fathers left of the century, and although we do not know
whether their writings were applauded, or were even widely known.
" It were to be wished that people should speak less affirmatively,
especially on particular points and remote consequences, and that
they should only attribute them directly to those in whose writings
they are actually to be found. I confess that, the history of the
sentiments of antiquity would not seem so complete, and that it
would be necessary to speak in terms of doubt much more often
than is common ; but by acting otherwise we expose ourselves to
the danger of taking false and uncertain conjectures for ascertained
and unquestionable truths. The ordinary man of letters does
not readily put up with suspensive expressions, any more than

common people do so." All this is an odd digression to be found
under the head of Hylopathianism, but it must always remain
wholesome doctrine.
We cannot wonder at Diderot's admiration for Montaigne and
for Bayle, who, with Hume, would make the great trinity of scepticism. " The work of Montaigne," said Diderot, " is the touchstone

of a good intelligence ; you may be sure that any one whom the
reading of Montaigne displeases, has some vice either of heart or
understanding. As for Bayle, he has had few equals in the art of
reasoning, and perhaps no superior ; and though he piles doubt
upon doubt, he always proceeds with order ; an article of his is a
living polypus, which divides itself into a number of pol&gt;qjuses,
all living, engendered one from the other." * Yet Diderot had a
feeling of the necessity of advancing beyond the attitude of Bayle
and Montaigne. Intellectual suspense and doubt was made difficult to him by his vehement and positive demand for emotional
I Diderot is always ready to fling away his proper subject in a .
burst of moralising. The article on Man^ as a branch of natural
histor&gt;% contains a correct if a rather superficial account of that
curious animal ; at length the ^vriter comes to a table showing th
probable duration of life at certain ages. " You will observe," he
says, * I St, that the age of seven is that at which you may hope
a longer life ; 2nd, that at twelve or thirteen you have lived a
quarter of your life ; at twenty-eight or twenty-nine you have lived
half ; at fifty more than three quarters." And then he suddenly
winds up the whole i&gt;erformance by the exclamation : " O ye who
have laboured up to fifty, who are in the enjoyment of comfort,
and who still have left to you health and strength, what then are
you waiting for before you take rest ? How long will you go on
saying To-morro^Vy to-morrmo V^
There are many casual brilliancies in the way of analogy and
parallel, many aptnesses of thought and phrase. The Stoics are
called the Jansenists of Paganism. " For a single blade of grass to ,,
grow, it is necessary that the whole of nature should co-operate."
"A man comes to Pyrrhonism by one of two opposite ways;
cither because he does not know enough, or because he knows
* S. v. PyrrhonUnnf,


too much; the latter is not the most common way." And so
If we turn to the group of articles dealing with theology, it is
difficult for us to know exactly where we are. Sometimes Diderot
writes of popular superstitions with the gravity proper to a dictionary of mythology. Sometimes he sews on to the sober grey
of his scepticism a purple patch of fheistic declamation. The
article on Jesus Christ is obviously a mere piece of common form,
and more than one passage in his article on Chrtsiiantsme is undoubtedly insincere. When we come to his more careful article,
ProvidencCy we find it impossible to extract from it a body of
coherent propositions of which we could confidently say that they
represented his own creed, or the creed that he desired his readers
to bear away in their minds.
It is hardly worth while to measure the more or the less of his
adherence to Christianity, or even to Deism, as inferred from the
Encyclopaedia. We need only turn to his private letters to find
that he is in no degree nor kind an adherent, but the most hardy,

contemptuous, and thoroughgoing of opponents. At the risk of

shocking devout persons, I am bound to reproduce a passage from
one of his letters, in which there can be no doubt that we have
Diderot's true mind, as distinguished from what it was convenient
to print " The Christian religion," he says, " is to my mind the
most absurd and atrocious in its dogmas ; the most unintelligible,
the most metaphysical, the most intertwisted and obscure, and
consequently the most subject to divisions, sects, schisms, heresies;
the most mischievous for the public tranquillity, the most dangerous to sovereigns by its hierarchic order, its persecutions, its
discipline ; the most flat, the most dreary, the most Gothic, and the
most gloomy in its ceremonies ; the most puerile and unsociable
in its morality, considered not in what is common to it with
universal morality, but in what is peculiarly its own, and constitutes it evangelical, apostolical, and Christian morality, which
is the most intolerant of all. Lutheranism, freed from some
absurdities, is preferable to Catholicism ; Protestantism to Lutheranism, Socinianism to Protestantism, Deism, with temples and
ceremonies, to Socinianism. Since it is necessary that man, being
' E.g, in the article on Plaisir, xvi. p. 298.

superstitious by nature, should have a fetish, the simplest and
most harmless will be the best fetish." ' We need not discuss
nor extend the quotation; enough has been said to relieve us from
the duty of analysing or criticising articles in which Christianity
is treated with all the formal respect that the secular authority
insisted upon.
This formal respect is not incompatible with many veiled and
secret sarcasms, which were as well understood as they were
sharply enjoyed by those who read between the lines. It is not
surprising that these sarcasms were constantly unjust and shallow.
Even those of us who repudiate theology and all its works for ourselves, may feel a shock at the coarseness and impurity of innuendo
which now and then disfigures Diderot's treatment of theological
as of some other subjects. For this the attitude of the Church
itself was much to blame ; coarse, virulent, unspiritual as it was in
France in those days. Voltaire, Diderot, Holbach, would have
written in a very different spirit, even while maintaining and publishing the same attacks on theological opinion, if the Church of
France had possessed such a school of teachers as the Church of
England found in the Latitudinarians in the seventeenth centur&gt;' ;
or such as she finds now in the nineteenth century in those who
have imported, partly from the poetrj' of Wordsworth, partly from
the historic references of the Oxford Tracts, an equity, a breadth,
an elevation, a pensive grace, that effectually forbid the use of
those more brutal weapons of controversy which were the only
weapons possible in France a century ago.
We have already said so much of the great and important
group of articles on arts and trades, that it is unnecessary to add
anything further as to Diderot's particular share in them. He
visited all the workshops in Paris ; he sent for information and
specifications to the most important seats of manufacture in the
kingdom ; he sometimes summoned workmen from the provinces

to describe to him the paper works of Montargis, and the silk

works and velvet works of Lyons."* Much of Diderot's work, even
on great practical subjects, was, no doubt, the reproduction of
mere book-knowledge acquired at second-hand. Take, for instance,
Agriculture, which was undoubtedly the most important of all
' To Damilavillc, 1766, xix. 477. xx. 34.


subjects for France at that date, as indeed at every other date.
There are a dozen pages of practical precepts, for which Diderot
was probably indebted to one of the farmers at Grandval. After
this, he fills up the article with about twenty pages in which he
gives an account of the new system of husbandry, which our
English Jethro TuU described to an unbelieving public between
1 73 1 and 1 75 1. Tull's volume was translated into French by
Duhamel, with notes and the record of experiments of his o^\^l ;
from this volume Diderot drew the pith of his article. Diderot's
only merit in the njatter and it is hardly an inconsiderable one
in a world of routine is that he should have been at the pains to
seek the newest lights, and above all that he should have urged
the value of fresh experiments in agriculture. TuU was not the
safest authority in the world, but it is to be remembered that the
shrewd-witted Cobbett thought his ideas on husbandry worth
reproducing, seventy years after Diderot had thought them worth
compiling into an article.
It was not merely in the details of the practical arts that
Diderot wrote from material acquired at second-hand. The
article on the Zend-Avesta is taken from the Annual Register for
1762. The long series of articles on the history of philosophy is
in effect a reproduction of what he found in Bayle, in Deslandes,
and in Brucker. There are one or two considerable exceptions.
Perhaps the most important is under the heading of Spinosa, to
which we shall return presently. The article on Hobbisme contains
an analysis, evidently made by the writer's own hand, of the bulk
of Hobbes's propositions ; it is scarcely, however, illuminated by
a word of criticism. If we turn to the article on Socicte, it is true,
we find Hobbes's view of the relations between the civil and
temporal powers tolerably effectively combatted, but even here
Diderot hardly does more than arm himself with the weapons of
Of course, he honestly refers his readers to these sources of
wider information.' All that we can say of the articles on the
history of philosophy, is that the series is very complete ; that
Diderot used his matter with intelligence and the spirit of criticism,
and that he often throws in luminous remarks and far-reaching
* xvi. 280,
L 2


suggestions of his own. This was all that the purpose of his book
required.' To imitate the laborious literary search of Bayle or
of Brucker, and to attempt to compile an independent history of
philosophy, would have been to sacrifice the Encyclopaedia as a
whole, to the superfluous perfection of a minor part. There is
only one imperative condition in such a case, namely, that the
writer should pass the accepted material through his own mind
before reproducing it With this condition it was impossible for
a man of Diderot's indefatigable energy of spirit, not as a rule
to comply.
But this rule too had exceptions. There were cases in which
he reproduced, as any mere bookmaker might have done, the
thought of his authority, without an attempt to make it his own.
Of the confusion and inequalities in which Diderot was landed by
this method of mingling the thoughts of other people with his own,
there is a curious example in the two articles on Philosopher and
Philosophy. In the first we have an essentially social and practical
description of what the philosopher should be ; in the second we
have a definition of philosophy, which takes us into the regions
most remote from what is social and practical. We soar to the
airiest heights of verbal analysis and pure formalism. Nothing
can be better, so far as it goes, than the picture of the philosopher.
Diderot begins by contrasting him with the crowd of people, and
clever people, who insist on passing judgment all day long. "They
ignore the scope and limits of the human mind; they think it
capable of knowing everything ; hence they think it a disgrace not
to pronounce judgment, and imagine that intelligence consists in
that and nothing else. The philosopher believes that it consists
in judging rightly. He is better pleased with himself when he has
suspended his faculty of coming to a conclusion, than if he had
come to a conclusion without the proper grounds. He prefers to
brilliancy the pains of rightly distinguishing his ideas, of finding
their true extent and exact connection. He is never so attached
to a system as not to feel all the force of the objections to it
Most men are so strongly given over to their opinions, that
they do not take any trouble to make out those of others. The
philosopher, on the other hand, understands what he rejects, ^vith y
the same breadth and the same accuracy as he understands what


he adopts." Then Diderot turns characteristically from the intellectual to the social side. " Our philosopher does not count himself an exile in the world ; he does not suppose himself in an
enemy's country ; he would fain find pleasure with others, and to
find it he must give it ; he is a worthy man who wishes to please
and to make himself useful. The ordinary philosophers who
meditate too much, or rather who meditate to wrong purpose, are
as surly and arrogant to all the world as great people are to those
whom they do not think their equals ; they flee men, and men
avoid them. But our philosopher who knows how to divide
himself between retreat and the commerce of men is full of
humanity. Civil society is, so to say^ a divinity for him on the earth-,
he honours it by his probity, by an exact attention to his duties, and
by a sincere desire not to be a useless or an embarrassing member
of it. The sage has the leaven of order and rule ; he is full of the
ideas connected with the good of civil society. What experience

shows us every day is that the more reason and light people have
the better fitted they are and the more to be relied on for the
common intercourse of life." '
The transition is startling from this conception of Philosopher
as a very high kind of man of the world, to the definition of
Philosophy as "the science of possibles qui possibles." Diderot^s
own reflection comes back to us, Combien cetie maudite metaphysique
fait des fous !"* We are abruptly plunged from a Baconian into a
Leibnitzian atmosphere. We should naturally have expected some
such account of Philosophy as that it begins with a limitation of
the questions to which men can hope for an answer, and ends in
an ordered arrangement of the principles of knowledge, with
ultimate reference to the conditions of morals and the structure
of civil societies. We should naturally have expected to find,
what indeed we do find, that the characteristic of the philosopher
is to " admit nothing without proof, never to acquiesce in illusory
notions ; to draw rigorously the dividing lines of the certain, the
probable, the doubtful ; above all things never to pay himself with
mere words." But then these wholesome prescriptions come
in an article whose definitions and distribution of philosophy
are simply a reproduction firom Christian Wolfi", and the methods
' See also article IndJpendancf. * iv. 93.

and dialect of Wolff are as essentially alien from the positive
spirit of the Encyclopaedia as they were from the mystic spirit of
Wolffs place in the philosophical succession of German speculation (1679-1754) is between Leibnitz and Kant, and until Kant
came, his system was dominant in the country of metaphysics.' It
is from Wolff that Diderot borrows and throws unassimilated into
the pages of the Encyclopaedia propositions so fundamentally
incongruous as this, that "among all possibles there must of
necessity be a Being subsisting by himself; othenvise there would
be possible things, of the possibility of which no account could be
given, an assertion that could never be made." It is a curious
thing, and it illustrates again the strangely miscellaneous quality of
Diderot's compilation, that the very article which begins by this
incorporation of the author of a philosophical system expounded
in a score of quartos, ends by a vigorous denunciation of the
introduction of the systematic spirit into philosophy.
I shall venture to quote a hardy passage from another article
{Fyrrhonienfie) which some will think a measure of Diderot's philosophical incompetency, and others will think a measure of his
good sense. ** We will conclude," he says, " for our part that as
all in nature is bound together, there is nothing, properly speaking,

of which man has perfect, absolute, and complete knowledge,

because for that he would need knowledge of all Now as all is
bound together, it inevitably happens that, from discussion to discussion, he must come to something unknown : then in starting
again from this unknown point, we shall be justified in pleading
against him the ignorance or the* obscurity or the uncertainty of
the point preceding, and of that preceding this, and so forth, up to
the most evident principle. So we must admit a sort of sobriety
in the use of reason. When step by step I have brought a man to
some evident proposition, I shall cease to dispute. I will listen
no longer to a man who goes on to deny the existence of bodies,
the rules of logic, the testimony of the senses, the difference
between good and evil, true and false, &amp;c. &amp;:c. I will turn my
* The reader will find abundant information and criticism upon the Wolffian
Philosophy in Professor Edward Caird's Critical Account of the Philosophy of
Kant, recently published at Glasgow.


back on everybody who tries to lead me away from a simple
question, to embark me in discussion as to the nature of matter,
of the understanding of thought, and other subjects shoreless and
bottomless."' Whatever else may be said of this, we have to
recognise that it is exactly characteristic of the author. But then
why have written on metaphysics at all ?
We have mentioned the article on Spinosa. It is characteristic
both of the good and the bad sides of Diderot's work. Half of it
is merely a reproduction of Bayle's criticisms on Spinosa and his
system. The other half consists of original objections propounded
by Diderot with marked vigour of thrust against Spinosa, but there
is no evidence that he had gone deeper into Spinosa than the first
book of the Ethics. There is no certain sign that he had read
anything else, or that he had more of that before him than the
extracts that were furnished by Bayle. Such treatment of a serious
subject hardly conforms to the modern requirements of the literary
conscience, for in truth the literary conscience has now turned
specialist and shrinks from the encyclopaedic. Diderot's objections are, as we have said, pushed with marked energy of speech.
" However short a way," he says, " you penetrate into the thick
darkness in which Spinosa has wrapped himself up, you discover a
succession of abysses into which this audacious reasoner has
precipitated himself, of propositions either evidently false or
evidently doubtful, of arbitrary principles, substituted for natural
principles and sensible truths ; an abuse of terms taken for the
most part in a wrong sense, a mass of deceptive equivocations, a
cloud of palpable contradictions." The system is monstrous, it is
absurd and ridiculous. It is Spinosa's plausible method that has
deceived people ; they supposed that one who employed geometry,
and proceeded by way of axioms and definitions, must be on the
track of truth. They did not see that these axioms were nothing
better than very vague and very uncertain propositions ; that the
definitions were inexact, defective, and bizarre.
We have no space to follow the reasoning by which Diderot
supports this scornful estimate of the famous thinker, of whom it
can never be settled whether he be pantheist, atheist, akosmist, or

God-intoxicated man. He returns to the charge again and again,

* xvi. 491-2.

as if he felt a certain secret uneasiness lest for scorn so loudly
expressed he had not brought forward adequate justification.
And the reader feels that Diderot has scarcely hit the true line of
cleavage that would have enabled him from his own point of view
to shatter the Spinosist system. He tries various bouts of logic
with Spinosa in connection with detached propositions. Thus he
deals with Spinosa's third proposition, that, in the case of things that
have nothing in common with one another^ otic cannot be the cause of
the other. This proposition, Diderot contends, is false in all moral
and occasional causes. The sound of the name of God h?.s
nothing in common with the idea of the Creator which that name
produces in my mind. A misfortune that overtakes my friend has
nothing in common with the grief that I feel in consequence.
When I move my arm by an act of will, the movement has nothing
in common in its nature with the act of my will ; they are very
different. I am not a triangle, yet I form the idea of one and I
examine its properties. So with the fifth proposition, that there
cannot be in the universe two or more substances of the same nature
or the same attributes. If Spinosa is only talking of the essence
of things or of their definition, what he says is naught; for it
can only mean that there cannot be in the universe two different
essences having the same essence. "VVho doubts it? But if
Spinosa means that there cannot be an essence which is found in
various single objects, in the same way as the essence of triangle
is found in the triangle A and the triangle B, then he says what is
manifestly untrue. It is not, however, until the last two or three
pages that Diderot sets forth his dissent in its widest form. " To
refute Spinosa," he says at last, ** all that is necessary is to stop him
at the first step, without taking the trouble to follow him into a
mass of consequences ; all that we need do is to substitute for the
obscure principle which he makes the base of his system, the
following : namely, that there are several substances a principle
that in its own way is clear to the last degree. And, in fact, what
proposition can be clearer, more striking, more close to the understanding and consciousness of man? I here seek no other judge
than the most just impression of the common sense that is spread
among the human race Now, since common sense revolts
against each of Spinosa's propositions, no less than against the


first, of which they are the pretended proofs, instead of stopping
to reason on each of these proofs where common sense is lost,
we should be right to say to him : Your principle is contrary
to common sense ; from a principle in which common sense is
lost, nothing can issue in which common sense is to be found

The passage sounds unpleasantly like ah appeal to the crowd

in a matter of science, which is as the sin against the Holy Ghost
in these high concerns. What Diderot meant, probably, was to
charge Spinosa with inventing a conception of substance which
has no relation to objective experience ; and further with giving
fantastic answers to questions that were in themselves never
worth asking, because the answers must always involve a violent
wTench of the terms of experience into the sphere transcending
experience, and because, moreover, they can never be verified.
^\^lether he meant this or something else, and whether he
would have been right or wrong in such an intention, we
may admit that it would have been more satisfactory if in
dealing ^yith such a master-type of the metaphysical method as
Spinosa, so acute a positive critic as Diderot had taken more pains
to give to his objections the utmost breadth of which they were
The article on Leibnitz has less original matter in it than that
on Spinosa. The various speculations of that great and energetic
intellect in metaphysic, logic, natural theology, natural law, are
merely drawn out in a long table of succinct propositions, while
the account of the life and character of Leibnitz is simply taken
from the excellent ^loge which had been published upon him by
Fontenelle in 17 16. Fontenelle's narrative is reproduced in a
generous spirit of admiration and respect for a genius that was like
Diderot's own in encyclopaedic variety of interest, while it was so
far superior to Diderot's in concentration, in subtlety, in precision,
in power of construction. If there could exist over our heads,
says Diderot, a species of beings who could observe our works as
we watch those of creatures at our feet, with what surprise would
such beings have seen those four marvellous insects, Bayle,
' There are casual critidszns on Spinosa in the articles on Identity and

Descartes, Leibnitz, and Newton. And he then draws up a little
calendar of the famous men, out of whom we must choose the
name to be placed at the very head of the human race. The list
contains, besides Julian the Apostate ^who was inserted, we may
presume, merely by way of playful insult to the ecclesiastical
enemy Socrates, Marcus AureHus, Trajan, Bacon, and the four
great names that have just been cited. Germany derives as much
honour from Leibnitz alone, he concludes with unconsidered
enthusiasm, as Greece from Plato, Aristotle, and Archimedes, all
put together. As we have said, however, there is no criticism, nor
any other sign that Diderot had done more than survey the facade
of the great Leibnitzian structure admiringly from without.
The article on Liberty would be extremely remarkable, appearing where it does, and coming from a thinker of Diderot's
general capacity, if only we could be sure that Diderot was
sincere. As it happens, there is good reason to suppose that he
was wholly insincere. It is quite as shallow, from the point of
view of philosophy, as his article on the Jews or on the Bible is
from the point of view of erudition. One reason for this might
\ not be far to seek. We have repeatedly observed how paramount

V the social aim and the social test are in Diderot's mind over all
other considerations. But this reference of all subjects of discussion to the good of society, and this measurement of conclusions
by their presumed effect on society, is a method that has its own
dangers. The aversion of ecclesiastics to unfettered discussion,
lest it should damage institutions and beliefs deemed useful to
mankind, is the great leading example of this peril. Diderot,
it might be said by those who should contend that he wTote
what he thought, did not escape exactly the same predicament, as
soon as ever he forgot that of all the things that are good for
society. Truth is the best. Now, who will believe that it is
Diderot, the persecuted editor of the Encyclopaedia, and the
author of the manly article on Intolerance, who introduces such a
passage as the following into the discussion of the everlasting
controversy of Free Will and Necessity : " Take away Liberty,
and you leave no more vice nor virtue nor merit in the world ;
rewards are ridiculous, and punishments unjust. The ruin of
Liberty overthrows all order and all police, confounds vice and


virtue, authorises every monstrous infamy, extinguishes the last
spark of shame and remorse, degrades and disfigures beyond
recovery the whole human race. A doctrine cf stick enormity as
this ought not to be examined in the schools; it ought to be punished
by the magistrates,^* Of course, this was exactly what the Jesuits
said about a belief in God, about revelation, and about the institutions of the church. To take away these, they said, is to throw
down the bulwarks of order, and an attempt to take them away,
as by encyclopaedists or others, ought to be punished by the
magistrates. Diderot had for the moment clearly lost himself.
We need hardly be surprised if an article conceived in this
spirit contains no serious contribution to the difficult question with
which it deals. Diderot had persuaded himself that, without Free
Will, all those emotional moralities in the way of sympathy and
benevolence and justice which he adored, would be lowered to the
level of mere mechanism. " If men are not free in what they do
of good and evil, then," he cries, in what is surely a paroxysm of
unreason, "good is no longer good, and evil no longer evil." As
if the outward quality and effects of good and evil were not
independent of the mental operations which precede human action.
Murder would not cease to be an evil, simply because it had been
proved that the murderer's will to do a bad deed was the result of
antecedents. Acts have marks and consequences of their own,
good or bad, whatever may be the state of mind of those who do
them. But Diderot does not seem to divine the true issue ; he writes
as if Necessarians or Determinists denied the existence of volitions,
and as if the question were whether volitions do exist. Nobody
denies that they exist ; the real question is of the conditions under
which they exist Are they determined by antecedents, or are
they self-determined, spontaneous, and unconnected ? Is Will
independent of cause ?
Diderot's argumentation is, in fact, merely a protest that man
is conscious of a Will. And just as in other parts of his article
Diderot by Liberty means only the existence of Will, so by Liberty
he means only the healthy condition of the soul, and not its inde-

pendence of causation. We need not waste words on so dire a

confusion, nor on the theory that Will is sometimes dependent on
* XV. 501.

cerebral antecedents and sometimes not The curious thing is
that the writer should not have perceived that he was himself in
this preposterous theory propounding the very principle which he
denounced as destructive to virtue, ruinous to society, and worthy
of punishment by the government For it seems that, after all,
the Will of those whose *' dispositions are not moderate " is not
free ; and we may surely say that those whose dispositions are
least moderate, are exactly the most violent malefactors against the
common weal. One more passage is worth quoting to show how
little the writer had seized the true meaning of the debate.
" According to you," he says to Bayle, " it is not clear that it is
at the pure choice of my will to move my arm or not to move it :
if that be so, it is then necessarily determined that within a quarter
of an hour from now I shall lift my hand three times together, or
that I shall not. Now, if you seriously pretend that I am not
free, you cannot refuse an offer that I make you ; I will wager a
thousand pistoles to one that I will do, in the matter of moving
my hand, exactly the opposite to what you back ; and you may
take your choice. If you do think the wager fair, it can only be
because of your necessary and invincible judgment that I am
free." As if the will to move or not to move the arm would be
uncaused and unaffected by antecedents, when you have just provided so strong an antecedent as the desire to save a thousand
pistoles. It was, perhaps, well enough for Voltaire to content
himself with vague poetical material for his poetical discourse on
Liberty, but from Diderct, whether as editor or as writer, something
better might have been expected than a clumsy reproduction of
the reasoning by which men like Turretini had tiUTied philosophy
into the corrupted handmaid of theology.
The most extraordinary thing about this extraordinary article
still remains to be told. It was written, we may suppose, between
1757 and 1762, or about that time. In June, 1756, Diderot \vrote
to a certain Landois, a fellow-worker on the Encyclopaedia, a letter
containing the most emphatic possible repudiation of the whole
doctrine of Liberty. " Liberty is a word void of sense ; there are
not and there never can have been free beings ; we are only what
fits in with the general order, with organization, with education,
and with the chain of events. We can no more conceive a being


acting without a motive than we can conceive one of the arms of
a balance acting without a weight; and the motive is always
exterior and foreign to us, attached either by nature or by some Kf
cause or other that is not ourselves. Tlure is only one sort of causes^ '
properly speakings and those are physical causes,^^^ And so forth in
the vein of hard and remorseless necessarianism, which we shall
find presently in the pages of the System of Nature.'

There is only one explanation of this flagrant contradiction.

Diderot must have written on Liberty just as he wrote on Jesus
Christ or the Bible. He cannot have said what he thought, but
only what the persons in authority required him to pretend to
think. We may be sure that a letter to an intimate would be more
likely to contain his real opinion than an article published in the
Encyclopaedia. That such mystifications are odious, are shameful,
are almost too degrading a price to pay for the gains of such a
work, we may all readily enough admit. All that we can do is to
note so flagrant a case, as a striking example of the common
artifices of the time. One other point we may note. The fervour
and dexterity with which Diderot made what he knew to be the
worse appear the better cause, make a still more striking example
of his astonishing dramatic power of throwing himself, as dialectician, casuist, sophist, into a false and illusive part.
Turning from the philosophical to the political or social group
of articles, we find little to add to what has been said in the
previous section. One of the most excellent essays in this group
is that on Luxury. Diderot opens ingeniously with a list of the
propositions that state the supposed evils of luxury, and under each
proposition he places the most striking case that he can find in
history of its falseness. He goes through the same process with
the propositions asserting the gains of luxury to society. Having
thus efiectually disposed of any wholesale way of dealing with the
subject, he proceeds to make a number of observations on the
gains and drawbacks of luxury ; these are full of sense and freedom
from commonplace. Such articles as Pouvoir^ Souverain, Autorite^
do little more than tell over again the old unhistoric story about a
society surrendering a portion of its sovereign power to some
individual or dynasty to hold in trust. It is worth remarking how
' xix. 435-6. See below, voL ii.

little democratic were Diderot and his school in any Jacobinical,
or anarchic, or even more respectable modem sense. There is in
Diderot's contributions many a firm and manly plea for the selfrespect of the common people, but not more than once or tw4ce
is there a syllable of the disorder which smoulders under the pages
of Rousseau. Thus : " When the dwellers among the fields are
well treated, the number of proprietors insensibly grows greater,
the extreme distance and the vile dependence of poor on rich
grow less ; hence the people have courage, force of soul, and
strength of body; they love their country, they respect the
magistrates, they are attached to a prince, to an order, and to
laws to which they owe their peace and well-being. And you will
no longer see the son of the honourable tiller of the soil so ready
to quit the noble calling of his forefathers, nor so ready to go and
sully himself with the liveries and with the contempt of the man
of wealth."*
No one can find fault with democratic sentiment of this kind,
nor with the generous commonplaces of the moralist, about virtue
being the only claim to honour, and vice the only true source of

shame and inferiority. But neither Diderot nor Voltaire ever

allowed himself to flatter the crowd for qualities which the crowd
can scarcely possess. The little article on Multitude seems
merely inserted for the sake of buffeting unwarranted pretensions.
" Distrust the judgment of the multitude in all matters of reasoning
and philosophy ; there its voice is the voice of malice, folly,
inhumanity, irrationality, and prejudice. Distrust it again in
things that suppose much knowledge or a fine taste. The
multitude is ignorant and dulled Distrust it in morality ; it is
not capable of strong and generous actions ; it rather wonders at
such actions than approves them ; heroism is almost madness in
its eyes. Distrust it in the things of sentiment ; is delicacy of
sentiment so common a thing that you can accord it to the
multitude? In what then is the multitude right? In everything, but only at the end of a very long time, because
then it has become an echo, repeating the judgment of a
small number of sensible men who shape the judgment of
posterity for it beforehand. If you have on your side the
* S. V. Luxe xvi. 23.


testimony of your conscience, and against you that of the
multitude, take comfort and be assured that time does justice."
It is far from being a universal gift among men of letters and a /
others to unite this fastidious estimation of the incapacity of the /(
crowd in the higher provinces of the intellectual judgment, with a
fervid desire that the life of the crowd should be made worthy of
self-respecting men.
The same hand that wrote the defiance of the populace that
has just been quoted, wrote also this short article on Misery :
** There are few souls so -firm that misery does not in the long run
cast them down and degrade them. The poor common people
are incredibly stupid. I know not what false dazzling prestige
closes their eyes to theu: present wretchedness, and to the still
deeper wretcjiedness that awaits the years of old age. Misery is
the mother of great crimes. It is the sovereigns who make the
miserable, and it is they who shall answer in this world and the
other for the crimes that misery has committed."
y So far as the mechanism of government is concerned, Diderot
writes much as Montesquieu had done. Under the head of
Reprhentants he proclaims the advantages, not exactly of government by a representative assembly, but of assisting and advising
the royal government by means of such an assembly. There is
no thought of universal suffrage. " // is property that makes the
citizen ; every man who has possessions in the state is interested
in the state, and whatever be the rank that particular conventions
may assign to him, it is always as a proprietor ; it is by reason of
his possessions that he ought to speak, and that he acquires the
right of having himself represented." Yet this very definite statement does not save him from the standing difficulty of a democratic
philosophy of politics. Nor can it be reconciled in point of logic
with other propositions to which Diderot commits himself in the
same article. For instance, he says that " no order of citizens is
capable of stipulating for all ; if one order had the right, it would
very soon come to stipulate only for itself; e^ch class ought to be

represented by men who know its condition and its needs ; these
needs are only well known to those who actually feel theni,^* But
then, in that case, the poorest classes are those who have most
need of direct representation ; they are the most numerous, their

needs are sharpest, they are the classes to which war, consumption
of national capital and way of expending national income, equal
laws, judicial administration, and the other concerns of a legislative
assembly, come most close. The problem is to reconcile the sore
interests of the multitude with the ignorance and the temper
imputed in Diderot's own description of them.
An interesting study might be made, if the limits of our
subject permitted such a digression, on the new political ideas
v.'hich a century's experience in England, France, Germany, the
American Union, has added to the publicist's stock. Diderot's
article on the Legislator is a curious mixture of views which political
thinkers have left behind, with views which the most enlightened
statesmen have taken up. There is much talk after the fashion of
Jean Jacques Rousseau about the admirable legislation of Lycurgus
at Sparta, the philosophical government of the great empire of
^ China, and the fine spirit of the institutions of Peru. We perceive
that the same influences which made Rousseau's political sentimentalism so popular, also brought even strong heads like
Diderot to believe in the unbounded power of a government to
mould men at its will, and to impose institutions at discretion.
The idea that it is the main function of a government to make
its people virtuous, is generally as strong in Diderot as it was in
Rousseau, and as it became in Robespierre. He admires the
emperors of China, because their edicts are as the exhortation of
a father to his children. All edicts, he says, ought to instruct and
to exhort as much as they command. Yet two years after the
Encyclopaedia was finished (1774), when Turgot prefaced his
reforming edicts by elaborate and reasoned statements of the
grounds for them, it was found that his prefaces caused greater
provocation than the very laws that they introduced.
Apart from the common form of enthusiasm for the " sublime
legislation" of countries which the writer really knew nothing
about, the article on the Legislator has some points worth noticing.
We have seen how Diderot made the possession of property the
true note of citizenship, and of a claim to share in the government.
But he did not pay property this compliment for nothing. It is,
he says, the business of the legislator to do his best to make up
to mankind for the loss of that equality which was one of the

-* .


comforts that men surrendered when they gave up the state of
nature. Hence the legislator ought to take care that no one
shall reach a position of extreme opulence otherwise than by an
industry that enriches the state. "He must take care that the
charges of society shall fall upon the rich, who enjoy the advantages of society." Even those who agree with Diderot, and are
ready to vote for a graduated income-tax, will admit that he comes
to his conclusion without knowing or reflecting about either the
serious arguments for it, or the serious objections against it.
What is really interesting in this long article is its anticipation
of those ideas which in England we associate ^vith the name of
Cobden. " All the men of all lands have become necessary to
one another for the exchange of the fruits of industry and the
products of the soil. Commerce is a new bond among men.
Every nation has an interest in these days in the preservation by
every other nation of its wealth, its industry, its banks, its luxury,
its agriculture. The ruin of Leipzig, of Lisbon, and of Lima has led
to bankruptcies on all the exchanges of Europe, and has affected
the fortimes of many millions of persons."' In the same spirit he
foresees the decline of patriotism in its older and narrower sense,
and the predominance of the international over the national
sentiment. " All nations now have sufficiently just ideas of their
neighbours, and consequently they have less enthusiasm for their
country than in the old days of ignorance. There is little enthusiasm where there is much light ; enthusiasm is nearly always the
emotion of a soul that is more passionate than it is instructed.
By comparing among all nations laws ^vith laws, talents with
talents, and manners with manners, nations will find so little
' As an illustration how much these ideas were in the air, the reader may
refer to a passage in S^daine's popular comedy, 77i Philosopher without
knowing it (1765), Act II. Sc. iv. Vanderk, among other things, says of the
merchant : *' Ce n'est pas un temple, ce n'est pas une seule nation qu'il sert ;
il les sert toutes, et en est servi : c'est I'homme de Tunivers. Quelques particuliers audacieux font armer les rois, la guerre s'allume, tout s'embrase,
I'Europe est divisee : mais ce negociant anglais, hollandais, russe ou chinois,
n'en est pas moins I'ami de mon cceur : nous sommes sur la superficie de la
terre autant de fils de soie qui lient ensemble les nations, et les ram^nent a l
paix par la necessite du commerce; voil^, mon fils, ce que c*est qu'un honnete

reason to prefer themselves to others, that if they preserve for
their own country that love which is the fruit of personal interest,
at least they will lose that enthusiasm which is the fruit of an
exclusive self-esteem."

Yet Diderot had the perspicacity to discern the drawbacks to

such a revolution in the conditions of social climate. " Commerce, like enlightenment, lessens ferocity, but also, just as
enlightenment takes away the enthusiasm of self-esteem, so
perhaps commerce takes away the enthusiasm of virtue. It gradually extinguishes the spirit of magnanimous disinterestedness,
and replaces it by that of hard justice. By turning men's minds
rather to use than beauty, to prudence rather than to greatness, it
may be that it injures the strength, the generosity, the nobleness
of manners."
All this, whether it comes to much or little, is at least more
true than Diderot's assurance that henceforth for any nation
in Europe to make conquests must be a moral impossibility.
Napoleon Bonaparte was then a child in arms. Whether his
career was on the whole a fulfilment or a contradiction of Diderot's
proposition, may be disputed.
And so our sketch of the great book must at length end. Let
us make one concluding remark. Is it not surprising that a man
of Diderof s speculative boldness and power should have failed to
rise from the mechanical arrangement of thought and knowledge,
up to some higher and more commanding conception of the
relation between himself in the eighteenth century, or ourselves
in the nineteenth, and all those great systems of thought, method,
and belief, which in various epochs and over different spaces of
the globe have given to men working answers to the questions
that their leading spirits were moved to put to themselves and to
the iron universe arounH them ? We constantly feel how near
Diderot is to the point of view that would have brought light
We feel how very nearly ready he was to see the mental
experiences of the race in east and west, not as superstition,
degradation, grovelling error, but as aspects of intellectual effort
and aspiration richly worthy of human interest and scientific consideration, and in their aim as well as in their substance all of one


piece with the newest science and the last voices of religious or
anti-religious development. Diderot was the one member of the
party of Philosophers who was capable of grasping such a thought.
If this guiding idea of the unity of the intellectual history of man,
and the organic integrity of thought, had happily come into
Diderot's mind, we should have had an Encyclopaedia indeed ; a
survey and representation of all the questions and answers of the
world, such as would in itself have suggested what questions are
best worth putting, and at the same time have furnished its own
For this the moment was not yet. An urgent social task lay
before France and before Europe; it could not be postponed until
the thinkers had worked out a scheme of philosophic completeness. The thinkers did not seriously make any effort after this completeness. The Encyclopaedia was the most serious attempt, and it
did not wholly faiL As I replace in my shelves this mountain of
volumes, " dusky and huge, enlarging on the sight," I have a
presentiment that their pages will seldom again be disturbed by ,

me or by others. They served a great purpose a hundred years

ago. They are now a monumental ruin, clothed with all the.
profuse associations of history. It is no Ozymandias of Egypt,
king of kings, whose wrecked shape of stone and sterile memories
we contemplate. We think rather of the grey and crumbling walls
of an ancient stronghold, reared by the endeavour of stout hands /
and faithful, whence in its own day and generation a band once y
went forth against barbarous hordes, to strike a blow for humanity /\
and truth.

M 2

SOCIAL LIFE (l 759-1 770).
Anyone must be ignorant of the facts, who supposes that the men
of the eighteenth century who did not believe in God, and were
as little continent as King David, were therefore no better than
the reckless vagabonds of Grub Street. Diderot, after he had
once settled down to his huge task, became a very orderly person.
It is true that he had an attachment to a lady who was not his
wife. Marriage was in those days, among the courtiers and the
encyclopaedic circle, too habitually regarded as merely an official
relation. . Provided that there was no official desertion, and no
scandal, the world had nothing to say. Diderot was no worse
than his neighbours, though we may well be sorry that a man of
his generous sympathies and fine impulse was no better than his
neighbours. Mademoiselle Voland, after proper deduction made
for the manners of the time, was of a respectable and sentimental
type. Her family were of good position ; she lived with her
mother and sisters, and Diderot was on good terms with them all.
We have a glimpse of the characteristics of the three ladies in a little
dialogue between Diderot and someone whom he met, and who
happened to have made their acquaintance. " He informed me
that he had passed three monthjf in the country where you are.
Three months^ said he, is more than one needs to go mad about
Madame Le Gendre^ ^True, but then she is so reserved. /
scarcely know any woman with such an amount of self -respect, She
* The younger sister of Diderot's Sophie.

'*- .X"


is quite right. Madame Voland is a woman of rare merit, ^Yes,
and her eldest daughter ? She has the cleverness of a very devil.
She is very clever, no doubt ; but what I especially like is her
frankness. I would lay a wager that she has never told a voluntary lie since she came to years of discretion."' The relations
between Diderot and Sophie Voland were therefore not at all

on the common footing of a low amour with a coarse or frivolous

woman of the world. All the proprieties of appearance were
scrupulously observed. Their mutual passion, though once not
wholly without its gallantries, soon took on that worthy and decorou?^^^^
quality into which the ardour of valiant youth is reluctantly^
softened by middle age, when we gravely comfort it with names
of philosophical compliment.
One of the most interesting of all the documentary memorials
of the century is to be found in the letters which Diderot wrote to
Mademoiselle Voland. No doubt has ever been thrown on the
authenticity of these letters, and they bear ample evidence of
genuineness, so far as the substance of them is concerned, in their
characteristic style. They were first published in 1830, from'
manuscripts sold to the bookseller the year before by a certain
French man of letters, Jeudy-Dugour by name. He became a
naturalised Russian, changed his name to Gouroff, and died in the
position of councillor of state and director of the university of
Sl Petersburg. How he came by any papers of Diderot it is
impossible to guess. It is assumed that when Mademoiselle
Voland died, her family gave his letters and other papers back to
Diderot. These, along with other documents, are supposed to
have been given by Diderot to Grimm. Thence they went to the
Library of the Hermitage at St. Petersburg. Whether JeudyDugour sold copies or originals, and whether he made the copies,
if copies they were, from the Library, which was, however,
rigorously closed during the reign of Nicholas i., are literary
secrets which it is impossible to fathom. So far as Diderot is concerned, some of the spirit of mystification that haunted literature
in the eighteenth century, still hovers about it in the nineteenth.
This we shall presently find in a still more interesting monument
of Diderot than even his letters to Mademoiselle Voland.'
xviiL 454. ' See below, the chapter on RanucuCs NepJuw,

They are not a continuotis series. It was only when either
Diderot was absent from Paris, or his correspondent was away
at her mother's house in the country, that letter-writing was
necessary. Diderot appears to have written to her openly and
without disguise. The letters of Mademoiselle Voland in reply
were for obvious reasons not sent to Diderot's house, but under
cover to the office of Damilaville, so well known to the reader of
Voltaire's correspondence. Damilaville was a commissioner in
one of the revenue departments, and it is one among many
instances of the connivance between authority and its foes, that
most of the letters and packets of Voltaire, Diderot, and the rest
of the group, should have been taken in, sent out, guarded, and
franked by the head of a government office. The trouble that
Damilaville willingly took in order to serve his friends is another
example of what we have already remarked as the singular
amiability and affectionate solicitude of those times. " Think of
Damilaville's attention," says Diderot on one occasion ; " to-day
is Sunday, and he was obliged to leave his office He was sure
that I should come this evening, for I never fail when I hope for
a letter from you. He left the key with two candles on a table,
and between the two candles your little letter, and a pleasant note

of his own." And by the light of the candles Diderot at once

wrote a long answer.'
We need not wonder if much is said in these letters of tardy
couriers, missing answers, intolerable absences, dreary partings,
delicious anticipations. All these are the old eternal talk of men
and women, ever since the world began ; without them we should
hardly know that we are reading the words of man to woman.
They are in our present case only the setting of a curiously frank
and open picture of a man's life.
It is held by some that one of the best means of giving the
sense of a little fixity to lives that are but as the evanescent fabric
of a dream and the shadow of smoke, is to secure stability of
topographical centre by abiding in the same house. Diderot is
one of the few who complied with this condition. For thirty years
he occupied the fourth and fifth floors of a house which was still
standing not long ago, at the comer of the rue Saint Benoit by the
' Nov. 10, 1770; xix. 22.


rae Taranne, in that Paris which our tourists leave unexplored,
but which is nevertheless the true Paris of the eighteenth century.
Of the equipment of his room we have a charming picture by the
hand of its occupant. It occurs in his playful Regrets on My Old
Dressing-gom, so rich in happy and delightful touches.
" What induced me to part with it ? It was made for me ; I was made for
it. It moulded itself to all the turns and outlines of my body without fretting
me. I was picturesque and beautiful ; its successor, so stiff, so heavy, makes
a mere mannikin of me. There was no want to which its complaisance did not
lend itself, for indigence is ever obsequious. Was a book covered with dust,
one of the lappets offered itself to wipe the dust away. Did the thick ink refus
to flow from the pen, it offered a fold. You saw traced in the long black lines
upon it, how many a service it had rendered me. Those long lines annoimced
the man of letters, the writer, the workman. And now I have all the mien of
a rich idler ; you know not who I may be. I was the absolute master of my
old robe ; I am the slave of my new one. The dragon that guarded the golden
fleece was not more restless than I. Care wraps me about.
" The old man who has delivered himself up bound hand and foot to the
caprices of a young giddypate, says from morning to night : Ah, where is my
old, my kind housekeeper? What demon possessed me the day that I dismissed her for this creature ? Then he sighs, he weeps. I do not weep nor
sigh ; but at every moment I say : Cursed be the man who invented the art of
making common stuff precious by dyeing it scarlet ! Cursed be the costly robe
that I stand in awe of ! Where is my old, my humble, my obliging piece of
homespun ?
" That is not all, my friend. Hearken to the ravages of luxury of a
luxury that must needs be consistent with itself. My old gown was at one with

the things about me. A straw-bottomed chair, a wooden table, a deal shelf
that held a few books, and three or four engravings, dimmed by smoke, without
a frame, nailed at the four comers to the wall. Among the engravings three
or four casts in plaster were hung up ; they formed, with my old dressing-gown,
the most harmonious indigence. All has become discord. No more ensemble,
no more unity, no more beauty.
** The woman who comes into the hoiise of a widower, the minister who
steps into the place of a statesman in disgrace, the molinist bishop who gets
hold of the diocese of a jansenist bishop none of these people cause more
trouble than the intruding scarlet has caused to me.
** I can bear without disgust the sight of a peasant- woman. The bit of
coarse canvas that covers her head, the hair falling about her cheeks, the rags
that only half cover her, the poor short skirt that goes no more than half-way
down her legs, the naked feet covered with mud all these things do not wound
me ; 'tis the image of a condition that I respect, 'tis the sign and summary of
state that is inevitable, that is woful, and that I pity with all my heart But
my gorge rises, and in spite of the scented air that follows her, I turn my eyes
from the courtesan, whose fine lace head-gear and torn cuffs, white stockings
and worn-out shoes, show me the misery of the day in company with the

opulence of last night Such would my house have been, if the imperious
scarlet had not forced all into harmony with itself. I had two engravings that
were not without merit, Poussin's Manna in the Wilderness, and the same
painter's Esther before Ahasuerus ; the one is driven out in shame by some old
man of Rubens's, the Fall of the Manna is scattered to the winds by a Storm
of Vemet's. The old straw chair is banished to the ante-room by a luxurious
thing of morocco. Homer, Virgil, Horace, Cicero, have been taken from their
shelf and shut up in a case of grand marqueterie work, an asylum worthier of
them than of me. The wooden table still held its ground, protected by a vast
pile of pamphlets and papers heaped pell-mell upon it ; they seemed as if they
would long protect it from its doom. Yet one day that too was mastered by
fate, and in spite of my idleness pamphlets and papers went to arrange themselves in the shelves of a costly bureau It was thus that the edifying
retreat of the philosopher became transformed into the scandalous cabinet of the
farmer-general. Thus I too am insulting the national misery.
''Of my early mediocrity there remained only a list carpet The shabby
carpet hardly matches with my luxury. I feel it But I have sworn and I
swear that I will keep this carpet, as the peasant, who was ndsed from the hut
to the palace of his sovereign, still kept his wooden shoes. When in a
morning, clad in the sumptuous scarlet, I enter my room, if I lower my eyes I
perceive my old list carpet ; it recalls to me my early state, and rising pride
stands checked. No, my friend, I am not corrupted. My door is open as ever
to want ; it finds me aflhble as ever ; I listen to its tale, I counsel, I pity,
succour it" . . . .
Yet the interior of Socrates-Diderot was as little blessed by
domestic sympathy as the interior of the older and greater
Socrates. Of course Diderot was far enough from being fault-

less. His wife is described by Rousseau as a shrew and a scold.

It is too plain that she was so ; sullen to her husband, impatient
with her children, and exacting and unreasonable with her
servants." We cannot pretend accurately to divide the blame.
The companionship was very dreary, and the picture grievous and
most afflicting to our thoughts. Diderot returns in the evening
from Holbach's, throws his carpet-bag in at the door, flies off to
seek a letter from Mademoiselle Voland, writes one to her, gets
back to his house at midnight, finds his daughter ill, puts cheerful
and cordial questions to his wife, she replies with a tartness that
drives him back into silence.' Another time the scene is violent.
A torrent of injustice and unreasonableness flows over him for two
* See, for instance, xix. 8i, 91, 129, 133, 145, &amp;c passages which Mr.
Carlyle and Rosenkranz have either overlooked, or else, without any good
reason, disbelieved. ' xviiL 293.


long hours, and he wonders what the woman will profit, after she
has made him burst a blood-vessel ; he groans in anguish, " Ah,
how hard life seems to me to bear ! how many a time would I
accept the end of it with joy ! " ' So sharp are the goads in a
divided house ; so sorely, with ache and smart and deep-welling
tears, do men and women rend into shreds the fine web of one
another's lives. But the pity of it, O the pity of it !
There are many brighter intervals which make one willing to
suppose that if the wife had been a little more patient, more
tolerant, more cheerful, less severely addicted to her sterile superstition, there might have been somewhat more happiness in the
house. One misery of the present social ideal of women is that,
while it keeps them so systematically ignorant, superstitious, and
narrow, it leaves them without humility. " Be content," said the
great John Wesley to his froward wife, "be content to be a
private insignificant person, known and loved by God and me.
Of what importance is your character to mankind ? If you was
buried just now, or if you had never lived, what loss would it be
to the cause of God ?" This energetic remonstrance can hardly
be said to exhaust the matter. Still it puts a wholesome side of
the case which Madame Diderot missed, and which better persons
are likely to miss, so long as the exclusion of women, by common
opinion or by law, from an active participation in the settlement
of great issues makes them indifferent to all interests outside
domestic egoism, and egoistic and personal religion. Brighter
intervals shone in the household. " I announced my departure,"
writes Diderot, " for next Tuesday. At the first word I saw the
faces both of mother and daughter fall. The child had a compliment for my fte-day all ready, and it would not do to let her
waste the trouble of having learnt it. The mother had projected
a grand dinner for Sunday. Well, we arranged everything perfectly. I made my journey, and came back to be harangued and
feasted. The poor child made her little speech in the most
bewitching way. In the middle there came some hard words, so
she stopped and said to me, * My papa, 'tis because my two front
teeth have come out ' as was true. Then she went on. At the
end, as she had a posy to give me, and it could not be found, she

' xix. 46.

stopped a second time to say to me * Here's the worst of the
tale ; my pinks have got lost' Then she started off in search of
her flowers. We dined in great style. My wife had got all her
friends together. I was very gay, eating, drinking, and doing the
honours of my table to perfection. On rising from table I stayed
among them and played cards instead of going out. I saw them
all off between eleven and twelve : I was charming, and if you
only knew with whom ; what physiognomies, what folk, what
talk ! "
Another time the child, whispering in his ear, asks why her
mother bade her not remind him that the morrow was the mother's
fete-day. The presence of the blithe all-hoping young, looking
on with innocent unconscious eyes at the veiled tragedy of love
turned to bitter discord, gives to such scenes their last touch of
piteousness. Diderot, however, observed the day, and presented
a bouquet which was neither well nor ill received. At the birthday dinner the master of the house presided. " If you had been
behind the curtains, you would have said to yourself, how can all
this gossip and twaddle find a place in the same head with certain
ideas ! And in truth I was charming, and played the fool to a
In the midst of distractions great and small, was an indomitable
industry. " I tell you," he wrote, " and I tell all men, when you
are ill at ease with yourself, instantly set about some good work.
In busying myself to soothe the trouble of another, I forget my
own." He was assiduous in teaching his daughter, though he
complained that her mother crushed out in a day what it had taken
him a month to implant The booksellers found him the most
cheerful and strenuous bondsman that ever booksellers had. He
would pass a whole month without a day's break, working ten
hours every day at the revision of proof-sheets. Sometimes he
remains a whole week without leaving his work-room. He wears
out his eyes over plates and diagrams, bristling with figures and
letters, and with no more refreshing thought in the midst of this
sore toil, than that insult, persecution, torment, trickery, will be the
fruit of it. He not only spent whole days bent over his desk,
until he had a feeling as of burning flame within him ; he also
' xix. 84. See also 326.


worked through the hours of the night. On one of these occasions,
worn out with fatigue and weariness, he fell asleep with his head
on his desk ; the light fell down among his papers, and he awoke
to find half the books and papers on the desk burnt to ashes. "I
kept my own counsel about it," he writes, " because a single hint
of such an accident would have robbed my wife of sleep for the
rest of her life." '

His favourite form of holiday was a visit to Holbach's

country house at Grandval. Here he spent some six weeks or
more nearly every autumn after 1759. The manner of life there
was delightful to him. There was perfect freedom, the mistress of
the house neither rendering strict duties of ceremony nor exacting
them. Diderot used to rise at six or at eight, and remain in his
own room until one, reading, writing, meditating. Nobody was
more exquisitely sensible than Diderot to the charm of loiteringgyeiJbQQkSiL^over those authors," as he said, "who ravish us
from ourselves, in whose hands nature has placed ^ fairy wand,
with which they no sooner touch us, than straightway we forget the
evils of life, the darkness lifts from our souls, and we are reconciled to existence." ' The musing suggestiveness of reading when
we read only for reading's sake, and not for reproduction nor
direct use, was as delightful to our laborious drudge as to others,
but he could indulge himself with little of this sweet idleness.
It was in harder labour that he passed most of his mornings.
These hours of work achieved, he dressed and went down among
his friends. Then came the mid-day dinner, which was sumptuous ;
host and guests both ate and drank more than was good for
their health. After a short siesta, towards four o'clock they took
their sticks and went forth to walk, among woods, over ploughed
fields, up hills, through quagmires, delighting in nature. As they
went, they talked of history, or politics, or chemistry, of literature,
or physics, or morality. At sundown they returned, to find lights
and cards on the tables, and they made parties of piquet, interrupted
by supper. At half-past ten the game ends, they chat until eleven*
and in half an hour more they are all fast asleep.^ Each day was
like the next; industry, gaiety, bodily comfort, mental activity,
diversifying the hours. Grimm was often there, " the most French
* xix. 137, 341, etc. " xviii. 535. 3 xviii. 507, etc.

of all the Germans,'' and Galiani, the most nimble-witted of men,
inexhaustible in story, inimitable in pantomimic narration, and yet
with the keenest intellectual penetration shining through all his
Neapolitan prank and buffoonery. Holbach cared most for
the ph3rsical sciences. Marmontel brought a vein of sentimentalism, and Helv^tius a vein of cynical formalism. Diderot played
Socrates, Panurge, Pantophile; questioning, instructing, combining;
pouring out knowledge and suggestion, full of interest in every
subject, sympathetic with every vein, relishing alike the newest
philosophic hardihood, the last too merry mood of Holbach's
mother-in-law, the freshest piece of news brought by a traveller. It
was not at Grandval that he found life hard to bear, or would have
accepted its dose with joy. And indeed if one could by miracle
be transported back into the sixth decade of that dead century for
a single day, perhaps one might choose that such a day should be
passed among the energetic and vivid men who walked of an
afternoon among the fields and woods of Grandval.
The unblushing grossness of speech which even the ladies of
the party permitted themselves, cannot be reproduced in the
decorous print of our age. It is nothing less than inconceivable
to us how Diderot can have brought himself to write dowTi, in
letters addressed to a woman of good education and decent

manners, some of the talk that went on at Grandval. The

coarsest schoolboy of these days would wince at such shameless
freedoms. But it would be wrong to forget the allowance that
must be made for differences in point of fashion. Diderot, for
instance, in these very letters is wonderfully frank in his exposure
of the details of his health. He describes his indigestions, and other
more indescribable obstructions to happiness, as freely as Cicero
wrote about the dysentery which punished him, when, after he
had resisted oysters and lampreys at supper, he yielded to a dish of
beet and mallow so dressed with pot-herbs, ut nil posset esse suavius.
Whatever men could say to one another or to their surgeons,
they saw no harm in saying to women. We have to remember
how Sir Walter Scott's great-aunt, about the very time when Diderot
was writing to Mademoiselle Voland, had heard Mrs. Aphara Behn's
books read aloud for the amusement of large circles, consisting of
the first and most creditable society in London. We think of Swift,


in an earlier period of the century, enclosing to Stella some recklessly
gross verses of his own upon Bolingbroke, and habitually writing
to fine ladies in a way that Falstaff might have thought too bad for
Doll Tearsheet In saying that these coarse impurities are only
points of manners, we are as far as possible from meaning that they
are on that account unimportant. But it is childish to waste our
time in censorious judgment on the individual who does no worse
than represent a ruling type. We can only note the difference
and pass on.
A characteristic trait in this rural life is Diderot's passion for
high winds. They gave him a transport, and to hear the storm at
night, tossing the trees, drenching the ground with rain, and filling
the air with the bass of its hoarse ground-tones, was one of his
keenest delights.* Yet Diderot was not of those in whom the
feeling for the great effects of nature has something of savagery.
He jvas. above all things human, and the human lot was the central
source of his innermost meditations. In the midst of gossip is
constantly interpolated some passage of fine reflection on life
reflection as sincere, as real, coming as spontaneously from the
writer's inmost mood and genuine sentiment, ^s little tainted either
by affectation or by commonness, as ever passed through the mind
of a man. Some of these are too characteristic to be omitted, and
there is so little of what is exquisite in the flavour of Diderot^s
style, that he perhaps suffers less from the clumsiness of translation
than writers of finer colour or more stirring melody. One of these
passages is as follows :
'* The last news from Paris has made the Baron anxious, as he has considerable sums in royal securities. He said to his wife : ' Listen, my friend ;
if this is going on, I put down the carriage, I buy you a good cloak and a good
parasol, and for the rest of our days we will bless the minister for ridding us
horses, lackeys, coachmen, ladies'-maids, cooks, great dinner-parties, false fri
tiresome bores, and all the other privileges of opulence.' And for my part I beg
to think, that for a man without a wife or child, or any of those connexions
that make us long for money, and never leave any superfluity, it would be almost

indifferent whether he were poor or rich. This paradox comes of the equality tha
I discover among various conditions of life, and in the little difference that I
allow, in point of happiness, between the master of the house and the hallporter. If I am sound in mind and body, if I have worth and a pure conscience,
if I know the true from the false, if I avoid evil and do good, if I feel the
' xviii. 526, 531.

dignity of my being, if nothing lowers me in my own eyes, then people may
call me what they will, My Lord^ or Sirrak, To do what is good, to knowA
what is true that is what distinguishes one man from another ; the rst is nothing
. /
The duration of life is so short, its true needs are so narrow, and when we go
away, it all matters so little whether we have been somebody or nobody. When
the end comes, all that you want is a sorry piece of canvas and four deal boards
In the moiiiing I hear the labourers under my window. Scarce has the da^
dawned before they are at work with spade and barrow, delving and wheeling. They munch a crust of black bread ; they quench their thirst at the^
flowing stream ; at noon they snatch an hour of sleep on the hard ground.^
They are cheerful ; they sing as they work ; they exchange their good broacE
pleasantries with one another; they shout with laughter. At sundown they go^*
home to find their children naked round a smoke-blackened hearth, a woman.-^
hideous and dirty, and their lot is neither worse nor better than mine. I came ^
down from my rooi^i in bad spirits ; I heard talk about the public misery ; I sa
t down to a table full of good cheer without an appetite ; I had a stomach overloaded with the dainties of the day before ; I grasped a stick and set out for a
walk to find relief ; I returned to play cards, and cheat the heavy-weighing
hours. I had a friend of whom I could not hear ; I was far from a woman whom
I sighed for. Troubles in the country, troubles in the town, troubles everywhere. He who knows not trouble, is not to be counted among the children of
men. All gets paid off in time ; the good by the evil, evil by good, and life is
naught Perhaps to-morrow night or Monday morning we may go to pass a day
in town ; so I shall see the woman for whom I sighed, and recover the man of
whom I could not hear. But I shall lose them the next day ; and the more I
feel the happiness of being with them, the worse I shall suffer at parting. That
is the way that all things go. Turn and turn and turn again ; there is ever a
crumpled rose-leaf to vex you." *
It is not often that we find such active benevolence as
Diderot's, in conjunction with such a vein of philosophy as
follows :

"Ah, what a fine comedy this world would be, if only one had not to play
a part in it ; if one existed, for instance, in some point of space, in that int
of the celestial orbs where the gods of Epicurus slumber, far, far away, whence
one could see this globe, on which we strut so big, about the size of a pumpkin,
and whence one could watch all the airs and tricks of that two-footed mite who
calls itself man. I would fain only look at the scenes of life in reduced size,
so that those which are stamped with atrocity may be brought down to an inch
in space, and to actors half a line high. But how bizarre, that our sense of
revolt against injustice is in the ratio of the space and the mass. I am furious
if a large animal unjustly attacks another. I feel nothing at all if it is two
atoms that tear and rend. How our senses affect our morality. There is a fine
text for philosophizing ! "'
"What I see every day of physic and physicians does not much heighten
' Nov. 2, 1759 ; xviiu 431. xix. 82.


my opinion of them. To come into the world in imbecility, in the midst of
anguish and cries ; to be the toy of ignorance, of error, of necessity, of sickn
of malice, of all passions ; to return step by step to that imbe cility whence o
sprang ; from the moment when we lisp our first words, down to the moment
when we mumble the words of our dotage, to live among rascals and charlatans
of every kind ; to lie expiring between a man who feels your pulse, and another
man who frets and wearies your head ; not to know whence one comes, nor
why one has come, nor whither one is going that is what we call the greatest
gift of our parents and of nature human life." *
These sombre meditations hardly represent Diderot's habitual
vein ; they are rather a reaction and a relief from the busy intensity with which he watches the scene, and is constantly putting
interrogatories to human life, as day by day its -motley circumstance passes before his eyes. We should scarcely suspect from
his frequent repetitions of the mournful eternal chorus of the
nullity of man and the vanity of all the things that are under
the sun, how alert a watch he kept on incident and character, with
what keen and open ear he listened for any curious note of pain,
or voice of fine emotion, or odd perversity of fate. All this he
does, not in the hard temper of a Balzac, not with the calm or
pride of a Goethe, but with an overflowing fulness of spontaneous
and uncontrollable sympathy. He is a sentimentalist in the
rationalistic century, not with the sentimentalism of misanthropy,
such as fired or soured Rousseau, but social, large-hearted, manysided, careless of the wise rigours of morality. He is never
callous nor neutral ; on the contrary, he is always approving or
disapproving, but not from the standards of the ethical text-books.
The casuistry of feeling is of everlasting interest to him, and he is
never tired of inventing imaginary cases, or pondering real ones,
in which pliant feeling is invoked against the narrowness of duty.
These are mostly in a kind of matter which modem taste hardly
allows us to reproduce ; nor, after all, is there much to be gained

by turning the sanctities of human relationship, with all their

immeasurable bliss, their immeasurable woe, into the playthings
of an idle dialectic. It is pleasanter, and for us English not less 1
instructive than pleasant, to see this dreaming, restless, thrice
ingenious spirit, half Titan of the skies, half gnome of the lower
earth, entering joyously or pitifully into the simple charm and /
* xix. 139.

11 1 -1 '^U &gt; 1. ^ '! 1 rv . ;t A 11 1 _

]:cc{)lt, wlicrc his iViihcr iuul bt

had spared the worthy man a i
he got home/
From the pathos of kindly yoi
the step is not far. " To-day \
woman, who is only eighty years
cheerfulness ; her soul is still all g
talks of love and friendship with t
of twenty. There were three mei
said to us, * My friends, a delic
passionate look, a tear, a touched c
things of the world ; as for all besic
of. There are certain things that
young, and that I remember to th
words is to be preferred before ten c
believe if I heard them even now,
quicker.' * Madame, the reason is
older.' * No, my son, you are right
is not for having kept me alive so 1
having kept me kind-hearted, gent!
this was after Diderot's own heart, n
sation to be worth more than all the
1'' philosophy that hf* '-*-'


old man of eighty. " I love children and old men ; the latter
seem to me like some singular creatures that have been spared by
caprice of fate." He meets some old schoolfellows at Langres,
nearly all the rest having gone : " Well, there are two things that
warn us of our end, and set us musing old ruins, and the short
duration of those who began life with us." He is taken by a host
over-devoted to such joys, to walk among dung-heaps. "After
all," he says, " it ought not to offend one's sense. To an honest
nose that has preserved its natural innocence, 'tis not a goat, but a
bemusked and ambre-scented woman, who smelleth ill."
"When I compare our friendships to our antipathies, I find
that the first are thin, small, pinched ; we know how to hate, but
we do not know how to love."
" A poet who becomes idle, does excellently well to be idle ;

he ought to be sure that it is not industry that fails, but that his
gift is departing from him."
" Comfort the miserable ; that is the true way to console yourself for my absence. I recollect saying to the Baron, when he lost
his first wife, and was sure that there was not another day's happiness left for him in this world, * Hasten out of doors, seek out the
wretched, console them, and then you will pity yourself, if you
dare.' " '
" An infinitude of tyrannical things interpose between us and
the duties of love and friendship ; and we do nothing aright. A
man is neither free for his ambition, nor firee for his taste, nor free
for his passion. And so we all live discontented with ourselves.
One of the great inconveniences of the state of society is the
multitude of our occupations and, above all, the levity with which
we make engagements to dispose of all our future happiness. We
marry, we go into business, we have children, all before we have
common sense." '
After some equivocal speculations as to the conduct of a woman
who, by the surrender of herself for a quarter of an hour to the
desires of a powerful minister, wins an appointment for her
husband and bread for her six children, he exclaims : " In truth,
I think Nature heeds neither good nor evil; she is wholly wrapped
up in two objects, the preservation of the individual and the
' xix. 81. ' xix. 149.

propagation of the species."' True; but the moral distinction
between right and wrong is so much wrung from the forces that
Diderot here calls Nature.
The intellectual excitement in which he lived and the energy
with which he promoted it, sought relief either in calm or else in
the play of sensibility. " A delicious repose," he writes in one of
his most harassed moments, '' a sweet book to read, a walk in
some open and solitary spot, a conversation in which one discloses
all one's heart, a strong emotion that brings the tears to one's eyes
and makes the heart beat faster, whether it comes of some tale of
generous action, or of a sentiment of tenderness, of health, of gaiety,
of liberty, of indolence there is the true happiness, nor shall I
ever know any other."
A Point in Rhetoric, "Towards six in the evening the party broke up. I
remained alone with D., and as we were talking about the Elqges on Descartes
that had been sent in to the Academy, I made two renmrks that pleased him
upon eloquence. One, that it is a mistake to try to stir the passions before
convincing the reason, and that the pathetic remains without effect, when it is
not prepared by the syUogism. Second, that after the orator had touched me
keenly, I could not endure that he should break in upon this melting of the
soul with some violent stroke : that the pathetic insists on being foUowed by
something moderate, weak, vague, that should leave room for no contention on
my part."

. H\ iiii f^' ^/-rrrff*frrnr|^-/i'ffif/flffr/ ** HTh- Baron has returned from

England. He started with the- pleasantest anticipations, he had a most agreeable reception, he had excellent health, and yet he has returned out of humour
and discontented ; discontented with the cou];itry, which he found neither as
populous nor as well cultivated as people say ; discontented with the buildings,
that are nearly all bizarre and Gothic ; with the gardens, where the affectation
of imitating nature is worse than the monotonous symmetry of art ; with the
taste that heaps up in the palaces what is first-rate, what is good, what is bad
what is detestable, all pell-mell. He is disgusted at the amusements, which
have the air of religious ceremonies ; with the men, on whose countenances
you never see confidence, friendship, gaiety, sociability, but on every face the
inscription, * What is there in common between me and you ? * ; disgusted with
the great people, who are gloomy, cold, proud, haughty, and vain ; and with
the small people, who are hard, insolent, and barbarous. The only thing that
I have heard him praise is the facility of travel : he says there is not a villa
even on a cross-road, where you do not find four or five post-chaises and a
score of horses ready to start There is no public education. The
colleges sumptuous buildings palaces to be compared to the Tuileries, are
xix. 9a xix. I63-4,


occupied by rich idlers, who sleep and get dnmk one part of the day, and the
rest they spend in training, clumsily enough, a parcel of uncouth lads to be
dexgymen. In the fine places that have been built for public amusements, you could hear a mouse run. A hundred stiff and silent women walk
round and round an orchestra that is set up in the middle. The Baron compares these circuits to the seven processions of the Eg^yptians round the tomb o
Osiris. A charming mot of my good friend Garrick, is that London b good for
the English, but Paris is good for all the world There is a great
mania for conversions and missionaries. Mr. Hume told me a story which will
let you know what to think of these pretended conversions of cannibals and
Hurons. A minister thought he had done a great stroke in this line ; he had
the vanity to wish to show his proselyte, and brought him to London. They
question his little Huron, and he answers to perfection. They take him to
church, and administer the sacrament, where, as you know, the communion is
in both kinds. Afterwards, the minister says to him, ' Well, my son, do you
not feel yourself more animated with the love of God ? Does not the grace of
the sacrament work within you? Is not all your soul warmed?* *Yes,'
sa3rs the Huron : ' the wine does one good, but I think it would have done
stiU better if it had been brandy.* ** '
Two Outs of Conscience, ** The cure said that unhappy lovers always
talked about dying, but that it was very rare to find one who kept his word ;
still he had seen one case. It was that of a young man of family, called
Soulpse. He fell in love with a young lady of beauty and of good character,

bat without money, and belonging to a dishonoured family. Her father was
in the galle3rs for forgery. The young man, who foresaw all the opposition,
and all the good groimds for opposition, that he would have to encounter among
hb family, did all that he could to cure himself of his passion ; but when he
was assured of the uselessness of hb efforts, he plucked up courage to open the
matter to hb parents, who wearied themselves with remonstrances. Our lover
suddenly stopped them short, saying, ' I know all that you have to say against
me ; I cannot disapprove of your reasons, which I should be the first to urge
against my own son, if I had one. But consider whether you would rather
have me dead or badly married ; for it is certain that if I do not marry the
woman that I love, I shall die of it' They treated this speech as it deserved ;
the result does not affect that. The young man fell sick, faded from day to
day, and died. *But, Cur^,* said I, *in the place of the father, what would
3rou have done ? ' * I would have called my son ; I would have said : Soulpse
has been your name hitherto ; never forget that it is yours no more ; and call
yourself by what other name you please. Here b your lawful share of our
property ; marry the woman you love, so far from here that I may never hear
speak of you again, and God bless you.' ' For my part,* said old Madame
D*Esclavellcs, * if I had been the mother of the young madman, I would have
done exactly as his father did, and let him die.* And upon this there was a
tremendous division of opinion, and an uproar that made the room ring again.
The dbpute lasted a long time, and would be going on now, if the cure
Sept. 20, 1765 ; xix. 179-187.


had not broken it oiT by putting to us another case. . A young priest, discontented with his profession, flees to England, apostatizes, marries according
to the law, and has children. After a certain time he longs for his native count
ry ;
he comes back to France with his children and his wife. After that, again,
he is stricken by remorse ; he retams to his religion, has scruples about his
marriage, and thinks of separating from his wife. He opens his heart to our
cure, who finds the case very embarrassing, and not venturing to decide it,
refers him to casuists and lawyers. They all decide that he cannot, with a
sure conscience, remain with his wife. When the separation, which the wife
opposed with all her might, was about to be legally effected rather against
the wishes of our cure the husband fell dangerously ill. When he knew that
he could not recover, he said to the cure : * My friend, I wish to make public
amends for my backsliding, to receive the sacraments, and to die in the hospital
be kind enough to have me taken there.' ' I will take care to do no such thing,'
the cur^ replied to him. * This woman is innocent ; she married you according
to law ; she knew nothing of the obstacles that existed. And these children,
what share have they in your sin ? You are the only wrongdoer, and it is they
who are to l)e punished ! Your wife will be disgraced, your children will be
declared illegitimate, and what is the gain of it all ?' And the good cure stuck
to his text. He confessed his man, the illness grew worse, he administered the
last sacraments. The man died, and his wife and children remained in possession of the titles they had. We all approved the cure's wisdom, and Grimm
insisted on having his ix&gt;rtrait taken." *

Chifuse Superiori/jf.** Apropos of the Chinese, do you know that with

them nobility ascends, and descends never ? It is the children who ennoble
their ancestors, and not the ancestors the children. And upon my word, that
is most sensible. We are greater poets, greater philosophers, greater orators,
greater architects, greater astronomers, greater geometers, than these good
people ; but they understand better than we the science of good sense and
virtue ; and if peradventure that science should happen to be the first of all
sciences, they would be right in saying that they have two eyes and we have
only one, and all the rest of the world is blind.'"
irAjf H'omm wrUf good Letters, "She writes admirably, really admirably.
That is because gtxxl style is in the heart ; and that is why so many women
talk and write like angels without ever having learnt either to talk or to write
and why so many pedants will loth talk and write ill all the days of their life,
though they were never weary of studying, only without learning." 3
* xviii. 476-S.
' xviii. 479,
'* For thirty
been watching
as puerile as

Comte writes more seriously somewhat in the same sense :

centuries the priestly castes of China, and still more of India, h
our Western transition ; to them it must appear mere agitation,
it is tempestuous, with nothing to harmonize its different phases,

but their common inroad upon unity." /V7jiyiW Polity, iv. 11. (English
3 xix. 233.


"A little adventure has just happened here that proves that all our fine
sermons on intolerance have as yet produced but poor fruit A young man of
respectable birth, some say apprentice to an apothecary, others to a grocer,
took it into his head to go through a course of chenlistry ; his master consente
on condition that he should pay for board ; the lad agreed. At the end of th
quarter the master demanded the money, and it was paid. Soon after, anothei
demand from the master ; the apprentice replied that he barely owed a single
quarter. The master denied that the first quarter had been paid. The affair
was taken into court The master is put on his oath, and swears. He had no
sooner perjured himself than the apprentice produced his receipt, and the
master was straightway fined and disgraced. He was a scoundrel who deserved
it, but the apprentice was a rash fellow, whose victory was bought at a price
dearer than life. He had received, in payment or otherwise, from some
colporteur, two copies of Christianity UmjtUed, and one of them he had sold to
his master. The master informs against him. The colporteur, his wife, and
his apprentice, are all three arrested, and they have just been pilloried,
whipped, and branded, and the apprentice condemned to nine years of the
galleys, the colporteur to five years, and the woman to the hospital for
life. . . . Do you see the meaning of this judgment ? A colporteur brings me
a prohibited book. If I buy more than one copy, I am declared to be
encouraging unlawful trading, and exposed to a frightful prosecution. &gt;v You
have read the Man with Forty Crowns ^^ and will hardly be able to guess why
it is placed under the ban in the judgment I am telling you of. It is in conse-

quence of the profound resentment that our lords and masters feel about a
certain article. Tyrant^ in the Philosophical Dictionary, They will never
forgive Voltaire for saying that it was better to have to do with a single wild
beast, which one could avoid, than with a band of little subaltern tigers who
are incessantly getting between your legs. ... To return to those two unfortunate wretches whom they have condemned to the galleys. When they come
out, what will become of them ? There will be nothing left for them to do,
save to turn highway robbers. The ignominious penalties, which take away all
resource from a man, are worse than the capital punishment that takes away his
Method and Genius : an Apologtie. ** There was a question between Grimm
and M. Le Roy of creative genius and co-ordinating method. Grimm detests
method ; according to him, it is the pedantry of letters. Those who can only
arrange, would do as well to remain idle ; those who can only get instruction
from what has been arranged, would do as well to remain ignorant. What
necessity is there for so many people knowing anything else besides their trade
They said a great many things that I don't report to you, and they would be
saying things still, if the Abbe Galiani had not interrupted them :
* My friends, I remember a fable : pray listen to it One day, in the depths
of a forest, a dispute arose between a Nightingale and a Cuckoo. Each prizes
its own gift What bird, said the Cuckoo, has a song s") easy, so simple, so
natural, so measured, as mine?
* Voltaire's Satire on the Economists. Oct 8, 1768 ; xix. 832


What bird, said the Nightingale, has a song sweeter, more Tsried, more
brilliant, more touching, than mine ?
Tht Cuckoo : I say few things, but they are things of weight, of order, and
j)eo|&gt;le retain them.
The Nightingale : I love to use my voice, but I am always fresh, and I never
weary. I enchant the woods ; the Cuckoo makes them dismaL He is so
Attached to the lessons of his mother, that he would not dare to venture a singl
note that he had not taken from her. Now for me, I recognise no master. I
laugh at rulen. What comparison between his pedantic method and my glorious
burnt* ?
The Cuckoo tried several times to interrupt the Nightingale. But nightingalcH always go on singing, and never listen ; that is rather their weakness.
Ourn, carried away by his ideas, followed them with rapidity, without pajdng
the lrat attention to the answers of his rivaL
No after komic talk and counter-talk, they agreed to
Jud^tiirnt of a third animal. But where were they to
foiiipelrnt an&lt;l impartial ? It is not so easy to
oil rvery nlde. Ah they crossed a meadow, they spied

refer their quarrel to the

find this diird, equally
find a good judge. They sou
an Ass, one of the gravest

aii'l inont Kolemii that ever was seen. Since the creation of the world, no ass
liiid cviT had Huch long ears. * Ah,' said the Cuckoo, 'our luck is excellent;
out i|iiuiirl in a matter of ears : here is our judge. God Almighty made him for
llicf vny |iurpo!i(* I '
Tha AiH wnil on browning. He little thought that one day he would have
|m ilfiiiU' II &lt;|iu-iition of music. But Providence amuses itself with this a
nd man/
miollii'i tiling. Our two birds bow very low, compliment him upon his
iJiMVlly mill \\W jtid^mrnt, explain the subject of their dispute, and beseech.
Iiliii, with all defciviicc, to llhtcn to their case and decide.
Itiil I lit* Am, hiirdly turning his heavy head and without losing a single
loMllimitiin llud(\ iimkcM them a sign with his ears t)iat he is hungry, and that
hit ilotm not hold lil court to-day. The birds persist ; the Ass goes
At Irt^l lii liiinijcr waN appeased. There were some trees planted by
\A lliM niciudiiw. Now, if you like,' said he, 'you go there, I will
yoii nlmll iilii^, 1 will digcMt ; I will listen, and 1*11 give you my

on browsing
the edge

'I'liii liiiiU liintontly lly away, and perch on branches. The Ass follows
ItiiMii Willi Ihr uir and the step of a chief justice crossing Westminster Hall:
Jiu iiii0(r|i(i liiiiiM^lf (lut on the ground, and says, 'Begin, the court listen
Nuy tlid Cui'koo : * My lord, there is not a word to lose. I beg of you to
Mui/ta larcfully the chaiacter of my singing ; above all things, deign, my lord,
to iiiiiik itn artifice and its method.' Then filling its throat, and flapping i
wlii|{ at eui'h note, it sang out, 'Coucou, coucou, coucou, coucou, coucou,
tiuu'ou,' And after having combined this in every possible way, it fell silent.
Tlifl Nightingale, without any prelude, pours forth his voice at once,
lauiichcN into the most daring modulations, pursues the freshest and most
delicate mehKlies, cadences, pauses, and trills ; now you heard the notes
murmuring at the bottom of its throat, like the ripple of the brook as it loses
itself among the pebbles ; now you heard them rising and gradually swelling
and filling the air, and lingering long-drawn in the skies. It was tender, glad,
brilliant, pathetic ; but his music was not made for everybody.


Carried away by enthusiasm, he would be singing still ; but the Ass, who
had already jrawned more than once, stopped him, and said, ' I suspect that
all you have been singing there is uncommonly fine, but I don't understand a
word of it : it strikes me as bizarre, incoherent, and confused. It may be you
are more scientific than your rival ; but he is more methodic than you, and
for my part, I'm for method.'
"And then the abbe, addressing M. Le Roy, and pointing to Grimm with
his finger: 'There,' he said, 'is the nightingale, and you the cuckoo ; and I
am the ass, who decide in your favour. Good-night*

"The abbe's stories are capital, but he acts in a way that makes them
better stilL You would have died with laughing to see him stretch his neck
into the air, and imitate the fine note of the nightingale, then fill his throat
and take up the hoarse tone for the cuckoo ; and all that naturally, and without
effort He is pantomime firom head to foot." *
Cottvrsaiion, "*Tis a singular thing, conversation, especially when the
company is tolerably large. Lx)ok at the roundabout circuits we took; the
dreams of a patient in delirium are not more incongruous. Still, just as there
is nothing absolutely unconnected in the head either of a man who dreams, or
of a limatic, so all hangs together in conversation; but it would often be
extremely hard to find the imperceptible links that have brought so many
disparate ideas together. A man lets fall a word which he detaches from what
has gone before, and what has followed in his head ; another does the same,
and then let him catch the thread who can. A single physical quality may
lead the mind that is engaged upon it to an infinity of different things. Take a
colour ^yellow, for instance ; gold is yellow, silk is yellow, care is yellow, b
ile is
yellow, straw is yellow ; to how many other threads does not this thread answer
Madness, dreaming, the rambling of conversation, all consist in passing from
one object to another, through the mediimi of some conmion quality." '
Annikilation. " The conversation took a serious turn. They spoke of the
horror that we all feel for annihilation.
** * Ah,* cried Father Hoop, * be good enough to leave me out, if you please.
I have been too uncomfortable the first time to have any wish to come back.
If they would give me an immortality of bliss for a single day of purgatory, I
would not take it The best that can befall us is to cease to be.'
"This set me musing, and it seemed to me that so long as I was in good
health I shoidd agree with Father Hoop ; but that, at the last instant, I should
perhaps purchase the happiness of living again by a thousand, nay, ten thousand,
years of hell. Ah, my dear, if I thought that I should see you again, I should
soon persuade myself of what a daughter once succeeded in persuading her father
om his deathbed. He was an old usurer ; a priest had sworn to him that he
would be damned unless he made restitution. He resolved to comply, and
calling his daughter to his bedside, said to her : ' My child, you thought I
should leave you very rich, and so I should ; but the man there insists that I
shall bum in hell-fire for ever, if I die without making restitution.' ' You are
xviii. 509. xviil 513.

. I, .. .

\'. ^ ' ! .. : 1 . . . .:i :"' - ih:i: :: ;&gt; P :il- : '

tiller f.niy .illow.-. of uiic ii.*ri-^:)n? Wliat, t
which, so far from resolving tlie one diiTK

imagined it, only makes an infinity of othcr^

** I believe, my dear, that our chat by l
go on.
** Among these difficulties is one that has
has been a world ; 'tis that men suffer without
has been no answer to it yet. 'Tis the incc
evil with the nature of the Eternal IJeing. T
is either impotence or bad will ; imj&gt;&lt;&gt;tence,
could not ; Ixid will, if he could have hindercc
would understand that. It is this that lias k
the first father of us all, original sin, future
incarnation, immortality, the two principles ol
and Ahriman of the Persians, the doctrine of &lt;
and darkness, metempsychosis, optimism, ar
found credit among the different nations of t
to be found some hollow vision of a dream, by &gt;
and definite fact.
" On such occasions what is the part of gt
we took : whatever the optimists may say, we
universe could not exist without sensible cv
without jMiin, there was nothing to do but to Ic
got on very well for a whole eternity without ar
*'The world a piece of folly ! Ah, my dea
'Tis, according to some of the inhabitants of &gt;
comedies with which the Eternal amuses himscl
1 1 "I^cibnitz, the fonn'' '*"


Almost every letter reminds us that we are in the very height
of the disputing, arguing, rationalistic century. Diderot delighted
in this kind of argument, as Socrates or Dr. Johnson delighted in
it He was above all others the archetype and representative
of the passion for moralising, analysing, and philosophizing which
made the epoch what it was ; but the rest of the world was all in
the same vein. If he came to Paris in a coach from the country,
he' found a young lady in it, eager to demonstrate that serious
passions are nowadays merely ridiculous ; that people only promise themselves pleasure, which they find or not, as the case
may be; that thus -they spare themselves all the broken oaths
of old days. " I took the liberty of saying that I was still a man
of those old days. * So much the worse for you, she said, ^ you
either deceive or are deceived^ and one is as bad as the other ^ "' If
Grimm and Madame d'Epinay and he were together, they discussed ethics from morning to night ; Diderot always on the
side of the view that made most for the dignity and worth of
human nature. Grimm is described on one of these occasions as
having rather displeased Madame d'Epinay : " he was not sufficiently ready to disapprove the remark of a man of our acquaintance, who said that it was right to observe the most scrupulous
probity with one's friends, but that it was mere dupery to treat
other people better than they would treat us. We maintained,
she and I, that it was right and necessary to be honest and good
with all the world without distinction.""

Here is another picture of discussion, with an introduction that

is thoroughly characteristic of Diderot's temper :
"This man looks at the human race only on its dark side. He does not
believe in virtuous actions ; he disparages them, and denies them. If he tells
a story, it is always about something scandalous and abominable. I have just
told you of the two women of my acquaintance, of whom he took occasion to
speak as ill as he could to Madame Le Gendre. They have their defects, no
doubt ; but they have also their good qualities. Why be silent about the good
qualities, and only pick out the defects ? There is in all that a kind of envy
that wounds me me who read men as I read authors, and who never burden
my memory except with things that arc good to know and good to imitate.
The conversation between Suard and Madame Le Gendre had been very
vivacious. They sought the reasons why persons of sensibility were so readily,
* xix. 244. * xviii. 459.

ii; -m;

ill ::; , ,v: ! t.v :. '\"l\'- : !&lt; !

;; ' ' 1 .a ; ;: -. .; ir.i'ii' , : !i--- : wc \\
i-&gt;'ii\!n ; \vt' pri&gt;iui&gt;c to otiiors our
uncommon or worthy jmccc of coniliu
views of interest, we have a notion &lt;
cannot resist, and which (lraj;s us alonj.
implies sacrifice ; and it is impossible
sacrifice" and so forth.*

Alas, all these endless debate

spiration and the charm with wl
adorn the narrowest quibble be
" Diderot," said Mademoiselle dc
man ; he is out of his place in soc
of a sect, a Greek philosopher, insl
greatly, but his manner does no
understand this. People disputed
failed in that undefined spirit whic
virtue. Goodness is surrounded
clothed Nnth none of the high ass(
The discussion seems close, stifli
loftier speech and greater spiritu:
favourable to the affections or to
amiability that society has never 1
mutual sympathy and kindliness of
I irregularity of morni&lt;

IC '


conditions. Others mistake it for the right of excessive criticism,
in season and out of season. Diderot was content to take friendship as the right, the duty, or the privilege of rendering services,
without thought of requiring either them, or gratitude for them,
back in return. This we must confess to be rare. No man that
ever lived showed more sterling interest in furthering the affairs of
others around him. He seemed to admit every claim on his time,
his purse, and his talents. A stranger called upon him one day,
and begged Diderot to write for him a puffing advertisement of a
new popiatum. Diderot with a laugh sat down and wrote what
was wanted. The graver occasions of life found him no less ready.
Damilaville lost one of his children, and his wife was inconsolable.
It was Diderot who was summoned, and who cheerfully went for
days together to soothe and divert her mind. For his correspondent and for us he makes the tedium of his story beautiful by
recalling the fine saying of a grief-stricken woman in Metastasio,
when they tried to console her by the example of Abraham, who
was ready even to slay his son at the command of God : Ah^
God would never have given such an order to his mother !
The abb^ Le Monnier wrote the worst verses that ever were
read, a play that was instantly damned, and a translation of
Terence that came into the world dead. But bad writers are
always the most shameless intruders on the time of good critics,
and we find Diderot willingly spending hours over the abba's
handwriting, which was as wretched as what he wrote, and then
spending hours more in offering critical observations on verses that
were only fit to be thrown into the fire. The abbe, being absent
from Paris and falling short of money, requested Diderot to sell
for him his copy of the Encyclopaedia. "I have sold your
Encyclopaedia," said Diderot, "but did not get so much as I
expected, for the rumour spread abroad by those scoundrels of
Swiss booksellers, that they were going to issue a revised edition,
has done us some harm. Send for the nine hundred and fifty
livres (about ^40) that belong to you, and if that is not enough
for your expenses, besides the drawer that holds your money is
another that holds mine. I don't know how much there is, but I
will count it all at your disposal.'' '
' Aug. I, 1769 ; xix. 365.

One Jodin, again, was a literary hack who had been employed
on the Encyclopaedia. He died, leaving a foolish and extravagant
widow, and a perverse and violent daughter. The latter went on
to the stage, and Diderot took as much trouble in advising her, in
seeking appointments for her, in executing her commissions, in
investing her earnings, in dealing with her relatives, as if he had
been her own father. If his counsels on her art are admirable,

there is something that movies us with more than admiration in the

good sense, the right feeling, the worthiness of his counsels on
conduct. And Diderot did not merely moralise at large. All that
he says is real, pointed, and apt for circumstance and person.
The petulant damsel to whom they were addressed would not be
likely to yawn over the sharp remonstrances, the vigorous plain
speaking, the downright honesty and visible sincerity of his friendliness. It appears that she had sense enough not to be offended
with the frankness of her father's old employer, for after he has
plainly told her that she is violent, rude, vain, and not always too
truthful, she still writes to him from Warsaw, from Dresden, from
Bordeaux, praying him to procure a certain bracelet for her, to
arrange her mother's affairs, to find a good investment for twelve
thousand francs. When the mother was in the depths of indigence,
Diderot insisted that she should take her meals at his own table.
And all this for no other reason than that the troublesome pair
had been thrown in his way by the chance of human circumstance,
and needed help which he was able, not without sacrifice, to give.
Mademoiselle Jodin was hardly worthy of so good a friend. Her
parents were Protestants, and as she was a convert, she enjoyed a
pension of some eight pounds a year. That did not prevent her
from one day indulging in some too sprightly sallies, as the host
was carried along the street. For this she was put into prison,
and that is our last glimpse of the light creature.'
Men knew how to be as ^vrong-headed and as graceless as
women. We have already mentioned the name of Landois in
connexion with Diderot's article on Liberty. Landois seems to
have been a marvel of unreasonableness, but he was a needy man
of letters, and that was enough to make Diderot ready to bear
with him and to succour him. He wound up an epistle abounding,
' (1765-69) xix. 381-412. Also, p. 318.


after the manner of the worthless failures of the world, in reproaches
and grievances against his benefactor, with a cool request about a
manuscript that was full of dangerous matter. "Why, that,"
replied Diderot, " is a work that might well be the ruin of me !
And it is after you have on two separate occasions charged me with
the most atrocious and deliberate offences towards you, that you
now propose that I should revise and print your work ! You
know that I have a wife and child, that I am a marked man, that
you are putting me into the class of hardened offenders ; never
mind, you don't think of one of these things. You take me
for an imbecile, or else you are one. But you are no imbecile. ... I see through men's designs, and often enough I lend
myself to them, without deigning to disabuse them as to the
stupidity which they impute to me. It is enough if I perceive in their design some great service for them, and not an
excess of inconvenience for myself. It is not I who am the fool,
so often as people take me for one." Diderot then seems half to
forget to whom he is writing and pours out what reads like a long
soliloquy on morals, conduct, and the philosophy of life. He
insists that man, with all his high-flying freedom of will, is but a
little link in a great chain of events. He is a creature to be
mo dified from with out ; hence the good effects of example, dis-

course, education,^Teasures, pains, greatness, misery. Hence a

sort of philosophy of commiseration, which attaches us strongly
to the good, and irritates us no more against the bad than against
a wind-storm that fills our eyes with dust. If you adopt such
principles as these, they will reconcile you with others and yourself ; you will neither praise nor blame yourself for what you are.
To reproach others with nothing, to repent yourself of nothing
these are the two first steps towards wisdom ; this is the philosophy
that reconciles us with the human race and with life.'
When he was in the very midst of all the toil and strife that
the Encyclopaedia brought upon him, he could not refuse to spend
three whole days in working Hke a galley-slave at an account of an
important discovery that had been made by some worthy people
with whom he was acquainted slightly. " But while I was busy
about their affairs, my own are at a stand-still I write to you
' June, 1756 ; xix. 433-36.

..... 1 1 \ 1 t ( . ILL 1 '. I

TIktu w.is (jnc in.'in, and only
and intractable spirit Diderot's most
and devotion, were no match. I 1
Rousseau/ said as much of the qi
Diderot as the matter requires, and i
over the ground again from another
Rousseau's story or to Diderot's st(
happened remains unchanged. We 1
and close an intimacy subsisted betwt
Diderot was a prisoner at Vincennes
made up his mind to leave Paris and tu
a loud outcry from the social group at
him, in the least theological dialect of t
Scott had said to Ballantyne when I^al
Edinburgh, that, " when our Saviour h
temptation, the first thing the Devil thoi
the wilderness." Diderot remonstratec
Rousseau's other friends, but there wa:
coolness. What sort of humours v
Rousseau's wayward mind we know, a
how for a year and a half he was sile
slights and perhaps real pieces of hcedl
Diderot's closest fri^'-^


letter to this effect : it made Rousseau furious. He declined the
urgent counsel, he quarrelled outright and violently with Grimm,
and after an angry and confusing interview with Diderot, all intercourse ceased with him also. " That man," wrote Diderot, on the
evening of this, their last interview, " intrudes into my work ; he
fills me with trouble, and I feel as if I were haunted by a damned
soul at my side. May I never see him more ; he would make me
believe in devils and hell."' And writing afterwards to some
friend at Geneva, he recalls the days when he used to pour out

the talk of intimacy " with the man who has buried himself at the
bottom of a wood, where his soul has been soured and his moral
nature has been corrupted. Yet how I pity him ! Imagine that
I used to love him, that I remember those old days of friendship,
and that I see him now with crime on one side and remorse on the
other, with deep waters in front of him. He will iliany a time be
the torment of my thought; our common friends have judged
between him and me ; I have kept them all, and to him there
remains not one." ' It was not in Diderot's nature to bear malice,
and when eight years later Rousseau passed through Paris on his
ill-starred way to England and the Derbyshire hills, Diderot
described the great pleasure that a visit from Rousseau would give
to him. "Ah, I do well/' he says, ** not to let the access to my
heart be too easy ; when anybody has once found a place in it, he
does not leave it without making a grievous rent ; 'tis a wound that
can never be thoroughly cauterised." '
It is needless to remind the neutral reader that Rousseau uses
exactly the same kind of language about his heart. For this is the
worst of sentimentalism, that it is so readily bent into a substitution of indulgence to oneself for upright and manly judgment
about others. Still we may willingly grant that in the present
rupture of a long friendship, it was not Diderot who was the real \
offender. Too many honest people would be in the wrongs he most J
truly said, if Jean Jacques were in the right ^
Of Grimm, I have already said elsewhere as much as is needful
to be said.* His judgment in matters of conduct and character
was cool and rather hard, but it was generally sound. He had a
* Dec 1757 5 xix. 446. 3 Dec. 20, 1765 ; xix. 21a
' xix. 449. * See Rousseau, ch. vii.

keen eye for what was hollow in the pretensions of the society in
which he lived. Above all, he had the keen eye of his countrymen for his own interests, and for the use which he could make of
other people. The best thing that we know in his favour, is that
he should have won the friendship of Diderot Diderot's attachment to Grimm seems like an exaggeration of the excesses of the
epoch of sentimentalism in Germany.
He pines for a letter from him, as he pined for letters from
Mademoiselle Voland. If Grimm had been absent for a few
months, their meeting was like a scene in a melodrama. " With
what ardour we enclasped one another. My heart was swimming.
I could not speak a word, nor could he. We embraced without
speaking, and I shed tears. We were not expecting him. We
were all at dessert when he was announced, ^Here is M, Grimm'
^ M, Grtmmy I exclaimed, with a loud cry; and starting up, I
ran to him and fell on his neck. He sat down, and ate a poor
meal, you may be sure. As for me, I could not open my lips
either to eat or to speak. He was next to me, and I kept pressing
his hand and gazing at him." * Mademoiselle Voland appears on
some occasion to have compared Diderot with his friend. " No
more comparison, I beseech you, my good friend, between Grimm

and me. I console myself for his superiority by frankly recognising

it. I am vain of the victory that I thus gain over my self-love,
and you must not deprive me of that little advantage." ' Grimm,
however, knew better than Diderot how to unite German sentimentalism with a steady selfishness. " I have just received from
Grimm," writes good-natured Diderot, " a note that wounds my
too sensitive spirit. I had promised to wTite him a few lines on
the exhibition of pictures in the Salon ; he writes to me that if it
is not ready to-morrow, it will be of no use. I will be revenged
for this kind of hardness, and in a way that becomes me. I
worked all day yesterday, and all day to-day. I shall pass the
night at work, and all to-morrow, and at nine o'clock he shall
receive a volume of manuscript." ^ We may doubt whether his
German friend would feel the force of a rebuke so extremely
convenient to himself.
* Oct. 9, 1759; xviii. 397. Nov. 6, 1760 ; xix. 17.
3 Sept 17, 1 761 ; xix. 47.


While Grimm was amusing himself at Madame D'Epinay's
country-house, Diderot was working at the literary correspondence
which Grimm was accustomed to send to St. Petersburg and the
courts of Germany. While Grimm was hunting pensions and
honorary titles at Saxe-Gotha, or currying favour with Frederick
and waiting for gold boxes at Potsdam, Diderot was labouring
like any journeyman in writing on his behalf accounts and reviews
of the books, good, bad, and indifferent, with which the Paris
market teemed When there were no new books to talk about,
the ingenious man, with the resource of the bom journalist, gave
extracts from books that did not exist.* When we hear of Paris
being the centre of European intelligence and literary activity, we
may understand that these circular letters of Grimm and Diderot
were the machinery by which the light of Paris was diffused among
darker lands. It is not too much to say that no contemporary
record so intelligent, so independent, so vigorous, so complete,
exists of any other remarkable literary epoch.
The abbe Raynal, of whom we shall hgve more to say in a
later chapter, had founded this counterpart of a modern review in
1747, and he sent a copy of it in manuscript once a month to anybody who cared to pay three hundred francs a year. In 1753
Raynal had handed the business over to Grimm, and by him it
was continued until 1790, twelve years beyond the life of Voltaire
and of Rousseau, and six years after the death of the ablest, most
original, and most ungrudging of all those who gave him their

An interesting episode in Diderot's life brought him into direct
relations with one of the two crowned patrons of the revolutionary
literature, who were philosophers in profession and the most
arbitrary of despots in their practice. Frederick the Great, whose
literary taste was wholly in the vein of the conventional French

classic, was neyer much interested by Diderot's writing, and felt

little curiosity about him. Catherine of Russia was sufficiently an
admirer of the Encyclopaedia to be willing to serve its muchenduring builder. In 1765, when the enterprise was in full course,
Diderot was moved by a provident anxiety about the future of his
daughter. He had no dower for her in case a suitor should
' Sept 17, 1769 ; xix, 320.

present himself, and he had but a scanty substance to leave h&lt;3 ^
in case of his own death. The income of the property which Im ^
inherited from his father was regularly handed to his wife for tli.^
maintenance of the household. His own earnings, as we have
seen, were of no considerable amount. There are men of letters^
he wrote in 1767, to whom their industry has brought as much as
twenty, thirty, eighty, or even a hundred thousand francs. As for
himself, he thought that perhaps the fruit of his literary occupations would come to about forty thousand crowns, or some five
thousand pounds sterling. ^ One could not amass wealth," he
said pensively, and his words are of grievous generality for the
literary tribe, " but one could acquire ease and comfort, if only
these sums were not spread over so many years, did not vanish
away as they were gathered in, and had not all been scattered and
spent by the time that years had multiplied, wants grown more
numerous, eyes grown dim, and mind become blunted and worn."'
This was his own case. His earnings were never thriftily husbanded. Diderot could not deny himself a book or an engraving
that struck his fancy, though he was quite willing to make a
present of it to any appreciative admirer the day after he had
bought it. He was extravagant in hiring a hackney-coach where
another person would have gone on foot, and not seldom the
coachman stood for half a day at the door, while the heedless
passenger was expatiating within upon truth, virtue, and the fine
arts, unconscious of the passing hours and the swollen reckoning.
Hence, when the time came, there were no savings. We have to
take a man with the defects of his qualities, and as Diderot would
not have been Diderot if he had taken time to save money, there
is no more to be said.
When it became his duty to provide for his daughter, between
1763 and 1765, he resolved to sell his library. Through Grimm,
Diderot's position reached the ears of the Empress of Russia.
Her agent was instructed to buy the library at the price fixed by
its possessor, and Diderot received sixteen thousand livres, a sura
equal to something more than seven hundred pounds sterling of
that day. The Empress added a handsome bounty to the bargain.
She requested Diderot to consider himself the custodian of the
Lettres sur U Commerce de la Librairie, xviii. 47.


new purchase on her behalf, and to receive a thousand livres a

year for his pains. The salary was paid for fifty years in advance,
and so Diderot drew at once what must have seemed to him the
royal sum of between two and three thousand pounds sterling a
figure that would have to be trebled, or perhaps quadrupled, to
convey its value in the money of our own day. We may wish
for the honour of letters that Diderot had been able to preserve
his independence. But pensions were the custom of the time.
Voltaire, though a man of solid wealth, did not disdain an allowance from Frederick the Great, and complained shrilly because it
was irregularly paid at the very time when he knew that Frederick
was so short of money that he was driven to melt his plate.
D'Alembert also had his pension from Berlin, and Grimm, as we
have seen, picked up unconsidered trifles in half of the northern
courts. Frederick offered an allowance to Rousseau, but that
strange man, in whom so much that was simple, touching, and
lofty, mingled with all that was wayward and perverse, declined to
tax the icing's strained finances. &gt;
It would shed an instructive light upon authorship and the
characters of famous men, if we could always know the relations
between a writer and his booksellers. Diderot's point of view in
considering the great modem enginery and processes of producing
and selling books, was invariably, like his practice, that of a man
of sound common sense and sterling integrity. We have seen in
the previous chapter something of the difficulties of the trade in
those days. The booksellers were a close guild of three hundred
and sixty members, and the printers were limited to thirty-six.
Their privileges brought them little fortune. They were of the
lowest credit and repute, and most of them were hardly better
than beggars. It was said that not a dozen out of the three
hundred and sixty could afford to have more than one coat for his
back. They were bound hand and foot by vexatious rules, and
their market was gradually spoiled by a band of men whom they
hated as interlopers, but whom the public had some reason to
bless. No bookseller nor printer could open an establishment
outside of the quarter of the University, or on the north side of
the bridges. The restriction, which was as old as the introduction
' See Rousseau^ ch. xi.
O \

of printing into France, had its origin in the days when the visits
of the royal inspectors to the presses and bookshops were constant
and rigorous, and it saved the time of the officials to have all their
business close to their hand. Inasmuch, however, as people
insisted on having books, and as they did not always choose to
be at the pains of making a long journey to the region of the
booksellers* shops, hawkers sprang into existence. Men bought
books or got them on credit from the booksellers, and carried
them in a bag over their shoulders to the houses of likely customers, just as a peddler now carries laces and calico, cheap silks
and trumpery jewellery, round the country villages. Even poor
women filled their aprons with a few books, took them across the
bridges, and knocked at people's doors. This would have been

well enough in the eyes of the guild, if the hawkers had been
content to buy from the legally patented booksellers. But they
began secretly to turn publishers in a small way on their own
account. Contraband was here, as always, the natural substitute
for free trade. They both issued pirated editions of their own,
and they became the great purchasers and distributors of the
pirated editions that came in vast bales from Switzerland, from
Holland, from the Pope's country of Avignon. To their craft or
courage the public owed its copies of works whose circulation was
forbidden by the government. The Persian Letters of Montesquieu
was a prohibited book, but, for all that, there were a hundred
editions of it before it had been published twenty years, and every
schoolboy could find a copy on the quays for a dozen halfpence.
Bayle's Thoughts on the Comet, Rousseau's Emilius and Heloisa,
Helvdtius's L'Esprit, and a thousand other forbidden pieces were
in every library, both public and private. The Social Contract,
printed over and over again in endless editions, was sold for a
shilling under the vestibule of the king's own palace. When the
police were in earnest, the hawker ran horrible risks, as we saw a
few pages further back ; for these risks he recompensed himself
by his prices. A prohibition by the authorities would send a book
up within four-and-twenty hours from half-a-crown to a couple of
louis. This only increased the public curiosity, quickened the
demand, led to clandestine reprints, and extended the circulation
of the book that was nominally suppressed. AVhen the condem-

nation of a l:)Ook was cried through the streets, the compositors
said, " Good, another edition!" There was no favour that an
unknown author could have asked from the magistrates so valuable
to him, as a little decree condemning his work to be torn up and
burnt at the foot of the great staircase of the Palace of Justice.'
It was this practical impossibility of suppression that interested
both the guild of publishers and the government in the conditions
of the book trade. The former were always harassed, often kept
poor, and sometimes ruined, by systematic piracy and the invasion
of their rights. The government, on the other hand, could not
help seeing that, as the books could not possibly be kept out of
the realm, it was to be regretted that their production conferred
no benefit on the manufacturing industry of the realm, the composition, the printing, the casting of type, the fabrication of paper,
the preparation of leather and vellum, the making of machines and
tools. When Bayle's Dictionary appeared, it was the rage of
Europe. Hundreds of the ever-renowned folios found their way
into France, and were paid for by French money. The booksellers
addressed the minister, and easily persuaded him of the difference,
according to the economic light of those days, between an
exchange of money against paper, compared with an exchange
of paper against paper. The minister replied that this was
true, but still that the gates of the kingdom would never be
opened to a single copy of Bayle. " The best thing to do," he
said, " is to print it here." And the third edition of Bayle was
printed in France, much to the contentment of the French printers,
binders, and booksellers.
In 1 76 1, the booksellers were afflicted by a new alarm.

Foreign pirates and domestic hawkers were doing them mischief

enough. But in that year the government struck a blow at the
very principle of literary property. The King's Council conferred
upon the descendants of La Fontaine the exclusive privilege of
publishing their ancestor's works. That is to say, the Council took
away without compensation from La Fontaine's publishers, a copyright for which they had paid in hard cash. The whole corporation
naturally rose in arms, and in due time the lieutenant of police
was obliged to take the whole matter into serious consideration ;
* Diderot's iMtre sttr le Commerce de la Librairie (1767). (Euv. xviii.

whether the maintenance of the guild of publishers was expedient ; whether the royal privilege of publishing a book should
be regarded as conferring a definite and unassailable right of property in the publication ; whether the tacit permission to publish
what it would have been thought unbecoming to authorise expressly by royal sanction, should not be granted liberally or
even universally ; and whether the old restriction of the booksellers to one quarter of the town ought to remain in force any
longer. M. de Sartine invited Diderot to write him a memorandum on the subject, and was disappointed to find Diderot
staunchly on the side of the booksellers (1767). He makes no
secret, indeed, that for his own part he would like to see the whole
apparatus of restraint abolished, but meanwhile he is strong for
doing all that a system of regulation, as opposed to a system of
freedom, can do to make the publication of books a source of
prosperity to the bookseller, and of cheap acquisition to the bookbuyer. Above all things, Diderot is vehemently in favour of the
recognition of literary property, and against such infringement of
it as had been ventured upon in the case of La Fontaine. He had
no reason to be especially friendly to booksellers, but for one thing,
he saw that to nullify or to tamper with copyright was in effect to
prevent an author from having any commodity to sell, and so to
do him the most serious injury possible. And for another thing,
Diderot had equity afid common sense enough to see that no
high-flown nonsense about the dignity of letters and the spiritual
power could touch the fact that a book is a piece of marketable
ware, and that the men who deal in such wares have as much
claim to be protected in their contracts, as those who deal in any
other wares.'
' Those who are interested in the history of authorship may care to know
the end of the matter. Copyright is no modem practice, and the perpetual
right of authors, or persons to whom they had ceded it, was recognised in
France through the whole of the seventeenth century and three-quarters of
the eighteenth. The perpetuity of the right had produced literary properties
of considerable value ; for example, Boudot's Dictionary was sold by his
executors for 24,000 livres ; Prevot's Manual Lexicon and two Dictionaries
for 115,000 livres. But in 1777 ten years after Diderot's plea the Council
decreed that copyright was a privilege and an exercise of the royal grace.
The motives for this reduction of an author's right from a transferable
property to a terminable privilege seem to have been, first, the general mania


There is a vivid illustration of this unexpected business-like
quality in Diderot, in a conversation that he once had with
D'Alembert The dialogue is interesting to those who happen to
be curious as to the characters of two famous men. It was in
1759, when D'Alembert was tired of the Encyclopaedia, and was
for making hard terms as the condition of his return to it. " If,"
said Diderot to him, " six months ago, when we met to deliberate
on the continuation of the work, you had then proposed these
terms, the booksellers would have closed with them on the spot,
but now, when they have the strongest reasons to be out of
humour with you, that is another thing."
"And pray, what reasons?'*
** Can you ask me ? "
"Then I will tell )rou. You have a bargain with the booksellers ; the
terms are stipulated ; you have nothing to ask beyond them. If you worked
harder than you were bound to do, that was out of your interest in the book,
out of friendship to me out of respect for yourself; people do not pay in money
for such motives as these. Still they sent you twenty louis a volume : that
makes a hundred and forty louis that you had beyond what was due to you.
You plan a journey to Wesel [in 1752, to meet Frederick of Prussia] at a time
when you were wanted by them here ; they do not detain you; on the contrar}',
you are short of money, and they supply you. You accept a couple of hundred
louis ; this debt you forget for two or three years. At the end of that rather
long term you bethink you of paying. Wliat do they do ? They hand you
bock your note of hand torn up, with all the air of being very glad to have
served you. Then, after all, you turn your back on an undertaking in which
they have embarked their whole fortunes : an affair of a couple of millions is a
trifle unworthy of the attention of a philosopher like you. . . . But that is
not alL You have a fancy for collecting together different pieces scattered
through the Encyclopaedia ; nothing can be more opposed to their interests ;
they put this to you, you insist, the edition is produced, they advance the cost
you share the profits. It seemed that, after having thus twice paid you for
their work, they had a right to look upon it as theirs. Yet you go in search of
a bookseller in some quite different direction, and sell him in a mass what does
not belong to you."
of the time for drawing up the threads of national life into the hands of the
administration, and second, the hope of making money by a tariff of permissions. The Constituent Assembly dealt with the subject with no intelligence nor care, but the Convention passed a law recognising in the author an
exclusive right for his life, and giving a property for ten years after his deat
to heirs or cessionaires. The whole history is elaborately set forth in the
collection of documents entitled La ProprUti littiraire au iS^me sitcU,
(Hachette, 1S59).


"They gave me a thousand grounds for dissatisfaction."

** Quelle difaite! There are no small things between friends. Everything
weighs, because friendship is a commerce of punty and delicacy ; but are the
booksellers your friends ? Then your behaviour to them is horrible. If not,
then you have nothing to say against them. If the public were called upon to
judge between you and them, my friend, you would be covered with shame.'*
** What, can it be you, Diderot, who thus take the side of the booksellers?"
** My grievances against them do not prevent me from seeing their grievances against you. After all this show of pride, confess now that you are
cutting a very sorry figure ? " '
All this was the language of good sense, and there is no
evidence that Diderot ever swerved from that fair and honourable
attitude in his own dealings with the booksellers. Yet he was
able to treat them with a sturdy spirit when they forgot themselves. Panckoucke, one of the great publishers of the time,
came to him one day. " He was swollen with the arrogance of a
parvenu, and thinking apparently that he could use me like one of
those poor devils who depend upon him for a crust of bread, he
permitted himself to fly into a passion ; but it did not succeed at
all. I let him go on as he pleased ; then I got up abruptly, I
took him by the arm, and I said to him : * M. Panckoucke, in
whatever place it may be, in the street, in church, in a bad house,
and to whomsoever it may be, it is always right to keep a civil
tongue in one's head. But that is all the more necessary still,
when you speak to a man who has as little patience as I have, and
that, too, in his own house. Go to the devil, you and your work.
If you would give me twenty thousand louis, and I could do your
business for you in the twinkling of an eye, I would not stir a finger.
Be kind enough to be off."'
Before returning from the author to his books, it is interesting
to know how he and his circle appeared at this period to some
who did not belong to them. Gibbon, for instance, visited Paris
in the spring of 1763. "The moment," he says, "was happily
chosen. At the close of a successful war the British name was
respected on the continent ; clarum et venerabiie nomen gentibus.
Our opinions, our fashions, even our games were adopted in
' Oct II, 1759; xviil 401. xix. 319-20.


Trance, a ray of national glory illuminated each individual, and
every Englishman was supposed to be born a patriot and
philosopher." He mentions D*Alembert and Diderot as those
among the men of letters whom he saw, who " held the foremost
rank in merit, or at least in fame."'
Horace Walpole was often in Paris, and often saw the philosophic circle, but it did not please his supercilious humour.
"There was no soul in Paris but philosophers, whom I wished in heaven,
though they do not wish themselves so. They are so overbearing and under-

bred. ... I sometimes go to Baron d'Holbach's, but I have left off his.
dinners, as there was no bearing the authors and philosophers and savants
of which he has a pigeon-house full. They soon turned my head with a system
of antediluvian deluges which they have invented to prove the eternity of
matter. ... In short, nonsense for nonsense, I liked the Jesuits better
than the philosophers."^
Hume, as everybody knows, found " the men of letters really
very agreeable ; all of them men of the world, living in entire, or
almost entire harmony, among themselves, and quite irreproachable
in their morals." He places Diderot among those whose person
and conversation he liked best
We have always heard much of the power of the Salon in the
eighteenth century, and it was no doubt a remarkable proof of the
incorporation of intellectual interests in manners, that so many
groups of men and women should have met habitually every week
for the purpose of conversing about the new books and new plays,.
the fresh principles and fresh ideas, that were produced by the
incessant vivacity of the time. The Salon of the eighteenth
century passed through various phases ; its character shifted
with the intellectual mood of the day, but in all its phases it
was an institution in which women occupied a place that they
have never acquired in any society out of France. We are not
here called upon to speculate as to the reasons for this ; it is only
worth remarking that Diderot was not commonly at his ease in
the society of ladies, and that though he was a visitor at Madame
Geoffrin's and at Mademoiselle Lespinasse's, yet he was not a:
* Afiscellaneoits H'orJb, p. 73.
' Walpole to Selwyn. 1765. Jesse's Sehvyut ii. 9. See also Walpole to
Mann, iv. 283.

Dni- of till.' soundest social c

I doubtedly Duclos. His Censidtr
Century, which was published in
criticism. He makes two remarks
chapter. " The relaitation of mo:
from being very loud in praise of 1
have least of them know very well 1
in other people having them," Ag
" are the only people among whom
depraved, without either the heart beii
being weakened."
&gt; D'^)iiuy, iL 4 ; 13;


There is at first something incredible in the account given by

some thinkers of Diderot, as the greatest genius of the eighteenth
century; and perhaps an adjustment of such nice degrees of
comparison among the high men of the world is at no time very
profitable. What is intended by these thoroughgoing panegyrists
is that Diderot placed himself at the point of view whence, more
comprehensively than was possible from any other, he discerned
the long course and the many bearings, the complex faces and the
large ramifications, of the huge movement of his day. He seized
the great transition at every point, and grasped all the threads
that were to be inwoven into the pattern of the new time.
Diderot is in a thousand respects one of the most unsatisfactory
of men and of writers. Yet it is hard to deny that to whatevej^
quarter he turned, he caught the rising illumination and was shoi^
upon by the spirit of the coming day. It was no copious and
overflowing radiance, but they were the beams of the dawn.
Hence, what he has to say, and we shall soon see how much he
said, about the two great arts of painting and the drama, though
it is fragmentary, though it is insufficient, yet points, as all the
rest of his thoughts pointed, along the lines that the best minds
of the western world have since traversed. He would, in the \
old metaphysical language, have called the direction of it a turning \
to Nature, but if we translate this into more positive terms, just
as we have said that the Encyclopaedia was a glorification of

... .,ui:v- irii'j th-it I )iacr. )1 and

.. u;i;iin&gt;'; (if ilic i&gt;r)U]iscil land
inor.il cr.L-r^v ol" the Lrencratioa afl
into the strong current of social ac
of dramatic a^t j)assed for nearly
Lessing and Goethe
There is in the use of a certain
inconvenience, that the reader may
Diderot a deliberate and systematic
of his time, and a calculated resol
way and now in that. It is not n
movement as a whole was always pr(
was constantly feeling for explanat
recipient. The drama excited this al
else excited it. He thought about tl
originally, that is to say, sincerely
Whoever turns with a clear eye and \
search of the real bearings of what
out the strong currents of the time,
consciously throw them into their
/ " Since Aristotle, said Lessing, no n
Diderot's has treated of the theatre.
Diderot's two plays, and the Ks^^-^^
repeatfHi" '- - '


77u Natural Son and The Father of the Family. Lessing had some
dramatic fire, invention, spontaneous elevation ; he had a certain
measure, though not a very large one, of poetic impulse. Diderot
had nothing of all these, but he had the eye of ib^ p^'^^'r^p^ir __
_critie -Anyone who reads Lessing's dramatic criticisms will see
that he did not at all overrate his obligations to his French contemporary.* It has been replied to the absurd taunt about the
French inventing nothing, that at least Descartes invented German
philosophy. Still more true is it that Diderot Invented German &gt;^
Diderot's thoughts on the stage, besides his completed plays,
and a number of fragmentary scenes, are contained principally in
the Paradox on the Player, a short treatise on Dramatic Poetry,
and three dialogues appended to The Natural Son, On the plays
a very few words will suffice. The Natural Son must, by me at
least, be pronounced one of the most vapid performances in
dramatic history. Even Lessing, unwilling as he was to say a
word against a writer who had taught him so much, is too good a
critic not to recognise monotony in the characters, stiffness and
affectation in the dialogue, and a pedantic ring in the sentences
of new-fangled philosophy." Even in the three critical dialogues
that Diderot added to the play, Lessing cannot help discerning
the mixture of superficiality with an almost pompous pretension.
Rosenkranz, it is true, finds the play rich in fine sentences, in
scenes full of effect, in which Diderot's moral enthusiasm expresses
itself with impetuous eloquence. But even he admits that the
hero's servant is not so far wrong when he cries, " // semble que le
hon sens se soil ^enftti de cette maison^^ and adds that the whole
atmosphere of the piece is sickly with conscious virtue.' For
ourselves we are ready for once even to sympathise with Palissot,
the hack-writer of the reactionary parties, when he says that The
Natural Son had neither invention, nor style, nor characters, nor
any other single unit of a truly dramatic work. The reader who
* Lessing : 1729-81. Diderot : 1713-84. As De Quincey puts it,
Lessing may be said to have begun his career precisely in the middle of the last
Hamburg, Dramaturgies % 85. Werke, vl 381. [Ed. 1873.]
3 Diderofs Lebcn, I 274, 277.

seeks to realise the nullity of the genre serieux in Diderot's hands^
should turn from TJie Natural Son to Goldoni's play of The True
Friend, from which Diderot borrowed the structure of his play,
following it as narrowly as possible to the end of the third act.
Seldom has transfusion turned a sparkling draught into anything
so flat and vapid. In spite of the applause of the philosophic
claque, led by Grimm,' posterity has ratified the coldness with
which it was received by contemporaries. The Natural Son was

written in 1757, but it was not until 1771 that the directors of the
French Comedy could be induced to place it on the stage. The
actors detested their task, and as we can very well believe, went
sulkily through parts which they had not even taken the trouble to
master." The public felt as little interest in the piece as the actors
had done, and after a single representation, the play was put aside.
Ill-natured critics compared Diderot's play with Rousseau's opera ;
they insisted that Tlu Natural Son and The Village Conjuror were
a couple of monuments of the presumptuous incompetence of
the encyclopaedic cabal. The failure of The Natural Son as a
drama came after it had enjoyed considerable success as a piece
of literature, for it had been fourteen years in print We can
only suppose that this success was the fruit of an unflinching
It is a curious illustration of the strength of the current passion
for moral maxims in season and out of season, that one scene
which to the scoffers of that day seemed, as it cannot but seem to
everybody to-day, a climax of absurdity and unbecomingness, was
hailed by the party as most admirable, for no other reason than
that it contained a number of high moralising saws. Constance, a
young widow and a model of reason, takes upon hers^f to combat
the resolution of Dorval not to marry, after he has led her to suppose that he has a passion for her, and after a marriage between
them has been arranged. "No," he cries, "a man of my character
is not such a husband as befits Constance." Constance begs him
to reassure himself; tells him that he is mistaken ; to enjoy tranquillity, a man must have the approval of his own heart, and
perhaps that of other men, and he can have neither unless he
* Corr. Lit, ii. 103. ' '
' See Grimm's account of the performance, Corr, Lit, vii. 313.


remains at his post ; it is only the wicked who can bear isolation ;
a tender soul cannot view the general system of sensible beings
without a strong desire that they should be happy. Dorval, who
cuts an extremely sorry figure in such a scene, exclaims, " Ah, but
children I Dorval would have children ! When I think that we
are thrown firom our very birth into a chaos of prejudices, extravagances, vices, and miseries, the idea makes me shudder ! "
"Dorval, you are beset by phantoms, and no wonder. The
history of life is so little known, while the appearance of evil in the
universe is so glaring. . . . Dorval, your daughters will be modest
and good ; your sons noble and high-minded ; all your children
will be charming. . . . There is no fear that a cruel soul should
ever grow in my bosom from stock of yours."*
We can hardly wonder that players were disgusted, or critics
moved to wicked jests. The counterpart to the scene in which
Constance persuades Dorval that they would be very happy in
one case, is the scene in which Dorval persuades Rosalie that
they would be very unhappy in another case. The situations in
themselves may command our approval morally, but they certainly
do not attract our sympathies dramatically. That a woman should
demonstrate to a man in fine sententious language the expediency

of marrying her, is not inconsistent with good sense, but it is

displeasing. When a man tells a woman that, though love draws
in one way, duty draws in the other, we may admire his prudence,
but we are glad when so delicate a business comes to an end.
In The Natural Son the latter scene, though very long, is the less
disagreeable of the two. And just as in Diderot^s most wordy
and'tireseme pages we generally find some one phrase, some
epithet, some turn of a sentence whose freshness or strength or
daring reveals a genius, so in this scene we find a few lines whose
energy reminds us that we are not after all in the hands of some
obscure playwright, whose works ought long ago to have been
eaten by moths or burnt by fire. Those lines are a warning
against the temptation so familiar in every age since Paris was
a guest in the halls of Menelaus, to take that fktal resolve, All for
love and the world well lost. " To do wrong," says Dor\'al, " is
to condemn ourselves to live and to find our pleasure with wrong' Act IV. sc. 3.

in stlf-oblivion, and our lit'c gl

in waste.'" A very old story, n
its place.
What adds to tlie flatness
Diderot introduced on a deliber:
the elaborate setting out of the
ment, every gesture, every silent
have the impression less of a yi.
romance. In the versified decl;
the French stage, nothing was lefl
told by change of position, by m
! short by any means other than c
the conventions of dramatic art, ai
saw that there are many scenes in
to the personages of the scene to
indeed motion is natural, and s
If this be so in real life, he said,
because nothing passes in the w
in the theatre ; and as pantomii
feeling, purpose, otherwise than b;
life, the dramatist should make a


him try the experiment of composing a play, and then writing
the pantomime, or "business," for it; he will soon see what
follies he commits.'
Whatever we may think of the practice of writing the action
as well as the words for the player, nobody would now dispute
the wisdom of what Diderot says as to the part that pantomime
fills in the highest kind of dramatic representation. We must
agree with his repeated laments over the indigence, for purposes
of full and adequate expression, of every language that ever has
existed or ever can exist' "My dear master," he wrote to
Voltaire on the occasion of a performance of Tancrtd^ "if you

could have seen Clairon passing across the stage, her knees
bending imder her, her eyes closed, her arms falling stiff by her
side as if they were dead ; if you heard the cry that she uttered
when she perceives Tancred, you would remain more convinced
than ever that silence and pantomime have sometimes a pathos
that all the resources of speech can never approach." ^ if we
wonder that he should have thought it worth while to lay so much
emphasis on what seems so obvious, we have to remember that it
did not seem at all obvious to people who were accustomed to
the substitution of a mannered and symmetrical declamation for
the energetic variety and manifold exuberance of passion and
judgment in the daily lives of men.
We have already seen that even when he wrote the Letter on
the Deaf and Dumb, Diderot's mind was exercised about gesture
as a supplement to discourse. In that Letter he had told a
curious story of a bizarre experiment that he was in the habit of
making at the theatre. He used to go to the highest seats in the
house, thrust his fingers into his ears, and then, to the astonishment of his neighbours, watch the performance with the sharpest
interest As a constant playgoer, he knew the words of the plays
by heart, and what he sought was to isolate the gesture of the
performers, and to enjoy and criticize that by itself. He kept his
ears tightly stopped, so long as the action and play went well with
the words as he remembered them, and he only listened when some
discord in gesture made him suppose that he had lost his place.
^ De la Poisie Dramatique^ ch. xxi. ' viu 107.
3 Nov. 28, 1760; xix. 457.

The people around him were more and more amazed as they saw
him, notwithstanding his stopped ears, shed copious tears in the
pathetic passages. "They could not refrain from hazarding
questions, to which I answered coldly, * that everybody had his
own way of listening, and that my way was to stop nly ears, so as
to understand better ' ^laughing within myself at the talk to whicli
my oddity gave rise, and still more so at the simplicity of some
young people who also put their fingers into their ears to hear after
my fashion, and were quite astonished that the plan did not succeed."* This was an odd and whimsical way of acting on a
conviction which lay deep in Diderof s mind, namely, that language
is a very poor, misleading, and utterly inadequate instrument for
representing what it professes, and what we stupidly suppose it, to
represent Rousseau had expressed the same kind of feeling when
\^he said that definitions might be good things, if only we did not
employ words in making them.
A curious circumstance is worth mentioning in connection
with the Three Dialogues appended to The Natural Son, Diderot
informs his readers that the incidents of T/ie Natural Son had
actually occurred in real life, and that he knew the personages.
In the Dialogues it is assumed that the play had been written by
the hero himself, and the hero is the chief speaker. Not a word
is said from which the reader would guess that Diderot had
borrowed the substance of his plot and some of its least

insipid scenes from Goldoni. We can hardly wonder that he was

charged with plagiarism. Yet it was not deliberate, we may be
sure. When Diderot was strongly seized by an idea, outer circumstances were as if they did not exist. He was swept up into the
clouds. " Diderot is a good and worthy man," wrote Madame
Geoffrin to the King of Poland, " but he has such a bad head,
and he is so curiously organized, that he neither sees nor hears
what he does see and hear, as the thing really is ; he is always
like a man who is dreaming, and who thinks all that he has
dreamed quite real." '
The Father of the Family, written in 1758, and first acted in
1761, is very superior to The Natural Son; it even enjoyed a
* Z^frg stir ies Sourds et Us Muets^ I 359.
Correspond, du Rot Stamslas-Augusic d dc Mdme. Geoffrin^ p. 466.


certain popularity. In Germany it became an established favourite,
and in Italy it was only less popular than a piece of Goldoni*s.
The French were not quite so easy to please. In 1761 its reception was undoubtedly favourable, and it ran for more than a week.
In 1769 it was reproduced, and, according to Diderofs own
account, with enthusiasm. "There was a frightful crowd," he
says, " and people hardly remember such a success. I was surprised at it myself. My friends are at the height of exultation.
My daughter came home intoxicated with wonder and delight."
Even Madame Diderot at length grew ashamed at having to confess that she had not seen her husband's triumph, and throwing
aside her horror of the stage, was as deeply moved as everyone
Notwithstanding this satisfactory degree of success, and though
it was performed as late as 1835, the play never struck root in
France. It is indeed a play without any real quality or distinction.
" Diderot, in his plays," said Madame de Stael, " put the affecta-t
tion of nature in the place of the affectation of convention." ' The
effect is still more disagreeable in the first kind of affectation than
the second. The Fat/ier of the Family is made more endurable
than The Natural Son by a certain rapidity and fire in the action,
and a certain vigour in the characters of the impetuous son (SaintAlbin) and the malignant brother-in-law (the Commander). But
the dialogue is poor, and the Father of the Family himself is as
woolly and mawkish a figure as is usually made out of benevolent
intentions and weak purpose combined. The woes of the heavy
father of the stage, where there is no true pathos, but only a
sentimental version of it, find us very callous. The language has
none of that exquisite grace and flexibility which makes a good
French comedy of our own day, a piece by Augier, Sandeau,
Feuillet, Sardou, so delightful. Diderot was right in urging that
there is no reason why a play should be in verse ; but then the
prose of a play ought to have a point, elegance, and highly-wrought
perfection, which shall fill us with a sense of art, though not the
art of the poet. Diderot not only did not write comedy in such
a style ; but he does not even so much as show consciousness that

' Aug. 1769, xix. 314-23.

Quoted in Mr. Sime's excellent Ufeof Lessing (Triibner &amp; Co. 1877), p. 230.

serious kind of tome cly as dis

neighbour to farce of this wt.
certainly ivrong in believing tt
of serious comedy without a s
Contrast of character, where ;
common, is not enough. AVe &lt;
of view. We seek orcasional ch
should move a sympathetic te
hard to find that it grudges i
Diderot's method is that the spi
that what he has before hiin sii
variety the flat monotony of a
hard to show that there is no
Terence's Ihxyra, for instance
what Leasing and most other ci
rightly stirred is one of the most
moral sympathies of the audie
most anxiously sought.
It is mere waste of time to bc!
two plays, or on the various sk
scenes with which he amnip'-' i-'



can fairly be paid to The Natural Son and The Father of the Family
Diderot's plays ought to be looked upon merely as sketchy ff
illustrations of a favourite theory ; as the rough drawings on the
black board with which a professor of the fine arts may accompany
a lecture on oil painting.
One radical part of Diderot's dramatic doctrine is wholly condemned by modern criticism ; and it is the part which his plays
were especially designed to enforce. **It is always," he says, ,
"virtue and virtuous people that a man ought to have in view 1
when he writes. Oh, what good would men gain, if all the arts of'
imitation proposed one common object, and were one day to unite
with the laws in making us love virtue and hate vice. It is for
the philosopher to address himself to the poet, the painter, the
musician, and to cry to them with all his might : O nien of

genius^ to what end has heaven endowed you with gifts ? If they
listen to him, speedily will the images of debauch cease to cover
the walls of our palaces ; our vices will cease to be the organs of
crime ; and taste and manners will gain. Can we believe that the ^
action of two old blind people, man and wife, as they sought one
another in their aged days, and with tears of tenderness clasped
one another's hands and exchanged caresses on the brink of the
grave, so to say that this would not demand the same talent, and
would not interest me far more than the spectacle of the violent
pleasures with which their senses in all the first freshness of youth
were once made drunk ? " *
The emphasizing moralists of Diderot's school never understood
that virtue may be made attractive, without pulling the reader or
the spectator by the sleeve, and urgently shouting in his ear how
attractive virtue is. When The Heart of Midlothian appeared
(18 1 8), a lady wrote about it as follows : "Of late days, especially
since it has been the fashion to write moral and even religious
novels, one might almost say of the wise good heroines what a
lively girl once said of her well-meaning aunt * On my word she
is enough to make anybody wicked.' Had this very story been
conducted by a common hand, Effie would have attracted all our
concern and sympathy, Jeanie only cold approbation. Whereas
Jeanie, without youth, beauty, genius, warm passions, or any other
' De la Poisie Dramatique^ % il. vii. 3x3.

novel perfection, is here our object from beginning to end. This
is * enlisting the affections in the cause of virtue * ten times more
than ever Richardson did ; for whose male and female pedants,
all excelling as they are, I never could care half as much as I
found myself inclined to do for Jeanie before I finished the first
volume." '
In other words, you must win us by kindling our sympathy,
not by formally commanding our moral approval. To kindle
sympathy your personage must be interesting; must touch our
pity or wonder or energetic fellow-feeling or sense of moral loveliness, which is a very different thing from touching our mere sense
of the distinctions between right and wrong. Direct homily excites
no sympathy with the homilist. Deep pensive meditations on the
moral puzzles of the world are not at all like didactic discourse.
But the Father of the Family was exactly fulfilling Diderot's notion
of dramatic purpose and utility when he talked to his daughter
in such a strain as this : " Marriage, my daughter, is a vocation
imposed by nature. . . . He who counts on bhss without alloy
knows neither the life of man nor the designs of heaven. If
marriage exposes us to cruel pain, it is also the source of the
sweetest pleasures. Where are the examples of pure and heartfelt
interest, of real tenderness, of inmost confidence, of daily help, of
griefs divided, of tears mingled, if they be not in marriage ? What
is there in the world that the good man prefers to his wife ? What is
there in the world that a father loves more dearly than his children ?
O sacred bond, if I think of thee, my whole soul is warmed and
elevated 1 "

But these virtuous ejaculations do not warm and elevate us.

In such a case words count for nothing. It is actual presentation
of beautiful character, and not talk about it, that touches the
spectator. It is the association of interesting action with character,
that moves us and inspires such better moods as may be within
our compass, Diderot, like many other people before and since,
sought to make the stage the great moral teacher. That it may
become so, is possible. It will not be by imitating the methods
of that colossal type of histrionic failure, the church-pulpit,
' Lockhart's Life of Scott, iv. 177 (Ed. 1837).
" P^re de Fa mi II fj act ii. sc ii. p. 211.


Exhortation in set speeches always has been, and always will be,
the feeblest bulwark against the boiling floods of passion that
helpless virtue ever invented, and it matters not at all whether the
hortatory speeches are placed on the lips of Mr. Talkative, the
son of Sa)nvell, or of some tearful dummy labelled the Father of
the Family.
Yet one is half ashamed to use hard words about Diderot. He
was so modest about his work, so simple and unpretending, so
wholly without restless and fretting ambitions, and so generous in
his judgment of others. He made his ow^n dramatic experiment,
he thought little enough of it; and he was wholly above the
hateful vice of sourly disparaging competitors, whether dead or
living. He knew that he was himself no master, but he was manly
enough to admire anybody who was nearer to mastery. He was
full of unaffected delight at Sedaine's busy and pleasing little
comedy. The Philosopher without knowing it \ it was so simple
without being stiff, so eloquent without the shadow of effort or
rhetoric. After seeing it, Diderot ran off to the author to
embrace him, with many tears of joyful sympathy and gratitude.
Sedaine, like Lillo, the author of Diderot's favourite play of George
Barnwell, was a plain tradesman, and the success of his libretti for
comic operas had not spoiled him. He could find no more expansive words for his excited admirer than *'^Ah, Monsieur Diderot,
que vous ites beau I" ' Diderot was just as sensible of the originality
and Aristophanic gaiety of Colly's brilliant play, Truth in Wine,
though Coll^ detested the philosophic school from Voltaire downwards, and left behind him a bitterly contemptuous account of The
Natural Son.^
Of all comic writers, however, the author of the Andria and
the Heautontimorumenos was Diderot's favourite. The half-dozen
pages upon Terence, which he threw off while the printer's boy
waited in the passage (1762), are one of the most easy, flowing
and delightful of his fragments; there is such appreciation of
Terence's suavity and tact, of his just and fine judgment, of his
discrimination and character. He admits that Terence had no
verve; for that he commends the young poet to Moli^re or
' xix. 474. * Paradoxc sur le Comedien, p. 383.
3 Journals, ii. 331. Also vi. 248 ; vii. 9.

vi&lt; c. .1;:': !('i:ilrs \\\'\ \i 'oiir : i

cr -IK*)' or ton\- that i&gt; wan:
unity in the drawing, that ])rcc
colourings which distinguish poi
are they wanting in the art of d
simple, and yet singular nioven
please and astonish, and render
picjuant." ' Criticism has really r
and if Diderot in his last years
T/ie Rivals^ he would have found
One P'nglish play had the 1
Diderot ; this was The Gamester, r
of Garrick, but of Edward Moore
of the bourgeois tragedy or domest
eager to see introduced on to the !
of Beverley, the tears and virtue c
of Charlotte and the sage devotion
remorse of Bates, and even the des
picture of domestic misery and
Diderot was sure to fall in love,
its direct and urgent moral, was
Diderot compared the scene bet
prison to the despair of the /V
hero is heard shrieVin^r --


Diderot's feeling for Shakespeare seems to have been what weV
might have anticipated from the whole cast of his temperament. \
One of the scenes which delighted him most was that moment of \
awe, when Lady Macbeth silently advances down the stage with \
her eyes closed, and imitates the action of washing her hands, as ^ 1
wondering that "the old man should have so much blood in him.'^
" I know nothing," he exclaims, " so pathetic in discourse as that 1
woman*s silence and the movement of her hands. What an image
of remorse !"*
It was not to be expected that Diderot should indulge in
those undiscriminating superlatives about Shakespeare which are
common in Shakespeare's country. But he knew enough about
him to feel that he was dealing with a giant. " I will not compare Shakespeare," he said, " to the Belvedere Apollo, nor to the
Gladiator, nor to Antinous " he had compared Terence to the
Medicean Venus " but to the Saint Christopher of Notre Dame,
an unshapely colossus, rudely carven, but between whose legs we
could all pass without our brows touching him."' Not very satisfactory recognition perhaps ; but the Saint Christopher is better
than Voltaire's drunken savage.
It is not every dramatist who treats the art of acting as
seriously as the art of composition. The great author of JVil/ielm
MeisUr is the most remarkable exception to this rule, and Lessing
is only second to him. It is hardly possible for a man to be a
great dramatist, and it is simply impossible for a man to be
a great critic of the drama, who has not seriously studied the
rules, aims, and conditions of stage representation. Hazlitt, for in-

stance, has written some admirable pages about the poetry, the
imaginative conception, the language, of Shakespeare's plays, but
we find his limit when he says that King Lear is so noble a play
that he cannot bear to see it acted. As if a play could be fully
judged without reference to the conditions of the very object with
which it was written. A play is to be criticized as a play, not
merely as a poem. The whole structure of a piece depends on
* iMtre sur Us Satirds et les Mucts^ i. 355.
' Paradoxe^ viiL 384. The criticism on the detestable rendering of Hamlet"
by Ducis (viil. 471) makes one doubt whether Diderot knew much about

the fact that it is to be acted ; its striking moments must be
great dramatic, not merely beautiful poetic, moments. They must
have the intensity of pitch by which the effect of action exceeds
the effect of narrative. This intensity is made almost infinitely
variable with the variations in the actor's mastery of his art.
Diderot, who threw so penetrating a glance into every subject
that he touched, even if it were no more than a glance, has left a
\ number of excellent remarks on histrionics. The key to them
\ all is his everlasting watchword : Watch nature^ follow her simpU
and spontaneous leading. The Paradox on the Player is one of
the very few of Diderot's pieces of which we can say that, besides
containing vigorous thought, it has real finish in point of literary
form. There is not the flat tone, the heavy stroke, the loose
shamble, that give a certain stamp of commonness to so many
of his most elaborate discussions. In the Paradox the thoughts
seem to fall with rapidity and precision into their right places ;
they are direct ; they are not overloaded with qualifications ; their
clear delivery is not choked by a throng of asides and casual
ejaculations. Usually Diderot writes as if he were loath to let the
sentence go, and to allow the paragraph to come to an end. Here
he lays down his proposition, and without rambling passes on to the
next. The effort is not kept up quite to the close, for the last halfdozen pages have the ordinary clumsy mannerism of their author.
What is the Paradox ? That a player of the first rank must
have much judgment, self-possession, and penetration, but no
sensibility. An actor with nothing but sense and judgment is apt
to be cold ; but an actor with nothing but verve and sensibility is
crazy. It is a certain temperament of good sense and warmth
combined, that makes the sublime player.' ^Vhy should he differ
from the poet, the painter, the orator, the musician ? It is not
in the fury of the first impulse that characteristic strokes occur to
any of these men ; it is in moments when they are tranquil and
cool, and such strokes come by an unexpected inspiration.* It is
' Letter to Mdlle. Jodin, xix. 387.
= Johnson one day said to John Kemble : "Are you, sir, one of those
enthusiasts who believe yourself transformed into the very character you
represent ?" Kemble answered that he had never felt so strong a persuasion
himself. Bonvdl^ ch. 77.


for coolness to temper the delirium of enthusiasm. It is not the
violent man who is beside himself, that disposes of us ; that is
an advantage reserved for the man who possesses himself. The
great poets, the great actors, and perhaps generally all the great
imitators of nature, whatever they may be, are gifted with a fine
imagination, a great judgment, a subtle tact, a sure taste, but they
are creatures of the smallest sensibility. They are equally well
fitted for too many things ; they are too busy in looking, in
recognising, and in imitating, to be violently affected within themselves. Sensibility is hardly the quality of a great genius. He
will have justice ; but he will practise it without reaping all the
sweetness of it. It is not his heart, but his head, that does it all.
Well, then, what I insist upon, says Diderot, is that it is extreme
sensibility that makes mediocre actors ; it is mediocre sensibility
that makes bad actors ; and it is the absolute want of sensibility
that prepares actors who shall be sublime.*
This is worked out with great clearness and decision, and some
of the illustrations to which he resorts to lighten the dialogue are
amusing enough. Perhaps the most interesting to us English is
his account of Garrick, whose acquaintance he made towards the
year 1765. He says that he saw Garrick pass his head between
two folding doors, and in the space of a few seconds, his face went
successively from mad joy to moderate joy, from that to tranquillity, from tranquillity to surprise, from surprise to astonishment,
from astonishment to gloom, from gloom to utter dejection, from
dejection to fear, from fear to horror, from horror to despair, and
then reascend from this lowest degree to the point whence he had
started.' Of course his soul felt none of these emotions. " If you
* Lessing makes this a starting-point of his criticism of the art of acting,
though he uses it less absolutely than Diderot would do. Hamburg. Dramaturgie, 3, vol. vu 19.
' In Lichtenberg's B riffs aus Etiglattd (1776) there is a criticism of the most
admirably intelligent kind on Garrick. Lord I^ytton gave an account of it to
Knglish readers in the Fortnightly Revieiv (February, 1871). The following
passage confirms what Diderot says above :
"You have doubtless heard much of his extraordinary power of change of
face. Here is one example of it. When he played the part of Sir John Brute,
I was close to the stage, and could observe him narrowly. He entered with
the comers of his mouth so turned down, as to give to his whole countenance
the expression of habitual sottishness and debauchery. And this artificial form

. _ , . . . 1 1 1 . ' ; . i r.
( f L.M Lliciil ()l)^crv:itii)n&gt; \vhi&lt; h &gt;]
As, for cxami)lc, in answering th
tlie stage ? Is it to show things

By no means. The true in that so

The really true is the conformity
voice, movement, gesture, with an
poet, and often exaggerated by i\
that this model influences not c
carriage and gaitA Again, what is th
. To establish a Glance among the (
The supreme excellence of one acto:
the mediocrity of the others, which
riority into disagreeable prominence,
imitate than movement, but movcmi
violently. Hence a law to which th
under pain of being cold, to make yo
not a narrative.''
One of the strongest satires on
Diderot found in the need that the a
fewer gestures, he said, the bettor ; fi
energy and destroys nobleness. It
of the mouth he rctainrrl iir.~i


it is the whole body that ought to move, and not the amis.^
There is no maxim more forgotten by poets than that which says
' that great passions are mute. It depends on the player to produce
a greater effect by silence, than the poet can produce by all his
fine speeches.' Above all, the player is to study tranquil scenes,
for it is these that are the most truly difficult.1 He commends a
young actress to play every morning, by way of orisons, the
scene of Athalie with Joas ; to say for evensong some scenes of
Agrippina with Nero ; and for Benedicite the first scene of Phaedra
with her confidante. Especially there is to be little emphasis a
warning grievously needed by ninety-nine English speakers out of
a hundred ^for emphasis is hardly ever natural; it is only a forced
imitation of nature.'
Diderot had perceived very early that the complacency with
which his countrymen regarded the national theatre was extravagant. He would not allow a comparison between the conventional classic of the French stage, and the works of the . Greek
stage. He insisted in the case of the Greeks that their subjects
are noble, well chosen, and interesting ; that the action seems to
develope itself spontaneously ; that their dialogue is simple and
very close to what is natural; that the denouements are not forced ;'
that the interest is not divided nor the action overloaded with episodes. In the French classic he found none of these merits. He
foimd none of that truth which is the only secret of pleasing and
touching us ; none of that simple and natural movement which is
the only path to perfect and unbroken illusion. The dialogue is
all emphasis, wit, glitter ; all a thousand leagues away from nature.
Instead of artificially giving to their characters esprit at every point,
poets ought to place them in such situations as will give it to them.
Where in the world did men and women ever speak as we declaim?
* As Hamlet to his players : **Nor do not saw the air too much with your
hand thus ; but use all gently ; for in the very torrent, tempest, and (as I may

say) the whirlwind of passion, you must acquire and beget a temperance that
may give it smoothness."
' To Jodin, xix. 382. "Point de hoquets, point de cris, de la dignity vraie,
un jeu ferme, sense, raisonne, juste, male ; la plus grande sobriete de gestcs.
C'est de la contenance, c'est du maintien, qu'il faut declamer les trois quarts
du temps." Page 390.
3 Page 395.

vcrsiiitatiiui wliich was so ivlII

Huantity and marked accent, to v.
that liad an instrumental a ceo ni pan,
up simplicily of plot and dialo:;uc, i
Molte nearly fifty years before lia
drama. He had inveighed against t
logues, against the device of conlld;
assault, in which he had the jioiverfi
of that l&gt;attle between Moderns ar.
literary activity ol the century h:id o]
of the tragedies of Voltaire had resto.
tional drama, though Voltaire infused
under the severity of the old forms.
even less like Sophocles and Kiiripide:
Jpkigenie. Voltaire intended to const
an independent form. He ex])eitod
like Sophocles, and he did not absta
railing against Euripides. The Creel
much of the tone of the fair to satisfy
and colloquial tor a taste that hac
the court-pieces ol liCwis xiv. Didcn
deiilonlii" '"


ment save one purely literary, artificial, and barren. He insists
on the hopelessness of the stage, unless men prepared themselves
at every part for a grand return to nature. We have seen what is
his counsel to the actor. He preaches in the same key to the
scene-painter and the maker of costumes. Scene-painting ought
to be more rigorously true than any other kind of picture. Let
there be no distraction, no extraneous suggestion, to interfere with
the impression intended by the poet. Have you a salon to repre^
sent ? Let it be that of a man of taste and no more : no
ostentation and no gilding, unless the situation expressly demands
the contrary.
In the dresses the same rule holds good. Under robes that
are overladen with gold lace, I only see a rich man ; what I want ^
to see is a man. Pretty and simple draperies of severe tints are
what we need,^t a mass of tinsel and embroidery. " A coura-
geous actress has just got rid of her panier, and nobody has found
her any the worse for it Ah, if she only dared one day to show'
herself On the stage with all the nobility and simplicity of adjustment that her characters demand ; nay, in the disorder into which

she would be thrown by an event so terrible as the death of a&lt;

husband, the loss of a son, and the other catastrophes of the tragic
stage, what would become, round her dishevelled figure, of all
those powdered, curled, frizzled, tricked-out creatures? Sooner
or later they must put themselves in imison. O nature, nature I
We can never resist her."*
From all this we turn, for a few moments only, and not ioo
cheerfully, to the Serbonian bog of dramatic rules and the metaphysics of the theatre. There is no subject in literature, not even
the interpretation of the Apocalypse, which has given birth to such
pedantic, dismal, and futile discussion. The immense controversy,
carried on in books, pamphlets, sheets and flying articles, mostly
German, as to what it was that Aristotle really meant by the
famous words in the sixth chapter of the Poetics^ about tragedy
accomplishing the purification of our moods of pity and sympathetic fear, is one of the disgraces of human intelligence, a
grotesque monument of sterility. The great tap-root of fallacy
has been and remains the incessant imputation of ethical or social
' Poisie DramoUiqw^ 20,^21.

purpose to the dramatist, and the demand of direct and combined
ethical or social effect from the drama. There is no critic, from
the great Aristotle downwards, who has steered quite clear of these
evil shallows ; Diderot, as we have seen, least of all. But Diderot
disarms the impatience which narrower critics kindle, by this
magnificent concession, coming at the close of all : " Especially
rHi remember that then is no general principle ; I do not know a single
one of those that I have indicated, which a man of genius cannot
infringe with success."' Here we listen to the voice of the genuine
Diderot ; and if this be granted, we need not give more than a
passing attention to the rules that have gone before about the
danger of borrowing in the same composition the shades both of
the comic and of the tragic styles ; about movement being injurious
to dignity, and of the importance therefore of not making the
principal personage the machinist of the piece ; about the inexpediency of episodic personages ^and so forth. The only remark
worth making on these propositions is thal^hatever their value
may be, Diderot at any rate, like a true philosopher, generalised
from the facts of nature and art. He did not follow the too
common critical method of reading one's own ideas into a work of
art, and then taking them back again in the more imposing form
of inevitable deductions from the work itself.
What Diderot conceived himself really to have done, was to
. have sketched and constituted a new species in the great dramatic
kingdom. Every one knows, he said, that there is tragedy and
that there is comedy, but we have to learn that there is room in
nature and the art of the stage for a third division, namely, the
genre serieux, a kind of comedy that has. for its obiect_yirtue.and
Ihe duties of man. "VVhy should the writer of comedy confine his

work to what is \dcious or ridiculous in men ? Why should not

the duties of men furnish the dramatist with as ample material as
their vices ? Surely in the genre honnite et skrieux the subject is as
important as in gay comedy. The characters are as varied and as
original. The passions are all the more energetic as the interest
will be greater. The style will be graver, loftier, more forcible,
more susceptible of what we call sentiment, a quality without
which no style ever yet spoke to the heart. The ridiculous will
I T*'*** JuUretiettt yii. 138.


not be absent, for the madness of actions and speeches, when they
are suggested by the misunderstanding of interests or by the transport of passion, is the truly ridiculous thing in men and in life. *
Besides his own two pieces, Diderot would probably have
pointed to Terence as the author coming nearest to the genre
strieux. If Goethe's bad play of Stella had retained the close as
he originally wrote it, with the bigamous Fernando in the last
scene rejoicing over the devoted agreement of the two ladies and
his daughter to live with him in happy unity, that would perhaps
have been a comedy of the genre shiaix, with the duties of man
gracefully adapted to circumstances.
The theory of the genre skrieux has not led to the formation of
any school of writers adopting it and working it out, or to the production of any masterpiece that has held its ground, as has
happened in tragedy, comedy, and farce. Beaumarchais, who at
last achieved such a dazzling and portentous success by one
dramatic masterpiece, began his career as a playwright by following
the vein of The Father of the Family ; but The Marriage of Figaro,
though not without strong traces of Diderotian sentiment in pungent application, yet is in its structure and composition less French
than Spanish. It is quite true, as Rosenkranz says, that the prevailing taste on the French stage in our own times favours above
all else bourgeois romantic comedy, written in prose." But the
strength of the romantic element in them would have been a$ little
satisfactory to Diderot's love of realistic moralising, as the conventional tragedy of the court of Lewis xiv. The Fable of most
of them turns on adultery, and this is not within the method of the
genre skrieux as expounded by Diderot Perhaps half-a-dozen
comedies, such for instance as The Ideas of Madame Aubray, by
M. Dumas, are of the genre skrieux^ but certainly there are not
enough of such comedies to constitute a genuine Diderotian
school in France. There is no need therefore to say more about
the theory than this, namely, that though the drama is an imitative
art, yet besides imitation its effects demand illusion. "What, cries
Diderot, you do not conceive the effect that would be produced
on you by a real scene, with real dresses, with speech in true
Pois, Dram. 2. The Poetics of the Genre Skrieux are to be found, vii,
137-8. I. 316.


proportion to the action, with the actions themselves simple, with

the very dangers that have made you tremble for your parents,
for your friends, for yourselves ? No, we answer : reproduction of
reality does not move us as a powerful work of imagination moves
us. " We may as well urge," said Burke, " that stones, sand, clay,
and metals lie in a certain manner in the earth, as a reason for
building with these materials and in that manner, as for writing
according to the accidental disposition of characters in Nature."'
Common dangers do not excite us ; it is the presentation of
danger in some uncommon form, in some new combination, in
some fresh play of motive and passion, that quickens that Sjrmpathetic fear and pity which it is the end of a play to produce.
And if this be so, there is another thing to be said. If we are to
be deliberately steeped in the atmosphere of Duty, illusion is out
of place. The constant presence of that severe and overpowering
figure, " Stem Daughter of the Voice of God," checks the native
wildness of imagination, restricts the exuberance of fancy, and sets
a rigorous limit to invention. Diderot used to admit that the
I genre serietix could never take its right place, until it had been
^ handled by a man of high dramatic genius. The cause why this
condition has never come to pass, is simply that its whole structure
and its regulations repel the faculties of dramatic genius.
Besides the perfection of the genre shieux^ Diderot insisted that
. the following tasks were also to be achieved before the stage could
be said to have attained the full glory of the other arts. Ogt^a
domestic or bourgeois tragedy must be created. S econd^ the conditions of men, their callings and situations, the types of classes,
in short, must be substituted for mere individual characters.
Thirds a real tragedy must be introduced upon the lyric theatre.
y^'np^^yi the dance must be brought within the forms of a true
The only remark to be made upon this scheme touches the
second article of it. To urge the substitution of types of classes
for individual character was the very surest means that could have
been devised for bringing back the conventional forms of the
pseudo-classic drama. The very mark of that drama was that it
introduced types instead of vigorously stamped personalities.
^ Hints for an Essay on the Drama, p. 155.

What would T)e gained by driving the typical king off the stage,
only to make room for the generalization of a shopkeeper ? This
was not the path that led to romanticism, to Andr^ Chenier, to
De Vigny, to Lamartine, to Victor Hugo. Theophile Gautier has
told us that the fiery chiefs of the romantic school who suddenly
conquered France at the close of the Restoration, divided the
whole world into flamboyant and drab. In the literature of the
past, they counted Voltaire one of the Drab, and Diderot a
Flamboyant.* If it be not too presumptuous in a foreigner to
dissent, we cannot but think that they were mistaken. Nothing
could be further removed at every part from Diderot's dramatic
scheme, than Faust or Gotz von Berlichingcn or Hernani.

The truth is that it was impossible for an effective antagonism

to the classic school to rise in the mind of an Encyclopaedist, for
the reason that the Encyclopaedists hated and ignored what they
called the Dark Ages. Yet it was exactly the Dark Ages from
which the great romantic revival drew its very life-breath. " In
the eighteenth century," it has been said, " it was really the reminiscence of the classic spirit which was awakened in the newer
life of Europe, and made prominent."' This is true in a certain
historic sense of Rousseau's politics, and perhaps of Voltaire's
rationalism. In spite of the vein of mysticism which occasionally
shows in him, it is true in some degree of Diderot himself, if by
classicism we mean the tendency to make man the centre of the \ '
universe. Classicism treats man as worthy and great, living his
life among cold and neutral forces. This is the very opposite of
the sinfulness, imperfection and nothingness habitually imputed
to man, and the hourly presence of a whole hierarchy of busy
supernatural agents placed about man by the Middle Ages. Yet
we cannot but see that Diderot was feeling for dramatic forms ^
and subjects, that would have been as little classic as romantic.
He failed in the search. There is one play and only one of his
epoch, that is not classic, and is not romantic, but speaks independently the truest and best mind of the eighteenth century itself, i
in its own form and language. That play is Nathan the Wise.
* Hist, du Romantisme, p. 93.
Der Gfffmsatz des Classischen und des RomarUischen^ etc. By Conrad
Hermann, p. 66.

In hypochondriacal moments, it has been said, the world, viewed
from the aesthetic side, appears to many a one a cabinet of
caricatures ; from the intellectual side, a mad-house ; and from the
moral side, a harbouring place for rascals.' We might perhaps
extend this saying beyond the accidents of hypochondriasis, and
urge that the few wide, profound, and real observers of hiunan
life have all known, and known often, this fantastic consciousness
of living in a strange distorted universe of lunatics^ knaves,
grotesques. It is an inevitable mood to any who dare to shake
the kaleidoscopic fragments out of their conventional and accepted
combination. Who does not remember deep traces of such a mood
in Plato, Shakespeare, Pascal, Goethe ? And Diderot, who went
near to having something ot the deep quality of those sovereign
spirits, did not escape, any more than they, the visitation of the
misanthropic spectre. The distinction of the greater minds is that
they have no temptation to give the spectre a permanent home
with them, as is done by theologians in order to prove the necessity
of grace and another world, or by c)mics in order to prove the
wisdom of selfishness in this world. The greater minds accept the
worse facts of character for what they are worth, and bring them
into a right perspective with the better facte. They have no expectaticm of escaping all perplexities, nor of hitting on answers to

all the moral riddles of the world. Yet are they ever drawn by an
^ Schopenhauer, Etkik^ 199.


invincible fascination to the feet of the mighty Sphinx of society.
She bewilders them with questions that are never overheard by
common ears, and torments them with a mockery that is unobserved by common eyes. The energetic a Socrates, a Diderot
cannot content themselves with merely recording her everlasting
puzzles j still less with merely writing over again the already
recorded answers. They insist on scrutinising the moral world
afresh ; they resolve the magniloquent vocabulary of abstract
ethics into the small realities from which it has come ; they break
the complacent repose of opinion and usage by a graphic irony.
" The definitions of moral beings," said Diderot, " are always made
from what such beings ought to be, and never from what they are.
People incessantly confound duty with the thing as it is." ' We
shall proceed to give a short account of one or two dialogues in
which he endeavours to keep clear of this confusion.
By far the most important of these is Rameaiis Nephew. The
fortunes of this singular production are probably unique in literary
history. In the year 1804* Schiller handed to Goethe the manu-.
script of a piece by Diderot, with the wish that he might find
himself able to translate it into German. " As I had long," says
Goethe, ''cherished a great regard for this author, I cheerfully
undertook the task, after looking through the original. People
can see, I hope, that I threw my whole soul into it." ' When he
had done his work, he returned the manuscript to Schiller.
Schiller died almost immediately (May, 1805), and the mysterious
manuscript disappeared. Goethe could never learn either whence
it had come, or whither it went He always suspected that the
autograph original had been sent to the Empress Catherine at
St Petersburg, and that Schiller's manuscript was a copy from that.
Though Goethe had executed his translation, as he says, "not
merely with readiness but even with passion," the violent and only
too just hatred then prevailing in Germany for France and for all
that belonged to France, hindered any vogue which Rameau^s
Nephew might othenvise have had. On the eve of Austerlitz and
of Jena there might well be little humour for a satire from the
Thirteen years afterwards an edition of Diderot's works
^ (EuvreSf iv. 29. ' Werke, xxv. 291.


. V,.:


author's own cvls, and lliis may

it must, from souio of ilif rcft-rLT
The two young men wlio had trii
from Goethe as Diderot's own t
accuse Brit-re and Diderot's dau:;.
A vivacious dispute followed tittv,
his impudent detractors. At leny
Jove of Weimar. CiOt'Jiu o\jirt;s;
text was the genuine tL'xl of tlie
settle the question. \"ot Goulhe's
with the copy handed to him Iiy
evidence. He admits that he execu
and had no time to compare it
identification nearly twenty years af
and minute references, in a work tl
in his hands, cannot be counted tes
have thus the extraordinary circum
of years, down almost to the prcst
masterpiece of a famous man wl
rested on a single manusctijit, and
authentiritv '


subject or object of Diderot's singular " farce-tragedy." One declares it to be merely a satirical picture of contemporary manners.
Another insists that it is meant to be an ironical reductio ad
absurdum of the theory of self-interest, by exhibiting a concretCL,,.^
example of its working in all its grossness. A third holds that it
was composed by way of rejoinder to Palissot's comedy {Les Philosophes\ 1760, which had brought the chiefs of the rationalistic
school upon the stage, and presented them as enemies of the
human race. A fourth suspects that the personal and dramatic
portions are no more than a setting for the discussion of the comparative merits of the French and Italian schools of music. The
true answer is th at the di alogue is all of these things, because it is
none of them, tft is neither more nor less than the living picture
and account of an original, drawn by a man of genius who was
accustomed to observe human nature and society with a free
unblinking vision, and to meditate upon them deeply and searchingly. / Diderot goes to work with Rameau in some sort and to a
certain extent as Shakespeare went to work with Falstaff. \ He is
the artist, reproducing with the variety and perfection of art a
whimsical figure that struck his fancy and stirred the creative
impulse. Ethics, aesthetics, manners, satire, are all indeed to be
found in the dialogue, but they are only there as incident to the
central figure of the sketch, the prodigy of parasites. Diderot had
no special fondness for these originals. Yet he had a keen and
just sense of their interest " Their character stands out from the
rest of the world, it breaks that tiresome uniformity which our
bringing up, our social conventions, and our arbitrary fashions
have introduced. If one of them makes his appearance in a
company, he is like leaven, fermenting and restoring to each person
present a portion of his natural individuality. He stirs people up,

moves them, provokes to praise or blame : he is a means of bringing out reality ; gives honest people a chance of showing what
they are made of, and unmasks the rogues."'
Hearing that the subject of Diderot's dialogue is the Parasite,
the scholar will naturally think of that savage satire in which
Juvenal rehearses the thousand humiliations that Virro inflicts on
Trebius : how the wretched follower has to drink fiery stuff from
V. 389.

to ! "-I I'll MiiiiL; in&lt;.)nkc'y cjn llie

iinincci&gt;urai;lc between Juvenal
Diderot's half-ironical, half-seriou
that Trebius is a base and abject 1
and in the process blasts him. 1.
is base and abject, but he is so litt
easy paradise of conventions, that
vaguely wondering in his own mind
ness and paradox and bestial soph
with the mask thrown off. He st
whether it can after all be true, that
the gracious outer robe of conformi
life shining underneath, but only thi
the worm. He restrains exasperatio
his man, precisely as an anatomist
pathological monstrosity, or an astoi
hoped to surprise some vital secre
analysed as a vile type : he is search
digious scale elements of character t
of characters that arc not vile. It
sciously anticipated that terrible,
saying, Tfure is in ei'cry man and iv
knew ity would mah v/^" '-'


scientific point of view, this change from mere praise and blame
to scrutiny, this comprehension that mere execration is not the
last word, is a mark of the modern spirit. Besides Juvenal,
another writer of genius has shown us the parasite of an ancient
society. Lucian, whose fertility, wit, invention, mockery, freshness of spirit, and honest hatred of false gods, make him the
Voltaire of the second century, has painted with all his native
liveliness more than one picture of the parasite. The great man's
creature at Rome endures exactly the same long train of affronts
and humiliations, as the great man's creature at Paris sixteen
centuries later, beginning with the anguish of the mortified stomach,
as savoury morsels of venison or boar are given to more important
guests, and ending with the anguish of the mortified spirit, as he
sees himself supplanted by a rival of shapelier person, a more
ingenious versifier, a cleverer mountebank. The dialogue in which
Liucian ironically proves that Parasitic, or the honourable craft of
Spunging, has as many of the marks of a genuine art as Rhetoric,
Gymnastic, or Music, is a spirited parody of Socratic catechising
and Platonic mannerisms. Simo shows to Tychiades, as inge-

niously as Rameau shows to Diderot, that the Spunger has a far

better life of it, and is a far more rational and consistent person
than the orator and the philosopher.' Lucian's satire is vivid,
brilliant, and diverting. Yet everyone feels that Diderot's performance, while equally vivid, is marked by greater depth of
spirit ; comes from a soil that has been more freely broken up,
and has been enriched by a more copious experience. The
ancient turned upon these masterpieces of depravation the flash of
intellectual scorn; the modem eyes them with a certain moral
patience, and something of that curious kind of interest, looking
half like sympathy, which a hunter has for the object of his
The Rameau of the dialogue was a real personage, and there
is a dispute whether Diderot has not calumniated him. Evidence
enough remains that he was at least a person of singular character and
irregular disastrous life. Diderot's general veracity of temperament
would make us believe that his picture is authentic, but the interest of
the dialogue is exactly the same in either case. Juvenal's fifth satire
* Luciaity ncpi Hapao'tTov, and Ilfpt t&gt;v cttI fiiaO^ avpoprav.

|:ijii: ! Nu'.liiiig is ^4 lUilu liku liim aliki: 1 paliuiil in Ihu la&gt;t sta^o uf l'&lt;
thtciugh his diceks ; you wmild say ];
tasting 1 morset, &lt;ir Ilial li&gt;.- is frtsh I
stout ami sleek as if lii: bail L:i.'ii sitliiij;
or hail been shut u]) in a Iluiiiarilini;
clothes torn md piti-licl, u-illi liarely a
Ixnl heail ; one is tcnipttiil to hail liini
all powdered, eurled, in a giHxl coat, he '.
mien, and you ivouM alnio^it take him fi:
from (lay to day, from liand l muulli, &gt;l
Hii fim caic of a momin); uhuii hu )ji
after dinDcr, he begins to ihiiik wht-ri^ ho
disquiets of itK own. Either lie elimlis
landlady, weary of wailing for ln-r rent, I
else he shrinks to some taveni on the out:
daybreak over a crust of breail and a in
pence in his pocket, XLt someliues 1iaji]&gt;rn!
carriage belonging to a frienil, or to a cu
gives him a \x&lt;i on the sliaw 1&gt;esicli: the
bits of the mattress in his hair. If the t:i
Elysves all night long. With the liay lu
oighl for the morrow, and from (he moi
the week."
Diderol is accosted by this curi
benrh J" *


sphere of art For an example. "Time has passed/' says
Rameau, " and that is always so much gained."
" /. So much lost, you mean.

*-^ He, No, no ; gained. People grow rich every moment ; a day less to
live, or a crown piece to the good, 'tis all one. When the last moment comes,
one is as rich as another. Samuel Bernard, who by pillaging and stealing and
playing bankrupt, leaves seven-and-twenty million francs in gold, is no better
than Rameau, who leaves not a penny, and will be indebted to charity for a
shroud to wrap about him. The dead man hears not the tolling of the bell ;
*tis in vain that a hundred priests bawl dirges for him, in vain that a long fil
e of
blazing torches go before. His soul walks not by the side of the master of the
funeral ceremonies. To moulder under marble, or to moulder under clay,
'tis still to moulder. To have around one's bier children in red and children in
blue, or to have not a creature, what matters it ? "
These are the gleams of the mens divimor^ that relieve the
perplexing moral squalor of the portrait. Even here we have the
painful innuendo that a thought which is solemnising and holy to
the noble, serves equally well to point a trait of cynical defiance
in the ignoble.
Again, there is an indirectly imaginative element in the sort of
terror which the thoroughness of the presentation inspires. For
indeed it is an emotion hardly short of terror that seizes us, as we
listen to the stringent unflinching paradox of this heterogeneous
figure. Rameau is the squalid and tattered Satan of the eighteenth
century. He is a Mephistopheles out at elbows, a Lucifer in low
water ; yet always diabolic, with the bright flash of the pit in his
eye. Disgust is transformed into horror and affright by the r^
trenchant confidence of his spirit, the daring thoroughness and
consistency of his dialectic, the lurid sarcasm, the vile penetration.
He discusses a horrible action, or execrable crime, as a virtuoso
examines a statue or a painting. He has that rarest fortitude of
the vicious, not to shrink from calling his character and conduct
by their names. He is one of Swift's Yahoos, with the courage
of its opinions. He seems to give one reason for hating and
dreading oneself. The effect is of mixed fear and fascination, as
of a magician whose miraculous crystal is to show us what and
how we shall be twenty years from now ; or as when a surgeon
tells the tale of some ghastly disorder, that may at the very moment
be stealthily preparing for us a doom of anguish.

Hence our dialogue is assuredly no " meat for little pepple nor
for fools." Some of it is revolting in its brutal indecency. Even
Goethe's self-possession cannot make it endurable to him. But it
is a study to be omitted by no one who judges the corruption of
the 6ld society in France an important historic subject The
picture is very like the corruption of the old society in Rome.
We see the rojtten material which the purifying flame of Jacobinism
was soon to consume out of the land with fiery swiftness. We watch
the very classes from which, as we have been so often told, the
regeneration of France would have come, if only demagogues and
rabble had not violently interposed. There is no gaiety in the ^
style ; none of that laughter which makes such a delineation of the
manners of the time as we find in Colly's play of Truth in JVtnf,
naif, true to nature, and almost exhilarating. In Rameau we are

afflicted by the odour of deadly taint. "

As the dialogue is not in every hand nor could anyone wish
that it should be I have thought it worth while to print an
English rendering of a considerable part of it in an appendix.
Mr. Carlyle told us long ago that it must be translated into
English, and although such a piece of work is less simple than it
may seem, it appears right to give the reader an opportunity of
judging for himself of the flavour of the most characteristic of all
Diderot's performances. Only let no reader turn to it who has
any invincible repugnance to that curious turn for wildbret^ which
Goethe has described as the secret of some arts.
Dixeris hiec inter varicosos centuriones,
Continuo crassum ridct Pulfenius ingens
Et centum Groecos curto centusse licebit.
As I have already said, it must be judged as something more
than a literary diversion. " You do not suspect, Sir Philosopher,"
says Rameau, "that at this moment I represent the most important part of the town and the court." As the painter of the
picture says, Rameau confessed the vices that he had, and that
most of the people about us have \ but he was no hypocrite. He
was neither more nor less abominable than they ; he was only
more frank and systematic and profound in his depravity. This
is the social significance of the dialogue. This is what, apart from
other considerations, makes Rameat^s Nephew so much more


valuable a guide to the moral sentiment of the time, than merely
licentious compositions like those of Louvet or La Clos. Its
instructiveness is immense to those who examine the conditions

th at prepared the Revoluti on. Rameau is not the djcoXaoTOf of

AristQtle, nor the creature of dfrovoia described by Theophrastus
the castaway by individual idios3aicrasy, the reprobate by accident The men whom he represented, the courtiers^^the financiers, /
the merchants, the shopkeepers, were immoral by formula and
depraved on principle. Vice was a doctrine to them, and wretch- ,
lessness of unclean living was reduced to a system of philosophy.
Anyone, I venture to repeat, who realises the extent to which this
had corroded the ruling powers in France, will perceive that the
furious flood of social energy which the Jacobins poured over the
country was not less indispensable to France, than the flood of the
barbarians was indispensable for the transformation of the Roman
Scattered among the more serious fragments of the dialogue is
some excellent bye-play of sarcasm upon Palissot, and one or two
of the other assailants of the new liberal school Palissot, is an
old story. The Palissots are an eternal species. The family
never dies out, and it thrives in every climate. All societies know
the literary dangler in great houses, and the purveyor to fashionable prejudices. Not that he is always servile. The reader, I
dare say, remembers that La Bruyfere described a curious being in

Troilus, the despotic parasite. Palissot, eighteenth century or

nineteenth century, is often like Troilus, parasite and tyrant at the
same time. He usually happens to have begun life with laudable
aspirations and sincere interests of his own ; and when, alas, the
mediocrity of his gifts proves too weak to bear the burden of his
ambitions, the recollection of a generous youth only serves to sour
old age.
Bel esprit abhorre de tous les bons esprits,
II pense par la haine ^chapper au m^pris.
A force d'attcntats il se croit illustre ;
t s'il n'etait m^chant, il serait ignor^.
Palissot began with a tragedy. He proceeded to an angry
pamphlet against the Encyclopaedists and the fury for innovation.

i.ic (&gt;nly s;ir\-.\--&lt; m (

:i).''i-:h-.!. 1 h- liw'l to ])c olt
(I&lt;)c&gt;. In tlic Terror ho liad a
before Chaumctte. Chaumctl
Rousseau and Diderot witli nid
the guillotine. In this the pr:
magnanimity of his theoretical i
an opportunity of punishing Pali
took no worse vengeance upon h
reference of contempt to him in a
intended to publish.
Another subject is handled i
interesting in connection with th(
eighteenth century. Music was tl
controversy as theology and philc
itself did not lead to livelier disj
than the conflict between the parti
partisans of Italian music The
Molinist did not surpass that of a
wards of a Gluckist for a Piccin
uncle of our parasite) had undisp
the arrival, in 1752, of a company
quarrel at once broke out as to th
of musical composition. Is mn^'*'^


overture to a French opera wa?like a prelude to a Miserere in
plain-song. In iTT2-'j^ the illustrious Gluck came to Paris. His
art was believed to reconcile the two schools, to have more melody
than the old French' style, and more severity and meaning than
the purely Italian style. French dignity was saved. But soon

the old battle, which had been going on for twenty years, began
to rage with greater violence than ever. Piccini was brought to
Paris by the Neapolitan ambassador. The old cries were heard
in a shriller key than before. Pamphlets, broadsheets, sarcasms
flew over Paris from every side. Was musiq only to flatter the
ear, or was it to paint the passions in all their energy, to harrow
the soul, to raise men's courage, to form citizens and heroes?
The cofliee-houses were thrown into dire confusion, and literary
societies were rent by fatal discord. Even dinner-parties breathed
only constraint and mistrust, and the intimacies of a lifetime came
to cruel end. Rameat^s Nephew was composed in the midst of
the first part of this long campaign of a quarter of a century, and
it seems to have been revised by its author in the midst of the
second great episode. Diderot declares against the school of
Rameau and LuUL That he should do so was a part of his
general reaction in favour of what he called the natural, against
artifice and affectation. Goethe has pointed out the inconsistency
between Diderot's sympathy for the less expressive kind of music,
and his usual vehement passion for the expressive in art. He
truly observes that Diderot's sympathy went in this way, because
the novelty and agitation seemed likely to break up the old, stiff"
and abhorred fashion, and to clear the ground afresh for other
* Anmerkungtn^ Rameau^ s Neffe; Werke^ xxv. 268.

We may now pas$ to performances that are nearer to the accepted
surface of things. A* short but charming example of Diderof s
taste for putting questions of morals in an interesting way, is
found in the Conversation of a Father with his Children (published
"1 1773)' This little dialogue is perfect in the simple realism of
its form. Its subject is the peril of setting one's own judgment
of some special set of circumstances above the law of the land.
Diderot's venerable and well-loved father is sitting in his armchair before the fire. He begins the discussion by telling his two
sons and his daughter, who are tending him with pious care, how
very near he had once been to destroying their inheritance. An
old priest had died leaving a considerable fortune. There was
believed to be no will, and the next of kin were a number of poor
people whom the inheritance would have rescued from indigence
for the rest of their days. They appointed the elder Diderot to
guard their interests and divide the property. He finds at the
bottom of a disused box of ancient letters, receipts, and other
waste-paper, a will made long years ago, and bequeathing all the
fortune to a very rich bookseller in Paris. There was every reason
to suppose that the old priest had forgotten the existence of the
will, and it involved a revolting injustice. Would not Diderot be
fulfilling the dead man's real wishes by throwing the unwelcome
document into the flames ?
At this point in the dialogue, the doctor enters the room, and


interrupts the tale. It appears that he is fresh from the bedside
of a criminal who is destined to the gallows. Diderot the younger
reproaches him for labouring to keep in the world an offender
whom it were best to send out of it with all dispatch. The duty
of the physician is to say to so execrable a patient * I will not
busy myself in restoring to life a creature whom it is enjoined
upon me by natural equity, the good of society, the well-being of
my fellow-creatures, to give up. Die, and let it never be said that
through my skill there exists a monster the more on earth !" The
doctor parries these energetic declamations with sufficient skill
" My business is to cure, not to judge ; I shall cure him, because
that is my trade ; then the judge will have him hung, because that
is his trade." This episodic discussion ended, the story of the
will is resumed. The father when on the point of destroying it,
was seized with a scruple of conscience, and hastened to a curd
well versed in casuistry. As in England the agents of the law
itself not seldom play the part of arbitrary benevolence, which the
old Diderot would fain have played against the law, the scene
may perhaps be worth transcribing :
" 'Nothing is more praiseworthy, sir, than the sentiment of compassion
that touches you for these imfortunate people. Suppress the testament and
succour them good ; but on condition of restoring to the rightful legatee the
exact sum of which you deprive him, neither more nor less. Who authorised
3rou to give a sanction to docimients, or to take it away ? Who authorised you
to interpret the intentions of the dead ?'
'But then, father Bouin, the old box?'
'Who authorised you to decide whether the wiU was thrown away on
purpose, or mislaid by accident ? Has it never happened to you to do such a
thing, and to find at the bottom of a chest some Suable paper that you had
tossed there inadvertently?'
' But, father Bouin, the far-off date of the paper, and its injustice?'
'MHio authorised you to pronounce on the justice or injustice of the
document, and to regard the bequest as an unlawful gift, rather than as a
restitution or any other lawful act which you may choose to imagine ?'
'But, these poor kinsfolk here on the spot, and that mere collateral,
distant and wealthy ?'
* Who authorised you to weigh in your balance what the dead man owed
to his distant relations, whom you don't know?'
'But, father Bouin, that pile of letters from the legatee, which the
departed never even took the trouble to open ?*
* There b neither old box, nor date, nor letters, nor father Bouin, nor if,
nor but, in the case. No one has any right to infringe the laws, to enter into


the intention of the dead, or to dispose of other people's property. If providence has resolved to chastise either the heir or the I^atee or the testator
we cannot tell which ^by the accidental preservation of the will, the will must
remain, *
Diderot the younger declaims against all this with his usual
vehemence, while his brother, the abb^, defends the supremacy of
the law on the proper ground, that to evade or defy it in any
given case is to open the door to the sophistries of all the knaves
in the universe. At this point a journeyman of the neighbourhood
comes in with a new case of conscience. His wife has died after
twenty years of sickness ; in these twenty years the cost of her
illness has consumed all that he would otherwise have saved for
the end of his days. But, as it happens, the marriage portion
that she brought him has lain untouched. By law this ought to
go to her family. Equity, however, seems to justify him in keeping what he might have spent if he had chosen. He consults the
party round the fire. One bids him keep the money ; another
forbids him ; a third thinks it fair for him to repay himself the
cost of his wife's illness. Diderot's father cries out, that since on
his own confession the detention of the inheritance has brought him
no comfort, he had better surrender it as speedily as possible, and
eat, drink, sleep, work, and make himself happy so.
" * Not I,* cried the journeyman abruptly, * I shall be off to Geneva.'
'And dost thou think to leave remorse behind?'
* I can't tell, but to Geneva I go.'
* Go where thou wilt, there wilt thou find thy conscience.*
The hatter went away ; his odd answer became tlie subject of our talk.
We agreed that perhaps distance of place and time had the effect of weakening
aU the feelings more or less, and stifling the voice of conscience even in cases
downright crime. The assassin transported to the shores of China is too far off
to perceive the corpse that he has left bleeding on the banks of the Seine.
Remorse springs perhaps less from horror of self than from fear of others ;
less from shame for the deed, than from the blame and punishment that would
attend its discovery. And what clandestine criminal is tranquil enough in his
obscurity not to dread the treachery of some unforeseen circumstance, or the
indiscretion of some thoughtless word ? What certainty can he have that he
will not disclose his secret in the delirium of fever, or in dreams ? People wil
understand him if they are on the scene of the action, but those about him in
China will have no key to his words," '
(Eutfrcs^ V, 289. V. 295-6,


Two other cases come up. Does the husband or wife who
is the first to break the maniage vow, restore hberty to the
other? Diderot answered affirmatively. The second case arose
from a story that the abb^ had been reading. A certain honest

cobbler of Messina saw his country overrun by lawlessness. Each

day was marked by a crime. Notorious assassins braved the
public exasperation. Parents saw then: daughters violated; the
industrious saw the fruits of their toil ravished from them by the
monopolist or the fraudulent tax-gatherer. The judges were
bribed, the innocent were afflicted, the guilty escaped unharmed.
The cobbler meditating on these enormities devised a plan of
vengeance. He established a secret court of justice in his shop ;
he heard the evidence, gave a verdict, pronounced sentence, and
went out into the street with his gun under his cloak to execute it.
Justice done, he regained his stall, rejoicing as though he had
slain a rafcid dog. When some fifty criminals had thus met their
doom, the viceroy offered a reward of two thousand crowns for
information of the slayer, and swore on the altar that he should
have full pardon if he gave himself up. The cobbler presented
himself, and spoke thus : " I have done what was your duty.
'Tis I who condemned and put to death the miscreants that you
ought to have punished. Behold the proofs of their crimes.
There you will see the judicial process which I observed. I was
tempted to begin with yourself; but I respected in your person
the august master whom you represent. My life is in your hands :
dispose of it as you think right." Well, cried the abb^, the
cobbler, in spite of all his fine zeal for justice, was simply a
murderer. Diderot protested. His father decided that the abbd
was right, and that the cobbler was an assassin.
Nothing short of a transcript of the whole would convey a
right idea of the dramatic ease of this delightful dialogue its
variety of illustration with unity of topic, the naturalness of
movement, the pleasant lightness of touch. At its close the old
man calls for his nightcap ; Diderot embraces him, and in bidding
him good-night whispers in his ear, "Strictly speaking, father,
there are no laws for the sage. All being open to exception, 'tis
for him to judge the cases in which we ought to submit to them,
or to throw them over." " I should not be sorry," his father
R 2

we accepted eihi,-,) ,
'oti benevolent sire.
II. We .lull pre,,e,ly &lt;,,,,
PPly.ngavis,d^f "J*
""" * piece of p


plangent iroi

'f "" "ny hi. shei,i!


respect one another, love one another in such moments ! For
instance, how beautiful humanity is at the play I Ah, why must
we part so quickly ? Men are so good, so happy, when what is
worthy unites all their suffrages, melts them, makes them one." '
For some time all went well, and our pair were the happiest of
men and women. Then various assaults were made on the faithfulness of Desroches. He resisted them, until in endeavouring to
serve a friend he was forced to sue for the good will of a lady with
whom in his unregenerate days he had had passages of gallantry.
The old intrigue was renewed Letters of damning proof
fell by ill hazard into his wife's hands. She re-a^sembled her
friends, denounced the culprit, and forthwith carried away her
child to seek shelter with her aged mother. Desroches's fervent
remorse was unheeded, his letters were sent back unopened, he
was denied the door. Presently, the aged mother died. Then
the infant. Lastly, the wife herself. Now, says Diderot to his
interlocutor, I pray you to turn your eyes to the public that
imbecile crowd that pronounces judgment on us, that disposes of
our honour, that lifts us to the clouds or trails us through the
mud. Opinion passed through every phase about Desroches.
The shifting event is ever their one measure of praise and blame.
A fault which nobody thought more than venial, became gradually
aggravated in their eyes by a succession of incidents which it was
impossible for Desroches either to foresee or to prevent At first
opinion was on his side, and his wife was thought to have carried
things with too high a hand. Then, after she had fallen ill, and
her child had died, and her aged mother had passed away in the
fulness of years, he began to be held answerable for all this sea of
troubles. Why had not Desroches written to his wife, beset her
doors, waylaid her as she went to church ? He had, as matter of
fact, done all these things, but the public did not know it The
important thing is, not to know, but to talk. Then, as it befell,
his wife's brother took Desroches's place in his regiment ; there he
was killed. More exclamations as to the misfortune of being
connected with such a man. How was Desroches responsible for
the death of his mother-in-law, already well stricken in years?
How could he foresee that a hostile ball would pierce his brother* CEuvreSf v. 342.

in-law in his first campaign? But his wife? He must be a
barbarian, a monster, who had gradually pressed a poniard into
the bosom of a divine woman, his wife, his benefactress, and then
left her to die, without showing the least sign of interest or feeling.
And all this, cries Diderot, for not knowing what was concealed

from hira, and what was unknown and unsuspected even by those
who were daily about her? What presumption, what bad logic,
what incoherence, what unjustified veering and vacillation in all
these public verdicts from beginning to end !
Yet we feel that Diderot*s impetuous taunts fail to press to the
root of the matter, Diderot excels in opening a subject ; he places
it in a new light ; he furnishes telling concrete illustrations ; he
thoroughly disturbs and unsettles the medium of conventional
association in which it has become fixed. But he does not leave
the question readjusted. His mind was not of that quality
which is slow to complain where it cannot explain; which
does not quit a discussion without a calm and orderly review of
the conditions that underlie the latest exhibition of human folly,
shortsightedness, or injustice. The public condemnation of
Desroches for consequences that were entirely strange to his one
offence, was indefensible on grounds of strict logic But then men
have imagination as well as reason. Imagination is stronger than
reason with most of them. Their imagination was touched by the
series of disasters that followed Madame Desroches's abandonment of her husband. They admit no plea of remoteness of
damage, such as law courts allow. In a way that was loose and
unreasonable, but still easily intelligible, the husband became
associated with a sequel for which he was not really answerable.
If the world's conduct in such cases were accurately expressed, it
would perhaps be found that people have really no intention to
pronounce a judicial sentence ; they only riiean that an individual's
associations have become disagreeable and doubtful to them.
They may think proper to justify the grievously meagre definition
of Iiotno as animal rationale^ by varnishing their distaste with
reasons; the true reason is that the presence of a Desroches
disturbs their comfort, by recalling questionable and disorderly
circumstances. That this selfish and rough method many a time
inflicts horrible cruelty is too certain, and those to whom the idea


of conduct is serious and deep-reaching will not fall into it. A
sensible man is aware of the difficulty of pronouncing wisely upon
the conduct of others, especially where it turns upon the intricate
and unknowable relations between a man and a woman. He will
not, however, on that account break down the permanent safeguards, for the sake of leniency in a given case. A great enemy to
indifference^ a great friend to indulgence^ said Turgot of himself;
and perhaps it is what we should all do well to be able to say of
Again, though these ironical exposures of the fatuity and recklessness and inconsistency of popular verdicts are wholesome
enough in their degree in all societies, yet it has been, and still
remains, a defect of some of the greatest French writers to expect
a fruit from such performances which they can never bear. In
the long run a great body of men and women is improved less by
general outcry against its collective characteristics, than by the
inculcation of broader views, higher motives, and sounder habits
of judgment, in such a form as touches each man and woman
individually. It is better to awaken in the individual a sense of
responsibility for his own character, than to do anytliing, either by

magnificent dithyrambs or penetrating satire, to dispose him to

lay the blame on Society. Society is after all only a name for
other people. An instructive contrast might be drawn between
the method of French writers of genius, from Diderot down to
that mighty master of our own day, Victor Hugo, in pouring
^Iminant denunciations upon Society, and the other method of
our best English writers, from Milton down to Mill, in impressing
new ideas on the Individual, and exacting a vigorous personal
answer to the moral or spiritual call.
One other remark may be worth making. It is characteristic
of the immense sociability of the eighteenth century, that when he
saw Desroches sitting alone in the public room, receiving no
answers to his questions, never addressed by any of those around
him, avoided, coldly eyed, and morally proscribed, Diderot never
thought of applying the artificial consolation of the stoic. He
never dreamed of urging that expulsion from the society of Mends
was not a hardship, a true punishment, and a genuine evil. No
one knew better than Diderot that a man should train himself to


(Min!ii(tii[)!.'&lt; e^ (if {]];: \vr:lrr ;.i

a( t.i:.i! ( i'ii(!:li(.;n.s of hmiKin c.\
the smart of chagrin, faihirc, i
more than the sweet music of th
of battle can still the rage and
was said by a good man, who
experiment, " Speciosa quidem
musiciB melle dulccdinis ; turn it
Sed miseris malorum altior sensus
insonare desierint, insitus animum
III. AVe may close this chapt
Supplement to Bougainville s Travel
and published twenty-four years .
dialogic on the disadvantage of at
physical actions which do not really c
believe that the ruling system of no
the last word that is to be said as
and women, will turn away from
impatience. Those, on the contra
system is no more immovably fixi
nature, no more final, no more unin
no more indisputably successful,
arrangements and t^**


if he had been Rousseau. As one says so often in this history of
the intellectual preparation for the ip pvnhitinn, the corruption and
artificiality of Parisian society had the effect of colouring the
world of primitive society with the very hues of paradise. Diderot
was more free from this besetting weakness than any of his con-

temporaries. ""He never fell into Voltaire's fancy that China is a

land of philosophers. * But he did not look very critically into
the real conditions of life in the more rudimentary stages of
development, and for the moment he committed the sociological
anachronism of making the poor people of Otaheite into wise and
benevolent patriots and sound reasoners. The literar}' merit of y
the dialogue is at least as striking as in any of the pieces of which
we have already spoken. The realism of the scenes between the
ship-chaplain and his friendly savage, with too kindly wife, and
daughters as kindly as either, is full of sweetness, simplicity, and
a sort of pathos. A subject which easily takes on an air of gross-ness, and which Diderot sometimes handled very grossly indeed,
is introduced with an idyllic grace that to the pure will hardly be
other than pure. We have of course always to remember that
Diderot is an author for grown-up people, as are the authors of
the Bible or any other book that deals with more than the surface
of human experience. Our English practice of excluding from
literature subjects and references that are unfit for boys and girls,
has something to recommend it, but it undeniably leads to a
certain narrowness and thinness, and to some most nauseous
hypocrisy. All subjects are evidently not to be discussed by all ;
and one result in our case is that some of the most important
subjects in the world receive no discussion whatever.
The position which Diderot takes up in the present dialogue
may be inferred from the following extract. The sliip-chaplain has
been explaining to the astonished Otaheitan the European usage
of strict monogamy, as the arrangement enjoined upon man by the
Creator of the universe, and vigilantly guarded by the priest and
the magistrate.. To which, Orou thus :
"Thes^ singular precepts I find opposed to nature and contrary to reason.
They are contrary to nature because they suppose that a being who thinks^
^ Sec, however, above, p. 1 8a

' ,1.;:

law '1 I 1 1.1 ; I.'- ' i\.\'. :-. wwr.w] :, awI- --ii&gt;lc, aiii'i lliat vi'tlaics ihc lihcrt
Ihcm together in jicrpctuity ; anytl
mutability, taken by t\vi&gt; creatures of
instant the same, under vaults that thr
to dust, at the foot of a tree that is spl
what LS opposed to nature, but you a
evil-doers and the unhajipy by fear, b)
deprave men's consciences ; you will &gt;
the polar star of their pathway." (22:
After this declamation he \
questions to the embarrassed chaj
always continent, and wives ah
libertines? The chaplain's ans)
keen-eyed Orou :
** WTiat a moastrous tissue is this tha

now thou dost not tell me all ; for as s(v&gt;n

their own will of the ideas of what is just
an arbitrary character on things ; to unit*
the good and the evil, with no counsc
accusation, suspicion, tyranny, envy, jeal
dissimulation, espionage, surprise, lies ; (
their husbands, husbands their wives ;
smother their children; suspicious fathers ^
mothers will leave them to the merrv n&lt;"
will sh'^' *'


union as were practised in Otaheite, or were urged by philosophers
in Paris, or are timidly suggested in our own times in the drollsounding form of marriages for terms of years with option of
renewal. That difficulty is the disposal of the children which are
the fruit of such unions. Orou rejoins to this argument by a
very eloquent account how valuable, how sought after, how prized,
is the woman who has her quiver full of them. His contempt for
the condition of Europe grows more intense, as he learns that the
birth of a child among the bulk of the people of the west is rather
a sorrow, a perplexity, a hardship, than a delight and ground of
The reader sees by this time that in the present dialogue
Diderot is really criticising the most fundamental and complex
arrangement of our actual western society, from the point of view
of an arbitrary and entirely fanciful naturalism, Rousseau never
wrote anything more picturesque, nor anything more dangerous,
nor more anarchic and superficially considered It is true that
Diderot at the close of the discussion, is careful to assert that
while we denounce senseless laws, it is our duty to obey them
until we have procured their reform. "He who of his own
private authority infringes a bad law, authorises every one else to
infringe good laws. There are fewer inconveniences in being mad
with the mad, than in being wise by oneself. Let us say to ourselves, let us never cease to cry aloud, that people attach shame,
chastisement, and infamy to acts that in themselves are innocent ;
but let us abstain from committing them, because shame, punishment, and infamy are the greatest of evils." And we hear Diderot's
sincerest accents when he says, " Above all, one must be honest,
and true to a scruple, with the fragile beings who caimot yield to
our pleasures without renouncing the most precious advantages of
society." *
This, however, does not make the philosophical quality of the
discussion any more satisfactory. Whatever changes may ultimately come about in the relations between men and women, we
may at least be sure that such changes will be in a direction even
still farther away than the present conditions of marriage, from
anything like the naturalism of Diderot and the eighteenth-century
* CEuvres, it 249.


school. Even if ^what does not at present seem at all likely to

happen ^the idea of the family and the associated idea of private
property should eventually be replaced by that form of communism
which is to be seen at Oneida Creek, still the discipline of the
appetites and affections of sex will necessarily on such a system be
not less, but far more, rigorous to nature than it is under prevailing western institutions.* Orou would have been a thousand
times more unhappy among the Perfectionists under Mr. Noyes,
than in Paris or London. We cannot pretend here to discuss the
large group of momentous questions involved, but we may make a
short remark or two. One reason why the movement, if progressive, must be in the direction of greater subordination of
appetite, is that all experience proves the position and moral
worth of women, taking society as a whole, to be in proportion to
the self-control of their male companions. Nobody doubts that
man is instinctively polygamous. But the dignity and self-respect,
and consequently the whole moral cultivation of women, depends
on the suppression of this vagrant instinct. And there is no more
important chapter in the history of civilization than the record of
the steps by which its violence has been gradually reduced.
There is another side, we admit. The home, of which sentimental philosophers love to talk, is too often a ghastly failure.
The conjugal union, so tender and elevating in its ideal, is in
more cases than we usually care to recognise, the cruellest of
bonds to the woman, the most harassing, deadening, spirit-breaking of all possible influences to the man. The purity of the
family, so lovely and dear as it is, has still only been secured
hitherto by retaining a vast and dolorous host of female outcasts.
When Catholicism is praised for the additions which it has made
to the dignity of womanhood and the family, we have to set
against that gain the frightful growth of this caste of poor
creatures, upon whose heads, as upon the scapegoat of the
Hebrew ordinance, we put all the iniquities of the children of the
house, and all their transgressions in all their sins, and then banish
* See NordhofTs Communistic Societies of the United States (London :
Murray, 1875), PP* 259-93, This grave and most instructive book sho&gt;&gt;'^
how modifiable are some of those facts of existing human character, which are
vulgarly deemed to be ultimate and ineradicable.


them with maledictions into the foul outer wilderness and the
land not inhabited.
On this side there is much wholesome truth to be told, in the
midst of the complacent social cant with which we are flooded.
But Diderot does not help us. Nothing can possibly be gained
by reducing the attraction of the sexes to its purely physical
elements, and stripping it of all the moral associations which have
gradually clustered round it, and acquired such force as in many
cases among the highest types of mankind to reduce the physical
factor to a secondary place. Such a return to the nakedness of
the brute must be retrograde. And Diderot, as it happened, was
the writer who, before all others, habitually exalted the delightful
and consolatory sentiment of the family. Nobody felt more

strongly the worth of domestic ties, when faithfully cherished. It

can only have been in a moment of elated paradox that he made
one of the interlocutors in the dialogue on Bougainville pronounce
Constancy, " The poor vanity of two children who do not know
themselves, and who are blinded by the intoxication of a moment
to the instability of all that surrounds them :" and Fidelit}',
** The obstinacy and the punishment of a good man and a good
woman : *' and Jealousy, " The passion of a miser ; the unjust
sentiment of man ; the consequence of our false manners, and of
a right of property extending over a feeling, willing, thinking, free
creature." *
It is a curious example of the blindness which reaction against
excess of ascetic doctrine bred in the eighteenth century, that
Diderot should have failed to see that such sophisms as these are
wholly destructive of that order and domestic piety, to whose
beauty he was always so keenly alive. It is curious, too, that he
should have failed to recognise that the erection of constancy into
a virtue would have been impossible, if it had not answered first,
to some inner want of human character at its best, and second, to
some condition of fitness in society at its best
How is it, says one of the interlocutors, that the strongest, the
sweetest, the most innocent of pleasures is become the most
fruitful source of depravation and misfortune ? This is indeed a
question well worth asking. And it is comforting after the
* (EuzTcs, ii. 243.

position is r^u ' , '" "" PP&lt;

The President de Brosses on a visit to Paris in 1754, was anxious
to make the acquaintance of that " furious metaphysical head," as
he styled Diderot. Buffon introduced him. "He is a good
fellow," said the President, " very pleasant, very amiable, a great
philosopher, a strong reasoner, but given to perpetual digressions.
He made twenty-five digressions yesterday in my room, between
nine o'clock and one o'clock." And so it is that a critic who has
undertaken to give an account of Diderot, finds himself advancing
from digression to digression, through a chain of all the subjects
that are under the sun. The same Diderot, however, is present
amid them all, and behind each of them ; the same fresh enthusiasm, the same expansive sympathy, the same large hospitality of
spirit. Always, too, the same habitual reference of ideas, systems,
artistic forms, to the complex realities of life, and to these realities
as they figured to sympathetic emotions.
It was inevitable that Diderot should make an idol of the
author of Clarissa Harlowe, The spirit of reaction against the
artificiality of the pseudo-classic drama, which drove him to feel
the way to a drama of real life in the middle class, made him
exult in the romance of ordinary private life which was invented

by Richardson. It was no mere accident that the modem novel

had its origin in England, but the result of general social causes.
' The modern novel essentially depends on the interest of the
private life of ordinary men and women. But this interest was


t . - 1 \ - . ,''' ' '"111 ' . . , '

|...^.^^ '.;.&gt;... ..'; . V 1....
r--^urs 111 t!^' l:i-;:oiv ut I'JiL;li
* Those,'' says Sir Walter Scott.
rant and bombast in the foHos
of nature, sense, and genius in t
old French romances in which
ment, were stories of j^rinces and
that the first country where i)rint
divinity and made creatures of a
be the country where imaginatio.
for serious passion, reaHstic intc
pathos and tragedy in the privat.
It is true that Marivaux, the au
school of Richardson before Rich;
was an almost isolated appearanc
movement. Richardson's j)opula
new epoch. It was the landmark
great literary transition, when all
siasm over the trials, the virtue,
In the literary circles of France
was quite as great as it was in Eng
signs of the certain ai)proach of

no inclination for social overthrow. And this is what Voltaire
said of Clarissa Harlowe : " It is cruel for a man like me to read
nine whole volumes in which you find nothing at all. I said
Even if all these people were my relations and friends, I could
take no interest in them. I can see nothing in the writer but a
clever man who knows the curiosity of the human race, and is
always promising something from volume to volume, in order to
go on selling them." In the same way, and for exactly the same
reasons, he could never understand the enthusiasm for the New
Heldisay the greatest of the romances that were directly modelled
on Richardson. He had no vision for the strange social aspirations
that were silently haunting the inner mind of his contemporaries.
Of these aspirations, in all their depth and significance, Diderot
was the half-conscious oracle and unaccepted prophet It was

not deliberate philosophical calculation that made him so, but the
spontaneous impulse of his own genius and temperament He
was no conscious political destroyer, but his soul was open to all
those voices of sentiment, to all those ideals of domestic life, to
those primary forces of natural affection, which were so urgently
pressing asunder the old feudal bonds, and so swiftly ripening a
vast social crisis. Thus his enthusiasm for Richardson was, at its
root, another side of that love of the life of peaceful industry, which
gave one of its noblest characteristics to the Encyclopaedia.
To this enthusiasm Diderot gave voice in half-a-dozen pages
which are counted among his masterpieces. Richardson died in
1 761, and Diderot flung off a commemorative piece, which is
without any order and connection ; but this makes it more an
echo, as he called it, of the tumult of his own heart. Here, indeed,
he merits Gautier's laudatory phrase, and is as " flamboyant " as
one could desire. To understand the march of feeling in French
literatiure, and to measure the growth and expansion in criticism,
we need only compare Diderot's ^loge on Richardson with
Fontenelle's doge on Dangeau or Leibnitz. The exaggerations of
l^hrase, the violences of feeling, the broken apostrophes, give
to Diderot's doge an unpleasant tone of declamation. Some of
us may still prefer the moderation, the subtlety, the nice discrimination, of the critics of another school. Still it would be a
sign of narrowness and short-sight not to discern the sincerity, the

wnL Liioii Shalt remain to mc, tlum

Hniiicr, Juiripi'lc-;, Sophock-s I
*'0 Kichaiil.iun, 1 make bold
hoods, and that your romance i
individuals ; you paint the human n
what they have neither said nor doi
both said and done. ... No ; I s
tbe novely as you have handled it,
yon who are never false !
*' Yoa accuse Richardson of bei
much trouble, pains, busy movement
to a good issue, to end a suit, to setth
Think of these details what you plea
if thej are only true, if they bring c
Thej are common, you say ; it is
misUken ; 'tis what passes every da

In Richardson's work, he
divided into two classes, those
and it is always to the latter thai
It is due to Richardson, he c
creatures better, and loved m)
fdt anything but pity for tli
deeper compassion for the unft

good, more circumspection in

indifference about future th
more love for virtue." '^^-^

deserts, how great wilt thou be to our grandchildren when they see
thee from the distance at which we now view Homer ! Then who
will there be with daring enough to strike out a line of thy sublime
work ? '* * Yet of the very moderate number of living persons
who have ever read Clarissa Harlowe^ it would be safe to say that
the large majority have read it in a certain abridgment in three
volumes which appeared some years ago.
Doctor Johnson made the answer of true criticism to someone who complained to him that Richardson is tedious. " Why,
sir," he said, " if you were to read Richardson for the story, your
impatience would be so much frighted that you would hang yourself. But you must read him for the sentiment, and consider the
story only as giving occasion to the sentiment." And this is just
what Diderot and the Paris of the middle of the eighteenth
century were eager to do. It was the sentiment that touched and
delighted them in Clarissa^ just as it was the sentiment that made
the fortune of the great romance in their own tongue, which was
inspired by Clarissa^ and yet was so different from Clarissa,
Rousseau threw into the New Helo'isa a glow of passion of which
the London printer was incapable, and he added a beauty of
external landscape and a strong feeling for the objects and movement of wild natural scenery, that are very different indeed from
the atmosphere of the cedar-parlour and the Flask Walk at
Hampstead. But the sentiment, the adoration of the belU dme^ is
the same, and it was the belk dme that fascinated that curious
society, where rude logic and a stern anti-religious dialectic went
hand-in-hand with the most tender and exalted sensibility.' It is
singular that Diderot says nothing about Rousseau's famous
romance, and we can only suppose that his silence arose from -his
contempt for the private perversity and seeming insincerity of the
Diderot made one attempt of his own, in which we may
notice the influence of the minute realism and the tearful pathos
* The Ehge de Richardson is in Diderot's Works, v. 212-227.
" The belU dme was the origin of the schone Seele that has played such a part
in German literature and life. The reader will find a history of the expression
in an appendix to Dr. Erich Schmidt's study, Richardson^ Rousseau^ und
Goethe (Jena, 1875).
S 1

.. ., liv/L uDjust to suppose that I.

:lIji)css ha^ h:u\ some share in :itl
It i.s thoroughly charactcristi
humour, and of the sincerity botl
its own sake, and of his indifferer

should have allowed this, like so

drawer, or at most to circulate cl
of his more intimate friends. It
ingenious historians have made of
against the Church. In truth, as
private performance, and could be
inent Za Religieusc was undoubte
/feeling of the nc}xlop8edic schoo
/of the world, and the burial of r
' cloister.
The circumstances under whic
worthy of a word or two. Among th(
Grimm, and Diderot, was a certain
had deserted the circle, and retire(
It occurred to one of them that it iiv
for recalling him to Paris, to inven
shut up in a convent against her
personage appeal to the well-known
Marquis de Croismare to rescue her

fication laughed at the joke, and the friendship of the party
seemed to be strengthened by their common sorrow for the woes
of the dead sister. But Diderot had been taken in his own trap.
His imagination, which he had set to work in jest, was caught by
the figure and the situation. One day while he was busy about
the tale, a friend paid him a visit, and found him plunged in grief
and his face bathed in tears. "What in the world can be the
matter with you ?" cried the friend. "What the matter?" answered
Diderot in a broken voice ; " I am filled with misery by a story
that I am writing ! " This capacity of thinking of imaginary personages as if they were friends living in the next street, had been
stirred by Richardson. His acquaintances would sometimes notice
anxiety and consternation on his countenance, and would ask him
if anything had befallen his health, his friends, his family, his
fortune. "O my friends," he would reply, "Pamela, Clarissa,
Grandison . . . I " It was in their world, not in the Rue Taranne,
that he really lived when these brooding moods overtook him.
And while he was writing Tlie Nun^ Sister Susan and Sister Theresa,
the lady superior of Longchamp, and the libertine superior of Saint
Eutropius, were as alive to him as Clarissa was alive to the score
of correspondents who begged Richardson to spare her honour,
not to let her die, to make Lovelace marry her, or by no means to
allow Lovelace to marry her.
The Nun professes to be the story of a young lady whose
family have thrust her into a convent, and her narrative, with an
energy and reality that Diderot hardly ever surpassed, presents
the odious sides of monastic life, and the various types of superstition, tyranny, and corruption that monastic life engenders. Yet
Diderot had far too much genius to be tempted into the exaggera-

tions of more vulgar assailants of monkeries and nunneries. He

may have begun his work with the purpose of attacking a mischievous and superstitious system that mutilates human life, but
he certainly continued it because he became interested in his
creations. Diderot was a social destroyer by accident, but in
intention he was a truly scientific moralist, penetmted by the spirit
of observation and experiment ; he shrunk from no excess in dissection, and found nothing in human pathology too repulsive for
examination. Yet The Nun has none of the artificial violences of

&gt; To, '*,'''" ""if
out hmis aboui [k^ ^nlM , "^^ : 'h.
"J Wd TO, Jl, "*'"'' '-"yS
= -X'SlTr"' ""=' "

ask themselves how Diderot came to think it worth while to
execute so painful a study. The only answer is that the irregularities of human nature those more shameful parts of it, which in
some characters survive the generations of social pressure that
have crushed them down in civilized communities had an irresistible attraction for the curiosity of his genius. The whole
story is full of power ; it abounds in phrases that have the stamp
of genius ; and suppressed vehemence lends to it strength. But
it is fatally wanting in the elements of tenderness, beauty, and
sympathy. If we chance to take it up for a second or for a tenth
time, it infallibly holds us ; but nobody seeks to return to it of his
own will, and it holds us under protest.
If Richardson created one school in France, Sterne created
another. The author of Tristram Shandy was himself only a
follower of one of the greatest of French originals, and a follower
at a long distance. Even those who have the keenest relish for
our " good-humoured, civil, nonsensical, Shandean kind of a book,"
ought to admit how far it falls behind Rabelais in exuberance,
force, richness of extravagance, breadth of colour, fulness of
blood They may claim, however, for Sterne what, in comparison
with these great elements, are the minor qualities of simplicity,
tenderness, precision, and finesse. These are the qualities that
delighted the French taste. In 1762 Sterne visited Paris, and
found Tristram Shafidy almost as well known there as in London,
and he instantly had dinners and suppers for a fortnight on his
hands. Among them were dinners and suppers at Holbach*s,
where he made the acquaintance of Diderot, and where perhaps
he made the discovery that " notwithstanding the French make
such a pother about the word sentiment^ they have no precise idea
attached to it." ' The Sentimental Journey appeared in 1768, and
was instantly pronounced by the critics in both countries to be
inimitable. It is no wonder that a performance of such delicacy
of literary expression, united with so much good-nature, such easy,
humane, amiable feeling, went to the hearts of the French of the

eighteenth century. " My design in it," said Sterne, " was to

teach us to love the world and our fellow-creatures better than we
do, so it runs most upon those gentle passions and affections
Sterne's Letters, May 23, 1765.

which aid so much to it" " This exactly fell in with the reigning
Parisian modes, and with such sentiment as that of Diderot most
of all. There were several French imitations of the Sentimenttu
Journey^ but the only one that has survived in popular esteem, if
indeed this can be said to have survived, is Diderof s Jcuques le
It seems to have been composed about the time (1773) of
Diderot's journey to Holland and St Petersburg, of which we
shall have more to say in a later chapter. Its history is almost as
singular as the history of Rameau^s Nephew, A contemporary
speaks of a score of copies as existing in different parts of
Germany, and we may conjecture that they found their way there
from friends whom Diderot made in Holland, and some of them
were no doubt sent by Grimm to his subscribers. The first
fragment of it that saw the light in print was in a translation that
Schiller made of its most striking episode, in the year 1785. This
is another illustration of the eagerness of the best minds of
Germany to possess and diffuse the most original products of
French intelligence and hardihood. Diderot, as we have said,
stands in the front rank along with Rousseau, along also with
Richardson, Sterne, and Goldsmith, among those who in Germany
kindled the glow of sentimentalism, both in its good and its bad
forms. It was in Germany that the first complete version of the
whole oi Jacques le Fataliste appeared, in 1792. Not until four
years later did the French obtain an original transcript. This
they owed to the generosity of Prince Henri of Prussia, the brother
of Frederick the Great ; he presented it to the Institute.
"There is going about here," wrote Goethe in 1780, while
Diderot was still alive, "a manuscript of Diderot's, ca^Xtd Jacques
le Fataliste et son Maitre, and it is really first-rate a very fine and
exquisite meal, prepared and dished up with great skill, as if for
the palate of some singular idol. I set myself in the place of this
Bel, and in six unintemipted hours swallowed all the courses in
the order, and according to the intentions, of this excellent cook
and fnaitre d'hdtelP ' He goes on to say that when other people
* Nov. 12, 1767.
* E.g. Le Voyageur Sentimental of Vemes (Grimm, Corr, Lit, xiii. 227).
3 Quoted in Rosenkranz, iL 326.

came to read it, some preferred one story, and some another.
On the whole, one is strongly inclined to judge that few modem
readers will equal Goethe's unsparing appetite. The reader sighs

in thinking of the brilliant and unflagging wit, the verve, the

wicked graces of Candide^ and we long for the ease and simplicity
and light stroke of the Sentimental Journey. Diderot has the|
German heaviness. Perhaps this is because he had too much
conscience, and laboured too deeply under the burdensome
problems of the world. He could not emancipate himself sufficiently from the tumult of his own sympathies. At many a page
both of Jacques le Fataliste, and of others of his pieces, we
involuntarily recall the writer's own contention that excess of
sensibility makes a mediocre actor. The same law is emphatically true of the artist. Diderot never writes as if his spirit were
quite free and perhaps it never was free. If we are to enjoy
these reckless outbursts of all that is bizarre and grotesque, these
defiances of all that is sane, coherent, and rational, we must never
feel conscious of a limitation, or a possibility of stint or check.
The draught must seem to come from an exhaustless fountain of
boisterous laughter, irony, and caprice. Perfect fooling is so rare
an art, that not half-a-dozen men in literature have really possessed it; perhaps only Aristophanes, Rabelais, Shakespeare.
Candide, wonderful as it is, has many a stroke of malice, and
Tristram Shandy, wonderful as that is too, is not without tinges
of self-consciousness ; and neither malice nor self-consciousness
belongs to the greater gods of bufiTooner}'. Cervantes and Moli^re,
those great geniuses of finest temper, still have none of the reckless
buffoonery of such scenes as that between Prince Henry and the
drawer, or the mad extravagances of the Merry Wives ; still less
, of the wild topsy-turvy of the Birds or the Peace. They have not
the note of true Pantagruelism. Most critics, again, would find in
Swift a truculence, sometimes latent and sometimes flagrant, that
would deprive him, too, of his place among these great masters of
free and exuberant farce. Diderot, at any rate, must rank in
the second class among those who have attempted to tread a
measure among the whimsical zigzags of unreason. The sincere
sentimentalist makes a poor reveller.
We have spoken, as many others have done before us, of

Diderot as imitating our two English celebrities, and in one sense
that is a perfectly true description. In Jacques le FataUste whole
sentences are transcribed in letter and word from Tristram Shandy.
Yet imitation is hardly the right word for the process by which
\ Diderot showed that an author had seized and aflfected him.
La Religieuse would not have been written if there had been no
Richardson, nox Jacques le Fataiiste if there had been no Sterne ;
yet Diderot's work is not really like the work of either of his celebrated contemporaries. They gave him the suggestion of a method
I and a sentiment to start from, and he mused and brooded over it
until, from among the clouds of his imagination, there began to
loom figures of his own, moving along a path which was also his
own. This was the history of his adaptation of The Natural Son
from Goldoni. We' can only be sure that nothing became blithe
in its passage through his mind He was too much of a preacher
to be an effective humourist.
There is in Jacques le Fataiiste none of that gift of true creation
which produced such figures as Trim, and my Uncle Toby, and

Mr. Shandy. Jacques's master is a mere lay figure, and Jacques

himself, with his monotonous catchword, " // etcut kcrit Ih-haut^^
has no real personality ; he has none of the naturalness that wins
us to Corporal Trim, still less has he any touch of the profound
humour of the immortal Sancho. The book is a series of stories,
rather than Sterne's subtle amalgam of pathos, gentle irony, and
frank buffoonery ; and the stories themselves are for the most part
either insipid or obscene. There is perhaps one exception. The
longest and the most elaborate of them, that which Schiller translated, is more like one of the modern French novels of a certain
kind, than any other production of the eighteenth century. The
adventure of Madame de Pommeraye and the Marquis d'Arcis is .
a crude foreshadowing of a style that has been perfected by
M. Feydeau and M. Flaubert The Marquis has been the lover
of Madame de Pommeraye ; he grows weary of her, and in time
the lady discovers the bitter truth. Resignation is not among her
virtues, and in her rage and anguish she devises an elaborate plan
of revenge, which she carries out with the utmost tenacity and
resolutioa It consists in leading him on, by skilful incitements,
to marry a woman whom he supposes to be an angel of purity, but

whom Madame de Pommeraye triumphantly reveals to him on
the morning after his marriage as a creature whose past history has
been one of notorious depravity. This disagreeable story, of which
Balzac would have made a masterpiece, is told in an interesting
way, and the humoristic machinery by which the narrative is
managed, is less tiresome than usual. It is at least a story with
meaning, purpose, and character. It is neither a jumble without
savour or point, nor is it rank and gross like half the pages in the
book. " YouT Jiac^ufs" Diderot supposes someone to say to him,
" is only a tasteless rhapsody of facts, some real, others imaginary,
written without grace, and distributed without order. How can a
inan of sense and conduct, who prides himself on his philosophy,
find amusement in spinning out tales so obscene as these ?" * And
this is exactly what the modem critic is bound to ask. In Rabelais
there is at least puissant laughter; in Montaigne, when he dwells
on such matters, there is naiVettf. In Diderot we do not even feel
that he is having any enjoyment in his grossnesses ; they have not
even the bad excuse of seeming spontaneous and coming from the
fulness of his heart. " Reader," he says, " I amuse myself in
writing the follies that you commit ; your follies make me laugh ;
and my book puts you out of humour. To speak frankly to you,
I find that the more wicked of us two is not myself." Unhappilyi
he does not convey the impression of amusement to his readers ;
it has no infection in it, and if his book puts us out of humour, it
is not by its satire on mankind, but by its essential want of point
and want of meaning, either moral or aesthetic The few masters
of this style have known how to bind the heterogeneous elements
together, if not by some deep-lying purpose, at least by some
pervading mood of rich and mellow feeling. In Jacques k
Fataliste is neither.
That men of the stamp of Goethe and Schiller should have
found such a book of delicious feast, naturally makes the disparaging critic pause. In truth, we can easily see how it was.
Like all the rest of Diderot's work, it breaks roughly in upon that

starved formalism, which had for long lain so heavily both on art
and life. Its hardihood, its very licence, its contempt of conventions, its presentation of common people and coarse passions
' vi. 221-2.

thr'ii_L;h. ( )n urcvit wliolcscni

ami llie interest of Diderot's s
a happier originality in men (
And let us add, of more poet
poetry in Jacques that makes it*
willingly suffer those to take i:
also raise us on the wings of .
has his poetic moments, as in tl
before the industrious serenity
image, like Sterne's figure of the
many a miry page. But in Jai
raises his eye for an instant to tl
harmony of awe, of hope, nor e\
kind of clumsy jubilancy he holds i
of thick and clogged sense. T
its place in literature, but it can ni
host of moral anxieties have laid
common is always welcome to the
itself. Jacques has the quality of t
prepared dish, as Goethe said ; bi
the handful of herbs with sharp di



In 1759 Diderot wrote for Grimm tje first of his criticisms on the
exhibition of paintings in the Salon. At the beginning of the
reign of Lewis xv. these exhibitions took place every year, as
they take place now. But from 1751 onwards, they were only
held once in two years. Diderot has left his notes on every salon
from 1759 to 1781, with the exception of that of i773i when he
was travelling in Holland and Russia.
We have already seen how Grimm made Diderot work for
him. The nine Salons are one of the results of this willing
bondage, and they are perhaps the only part of Diderot's works that i
has enjoyed a certain measmre of general popularity. Mr. Carlyle
describes them with emphatic enthusiasm: "What with their
unrivalled clearness, painting the picture over again for us, so
that we too see it, and can judge it ; what with their sunny fervour,
inventiveness, real artistic genius, which wants nothing but a hand^
they are with some few exceptions in the German tongue, the only

Pictorial Criticisms we know of worth reading." ' I only love

painting in poetry, Madame Necker said to Diderot, and it is into
ix&gt;etry that you have found out the secret of rendering the works
of our modern painters, even the commonest of them. It would
be a truly imperial luxury, wrote A. W. Schlegel, to get a collection
of pictures described for oneself by Diderot.
There is a freshness, a vivacity, a zeal, a sincerity, a brightness
' Es;flLys^ iv. 303. (Ed. 1869.)

of interest in his subject, which are perhaps unique in the whole
history of criticism. He flings himself into the task with the
perfection of natural abandonment to a joyous and delightful
subject. His whole personality is engaged in a work that has all
the air of being overflowing pleasure, and his pleasure is contagious.
His criticism awakens the imagination of the reader. Not only
do we see the picture ; we hear Diderot's own voice in ecstasies
of praise and storms of boisterous wrath. There is such mass in
his criticism; /so little of the mincing and niggling of the small
virtuoso. In facility of expression, in animation, in fecundity of
mood, in fine. improvisation, these pieces are truly incomparable.
\There is such an impetus animi et quadam artis libido,\ Some of
the charm and freedom may be due to the important circumstance
that he was not writing for the. public He was not exposed
to the reaction of a large unknown audience upon style ; hence
the absence of all the stiffness of literary pose. But the positive
conditions of such success lay in the resources of Diderot's own
The sceptic, the dogmatist, the dialectician, and the other
personages of a heterogeneous philosophy who existed in Diderot's
head, all disappear or fall back into a secondary place, and he
surrenders himself &gt;vith a curious freedom to such imaginative
beauty as contemporary art provided for him. Diderot was
perhaps the one writer of the time who was capable on occasion of
rising above the strong prevailing spirit of the time; capable. of
forgetting for a season the passion of the great philosophical and
ecclesiastical battle. No one save Diderot could have been moved
by sight of a picture to such an avowal as this :
"Absurd rigorists do not know the effect of external ceremonies on the
people ; they can never have seen the enthusiasm of the multitude at the procession of the FHe Dim^ an enthusiasm that sometimes gains even me. I have
never seen that long file of priests in their vestments ; those yoimg acolytes
clad in their white robes, with broad blue sashes engirdling their waists, and
casting flowers on the ground before the Holy Sacrament ; the crowd as it
goes before and follows after them, hushed in religious silence, and so many
with their faces bent reverently to the ground ; I have never heard that grave
and pathetic chant, as it is led by the priests and fervently responded to by an
infinity of voices of men, of women, of girls, of little children, without my
inmost heart being stirred, and tears coming into my eyes. There is in it
something, I know not what, that is grand, solemn, sombre, and moumfuL'*

ART. 271
Thus to find the material of religious reaction in the author of
Jacques U Faiaiisie and the centre of the atheistic group, completes
the circle of Diderot's immense and deep-lying versatility. And
in his account of such a mood, we see how he came to be so
great and poetical a critic ; we see the sincerity, the alertness, the
profound mobility, with which he was open to impressions of
colour, of sound, of the pathos of human aspiration, of the solemn
concourses of men.
France has long been sovereign in criticism in its literary sense.
In that department she has simply never had, and has not now,
any serious rival. In the profounder historic criticism, Germany
exhibits her one great, peculiar, and original gift. In the criticism
of art Germany has at least three memorable names ; but save
where history is concerned, most modem German aesthetics are so
clouded with metaphysical speculation as to leave the obscurity of
a very difficult subject as thick as it was before. In France the
beginnings of art-criticism were literary rather than philosophic,
and with the exception of Cousin's worthless eloquence, and of
the writers whose philosophy Cousin dictated, and of M. Taine's
ingenious paradoxes, Diderot is the only writer who has deliberately brought a vivid spirit and a philosophic judgment to the
discussion of the forms of Beauty, as things worthy of real elucidation. As far back as the time of the English Restoration,
Dufresnoy had written in bad Latin a poem on the art of Painting,
which had the signal honour of being translated into good English
by no less illustrious a master of English than Dryden, and it was
again translated by Mason, the friend of Reynolds and of Gray.
Imitations, applied to the pictorial art, of the immortal Epistle to
the Pisos, came thick in France in the eighteenth century. ' But
these effusions are merely Hterary, and they are very bad literature
indeed. The abb^ Dubos published in 17 19 a volume of Critical
Reflections on Poetry and Painting, including observations also on
the relations of those arts to Music. Lessing is known to have
made use of this work in his Laocoon, and Diderot gave it a place
among the books which he recommended in his Plan of a
E.g. Watelet's poem, Sur I'Ari de Peindre, 1760 ; Le Mierre's Sur
la Peinturey 1769 ; Marsy's PUtura Carmm^ 1736. See Diderot's works,
xiil 17, etc

University. ' This, as it is the earliest, seems to have been the
best contribution to aesthetic thought before Lessing and Diderot
Daniel Webb, the English friend of Raphael Mengs, published an
Enquiry into the Beauties of Painting (1760), and Diderot wrote
a notice of it,' but it appears to have made no mark on his mind
Andr^, a Jesuit father, wrote an Essay on the Beautiful (1741),
which distributed the kinds of art with precision, but omitted to
say in what the Beautiful consists. The abb6 Batteux wrote a
volume reducing the fine arts to a single principle, and another
volume attempting a systematic classification of theuL The first
of these was the occasion of Diderot's Letter on Deaf Mutes, and

Diderot described their author as a good man of letters, but

without taste, without criticism, and without philosophy ^ i ca
bagatelles prh^ le flus joli garfon du mondt,^
.Travellers to the land where criticism of art has been so slight,
and where production has been so noble, so bounteous, so superb,
published the story of what Italy had shown to them. Madame
de Pompadour designed to make her brother the Superintendent
of fine arts, and she dispatched Cochin, the great engraver of the
day, to accompany him in a studious tour through the holy land
of the arts. Cochin was away nearly two years, and on his return
produced three little volumes (1758), in which he deals such blows
to some vaunted immortalities as made the idolators by convention
not a little angry. The abb^ Richard (1766) published six ver&gt;'
stupid volumes on Italy, and such criticism on art as they contain
is not worthy of serious remark. The President de Brosses spent
a year in Italy (1739-40), and wrote letters to his friends at home,
which may be read to-day with interest and pleasure for their
* CEf/^'r^'J, iii. 4S6. Guhrauer, ii. 15. Also Bliimner's admirable edition of
the Laacoon, p. 173. xiii. 33.
3 Grimm, Corr, Ut, iv. 136. In another place in the same work, either
Grimm or Diderot makes a remark about Batteux, which is worth remembering in our own age of official vindications of orthodoxy. The abb6 had
wr4tten a book about first causes. ** I venture to observe moreover to
M. I'abbe Batteux that when in this world a man has put on the dress of any
sort of harlequin, red or black, with a pair of bands or a frill, he ought to gi
up once for all every kind of philosophic discussion, because it is impossible
for him to speak according to his faith and his conscience ; and a writer of bad
faith is all the more odious, as nothing compelled him to break silence. *'
Ibid, vi. 120.

ART. 273
graphic picture of Italian society ; but the criticisms which they
contain on the great works of art are those of a well-informed man
of the world, taking many things for granted, rather than of a
philosophical critic industriously using his own mind. His book
recalls to us how true the eighteenth century was to itself in its
hatred of. Gothic architecture, that symbol and associate of mysticism, and of the age which the eighteenth century blindly abhorred
as the source of all the tyrannical laws and cruel superstitions that
still weighed so heavily on mankind. " You know the palace of
Saint Mark at Venice," says De Brosses : ^^ c\stun vilain monsieur ^
s*il eu fut jamais^ massifs sombre^ et gofhigtie, du plus tfUchant
Dupaty, like De Brosses, an eminent lawyer, an acquaintance
of Diderot and an early friend of a conspicuous figure of a later
time, the ill-starred Vergniaud, travelled in Italy almost immediately
before the Revolution (1785), and his letters, when read with those
of De Brosses, are a curious illustration of the change that had
come over the spirit of men in the interval. He leaves the pictures
of the Pitti collection at Florence, and plunges into meditation in
the famous gardens behind the palace, rejoicing with much expan-

sion in the glories of light and air, in greenery and the notes of
birds, and finally sums all up in one rapturous exclamation of the
vast superiority of nature over art.'
It is impossible in reading how deeply Diderot was affected by
fifth-rate paintings and sculpture, not to count it among the great
losses of literature that he saw few masterpieces. He never
made the great pilgrimage. He was never at Venice, Florence,
Parma, Rome. A journey to Italy was once planned, in which
Grimm and Rousseau were to have been his travelling com' Letires Familihres^ i. 174. (Ed. 1869.)
' Dupat/s Lettres sur Vltalic^ No. 40. In talking of Rome, he complains
in a very Diderotian spirit of the want of le beau moral. ** On ne trouve ici da
les moeurs ni des hommes prives ni des hommes publics, cette moralite, cette
biens^ance, dont les mceurs fran9oises sont pleines. Le beau moral est absolumtnt inconnu. Or, c'est pour atteindre k ce beau moral dans tous les genres que
la sensibilite est la plus tourmentee ; qu'elle est en proie aux contentions de
Tesprit, aux emulations de Tdme . . . qu'elle pare avec tant de raffinement et
de peine, les ecrits les discours, les passions, enfin toute la vie publique et

panions ; ' the project was not realised, and the strongest critic of
art that his country produced, never saw the greatest glories of
art If Diderot had visited Florence and Rome, even the mighty
painter of the Last Judgment and the creator of those sublime
figures in the New Sacristy at San Lorenzo, would have found an
interpreter worthy of him. But it was not to be. " It is rare,"
he once wrote, " for an artist to excel without having seen. Italy,
just as a man seldom becomes a great writer or a man of great
taste without having given severe study to the ancients." ' Diderot
at least knew what he lost
French art was then, as art usually is, the mirror of its time,
reproducing such imaginative feeling as society could muster.
When the Republic and the Empire came, and twenty years of
battle and siege, then the art of the previous generation fell into
a degree of contempt for which there is hardly a parallel. Pictures
that had been the delight of the town and had brought fortunes to
their painters, rotted on the quays or were sold for a few pence at
low auctions. Fragonard, who had been the darling of his age,
died in neglect and beggary. David and his hideous art of the
Empire utterly effaced what had thrown the contemporaries of
Diderot into rapture.' Everyone knows all that can be said
against the French paintings of Diderot's time. They are executed
hastily and at random ; they abound in technical defects of colour,
of dra^ving, of composition ; their feeling is light and shallow.
Watteau died in 1721 at the same premature age as Raphael,
but he remained as the dominating spirit of French art through
the eighteenth century. Of course the artists went to Rome, but
they changed sky and not spirit. The pupils of the academy
came back with their portfolios filled with sketches in which we
see nothing of the " lone mother of dead empires," nothing of the
vast ruins and the great sombre desolate Campagna, but only

Rome turned into a decoration for the scenes of a theatre or the

panels of a boudoir. The Olympus of Homer and of Virgil, as
has been well said, becomes the Olympus of Ovid. Strength,
sublimity, even stateliness disappeared, unless we admit some of
the first two qualities in the landscapes of Vemet Not only is
beauty replaced by prettiness, but by prettiness in season and out
' X. 514, n. xi. 241. 3 Goncourt's VArt au \%ime SihU^ L

of season. The common incongruity of introducing a spirit of

elegance and literature into the simplicities of the true pastoral,
was condemned by Diderot as a mixture of Fontenelle with
Theocritus. We do not know what name he would have
given to that still more curious incongruity of taste, which
made a publisher adorn a treatise on Differential and Integral
Calculus with amusing plates by Cochin, and introduce dainty
little vignettes into a Demonstration of the Properties of the
There is one true story that curiously illustrates the spirit of
French art in those equivocal days. When Madame de Pompadour
made up her mind to play pander to the jaded appetites of the
king, she had a famous female model of the day introduced into a
Holy Family^ which was destined for the private chapel of the
queen. The portrait answered its purpose; it provoked the
curiosity and desire of the king, and the model was invited to the
Parc-aux-Cerfs.' This was typical of the service that painting
was expected to render to the society that adored it and paid for
it '' All is daintiness, delicate caressing for delicate senses, even
down to the external decoration of life, down to the sinuous
lines, the wanton apparel, the refined commodity of rooms and
furniture. In such a place and in such company, it is enough to
be together to feel at ease. Their idleness does not weigh upon
them ; life is their plaything." '
Only let us not, while reserving our serious admiration for
Titian, Rembrandt, Raphael, and the rest of the gods and demigods, refuse at least a measure of historic tolerance to these light
and graceful creations. Boucher, whose dreams of rose and blue
were the delight of his age, came away from Rome saying :
" Raphael is a woman, Michael Angelo is a monster ; one is
paradise, the other is hell ; they are painters of another world ; it
is a dead language that nobody speaks in our day. We others are
the painters of our own age : we have not common sense, but we
are charming." This account of them was not untrue. They
filled up the space between the grandiose pomp of Le Brun and
the sombre pseudo-antique of David, just as the incomparable
* Goncourl's Art au \Zhne Sikle^ i. 213. ' Taine's Ancien Rigime^ p. 186.
T 2


\.\A\ m I;-;

lii.tii a . :


For Watteau himself, ihc ck

very little. " I would give tc
Teniers." This was as much l
teristic in Lewis xiv., when s(
submitted to him, imperiously to
taken out of his sight
Greuze (b. 1725 d. 1805) of
Diderot's chief favourite. Didero
faults, to his repetitions, his frecjUt
the excess of grey and of violet
were forgotten in transports of sy
we glance at a list of Greuze's subj
the very heart of the region of the d
the homely pathos of the common ]
of a family, regretted by his childrc
father, abandoned by his children
by her little ones ; A child weeping
tended by his family, or the Fruit o
was ravished by such themes. Th(
proof that compositions of that kir
to the gifts and the sentiments of t
her dead bird throws him i"*^^

ART, 277
enthusiasm than Greuze's Accordee de Village^ which was exhibited
in 1 76 1. It seems to tell a story, and therefore even to-day, in
spite of its dulled pink and lustreless blue, it arrests the visitor to
one of the less frequented halls of the Louvre. ' Paris, weary of
mythology and sated with pretty indecencies, was fascinated by
the simplicity of Greuze's village tale. " On se sent gagner dUine
emotion douce en le regardant^* said Diderot, and this gentle emotion
was dear to the cultivated classes in France at that moment of the
century. It was the year of the New Heldisa,
The subject is of the simplest : a peasant paying the dowermoney of his daughter. " The father " it is prudent of us to
borrow Diderot's description " is seated in the great chair of the
house. Before him his son-in-law standing, and holding in his
left hand the bag that contains the money. The betrothed,
standing also, with one arm gently passed under the arm of her
lover, the other grasped by her mother, who is seated. Between
the mother and the bride, a younger sister standing, leaning on
the bride and with an arm thrown round her shoulders. Behind
this group, a child standing on tip-toes to see what is going on.

To the extreme left in the background, and at a distance from the

scene, two women-servants who are looking on. To the right a
cupboard with its usual contents all scrupulously clean ... A
wooden staircase leading to the upper floor. In the foreground
near the feet of the mother, a hen leading her young ones, to whom
a little girl throws crumbs of bread ; a basin full of water, and on
the edge of it, one of the small chickens with its beak up in the air
so as to let the water go down." Diderot then proceeds to criticise
the details, telling us the very words that he hears the father
addressing to the bridegroom, and as a touch of observation of
nature, that while one of the old man's hands, of which we see the
back, is tanned and brown, the other, of which we see the palm, is
white. " To the bride the painter has given a face full of charm,
of seemliness, of reserve. She is dressed to perfection. That
apron of white stuff could not be better ; there is a trifle of luxury
in her ornament ; but then it is a wedding-day. You should note
how true are the folds and creases tn her dress, and in those of
the rest. The charming girl is not quite straight ; but there is a
' No. 260 of the French School.

pciiiture. W'lnt. has not iIk

long consecrated to deliauoho
delighted at seeing it at last
structing us, correcting us, in\
sometimes said that Diderot wof Hogarth, and wc inaj' odmi
with the spirit of such morallti
Apprentice, the Rake's Progress
intensity and power of that ten
attraction, but the minute feroi
would certainly have revolted hii
dcrRcld's visit to the quack dc
would have filled lu'ni with inc
never have forgiven an artist whi
child straining from the amis o
she lies in the very article of de;
paint on it the dark patches of f
with shrieks from those appalliuf
ness, bestial drunkenness, rapa^
scrofukj palsy, entrails, the wir
Diderot's method was to irnnr''''

ART. 279
that two thousand unhappy wretches have bitten their brushes in
two with their teeth, in despair of ever doing even as badly.
Parrc)cel, whom you call a dauber, and who for that matter is a
dauber, if you compare him to Vemet, is still a man of rare talent
relatively to the multitude of those who have flung up the career
in which they started with him." .And then the artist recounts
the immense labours, the exhausting years, the boundless patience,
attention, tenacity, that are the conditions even of a mediocre
degree of mastery. We are reminded of the scene in a famous
work of art in our own day, where Herr Klesmer begs Miss
Gwendolen Harleth to reflect, how merely to stand or to move on

the stage is an art that requires long practice. " O k triste et plat
mktier que cehii de critique P^ Diderot cries on one occasion:
^^ II est si difficile de produire une chose menu mediocre; il est si
facile de sentir la fnkdiocrite,^^ ^ No doubt, as experience and
responsibility gather upon us, we learn how hard in every line is
even moderate skill. The wise are perhaps content to find what
a man can do, without making it a reproach to him that there is
something else which he cannot do.
But Diderot knew well enough that Chardin's kindly principle
might easily be carried too far. In general, he said, criticism
displeases me; it supposes so little talent. "What a foolish
occupation, that of incessantly hindering ourselves from taking
pleasure, or else making ourselves blush for the pleasure that we
have taken ! And that is the occupation of criticism ! " ' Yet in
one case he writes a score of pages of critical dialogue, in which
the chief interlocutor is a painter who avenges his own failure by
stringent attacks on the work of happier rivals of the year. And
speaking in his own proper person,/Diderot knows how to dismiss ^ 1
incompetence with the right word, sometimes of scorn, more often
of good-natured remonstrance. Bad painters, a Parrocel, a Brenet,
fare as ill at his hands as they deserved to do. He remarks incidentally that the condition of the bad painter and the bad actor is
worse than that of the bad man of letters : the painter hears with
his own ears the expressions of contempt for his talent, and the
hisses of the audience go straight to the ears of the actor, whereas
the author has the comfort of going to his grave without a suspicion
' X. 177. xii. 8, 79.

liLiiiitur of fans, an :iriisl wiili iii

and red. He admits tlic fu
Boucher, just as Sir Joshua Rey
and good skill in composition
painting what Ariosto is in poetr
inconsistent if he is not mad fc
disciplined taste, more vnriul)-,
refuse to concede about one of li
would be glad to jiossess it. iivc
would find fault wiih it, jet you w
is perha|&gt;s what the sc\'erc;st mod
lessly through the trench school ;
heart care to deny.
Fragonard, whose picture of C
great sensation in its day, and sti
attention in the French school, w.t
The Callirrhoi; inspired an elabor:
cism. Then the painter changci
Boucher, and as far awaj- as poss
moral, and Diderot turned away fr
oval picture representing groups
bdketgrande flw'-"- "

ART. 281

he sluggish imagination and dull sight of the one, while it is apt to

ass ignorantly over both the true difficulties and the true successes
f the other, i Diderot, unlike most of those who have come after
lim, had carefully studied the conditions prescribed to the painter
y the material in which he works. Although he was a master of
he literary criticism of art, he had artists among his intimate
ompanions, and was too eager for knowledge not to wring from
hem the secrets of technique, just as he extorted from weavers and
lyers the secrets of their processes and instruments. He makes
ostentatious display of this special knowledge, yet it is present,
iving a firmness and accuracy to what would otherwise be too
!ke mere arbitrary lyrics suggested by a painting, and not really
ealing with it. His special gift was the transformation of scientific
riticism into something with the charm of literature. ; Take, for
istance, a picture by Vien :
** Psyche approaching luith her lamp to surprise Lave in his sleep, The two
gures are of flesh and blood, but they have neither the elegance, nor the grace,
or the delicacy that the subject required. Love seems to me to be making a
rimace. Psyche is not like a woman who comes trembling on tiptoe. I do
ot see on her face that mixture of surprise, fear, love, desire, and admiration,
hich ought all to be there. It is not enough to show in Psyche a curiosity to
jc Love ; I must also perceive in her the fear of awakening him. She ought to
ave her mouth half open, and to be afraid of drawing her breath. *Tis her
)vcr that she sees that she sees for the first time, at the risk of losing him f
irer. What joy to look upon him, and to find him so fair ! Oh, what little
itelligence in our painters, how little they understand nature ! The head of
syche ought to be inclined towards Love ; the rest of her body drawn back,
&gt; it is when you advance towards a spot where you fear to enter, and from
hich you are ready to flee back ; one foot planted on the ground and the
ther barely touching it. And the lamp ; ought she to let the light fall on the
^es of Love ? Ought she not to hold it apart, and to shield it with her hand
&gt; deaden its brightness ? Moreover, that would have lighted the picture in a
riking way. These good people do not know that the eyelids have a kind of
ansparency ; they have never seen a mother coming in the night to look at her
lild in the cradle, with a lamp in her hand, and fearful of awakening it." '
There have been many attempts to imitate this manner since
)iderot No less a person than M. Thiers tried it, when it fell to
im as a young writer for the newspapers to describe the Salon of
822, One brilliant poet, novelist, traveller, critic, has succeeded,
' X. 121.

and Diderot's art-criticism is at least equalled in Th^ophile Gautief s
pages on Titian's Assunta and Bellini's Madonna at Venice, or
Murillo's Saint Anthony of Padua at Seville.'
Just as in his articles in the Encyclopaedia, here too Diderot is
always ready to turn from his subject for a moral aside. Even the
modem reader will forgive the discursive apostrophe addressed to

the judges of the unfortunate Galas, the almost lyric denunciation

of an atrocity that struck such deep dismay into the hearts of all
the brethren of the Encyclopaedia.' But Diderot's asides are
usually in less tragic matter. A pictiure of Michael Van Loo's
reminds him that Van Loo had once a friend in Spain. This
friend took it into his head to equip a vessel for a trading
expedition, and Van Loo invested all his fortune in his friend's
vessel. The vessel was wrecked, the fortune was lost, and
the master was drowned. When Van Loo heard of the disaster,
the first word that came to his mouth was / have lost a good
friend. And on this, Diderot sails off into a digression on the
grounds of praise and blame.
Here are one or two illustrations of the same moralising :
** The effect of our sadness on others is very singular. Have you not sometimes noticed in the country the sudden stillness of the birds, if it happens th
on a fme day a cloud comes and lingers over the spot that was resounding with
their music ? A suit of deep mourning in company is the cloud that, as it
passes, causes the momentary silence of the birds. It goes, and the song is
** Wc should divide a nation into three classes : the bulk of the nation,
which forms the national taste and manners ; those who rise above these, arc
called madmen, originals, oddities ; those who fall below, are noodles. The
progress of the human mind causes the level to shift, and a man often lives too
long for his reputation. . . . He who is too far in front of his generation, who
rises above the general level of the common manners, must expect few votes ; he
ought to be thankful for the oblivion that rescues him from persecution. Those
who raise themselves to a great distance above the conmion level are not perceived ; they die forgotten and tranquil, either like everj-body else, or far aw
from everybody else. That is my motto," ^
"But Vemet will never be more than Vemct, a mere man. No, and for
that very reason all the more astonishing, and his work all the more worthy of
' Voyage m Itaiu, 23a Voyage en Espagne, 330. See the same critic's
AbMiaire du Salon de 1 86 1.
xi. 309. 3 xi. 294.

ART. 283
admiration. It is, no doubt, a great thing, is this universe ; but when I compare it with the energy of the productive cause, if I had to wonder at aught, it
would be that its work is not still finer and still more perfect. It is just the
reverse when I think of the weakness of man, of his poor means, of the embarrassments and of the short duration of his life, and then of certain things
that he has undertaken and carried out." '
These digressions are one source of the charm of Diderot's
criticism. They impart ease and naturalness to it, because they
evidently reproduce the free movement of his mind as it really

was, and not as the supposed dignity of authorship might require

him to pretend. There is no stiffness nor sense, as we have said,
of literary strain, and yet there is no disturbing excess of what is
random, broken, decousu. The digression flows with lively continuity from the main stream and back again into it, leaving some
cheerful impression or curious suggestion behind it. Something,
we cannot tell what, draws him off to wonder whether there is not
as much verve in the first scene of Terence and in the Antinoiis, as
in any scene of Moli^re or any work of Michael Angelo ? " I once
answered this question, but rather too lightly. Every moment I
am apt to make a mistake, because language does not furnish me
with the right expression for the truth at the moment. I abandon
a thesis for lack of words that shall supply my reasons. I have
one thing in the bottom of my heart, and I find myself saying
another. There is the advantage of living in retirement and
solitude. There a man speaks, asks himself questions, listens to
himself, and listens in silence. His secret sensation developes
Itself little by little." Then when he is about to speak of one of
Greuze's pictures, he bethinks himself of Greuze's vanity, and this
leads him to a vein of reflection which it is good for all critics,
whether public or private, to hold fast in their minds. " If you
take away Greuze's vanity, you will take away his verve, you will
extinguish his fire, his genius will undergo an eclipse. Nos qualitks
ticnnent dc prh ^ nos defaiits^ And of this important truth, the
base of wise tolerance, there follow a dozen graphic examples.'
Grctr}% the composer, more than once consulted Diderot in
moments of perplexity. It was not always safe, he says, to listen
* xi. 102.
X. 342. He says elsewhere of Greuze (xviii. 247), that he is nn excellent
artute^ mats une bien mauvaise tile.

-"&lt;&gt;'. pec, :;ret "?"

ART, 285
the scene, softened and touched, lets his palette or his brush fall
from his hand. Greuze at once exclaimed that he saw his subject ;
and we may at least admit that this pretty bit of commonplace
sentimentalism is more in Diderot's vein than pagan gods and
Diderot is never more truly himself than when he takes the
subject of a picture that is before him, and shows how it might
have been more effectively handled. Thus :
"The Flight into Egypt is treated in a fresh and piquant manner. But
the painter has not known how to make the best of his idea. The Virgin
passes in the background of the picture, bearing the infant Jesus in her arms.
She is followed by Joseph and the ass carrying the baggage. In the foreground
are the shepherds prostrating themselves, their hands upturned towards her,
and wishing her a happy journey. Ah, what a fine painting, if the artist had
known how to make mountains at the foot of which the Virgin had passed ; if
he had known how to make the mountains very steep, escarped, majestic ; if

he had covered them with moss and wild shrubs ; if he had given to the Virgin
simplicity, beauty, grandeur, nobleness ; if the road that she follows had led
into the paths of some forest, lonely and remote ; if he had taken his moment
at the rise of day, or at its fall I " *
The picture of Saint Benedict by Deshays ^whom at one
moment Diderot pronounces to be the first painter in the nation
stirs the same spirit of emendation. Diderot thinks that in spite
of the pallor of the dying saint's visage, one would be inclined to
give him some years yet to live.
** I ask whether it would not have been better that his legs should have
sunk under him ; that he should have been supported by two or three monks ;
that he should have had the arms extended, the head thrown back, with death
on his lips and Ecstasy on his brow. If the painter had given this strong
expression to his Saint Benedict, consider, my friend, how it would have
reflected itself on all the rest of the picture. That slight change in the princ
figure would have influenced all the others. The celebrant, instead of being
-upright, would in his compassion have leaned more forward ; distress and
anguish would have been more strongly depicted in all the bystanders. There
is a piece from which you could teach young students that, by altering one
single circumstance, you alter all others, or else the truth disappears. You
could make out of it an excellent chapter on the y^;vr of unity : you would have
to preserve the same arrangement, the same figures, and to invite them to
execute the picture according to the different changes that were made in the
iigure of the communicant"'
' X. 115. X. 125.

a scckur .iftLX taiisus and (tilfi;

classes in arl, and of thu condi
tliem. In sliort, the fact of l)i
critic of pictures, did not iirevu
SOphical thinker about the absti
genius for analysis, comparison, &lt;
them, tan over forget the di.ilogi
scapes ofVernet in the Salons
himself unable to visit the Salon i
a gay country-house amid some li
He describes liis walks among tl
strange and varying effects of light
ments of the sky and ocean ; and
a series of dialogues with an abbi
house, upon art and landscape am
Nothing can be more excellent a
end, that he lets the secret slip, d
flight of fancy, inspired by no real
sent to the exhibition by Vernet.
This is an illustration of the v:
Diderot so interesting, so refreshin

ART. 287

egregiously unsystematic. But as Goethe said, in a piece where

he was withstanding Diderot to the face, die hochsie Wirkung des
Geistes ist, den Geist hervorzurufen the highest influence of mind
is to call out mind. This stimulatin g provoca ti on of the intelli- 1
fV^^i; yac t]i/&gt; mact^r faculty lu Didcrot. For the sake of that,
men are ready to pardon all excesses, and to overlook many
offences against the law of Measure. From such a point of view,
Goethe's treatment of Diderot's Essay on Painting (written in 1765,
but not given to the world until 1796) is an instructive lesson.
" Diderot's essay," he wrote to Schiller, " is a magnificent work,
and it speaks even more usefully to the poet than to the painter,
though for the painter, too,^it is a torch of powerful illumination."
Yet Diderot's critical principle in the essay was exactly opposite
to Goethe's ; and when Goethe translated some portions of it, he
was forced to add a commentary of stringent protest. Diderot, as
usual, energetically extols nature, as the one source and fountain
of true artistic insphration. Even in what looks to us like defect
and 'monstrosity, she is never incorrect. If she inflicts on the
individual some unusual feature, she never fails to draw other
parts of the system into co-ordination and a sort of harmony with
the abnormal element. We say of a man who passes in the street
that he is ill-shapen. Yes, according to our poor rules; but
according to nature, it is another matter. We say of a statue that
it is of fine proportions. Yes, according to our poor rules ; but
according to nature ? '
In the same vein, he breaks out against the practice of drawing
from the academic model. All these academic positions, affected,
constrained, artificial, as they are; all these actions coldly and
awkwardly expressed by some poor devil, and always the same
poor devil, hired to come three times a week, to undress himself,
and to play the puppet in the hands of the professor -what have
these in common with the positions and actions of nature'? What
is there in common between the man who draws water from the
well in your courtyard, and the man who pretends to imitate him
on the platform of the drawing-school ? If Diderot thought the
seven years passed in drawing the model no better than wasted,
he was not any more indulgent to the practice of studying the
' X. 461-2.

school, and even from tlie am

We may easily believe he
such lessoas as these by the an
admirer of the ancient marb
said Goethe, is to confound r
gamate nature with art. "Ni
indifferent being, the Artist somi
Nature something real, ihe At
works of Nature the spectator i
effect, reality ; in a work of Art
there. A perfect imitation of N
Artist is only called to the rq&gt;
appearance. The outside of tl
speaks to all our faculties of tiiin
elevates our intelligence that w'
the vivid, potent, finished Bea
appointed." In other words, ar

own aims, and these are not tin

mock al rules, is to overthrow tin
or a statue possible. To send tithe life of the street, the eaol. &lt;

ART. 289
which one may only move in modest measure. And of this
modest measure the academy, the school, the master, above all
the antique, are the guardians and the teachers.'
It is unnecessary to labour the opposition between the two
great masters of criticism. Goethe, as usual, must be pronounced
to have the last word of reason and wisdom, the word which comprehends most of the truth of the matter. And it is delivered in
that generous and loyal spirit which nobody would have appreciated more than the free-hearted Diderot himself. The drift of
Goethe's contention is, in fact, the thesis of Diderot's Paradox on
the Comedian. But the state of painting in France ^and Goethe
admits it may have called for a line of criticism which was an
exaggeration of what Diderot, if he had been in Goethe's neutral
position, would have found in his better mind.'
There is a passage in one of the Salons which sheds a striking
side-light on the difference between these two great types of
genius. The difference between the mere virtuoso and the deep
critic is that, in the latter, behind views on art we discern farreaching thoughts on life. And in Diderot, no less than in
Goethe, art is ever seen in its associations with character, aspiration, happiness, and conduct.
** The sun, which was on the edge of the horizon, disappeared ; over the sea
there came all at once an aspect more sombre and solemn. Twilight, which is
at first neither day nor night an image of our feeble thoughts, and an image
that warns the philosopher to stay in his speculations warns the traveller too
to turn his steps towards home. So I turned back, and as I continued the
thread of my thoughts, I began to reflect that if there is a particular morality
belonging to each species, so perhaps in the same species there is a different
morality for different individuals, or at least for different kinds and collecti
of individuals. And in order not to scandalize you by too serious an example,
it came into my head that there is perhaps a morality peculiar to artists or to
' Diderot's Versuch iiber die MctUrei. Goethe's Werke^ xxv. 309, etc.
' And of course on occasion did actually find. See xL loi. Sir Joshua
Reynolds, who was too sincere a lover of his art not to be above mere patriotic
prejudice, describes the condition of things. " I have heard painters acknowledge that they could do better without nature than with her, or, as they
expressed themselves, it only put them out. Our neighbours, the French, are
much in this practice of extempore invention, and their dexterity is such as eve
to excite admiration, if not envy ; but how rarely can this praise be given to
their finished pictures I " Twelfth Discourse, p. 105.

j'.i:; !. I \-". 1 H'-'-c ^!' -A - tlial r.raiii

v&gt; lio are the lii;iu"cs of poetry. Thei
that shelters one alike from praise ar
would no one choose to let his se
O vanity of man ! " *
Goethe's Tasso, a work so full
is the idealised and pathetic versi
thus conceived for genius. The
poet and Antonio, the man of th
impressive statement of the prol
Goethe sympathised with Antonio
nature so much of the spirit oi
common reason of the world. Ar
ideals. In Diderot, as our readers
were otherwise.
The essay on Beauty in the E
most of Diderot's contributions
careful account of two or three o
Hutcheson. The object is to e
Diderofs own conclusion is that
lions." Our words for the differe
expressive of notions (acquired by
of order, proportion, svmmpttnr .-




moods, but their force depends upon the importation into the
conception of beauty of some more definite element than the bare
idea of relation. Some sentences show that he came very near to
the famous theory of Alison, that beauty is only attributed to
sounds and sights, where, and because, they recall what is
pleasing, sublime, pathetic, and set our ideas and emotions flowing in one of these channels. But he does not get fairly on the
track of either Alison's, or any other decisive and marking adjective, with which to qualify his rapports. He wastes some time,
moreover, in trying to bring within the four comers of his definition some uses of the terms of beauty, which are really only
applied to objects by way of analogy, and are not meant to
predicate the beautiful in any literal or scientific sense.
There is no more interesting department of aesthetic inquiry
than the relations of the arts to one another, and the nature of the
delimitations of the provinces of poetry, painting, sculpture, music

Diderot, from the very beginning of his career, had turned his
thoughts to this intricate subject In his letter on Deaf Mutes
(17 51) he had stated the problem to collect the common
beauties of poetry, painting, and music ; to show their analogies ;
to explain how the poet, the painter, and the musician render the
same image ; to seize the fugitive emblems of their expression.
Why should a situation that is admirable in a poem become
ridiculous in a painting ? * For instance, what is it that prevents
a painter from reproducing the moment when Neptune raises his
head above the tossing waters, as he is represented in Virgil :
Interea magno misceri murmure pontam,
Emissamque hiemem sensit Neptuims, et imis
. Stagna refusa vadis ; graviter commotus, et alto
Prospiciens, siimm&amp; placidum caput extulit uncUL
Diderof s answer to the question is an anticipation of the main
position of the famous little book which appeared fifteen years
afterwards, and which has been well described as the Organum of
* It is to be observed also that he shows true perspicacity in connecting the
difficulty of transforming a poetic into a pictorial description, with the kindr
difficulty of translating a finished poem in one language into another language.
See also xL 107.

of iIk' i.ody (ould 1101 he s^u

waters, and lliereforc tlie god v
decapitated ; because it is indis
iropTcssion of a surgical ampul
hidden limbs should be there tc
rest* He takes another insta
admirable in poetry, would be
he asks, could bear upon canvas
between his teeth the bones of o)
Who could see without horroi
s mouth, with blood dri)
g the many passages ii
differences between poetry and ]
true than that in which he im[
description of details : " True
cbamcteristics, and leaves the i
Annida advances with noble miei
anny of Godfrey, and when tht
anodter with jealous eyes, that /
when Helen passes before the ol
oat it is then that Helen is be
describes Alcina from the crown &lt;
feet *" ' '"

ART. 293
amis and shoulders ; I will take all else on mjrself. If you do
more, you confuse the kinds of work ; you cease to be a poet, and
become a painter or sculptor. One single trait, a great trait;

leave the rest to my imagination. That is true taste, great taste." '
And then he quotes with admiration Ovid's line of the goddess of
the seas :
Nee brachia longo
Margine terrarum porrexerat Amphitrite.
Quel image ! Quels bras ! Quel prodigieux mouvement ! Quelle
figure ! and so forth, after Diderot's manner.
Nobody will compare these detached and fragmentary deliverances with the full and easy mastery which Lessing, in Laocoon and
its unfinished supplements, exhibits over the many ramifications
of his central idea. We can only notice that Diderot had a foot
on the track, along which Lessing afterwards made such signal
progress. The reader who cares to measure the advantage of
Lessing's more serious and concentrated attention to his subject,
may compare the twelfth chapter of Laocoon with Diderot's criticism
on Doyen's painting of the Battle between Diomede and Aeneas.'
As we see how near Diderot came to the real and decisive truths
of all these matters, and yet how far he remains from the full perception of what a little consecutive study must have revealed to
his superior genius, we can only think painfully of his avowal
" I have not the consciousness of having employed the half of my
strength : jusqticL present je n'ai que baguenaudeP
^ I On the great art of music Diderot has said little that is worth
attending to. Bemetzrieder, a German musician, who taught
Diderot's daughter to play on the clavecin, wrote an elementary
book called Lessons on the Clavecin and Principles of Harmony.
This is pronounced by the modem teachers to be not less than
contemptible. Diderot, however, with his usual boundless good
nature, took the trouble to set the book in a series of dialogues,
in which teacher, pupil, and a philosopher deal in all kinds of
elaborate amenities, and pay one another many compliments. It
reminds one of the old Hebrew grammar which is couched in the
form of Conversations with a Duchess " Your Grace having
* (EuvreSy xi. 328. ' Saion de IjSl ; CEuz'res, v. 140.



kindly condescended to approve of the plan that I have sketched.

All this your Grace probably knows already, but your Grace has
probably never attempted," and so forth.
The unwise things that men of letters have written from a goodnatured wish to help their friends, are not so numerous that we
need be afraid of extending to them a good-natured pardon. The
beauty of Diderot's Salons is remarkable enough to cover a multitude of sins in other arts. There are few other compositions in
European literature which show so well how criticism of art itself
may become a fine art.

** What would you say of the owner of an immense palace, who
should spend all his life in going up from the cellars to the attics,
and going down from attics to cellar, instead of sitting quietly in
the midst of his family ? That is the image of the traveller."
Yet Diderot, whose words these are, resolved at the age of sixty
to undertake no less formidable a journey than to the remote
capital on the shores of the Neva. It had come into his head, or
perhaps others had put it into his head, that he owed a visit to his
imperial benefactress whose bounty had rendered life easier to
him. He had recently made the acquaintance of two Russian
personages of consideration. One of them was the Princess
Dashkow, who was believed to have taken a prominent part in
that confused conspiracy of 1762, which ended in the murder of
Peter iii. by Alexis Orloff, and the elevation of Catherine 11. to
the throne. Her services at that critical moment had not prevented her disgrace, if indeed they were not its cause, and in 1770
the Princess set out on her travels. Horace Walpole has described
the curiosity of the London world to see the Muscovite Alecto,
the accomplice of the northern Athaliah, the amazon who had
taken part in a revolution when she was only nineteen. In England
she made a pleasant impression, in spite of eyes of " a very Catiline
fierceness." She was equally delighted with England, and when
she went on from London to Paris, she took very little trouble to
make friends in the capital of the rival nation. Diderot seems to

Prince Galitzin was one of those

Galiani, who found themselves
where else in the world. Livin,
of letters, he became an establ
assistance (1767) be acquired for
that adom the great gallery at St.
his knowledge of the fine arts, th'
great principle of true taste, the i
French, and he attempted the mt
of writing in the half-formed tongu
of the great painters of Italy and
pointed remark about him, that he
instinct, which is better than belies
diroi^h the medium of this frienc
Empress had acted in the purchase
be was appointed Kussiaa minist
ground for delight at the appoint
within reach of his friends in Paris
Diderot set out on his expeditic
1773 the date also of Johnson's n
^uid his first halt was at the Dub
of a four davB' \n"~~- '


good sister. Their house, he notices, had once been the residence
of Bameveldt Men like Diderot are the last persons to think of
their own historic position, else we might have expected to find
him musing on the saving shelter which this land of freedom and
tolerance had given to more than one of his great precursors in
the literature of emancipation. Descartes had found twenty years
of priceless fireedom (i 629-1 649) among the Dutch burghers.
The ruling ideas of the Encyclopaedia came in direct line from
Bayle (d. 1706) and Locke (d. 1704), and both Bayle and Locke,
though in different measures, owed their security to the stout
valour with which the Dutch defended their own land, and taught
the English how to defend theirs, against the destructive pretensions of Catholic absolutism. Of these memories Diderot probably
thought no more than Descartes thought about the learning of
Grotius or the art of Rembrandt. It was not the age, nor was his
the mind, for historic sentimentalism. " The more I see of this
country," he wrote to his good friends in Paris, " the more I feel
at home in it. The soles, fresh herrings, turbot, perch, are all the
best people in the world. The walks are charming ; I do not
know whether the women are all very sage, but with their great
straw hats, their eyes fixed on the ground, and the enormous
fichus spread over their bosoms, they have the air of coming back
from prayers or going to confession." Diderot did not fail to
notice more serious things than this. His remarks on the means
of travelling with most profit are full of sense, and the account
which he wrote of Holland shows him to have been as widely
reflective and observant as we should have expected him to be.'
It will be more convenient to say something on this, in connection
with the stay which he again made at the Hague on his return
from his pilgrimage to Russia.
After many hesitations the die was cast. Nariskin, a court
chamberlain, took charge of the philosopher, and escorted him in
an excellent carriage along the dreary road that ended in the
capital reared by Peter the Great among the northern floods. It
is worth while to digress for a few moments, to mark shortly the
difi*erence in social and intellectual conditions between the philosopher's own city and the city for which he was bound, and to
* (Euvres^ xviii. 365, 471,

touch on the significance of his journey. We can only in this
way understand the position of the Encyclopaedists in Europe,
and see why it is interesting to the student of the history of
Western civilization to know something about them. It is impossible to have a dear idea of the scope of the revolutionary
philosophy, as well as of the singular pre-eminence of Paris over
the western world, until we have placed ourselves, not only at
Ferney and Grandval, and in the parlours of Madame Geofirin
and Mademoiselle Lespinasse, but also in palaces at Florence,
Berlin, Vienna, and St. Petersburg.
From Holland with its free institutions, its peaceful industry,
its husbanded wealth, its rich and original art, its great political
and literary tradition, to go to Russia was to measure an arc of

Western progress, and to retrace the steps of the genius of civilization. The political capital of Russia represented a forced and
artificial union between old and new conditions. In St Petersburg, says an on-looker, were united the age of barbarism and the
age of civilization, the tenth century and the eighteenth, the
manners of Asia and the manners of Europe, the rudest Scythians
and the most polished Europeans, a brilliant and proud aristocracy
and a people sunk in servitude. On one side were elegant
fashions, magnificent dresses, sumptuous repasts, splendid feasts,
theatres like those which gave grace and animation to the select
circles of London or Paris : on the other side, shopkeepers in
Asiatic dress, coachmen, servants, and peasants clad in sheepskins,
wearing long beards, fur caps, and long fingerless gloves of skin,
with short axes hanging firom their leathern girdle$. The thick
woollen bands round their feet and legs resembled a rude
cothurnus, and the sight of these uncouth figures reminded one
who had seen the bas-reliefs on Trajan's column at Rome, of the
Scythians, the Dacians, the Goths, the Roxolani, who had been
the terror of the Empire.' Literary cultivation was confined to
almost the smallest possible area. Oriental as Russia was in many
respects, it was the opposite of oriental in one : women were then,
as they are still sometimes said to be in Russia, more cultivated
and advanced than men. Many of them could speak half-a-dozen
languages, could play on several instruments, and were familiar
Scgur*s Mhn, iu 230.


with the works of the famous poets of France, Italy, and England.
Among the men, on the contrary, outside of a few exceptional
families about the court, the vast majority were strangers to all
that was passing beyond the limits of their own country. The
few who had travelled and were on an intellectual level with their
century, were as far removed from the rest of their countrymen as
Englishmen are removed from Iroquois.
To paint the court of Catherine in its true colours, it has been
said that one ought to have the pen of Procopius. It was a hotbed of corruption, intrigue, jealousy, violence, hatred. One day,
surrounded by twenty-seven of her courtiers, Catherine said : " If
I were to believe what you all say about one another, there is not
one of you who does not richly deserve to have his head cut off."
A certain princess was notorious for her inhuman barbarity. One
day she discovered that one of her attendants was with child ; in
a frenzy she pursued the hapless Callisto from chamber to chamber, came up with her, dashed in her skull with a heavy weapon,
and finally in a delirium of passion ripped up her body. When
two nobles had a quarrel, they fell upon one another then and
there like drunken navvies, and Potemkin had an eye gouged out
in a court brawl. Such horrors give us a measure of the superior
humanity of Versailles, and enable us also in passing to see how
duelling could be a sign of a higher civilization. The reigning
passions were love of money and the gratification of a coarse
vanity. Friendship, virtue, manners, delicacy, probity, said one
witness, are here merely words, void of all meaning. The tone in
public affairs was as low as in those of private conduct I might
as well, says Sir G. Macartney, quote Clarke and Tillotson at the

divan of Constantinople, as invoke the authority of Puffendorf

and Grotius here.
The character of the Empress herself has been more disputed
than that of the society in which she was the one imposing personage. She stands in history with Elizabeth of England, with
Catherine de' Medici, with Maria Theresa, among the women who
have been like great men. Of her place in the record of the
creation of that vast empire which begins with Prussia and ends
with China, we have not here to speak. The materials for knowing her and judging her are only in our own time becoming


""'. "m and e,l,i

"""n as &gt; com,m. 1 '.

ronstimmaie comedi.

ferece , *, fo j^
Tali, T^"*'fR"mI
"1 the Tenlh Ccnrurv


chikows, Zavadowskys, Zoriczes, Korsaks. On the serious side,
Lewis XIV. was her great pattern and idoL She resented criticism on that renowned memory, as something personal to herself.
To her business as sovereign mon petti menage, as she called the
control of her huge formless empire she devoted as much indefatigable industry as Lewis himself had done in his best days.
Notwithstanding all her efforts to improve her country, she was
not popular, and never won the affection of her subjects ; but she
probably cared less for the opinion and sentiment of Russia than
for the applause of Europe. Tragedy displeases her, writes the
French minister, and comedy wearies her; she does not like
music j her table is without any sort of exquisiteness ; in a garden
she cares only for roses ; her only taste is to build and to drill her
court, for the taste that she has for reigning, and for making a
great figure in the universe, is really not so much taste as a downright absorbing passion.
Gunning, the English charge d'affaires, insists that the motive
of all her patriotic labours was not benevolence, but an insatiable

and unbounded thirst for fame. "If it were not so, we must
charge her with an inconsistency amounting to madness, for undertaking so many immense works of public utility, such as the
foundation of colleges and academies on a most extensive plan
and at an enormous outlay, and then leaving, them incomplete,
not even finishing the buildings for them." They had served the
purpose of making foreigners laud the glory of the Semiramis of
the north, and that was enough. The arts and sciences, said the
French minister, have plenty of academies here, but the academies
have few subjects and fewer pupils. How could there be pupils
in a country where there is nobody who is not either a courtier, a
soldier, or a slave ? The Princess Sophie of Anhalt, long before
she dreamed of becoming the Czarina Catherine 11., had been
brought up by a French governess, and the tastes that her governess had implanted grew into a passion for French literature,
which can only be compared to the same passion in Frederick
the Great Catherine only continued a movement that had
already in the reign of her predecessor gone to a considerable
length. The social reaction against German political predominance had been accompanied by a leaning to France. French

professors in art and literature had been tempted to Moscow, the
nobles sent to Paris for their clothes and their furniture, and a
French theatre was set up in St Petersburg, where the nobles
were forced to attend the performances under pain of a fine.
Absentees and loiterers were hurried to their boxes by horse*
Catherine was more serious and intelligent than this in her
pursuit of French culture. She had begun with the books in
which most of the salt of old France was to be found, with Rabelais, Scarron, Montaigne ; she cherished Moli^re and Corneille ;
and of the writers of the eighteenth century, apart from Voltaire,
the author of Gil Bias was her favourite. Such a list tells its own
tale of a mind turned to what is masculine, racy, pungent, and
thoroughly sapid. " I am a Gauloise of the north," she said, " I
only understand the old French ; I do not understand the new.
I made up my mind to get something out of your gentry, the learned
men in ist : I have tried them ; I made some of them come here ;
I occasionally 'wrote to them ; they wearied me to death, and never
understood me ; there was only my good protector, Voltaire. Do
you know it was Voltaire who made me the fashion ? " ' This was
a confidential revelation, made long after most of the philosophers
were dead. We might have penetrated the secret of her friendship
for such a man as Diderot, even with less direct evidence than this.
It was the vogue of the philosophers, and not their philosophy that
made Catherine their friend. They were the great interest of
Europe at this time, just as Greek scholars had been its interest in
one century, painters in another, great masters of religious controversy in a third. "What makes the great merit of France,"
said Voltaire, "what makes its unique superiority, is a small
number of sublime or delightful men of genius, who cause French
to be spoken at Vienna, at Stockholm, and at Moscow. Your
ministers, your intendants, your chief secretaries have no part
in all this glory." This vogue of the philosophers brought the
whole literature of their country into universal repute. In the

depths of the Crimea a khan of the Tartars took a delight in having

Tartufe and the Bourgeois Gentilhorame read aloud to him."
As soon as Catherine came into power (1762), she at once
* To the Prince de Ligne. " Rambaud, p. 573.


applied herself to make friends in this powerful region. It was
a matter of course that she should begin with the omnipotent
pontiff at Femey. Graceful verses from Voltaire were as indispensable an ornament to a crowned head as a diadem, and
Catherine answered with compliments that were perhaps more
sincere than his verses. She wonders how she can repay him for
a bundle of books that he had sent to her, and at last bethinks
herself that nothing will please the lover of mankind so much as
the introduction of inoculation into the great empire ; so she sends
for Dr. Dimsdale from England, and submits to the unfamiliar rite
in her own sacred person. Presents of furs are sent to the hermit
of the Alps, and he is told how fortunate the imperial messenger
counts himself in being despatched to Femey. What flattered
Voltaire more than furs, was Catherine's promptitude and exactness
in keeping him informed of her military and political movements
against Turkey. It made him a centre of European intelligence
in more senses than one, and helped him in his lifelong battle to
pose, in his letters at least, as the equal of his friend, the King of
Prussia. For lyAlembert the Empress professed an admiration
only less than she felt for Voltaire. She was eager that he should
come to Russia to superintend the instruction of the young GrandDuke. But D'Alembert was too prudent to go to St Petersburg,
as he was too prudent to go to Berlin. Montesquieu had died
five years before her accession, but his influence remained. She
habitually called the Spirit of Laws the breviary of kings, and
when she drew up her Instruction for a new code, she acknowledged
how much she had pillaged from Montesquieu. " I hope," she
said, " that if from the other world he sees me at work, he will forgive my plagiarism for the sake of the twenty millions of men who
will benefit by it." In truth the twenty millions of men got v^
little benefit indeed by the code. Montesquieu's own method
might have taught her that not even absolute power can force the
civil system of free labour into a society resting on serfdom. But
it is not surprising that Catherine was no wiser than more democratic reformers who had drunk from the French springs. Or
probably she had a lower estimate in her own heart of the value
of her code for practical purposes, than it suited her to disclose to
a Parisian philosopher.

Catherine did not forget that, though the French at this time
were pre-eminent in the literature of new ideas, yet there were
meritorious and useful men in other countries. One of her
correspondents was Zimmermann of Hanover, whose essay on
Solitude the shelves of no second-hand bookseller's shop is ever
without She had tried hard to bribe Beccaria to leave Florence
for St. Petersburg. She succeeded in persuading Euler to return

to a capital whither he had been invited many years before by the

first Catherine, and where he now remained.
Both Catherine's position and her temperament made the society
of her own sex of littie use or interest to her. " I don't know
whether it is custom or inclination," she wrote, " but somehow I
can never carry on conversation except with men. There are only
two women in the world with whom I can talk for half-an-hour
at once." Yet among her most intimate correspondents was one
woman well known in the Encyclopaedic circle. She kept up an
active exchange of letters with Madame Geoffrin that interesting
personage, who though belonging to the bourgeoisie, and possessing not a trace of literary genius, yet was respectfully courted not
only by Catherine, but by Stanislas, Gustavus, and Joseph ii.'
On the whole then we must regard Catherine's European correspondence as at least in some measure the result of political calculation. Its purposes, as has been said, were partly those to which in
our own times some governments devote'a Reptile-fund. There is a
letter from the Duchesse de Choiseul to Madame du Deffand, her
intimate friend, and the friend of so many of the literary circle, in
which the secret of the relations between Catherine and the
men of letters is very plainly told. " All that," she writes protection of arts and sciences " is mere luxury and a caprice of
fashion in our age. All such pompous jargon is the product of
vanity, not of principles or of reflection The Empress of
Russia has another object in protecting literature ; she has had
sense enough to feel that she had need of the protection of the
men of letters. She has flattered herself that their base praises
would cover with an impenetrable veil in the eyes of her contemporaries and of posterity, the crimes with which she has astonished
the universe and revolted humanity. .... The men of letters, on
' See M. Mouy's Introduction to her Correspondence with Stanislas.


the other hand, flattered, cajoled, caressed by her, are vain of the
protection that they are able to throw over her, and dupes of
the coquetries that she lavishes on them. These people who say
and believe that they are the instructors of the masters of the
world, sink so low as actually to take a pride in the protection *that
this monster seems in her turn to accord to them, simply because
she sits on a throne." '
In short, the monarchs of the north understood and used the
new forces of the men of letters, whom their own sovereign only
recognised to oppress. The contrast between the liberalism of
the northern sovereigns, and the obscurantism of the court of
France, was never lost from sight MarmonteFs Bdisarius was
condemned by the Sorbonne, and burnt at the foot of the great
staircase of the Palace of Justice ; in Russia a group of courtiers
hastened to translate it, and the Empress herself undertook one
chapter of the work. Diderot, who was not allowed to enter the
French Academy, was an honoured guest at the Russian palace.
For all this Catherine was handsomely repaid. When Diderot

visited St. Petersburg, Voltaire congratulated the Empress on

seeing that unique man ; but Diderot is not, he added, " the only
Frenchman who is an enthusiast for your glory. We are lay
missionaries who preach the religion of Saint Catherine, and we
can boast that our church is tolerably universal."* We have
already seen Catherine's generosity in buying Diderot's books, and
paying him for guarding them as her librarian. " I should never
have expected," she says, " that the purchase of a library would
bring me so many fine compliments ; all the world is bepraising
me about M. Diderof s library. But now confess, you to whom
humanity is indebted for the strong support that you have given
to innocence and virtue in the person of Calas, that it would have
been cruel and unjust to separate a student from his books."^
* Ah, madam,'* replies the most graceful of aU courtier:?, "let your
imperial majesty forgive me ; no, you are not the aurora borealis ;
you are assuredly the most brilliant star of the north, and never
was there one so beneficent as you. Andromeda, Perseus, Callisto,
are not your equals. All these stars would have left Diderot to
' Corresp. ComplHe de Mdnie. du Deffand, l 115. (EA 1877.) June, 1767.
November I, 1773. 3 November, 1766.

die of starvation. He was persecuted in his own country, and
your benefactions came thither to seek him ! Lewis xiv. was
less munificent than your majesty : he rewarded merit in foreign
countries, but other people pointed it out to hun, whereas you,
madame, go in search of it and find it for yourself. Your generous pains to establish freedom of conscience in Poland, are a
piece of beneficence that the human race must ever celebrate."'
When the first Partition of Poland took place seven years later,
Catherine found that she had not cultivated the friendship of the
French philosophers to no purpose. The action of the dominant
party in Poland enabled Catherine to take up a line which touched
the French philosophers in their tenderest part The Polish
oligarchy was Catholic, and imposed crushing disabilities on the
non-Catholic part of the population. " At the slightest attempt
in favour of the non-Catholics," King Stanislas writes to Madame
Geoffrin, of the Diet of 1764, "there arose such a cry of fanaticism I
The difficulty as to the naturalization of foreigners, the contempt
for roturicrs and the oppression of them, and Catholic intolerance,
are the three strongest national prejudices that I have to fight
against in my countrymen ; they are at bottom good folk, but their
education and ignorance render them excessively stubborn on
these three heads."" Poland in short reproduced in an aggravated
and more barbaric form those evils of Catholic feudalism, in which
the philosophers saw the arch-curse of their own country.
Catherine took the side of the Dissidents, and figured as the
champion of religious toleration. Toleration was chief among the
philosophic watchwords, and seeing that great device on her
banners, the Encyclopaedic party asked no further questions. So,
with the significant exception of Rousseau, they all abstained from
the cant about the Partition which has so often been heard from
European liberals in later days. And so with reference to more

questionable transactions of an earlier date, no one could guess

from the writings of the philosophers that Catherine had ever been
suspected of uniting with her husband in a plot to poison the
Empress Elizabeth, and then uniting with her lover in a plot to
strangle her husband. " I am quite aware," said Voltaire, " that
she is reproached with some bagatelles in the matter of her
* December 22, 1766. * Corresp. pp. 135, 144, &amp;c


husband, but these are family affairs with which I cannot possibly
think of meddling."
One curious instance of Catherine's sensibility to European
opinion is connected with her relations to Diderot. Rulhi^re,
afterwards well known in literature as a historian, began life as
secretary to Breteuil, in the French embassy at St, Petersburg.
An eyewitness of the tragedy which seated Catherine on the
throne, he wrote an account of the events of the revolution of
1762. This piquant narrative, composed by a young man who
had read Tacitus and Sallust, was circulated in manuscript among
the salons of Paris (1768). Diderot had warned Rulhibre that it
was infinitely dangerous to speak about princes, that not everything that is true is fit to be told, that he could not be too careful
of the feelings of a great sovereign who was the admiration and
delight of her people. Catherine pretended that a mere secretary
of an embassy could know very little about the real springs and
motives of the conspiracy. Diderot had described the manuscript
as painting her in a commanding and imperious attitude. " There
was nothing of that sort," she said ; " it was only a question of
perishing with a madman, or saving oneself with the multitude
who insisted on coming to the rescue." What she saw was that
the manuscript must be bought, and she did her best first to buy
the author, and then, when this failed, to have him locked up in
the Bastille. She succeeded in neither. The French government
were not sorry to have a scourge to their hands. All that Diderot
could procure from Rulhibre was a promise that the work should
not be published during the Empress's lifetime. It was actually
given to the world in 1797. When Diderot was at St. Petersburg^
the Empress was importunate to know the coijtents of the manuscript, which he had seen, but of which she was unable to procure
a copy. " As far as you are concerned," he said, " if you attach
great importance, Madame, to the decencies and virtues, the wornout rags of your sex, this work is a satire against you j but if large
views and masculine and patriotic designs concern you more, the
author depicts you as a great princess." The Empress answered
that this only increased her desire to read the book. Diderot
himself truly enough described it as a historic romance, containing
a mixed tissue of lies and truths that posterity would compare to
X 2

1. ^ . _^ .

a chapter of Tacitus.' Perhaps the only piece of it that posterity
will really value is the page in which the writer describes Catherine's
personal appearance; her broad and open brow, her large and
slightly double chin, her hair of resplendent chestnut, her eyes cf
a brilliant brown into which the reflections of the light brought
shades of blue. " Pride," he says, " is the true characteristic of
her physiognomy. The amiability and grace which are there too,
only seem to penetrating eyes to be the effect of an extreme desire
to please, and these seductive expressions somehow let the design
of seducing be rather too clearly seen."
The first Frenchman whom Catherine welcomed in person to
her court was Falconet, of whose controversy with the philosopher
we shall have a few words to say in a later chapter. This introduction to her was due to Diderot She had entreated him to
find for her a sculptor who would undertake a colossal statue of
Peter the Great. Falconet was at the height of his reputation in
his own country ; in leaving it he seems to have been actuated by
no other motive than the desire of an opportunity of erecting an
immense monument of his art, though Diderot's eloquence was
not wanting. Falconet had the proverbial temperament of artistic
genius. Diderot called him the Jean Jacques of sculpture. He
had none of the rapacity for money which has distinguished so
many artists in their dealings with foreign princes, but he was
irritable, turbulent, restless, intractable. He was a chivalrous
defender of poorer brethren in art, and he was never a respecter
of persons. His feuds with Betzki, the Empress's faithful factotum,
were as acrid as the feuds between Voltaire and Maupertuis.
Betzki had his own ideas about the statue that was to do honour
to the founder of the Empire, and he insisted that the famous
equestrian figure of Marcus Aurelius should be the model.
Falconet was a man of genius, and he retorted that what might be
good for Marcus Aurelius would not be good for Peter the Great.
The courtly battle does not concern us, though some of its
episodes offer tempting illustrations of biting French malice.
Falconet had his own way, and after the labour of many years, a
colossus of bronze bestrode a charger rearing on a monstrous
mass of unhewn granite. Catherine took the liveliest interest in
' Satire I, sur Us caracthes^ etc (Ettvres, vi. 313.


her artist's work, frequently visiting his studio, and keeping up a
busy correspondence. With him, as with the others, she insisted
that he should stand on no ceremony, and should not spin out his
lines with epithets on which she set not the smallest value. She
may be said to have encouraged him to pester her with a host of
his obscure countrymen in search of a living, and a little colony of
Frenchmen whose names tell us nothing, hung about the Russian
capital. Diderot's account of this group of his countrymen at
St. Petersburg recalls the picture of a corresponding group at
Berlin. " Most of the French who are here rend and hate one
another, and bring contempt both on themselves and their nation :
'tis the most unworthy set of rascals that you can imagine."*

Diderot reached St Petersburg towards the end of 1773, ^^^

he remained some five months, until the beginning of March,
1774. His impulsive nature was shocked by a chilly welcome
from Falconet, but at the palace his reception was most cordial,
as his arrival had been eagerly anticipated. The Empress always
professed to detest ceremony and state. In a letter to Madame
Geoffrin she insists, as we have already seen her doing with
Falconet, on being treated to no oriental prostrations, as if she
were at the court of Persia. " There is nothing in the world so
ugly and detestable as greatness. When I go into a room, you
would say that I am the head of Medusa : everybody turns to
stone. I constantly scream like an eagle against such ways ; yet
the more I scream, the less are they at their ease If you
came into my room, I should say to you, Madame, be seated j let
us chatter at our ease. You would have a chair in front of me ;
there would be a table between us. Et puis des bdions rompus^
tant etplusy c'est monfortP
This is an exact description of her real behaviour to Diderot
On most days he was in her society from three in the afternoon
until five or six. Etiquette was banished. Diderot's simplicity
and vehemence were as conspicuous and as unrestrained at
Tsarskoe-selo as at Grandval or the Rue Taranne. If for a
moment the torrent of his improvisation was checked by the
thought that he was talking to a great lady, Catherine encouraged
him to go on. " AilonSy^ she cried, " entre hommes tout estpermisJ*
' (EuvreSf xx. 58.

The philosopher in the heat of exposition brought his hands
down upon the imperial knees with such force and iteration, that
Catherine complained that he made them black and blue. She
was sometimes glad to seek shelter from such zealous enforcement
of truth, behind a strong table. Watchful diplomatists could not
doubt that such interviews must have reference to politics.
Cathcart, the English ambassador, writes to his government that
M. Diderot is still with the Empress at Tsarskoe-selo, " pursuing
his political intrigues." And, amazing as it may seem, the French
minister and the French ambassador both of them believed that
they had found in this dreaming rhapsodical genius a useful
diplomatic instrument. " The interviews between Catherine and
Diderot follow one another incessantly, and go on from day to
day. He told me, and I have reasons for believing that he is
speaking the truth, that he has painted the danger of the alliance of
Russia with the King of Prussia, and the advantage of an alliance
with us. The Empress, far from blaming this freedom, encouraged
him by word and gesture. * You are not fond of that prince,'
she said to Diderot. * No,' he replied, ' he is a great man, but
a bad king, and a dealer in counterfeit coin.' * Oh,' said she
laughing, ' I have had my share of his coin.' "
The first Partition of Poland had been finally consummated
in the Polish Diet in the autumn of 1773, a few weeks before
Diderot's arrival at St. Petersburg. Lewis xv., now drawing very

near to his end, and D'Aiguillon, his minister, had some uneasiness
at this opening of the great era of territorial revolution, and looked
about in a shiftless way for an ally against Russia and Prussia.
England sensibly refused to stir. Then France, as we see, was
only anxious to detach Catherine from Frederick. All was shiftless and feeble, and the French government can have kno\sTi little
of the Empress, if they thought that Diderot was the man to affect
her strong and positive mind. She told Segur in later years what
success Diderot had with her as a politician.
" I talked much and frequently with him," said Catherine,
** but with more curiosity than profit If I had believed him,
everything would have been turned upside down in my kingdom ;
legislation, administration, finances all to be turned topsy-turvy
to make room for impracticable theories. Yet as I listened more


than I talked, any witness who happened to be present, would
have taken him for a severe pedagogue, and me for his humble
scholar. Probably he thought so himself, for after some time,
seeing that none of these great innovations were made which he
had recommended, he showed surprise and a haughty kind of
dissatisfaction. Then speaking openly, I said to him : Afr, Dideroty
I have listened with the greatest pleasure to all that your brilliant
intelligence has inspired ; and with all your great principles y which I
understand very well, one would make fine books , but very bad business.
You forget in all your plajis of reform the difference in our positions ;
you only work on paper , which endures all things ; it opposes no
obstacle either to your imagination or to your pen. But I, poor
Empress as I am, 7vork on the human skin, which is irritable and
ticklish to a very different degree. I am persuaded that from this
moment he pitied me as a narrow and vulgar spirit. For the
future he only talked about literature, and politics vanished from
our conversation." '
Catherine was mistaken, as we shall see, in supposing that
Diderot ever thought her less than the greatest of men. Cathcart,
the English ambassador, writes in a sour strain : " All his letters
are filled with panegyrics of the Empress, whom he depicts as
above humanity. His flatteries of the Grand Duke have been no
less gross, but be it said to the young princess honour, he has
shown as much contempt for such flatteries as for the mischievous
principles of this pretended philosopher."
Frederick tells D*Alembert that though the Empress overwhelms Diderot \yith favours, people at St Petersburg find him
tiresome and disputatious, and " talking the same rigmarole over
and over again." In her letters to Voltaire, Catherine lets nothing
of this be seen. She finds Diderot's imagination inexhaustible,
and ranks him among the most extraordinary men that have ever
lived ; she delights in his conversation, and his visits have given
her the most uncommon pleasure. All this was perhaps true
enough. Catherine probably rated the philosopher at his true
worth as a great talker and a singular and original genius, but this
did not prevent her, any more than it need prevent us, from seeing
the limits and measure. She was not one of the weaker heads who

' S^gur, iiL 34.

can never be content without either wholesale enthusiasm or
wholesale disparagement
' Diderot had a companion who pleased her better than Diderot
himself. Grimm came to St Petersburg at this time to pay his
first visit, and had a great success. " The Empress," wrote Madame
Geoffrin to King Stanislas, "lavished all her graces on Grimm.
And he has everything that is needed to make him worthy of them.
Diderot has neither the fineness of perception, nor the delicate
tact that Grimm has, and so he has not had the success of Grimm.
Diderot is always in himself, and sees nothing in other people that
has not some reference to himself. He is a man of a great deal
of understanding, but his nature and tiun of mind make him
good for nothing, and, more than that, would make him a very
dangerous person in any employment. Grimm is quite the
contrary." '
In truth, as we have said before, Grimm was one of the
shrewdest heads in the Encyclopaedic party; he had much
knowledge, a judgment both solid and acute, and a certain easy
fashion of social commerce, free from raptures and full of good
sense. Yet he was as devoted and ecstatic in his feelings about
the Empress as his more impetuous friend. " Here," he says,
" was no conversation of leaps and bounds, in which idleness
traverses a whole gallery of ideas that have no connection with
one another, and weariness draws you away from one object to
skim a dozen others. They were talks in which all was bound
together, often by imperceptible threads, but all the more naturally,
as not a word of what was to be said had been led up to or
prepared beforehand." Grimm cannot find words to describe her
verve, her stream of brilliant sallies, her dashing traits, her eagle's
coup d'ceil. No wonder that he used to quit her presence so
electrified as to pass half the night in marching up and down his
room, beset and pursued by all the fine and marvellous things
that had been said. How much of all this is true, and how much
of it is the voice of the bewildered courtier, it might be hard to
decide. But the rays of the imperial sun did not so far blind
his prudence, as to make him accept a pressing invitation to
remain permanently in Catherine's service. When Diderot quitted
* Mouy*s Corresp. duroi Stanislas^ p. 501.


St. Petersburg, Grimm went to Italy. After an interlude there, he
returned to Russia and was at once restored to high favour. When
the time came for him to leave her, the Empress gave him a yearly
pension of two thousand roubles, or about ten thousand livres,
and with a minute considerateness that is said not to be common
among the great, she presently ordered that it should be paid in
such a form that he should not lose on the exchange between France
and Russia. Whether she had a special object in keeping Grimm in

good humour, we hardly know. What is certain is that from 1776

until the fall of the French monarchy she kept up a voluminous
correspondence with him, and that he acted as an unofficial intermediary between her and the ministers at Versailles. Every day
she wrote down what she wished to say to Grimm, and at the end
of every three months these daily sheets were made into a bulky
packet and despatched to Paris by a special courier, who returned
with a similar packet from Grimm. This intercourse went on
until the very height of the Revolution, when Grimm at last, in
February, 1792, fled from Paris. The Empress's helpful friendship
continued to the end of her life (1796). '
Diderot arrived at the Hague on his return from Russia in the
first week of April (1774), after making a rapid journey of seven
hundred leagues in three weeks and a day. D'Alembert had
been anxious that Frederick of Prussia should invite Diderot to
visit him at Berlin. Frederick had told him that, intrepid reader
as he was, he could not endure to read Diderot's books. " There
reigns in them a tone of self-sufficiency and an arrogance which
revolt the instinct of my freedom. It was not in such a style that
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Gassendi, Bayle, and Newton
wrote." D'Alembert replied that the king would judge more
favourably of the philosopher's person than of his works ; that he
would find in Diderot, along with much fecundity, imagination,
and knowledge, a gentle heat and a great deal of amenit}'.*
Frederick, however, did not send the invitation, and Diderot
willingly enough went homeward by the northern route by which
he had come. He passed Konigsberg, where, if he had known
' AUmoire Hisioriqu.% printed in voL L of the new edition (1877) of the
Correspondence of Grimm and Diderot, by M. Maurice Toumeux.
' D'Alembert au Roi de Prusse. Feb. 14, 1774.

fnr ' ^"^ " '"-'"cr on Ji


every subject . . . Who could fail to prize him ? He is so bright,
so full of instruction, has so many new thoughts and suggestions,
that nobody can help admiring him. But willingly as he talks
when one goes to him, he shows to little advantage in large
companies, and that is why he did not please everybody at
St. Petersburg. You will easily see the reason why this incomparable man in such companies, where people talk of fashion, of
clothes, of frippery, and all other sorts of triviality, neither gives
pleasure to others nor finds pleasure himself" And the friendly
Swede rises to the height of generalization in the quaint maxim,
Where an empty head shines, there a thoroughly cultivated man
comes too short.
Bjornstahl quotes a saying of Voltaire, that Diderot would
have been a poet if he had not wished to be a philosopher a
remark that was rather due perhaps to Voltaire^s habitual complaisance, than to any serious consideration of Diderot's qualities.
But if he could not be a poet himself, at least he knew Pindar and
Homer by heart, and at the Hague he never stirred out without a

Horace in his pocket. And though no poet, he was full of poetic

sentiment. Scheveningen, the little bathing-place a short distance
from the Hague, was Diderot's favourite spot. " It was there," he
writes, " that I used to see the horizon dark, the sea covered with
white haze, the waves rolling and tumbling, and far out the poor
fishermen in their great clumsy boats ; on the shore a multitude
of women frozen with cold or apprehension, trying to warm themselves in the sun. When the work was at an end and the boats
had landed, the beach was covered with fish of every kind. These
good people have the simplicity, the openness, the filial and
fraternal piety of old time. As the men come down from their
boats, their wives throw themselves into their arms, they embrace
their fathers and their little ones ; each loads himself with fish ;
the son tosses his father a codfish or a salmon, which the old man
carries off in triumph to his cottage, thanking heaven that it has
given him so industrious and worthy a son. When he has gone indoors, the sight of the fish rejoices the old man's mate \ it is quickly
cut in pieces, the less lucky neighbours invited, it is speedily eaten,
and the room resounds with thanks to God, and cheerful songs." *
* xvii. 449.

These scenes, with their sea-background, their animation, their
broad strokes of the simple, tender, and real in life, may well have
been after Diderot's own heart He often told me, says Bjomstahl,
that he never found the hours pass slowly in the company of a
peasant, or a cobbler, or any handicraftsman, but that he had
many a time found them pass slowly enough in the society of a
courtier. " For of the one," he said, " one can always ask about
useful and necessary things, but the other is mostly, so far as
anything useful is concerned, empty and void."
The characteristics of the European capitals a century ago
were believed to be hit off in the saying, that each of them would
furnish the proper cure for a given defect of character. The overelegant were to go to London, savages to Paris, bigots to Berlin,
rebels to St Petersburg, people who were too sincere to Rome,
the over-learned to Brussels, and people who were too lively to the
Hague. Yet the dulness thus charged against the Hague was not
universally admitted. Impartial travellers assigned to the talk of
cultivated circles there a rank not below that of similar circles in
France and England. Some went even further, and declared
Holland to have a distinct advantage, because people were never
embarrassed either by the levity and sparkling wit of France on
the one hand, nor by the depressing reserve and taciturnity of
England on the other. * Yet Holland was fully within the sphere
of the great intellectual commonwealth of the west, and was as
directly accessible to the literary influences of the time as it had
ever been. If Diderot had inquired into the vernacular productions of the country, he would have found that here also the wave
of reaction against French conventions, the tide of English simplicity and domestic sentimentalism, had passed into literature.
The Spectator and Clarissa Harlowe inspired the writers of
Holland, as they had inspired Diderot himself. '
In erudition, it was still what, even after the death of Scaliger,

it had remained through the seventeenth century, the most learned

state of Europe \ and the elder Hemsterhuys, with such pupils as
Ruhnken and Valckenaer, kept up as well as he could the
scholarly tradition of Gronovius and Graevius. But the eighteenth
' George Forster's Ansichten vom Niederrkdn, &amp;c. ii. 396 (1790).
Jonckbloet*s Gesck, d. Niederland, Lit, (German trans. ) ii. 502, &amp;c


century was not the century of erudition. Scholarship had given
way to speculation.
Among the interesting persons whom Diderot saw at the
Hague, the most interesting is the amiable and learned son of the
elder Hemsterhuys, himself by the way not Dutch, but the son of
a Frenchman, Hemsterhuys had been greatly interested in what
he had heard of Diderot's character,' though we have no record
of the impression that was made by personal acquaintance. If
Diderot was playfully styled the French Socrates, the younger
Hemsterhuys won from his friends the name of the Dutch Plato.
The Hollanders pointed to this meditative figure, to his great
attainments in the knowledge of ancient literature and art, to his
mellowed philosophizing, to his gracious and well-bred style, as a
proof that their country was capable of developing both the
strength and the sensibility of human nature to their highest point."
And he has a place in the history of modem speculation. As we
think of him and Diderot discussing, we feel ourselves to be
placed at a point that seems to command the diverging streams
and eddying currents of the time. In this pair, two great tides of
thought meet for a moment, and then flow on in their deep
appointed courses. For Hemsterhuys, bom a Platonist to the
core, became a leader of the reaction against the French philosophy
of illumination of sensation, of experience, of the verifiable. He
contributed a marked current to the mysticism and pietism which
crept over Germany before the French revolution, and to that
religious philosophy which became a point of patriotic honour
both in Germany and at the Russian Court, after the revolutionary
war had seemed to identify the rival philosophy of the Encyclopaedists with the victorious fury of the national enemy. Jacobi, a
chief of the mystic tribe, had begun the attack on the French with
weapons avowedly borrowed from the sentimentalism of Rousseau,
but by-and-by he found in Hemsterhuys more genuinely intellectual arguments for his vindication of feeling and the heart
against the Encyclopaedist claim for the supremacy of the
Diderot's hostess at the Hague is a conspicuous figure in the
' (Etev, Phil, de Fr. Hemsterhuys^ iii. 141. (Ed. Meyboom.)
' Forster, ii. 398. Galiani, Corresp, ii, 189.

history of this movement Prince Galitzin had married the
daughter of Frederick's field-marshal, Schmettau. Goethe, who

saw her (1797) many years after Diderot was dead, describes her
as one of those whom one cannot understand without seeing ; as a
person not rightly judged unless considered not only in connection,
but in conflict, with her time. If she was remarkable to Goethe
when fifty years had set their mark upon her, she was even more
so to the impetuous Diderot in all the flush and intellectual
excitement of her youth. It was to the brilliance and versatility
of the Princess Galitzin that her husband^s house owed its consideration and its charm. " She is very lively," said Diderot,
" very gay, very intelligent ; more than young enough, instructed
and full of talents ; she has read ; she knows several languages, as
Germans usually do; she plays on the clavecin, and sings like
an angel; she is full of expressions that are at once ingenuous
and piquant; she is exceedingly kind-hearted."' But he could
not persuade her to take his philosophy on trust. Diderot is
said, by the Princess's biographer, to have been a fervid prosely tizer, eager to make people believe " his poems about eternally
revolving atoms, through whose accidental encounter the present
ordering of the world was developed." The Princess met his
brilliant eloquence with a demand for proof. Her ever-repeated
Why ? and Jfaw ? are said to have shown " the hero of atheism
his complete emptiness and weakness."' In the long run
Diderot was completely routed in favour of the rival philosophy.
Hemsterhuys became bound to the Princess by the closest
friendship, and his letters to her are as striking an illustration
as any in literature of the peculiar devotion and admiration
which a clever and sympathetic woman may arouse in philosophic minds of a certain calibre in a Condillac, a Joubert,
a D'Alembert, a Mill. Though Hemsterhuys himself never
advanced from a philosophy of religion to the active region of
dogmatic professions, his disciple could not find contentment on
his austere heights. In the very year of Diderot's death (17S4)
the Princess Galitzin became a catholic, and her son became
* CEievres^ xix. 342.
' Dr. Katerkamp's Denkiuurdigkiiten aus dem Lcben der Furstinn Amalic
von Gallitzitiy p. 45.


not only a catholic, but a zealous missionary [of the faith in
This, however, was not yet The patriotic Bjomstahl was
very anxious that Diderot should go to Stockholm, to see for
himself that the Holstein blood was as noble in Sweden as it was
in Russia. Diderot replied that he would greatly have liked to
see on the throne the sovereign (Gustavus in.) who was so nearly
coming to pay him a visit on his own fourth storey in Paris. But
he confessed that he was growing homesick, and Stockholm must
remain unvisited. In September (1774) Diderot set his face
homewards. " I shall gain my fireside," he wrote on the eve of
his journey, "never to quit it again for the rest of my life. The
time that we count by the year has gone, and the time that we
must count by the day comes in its stead. The less one^s income,
the more important to use it well. I have perhaps half a score of
years at the bottom of my wallet. In these ten years, fluxions,

rheumatisms, and the other members of that troublesome family

will take two or three of them ; let us try to economise the seven
that are left, for the repose and the small happinesses that a man
may promise himself on the wrong side of sixty." The guess was
a good one. Diderot lived ten years more, and although his own
work in the world was done, they were years of great moment
both to France and the world. They witnessed the establishment
of a republic in the American colonies, and they witnessed the
final stage in the decay of the old monarchy in France. Turgot
had been made controller-general in the months before Diderot's
return, and Turgot's ministry was the last serious experiment in
the direction of orderly reform. The crash that followed resounded almost as loudly at St. Petersburg and in Holland as in
France itself, and Catherine, in 1792, ordered all the busts of
Voltaire that had adorned the saloons and corridors of her palace,
to be thrust ignominiously down into the cellars.

Before proceeding to the closing chapter of Diderot's life, I
propose to give a short account of three remarkable books, of all
of which he was commonly regarded as the inspirer, which were
all certainly the direct and natural work of the Encyclopaedic
school, and which all play a striking part in the intellectual
commotions of the century.
The great attack on the Encyclopaedia was made, as we have
already seen, in 1758, after the publication of the seventh volume.
The same prosecution levelled an angrier blow at Helvdtius's
famous treatise, L Esprit, It is not too much to say, that of all
the proscribed books of the century, that excited the keenest
resentment. This arose partly because it came earliest in the
literature of attack. It was an audacious surprise. The censor
who had allowed it to pass the ordeal of official approval was
cashiered, and the author was dismissed from an honorary post
in the Queen's household.' The indictment described the book
as " the code of the most hateful and infamous passions," as a
collection into one cover of everything that impiety could imagine^
calculated to engender hatred against Christianity and Catholicism.
The court condemned the book to be burnt, and, as if to show
that the motive was not mere discontent with Helv^tius's paradoxes,
the same fire consumed Voltaire's fine poem on Natural Religion.
Less prejudiced authorities thought nearly as ill of the book, as
* Barbier, vii, 137.

the lawyers of the parliament and the doctors of the Sorbonne
had thought Rousseau pronounced it detestable, wrote notes in
refutation of its principles, and was inspired by hatred of its
doctrine to compose some of the most fervid pages in the Savoyard
Vicar's glowing Profession of Faith/ Even Diderot, though his
friendly feeling for the writer and his general leaning to specula-

tive hardihood warped his judgment so far as to make him rank

L' Esprit along with Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, and BufTon's
Natural History, among the great books of the century, still
perceived and showed that the whole fabric rested on a foundation
of paradox, and that, though there might be many truths of detail
in the book, very many of its general principles are false.' Turgot
described it as a book of philosophy without logic, literature without taste, and morality without goodness.^
In the same weighty piece of criticism, which contains in two
or three pages so much permanently valuable truth, Turgot proceeds : " When people wish to attack intolerance and injustice,
it is essential in the first place to rest upon just ideas, for inquisitors have an interest in being intolerant, and viziers and subviziers have an interest in maintaining all the abuses of the government. As they are the strongest, you only give them a good
excuse by sounding the tocsin against them right and left I hate
despotism as much as most people ; but it is not by declamations
that despotism ought to be attacked. And even in despotism
there are degrees ; there is a multitude of abuses in despotism, in
which the princes themselves have no interest ; there are others
which they only allow themselves to practise, because public
opinion is not yet fixed as to their injustice, and their mischievous
consequences. People deserve far better from a nation for attacking these abuses with clearness, with courage, and above all by
interesting the sentiment of humanity, than for any amount of
eloquent reproach. Where there is no insult, there is seldom any
offence. . . . There is no form of government without certain
drawbacks, which the governments themselves would fain have it in
their power to remedy, or without abuses which they nearly all
intend to repress at least a,t some future day. We ma:y therefore
serve them all by treating questions of the public good in a calm
(Euvres, xii. 301. Ibid,, iL 267-274. 3 /Jf^., U. 795.

322 HELVJ&amp;TIUS.
and solid style ; not coldly, still less with extravagance, but with
that interesting warmth which springs from a profound feeling for
justice and love of order." '
Of course it is a question whether even in 1758, a generation
before the convulsion, it was possible for the French monarchy
spontaneously to work out the long list of indispensable improvements ; still, at that date, Turgot might be excused for thinking
that the progress which he desired might be attained without the
violence to which Helv^tius's diatribes so unmistakably pointed.
His words, in any case, are worth quoting for their own grave and
universal sense, and because they place us exactly at the point of
view for regarding L Esprit rightly. He seizes on its political
aspect, its assault on government, and the social ordering of the
time, as containing the book's real drift In this, as in the rest of
the destructive literature of the first sixty years of the centiuy, the
church was no doubt that part of the social foundations against
which the assault was most direct and most vindictive, and it was
the church, in the case of Helv^tius's book, that first took alarm.

Indeed, we may say that, from the very nature of things, in w^hatever direction the revolutionary host moved, they were sure to find
themselves confronted by the church. It lay across the track of
light at every point. Voltaire pierced its dogma. Rousseau
shamed its irreligious temper. Diderot brought into relief the
vicious absoluteness of its philosophy. Then came Helv^tius
and Holbach, not merely with criticism, but with substitutes.
Holbach brought a new dogma of the universe, matter and motion,
and fortuitous shapes. Helv^tius brought a theory of human
character, and a new analysis of morals interest the basis of
justice, pleasure the true interpretation of interest, and character
the creature of education and laws.
To press such positions as these, was to recast the whole body
of opinions on which society rested. As the church was the
organ of the old opinions, Helv^tius's book was instantly seized
by the ecclesiastical authorities in accordance with a perfectly
right instinct, and was made the occasion for the first violent raid
upon a wholesale scale. When, however, we look beyond the
smoke of the ecclesiastical battle, and weigh V Esprit itself on its
* CEuvres, ii. 795-8.

own merits, we see quite plainly that Helvdtius was thinking less
of the theological disputes of the day, than of bringing the philosophy of sensation, the philosophy of Locke and Condillac, into
the political field, and of deriving from it new standards and new
forces for social reconstruction. And in spite of its shallowness
and paradoxes, his book did contain the one principle on which,
if it had been generally accepted, the inevitable transition might
have taken place without a Reign of Terror.
It was commonly said, by his enemies and by his alarmed
friends, that vanity and a restless overweening desire for
notoriety was the inspiring motive of Helv^tius. He came from a
German stock. His great-grandfather settled in Holland, where
he cured his patients by cunning elixirs, by the powder of ground
stag's horn, and the subtle virtues of crocodiles' teeth. His
grandfather went to push his fortunes in Paris, where he persuaded
the public to accept the healing properties of ipecacuanha, and
Lewis XIV. (1689) gave him a short patent for that drug.* The
medical tradition of the family was maintained in a third generation, for Helvdtius's father was one of the physicians of the Queen,
and on one occasion performed the doubtful service to humanity
of saving the life of Lewis xv. Helv^tius, who was bom in 1715?
turned aside from the calling of his ancestors, and by means of
the favour which his father enjoyed at court, obtained a position
as farmer-general. This at once made him a wealthy man, but
wealth was not enough to satisfy him without fame. He madeattempts in various directions, in each case following the current
of popularity for the hour. Maupertuis was the hero of a day,
and Helve'tius accordingly applied himself to become a geometer.
Voltaire's brilliant success brought poetry into fashion, and so
Helv^tius wrote half-a-dozen long cantos on Happiness. Montesquieu caught and held the ear of the town by The Spirit of
Laws (1748), and Helvetius was acute enough to perceive that

speculation upon society would be the great durable interest of his

. ' See Jal's Diet, CfU., p. 676. There is a comparison in VEsprit^ which
we may assume to have been due to family reminiscence : *' Like those
Physicians who, in their jealousy of the discovery of the emetic, abused the
credulity of a few prelates, to excommunicate a remedy of which the service
is so prompt and so salutary,'' &amp;c. IL 23.

time.* He at once set to work, and this time he set to work
without hurry. In 17 51 he threw up his place as farmer-general,
and with it an income of between two or three thousand pounds a
year,' and he then devoted himself for the next seven years to the
concoction of a work that was designed to bring him immortal
glory. " Helv^tius sweated a long time to write a single chapter,"
if we may believe one of his intimates. He would compose and
recompose a passage a score of times. More facile writers looked
at him wth amazement in his country-house, ruminating for whole
mornings on a single page, and pacing his room for hours to
kindle his ideas, or to strike out some curious form of expression.'
The circle of his friends in Paris amused themselves in watching
his attempts to force the conversation into the channel of the
question that happened to occupy him for the moment They
gave him the satisfaction of discussion, and then they drew him to
express his own views. " Then," says Marmontel, " he threw
himself into the subject with warmth as simple, as natural, as
sincere as he is systematic and sophistic in his works. Nothing is
less like the ingenuousness of his character and ordinary life, than
the artificial and premeditated simplicity of his works. Helv^tius
was the very opposite in his character, of what he professes to
believe ; he was liberal, generous, unostentatious, and benevolent"*
As it happens, there is a very different picture in one of
Diderot's writings. While Diderot was on a journey he fell in
with a lady who knew Helv^tius's country. " She told us that the
philosopher at his country seat was the unhappiest of men. He
is surrounded by peasants and by neighbours who hate him.
They break the windows of his mansion; they ravage his property at night ; they cut his trees, and break down his fences.
He dares not sally out to shoot a rabbit without an escort. You
will ask me why all this ? It comes of an unbridled jealousy
about his game. His predecessors kept the estate in order with a
couple of men and a couple of guns. Helv(^tius has four-and' Hume, however, tells a story to the effect that Helvetius tried to dissuade
Montesquieu from publishing his great book, as being altogether unworthy of
his previous reputation.
* Barbier, v. 57. 3 Morellct, L 71. * Marmontel, ii. 116.

twenty, and yet he cannot guard his property. The men have a
small premium for every poacher that they catch, and they resort
to every possible vexation in order to multiply their sorry profit.
They are, for that matter, no better than so many poachers who

draw wages. The border of his woods was peopled with the unfortunate wretches who had been driven from their homes into
pitiful hovels. It is these repeated acts of tyranny that have
raised up against him enemies of every kind, and all the more
insolent, as Madame N. said, for having found out that the good
philosopher is a trifle pusillanimous. I cannot see what he has
gained by such a way of managing his property ; he is alone on it,
he is hated, he is in a constant state of fright Ah, how much wiser
our good Madame Geoffrin, when she said of a trial that tormented
her: * Finish my case. They want my money? I have some;
give them money. And what can I do better with money than
buy tranquillity with it ? ' In Helvdtius's place, I should have
said : * They kill a few hares, or a few rabbits ; let them kill. The
poor creatures have no shelter save my woods, let them remain
On the other hand, there are well-attested stories of Helv^tius's
munificence. There is one remarkable testimony to his wide
renown for good-nature. After the younger Pretender had been
driven out of France, he had special reasons on some occasion
for visiting Paris. He wrote to Helv^tius that he had heard of
him as a man of the greatest probity and honour in France, and
that to Helvetius, therefore, he would trust himself. Helvdtius
did not refuse the dangerous compliment, and he concealed the
prince for two years in his house.' He was as benevolent, where
his vanity was less pleasantly flattered. More than one man of
letters, including Marivaux, was indebted to him for a yearly
pension, and his house was as open to the philosophic tribe as
Holbach's. Morellet has told us that the conversation was not so
good and so consecutive as it was at the Baron's. " The mistress
of the house, drawing to her side the people who pleased her
best, and not choosing the worst of the company, rather broke the
party up. She was no fonder of philosophy than Madame Holbach
&gt; Voyage \ Bourboxme. CEuv,^ xviL 544. * Burton's Hume^ iL 464.

was fond of it ; but the latter, by remaining in a corner without
saying a word, or else chatting in a low voice with her friends,
was in nobod/s way; whereas Madame Helv^tius, with her
beauty, her originality, and her piquant turn of nature, threw out
anything like philosophic discussion. Helv^tius had not the art
of sustaining or animating it He used to take one of us to a
window, open some question that he had in hand, and try to
draw out either some argument for his own view or some objection
to it, for he was always composing his book in society. Or more
frequently still, he would go out shortly after dinner to the opera
or elsewhere, leaving his wife to do the honours of the house.*' '
In spite of all this, Helv^tius's social popularity became considerable. This, however, followed his attainment of celebrity, for
when L Esprit was published, Diderot scarcely met him twice in a
year, and D'Alembert's acquaintance with him was of the shghtest.
And there must, we should suppose, have been some difficulty
in cordially admitting even a penitent member of the abhorred
class of farmers-general, among the esoteric group of the philosophic opposition. There was much point in Turgot's contemptuous question, why he should be thankful to a declaimer

like Helvdtius, who showers vehement insults and biting sarcasms

on governments in general, and then makes it his business to
send to Frederick the Great a whole colony of revenue clerks. It
was the stringent proceedings against his book that brought to
Helvdtius both vogue with the public, and sympathy from the
Encyclopaedic circle.
To us it is interesting to know that Helv^tius had a great
admiration for England. Holbach, as we have already seen (above,
p. 178), did not share this, and he explained his friend's enthusiasm
by the assumption that what Helv^tius really saw in our free land
was the persecution that his book had drawn upon him in France."
Horace Walpole, in one of his letters, announced to Sir' Horace
Mann that Helv^tius was coming to England, bringing two Miss
Helv^tiuses with fifty thousand pounds a-piece, to bestow on two
Morellet, L 141. A peculiarly graphic account of Madame Helvetius in
her later years is to be found in Mrs, Adam's Letters^ quoted in Parton's Life
of Franklin^ ii. 429. .
(EttvreSf xix. 187

immaculate members of our most august and incorruptible senate,
if he could find two in this virtuous age who would condescend to
accept his money. " Well," he adds, in a spirit of sensible protest
against these unprofitable international comparisons, " we may be
dupes to French follies, but they are ten times greater fools to be
the dupes of our virtues."* Gibbon met Helv^tius (1763), and
found him a sensible maoi an agreeable companion, and the
worthiest creature in the world, besides the merits of having a
pretty wife and a hundred thousand livres a year. Warburton was
invited to dine with him at Lord Mansfield's, but he could not
bring himself to countenance a professed patron of atheism, a
rascal, and a scoundrel'
Let us turn to the book which had the honour of bringing all
this censure upon its author. Whether vanity was or was not
Helv^tius's motive, the vanity of an author has never accounted
for the interest of his public, and we may be sure that neither
those who approved, nor those who abhorred, would have been so
deeply and so universally stirred, unless they had felt that he
touched great questions at the very quick. And, first, let a word
be said as to the form of his book.
Grimm was certainly right in saying that a man must be without taste or sense to find either the morality or the colouring of
Diderot in L Esprit It is tolerably clear that Helv^tius had the
example of Fontenelle before his eyes Fontenelle, who had
taught astronomical systems in the forms of elegant literature, and
of whom it was said that il nous enjdlc d la vhite, he coaxes us to
the truth. E Esprit is perhaps the most readable book upon morals
that ever was written, for persons who do not care that what they
read shall be scientifically true. Hume, who, by the way, had
been invited by Helv^tius to translate the book into English, wrote
to Adam Smith that it was worth reading, not for its philosophy,
which he did not highly value, but for its agreeable composition.'

Helv^tius intended that it should be this, and accordingly he

stuffed it with stories and anecdotes. Many of them are very
poor, many are inapposite, some are not very decent, others are
spoiled in telling, but still stories and anecdotes they remain, and
they carry a light-minded reader more or less easily from page to
' Corresp,, iv. 119. " Walpole's Corresp,^ iv. 217. 3 Burton, ii. 57.

page and chapter to chapter. But an ingenuous student of ethics
who should take Helv^tius seriously, could hardly be reconciled
by lively anecdotes to what, in his particular formula, seems a
most depressing doctrine. Madame Roland read the celebrated
book in her romantic girlhood, and her impression may be taken
for that of most generous natures. " Helvdtius made me wretched:
he annihilated the most ravishing illusions ; he showed me everywhere repulsive self-interest Yet what sagacity ! " she continues.
" I persuaded myself that Helv^tius painted men such as they
had become in the corruption of society : I judged that it was
good to feed one's self on such an author, in order to be able to
frequent what is called the world, without being its dupe. But I
took good care not to adopt his principles, merely in order to
know man properly so-called. I felt myself capable of a generosity which he. never recognises. With what delight I confronted
his theories with the great traits in history, and the virtues of the
heroes that history has immortalised." *
We have ventured to say that L Esprit contained the one
principle capable of supplying such a system of thinking about
society, as would have taught the French of that time in what
direction to look for reforms. There is probably no instance in
literature of a writer coming so close to a decisive body of salutary
truth, and then losing himself in the by-ways of the most repulsive
paradox that a perverse ingenuity could devise. We are able to
measure how grievous was this miscarriage, by reflecting that the
same instrument which Helv^tius actually held in his hand, but
did not know how to use, was taken from him by a man of genius
in another country, and made to produce reforms that saved
England from a convulsion. Nobody pretends that Helv^tius
discovered Utilitarianism. Hume's name, for instance, occurs
too often in his pages, for even the author himself to have dreamed
that his principle of utility was a new invention of his own. It
would, as Mill has said, imply ignorance of the history of philosophy and of general literature, not to be aware that in all ages of
philosophy one of its schools has been utilitarian, not only from
the time of Epicurus, but long before. But what is certain, and
what would of itself be enough to entitle Helv^tius to considera* (Euvres de Mdme, Roland, i. io8.

HEL vAtIUS. 329

tion, IS that from Helv^tius the idea of general utility as the
foundation of morality was derived by that strong and powerful
English thinker, who made utilitarianism the great reforming force

of legislation and the foundation of jurisprudence. Bentham

himself distinctly avowed the source of his inspiration. '
A fatal discredit" fastened upon a book which yet had in it so
much of the root of the matter, from the unfortunate circumstance
that Helv^tius tacked the principle of utility on to the very crudest
farrago to be found in the literature of psychology. What happened, then, was that Rousseau swept into the field with a hollow
version of a philosophy of reform, so eloquently, loftily, and powerfully enforced, as to carry all before it. The democracy of
sentimentalism took the place that ought to have been filled in
the literature of revolutionary preparation by the democracy of
utility. Rousseau's fiction of the Sovereignty of the People was
an arbitrary and intrinsically sterile rendering of the real truth in
Helv^tius's ill-starred book.
To establish the proper dependence of laws upon one another,
says Helv^tius, " it is indispensable to be able to refer them all ta
a single principle, such as that of the Utility of the Public^ that is
to say, of the greatest number of men submitted to the same form of
government : a principle of which no one realises the whole extent and
fertility; a principle that contains all Morality and Legislation,^^ "*
A man is just when all his actions tend to the public good*
" To be virtuous, it is necessary to unite nobleness of soul with
an enlightened understanding. Whoever combines these gifts,
conducts himself by the compass of pitblic utility. This utility is
the principle of all human virtues, and the foundation of all legislations. It ought to inspire the legislator, and to force the nations
to submit to his laws."^
The principle of public utility is invariable, though it is pliable
in its application to all the different positions in which, in their
succession, a nation may find itself*
* **To that book \L ^E5prit\ Mr. Bentham has often been heard to
stood indebted for no small portion of the zeal and ardour vrith
cated his happiness-producing theory. It was from thence he took
ment, ... it was there he learned to persevere," &amp;c. &amp;c.

say, he
which he advoencourage Deontology^ i.

* Disc, ii chap. 17. 3 llnd,^ ii. 6. &lt; IHd,^ ii 17.


The public interest is that of the greatest number, and this is
the foundation on which the principles of sound morality ought
invariably to rest '
These extracts, and extracts in the same sense might easily be
multiplied, show us the basis on which Helvdtius believed himself
to be building. Why did Bentham raise upon it a fabric of such
value to mankind, while Helv^tius covered it with useless paradox?
The answer is that Bentham approached the subject from the side
of a practical lawyer, and proceeded to map out the motives and
the actions of men in a systematic and objective classification, to
which the principle of utility gave him the key. Helv^tius, on the
other hand, instead of working out the principle, that actions are

good or bad according as they do or do not serve the public

interest of the greatest number, contented himself with reiterating
in as many ways as possible the proposition that self-love fixes our
.measure of virtue. The next thing to do, after settling utility as
the standard of virtue, and defining interest as a terra applied
to whatever can procure us pleasures and deliver us from pains,'
was clearly to do what Bentham did, to marshal pleasures and
pains in logical array. Instead of this, Helv^tius, starting from
the proposition that " to judge is to feel," launched out into a
complete theory of human character, which laboured under at
least two fatal defects. First, it had no root in a contemplation of
the march of collective humanity, and second, it considered only
the purely egoistic impulses, to the exclusion of the opposite half
of human tendencies. Apart from these radical deficiencies,
Helvdtius fell headlong into a fallacy which has been common
enough among the assailants of the principle of utility ; namely,
of confounding the standard of conduct with its motive, and
insisting that because utility is the test of virtue, therefore the
prospect of self-gratification is the only inducement that makes
men prefer virtue to vice.
This was what Madame du Deflfand called telling everybody's
secret We approve conduct in proportion as it conduces to our
interest Friendship, esprit-de-corps, patriotism, humanity, are
names for qualities that we prize more or less highly, in proportion
as they come more or less close to our own happiness ; and the
* Disc. ii. chap. 23. Ibid,, ii. i, note {b).

scale of our preferences is in the inverse ratio of the number of
those who benefit by the given act. If it affects the whole of
humanity or of our country, our approval is less warmly stirred
than if it were an act specially devoted to our own exclusive
advantage. If you want therefore to reach men, and to shape
their conduct for the public good, you must affect them through
their pleasures and pains.
To this position, which roused a universal indignation that
amazed the author, there is no doubt a true side. It is worth
remembering, for instance, that all penal legislation, in so far as
deterrent and not merely vindictive, assumes in all who come
whether actually or potentially within its sphere, the very doctrine
that covered Helv^tius with odium. And there is more to be said
than this. As M. Charles Comte has expressed it : If the strength
with which we resent injury were not in the ratio of the personal
risk that we run, we should hardly have the means of self-preservation ; and if the acts which injure the whole of humanity gave us
pain equal to that of acts that injure us directly, we should be
of all beings the most miserable, for we should be incessantly
tormented by conduct that we should be powerless to turn aside.
And again, if the benefits of which we are personally the object,
did not inspire in us a more lively gratitude than those which
we spread over all mankind, we should probably experience
few preferences, and extend few preferences to others, and in
that case egoism would grow to its most overwhelming proportions.'

This aspect of Helv^tius's doctrine, however, is one of those

truths which is only valid when taken in connection with a whole
group of different truths, and it was exactly that way of asserting
a position, in itself neither indefensible nor unmeaning, which left
the position open to irresistible attack. Helvdtius's errors had
various roots, and may be set forth in as many ways. The most
general account of it is that even if he had insisted on making
Self-love the strongest ingredient in our judgment of conduct, he
ought at least to have given some place to Sympathy. For, though
it is possible to contend that sympathy is only an indirect kind of
self-love, or a shadow cast by self-love, still it is self-love so trans' Traiiidt UgUlatiotit i. 243.



formed as to imply a wholly different set of convictions, and to

require a different name.
L Esprit is one of the most striking instances in literatinre of
the importance of care in choosing the right way of presenting a
theory to the world. It seems as if Helv^tius had taken pains to
surround his doctrine with everything that was most likely to warn
men away from it. For example, he begins a chapter of cardinal
importance with the proposition that personal interest is the only
motive that could impel a man to generous actions. " It is as
impossible for him to love good for good's sake, as evil for the
sake of evil." The rest of the chapter consists of illustrations
of this ; and what does the reader suppose that they are ? The
first is Brutus, of all the people in the world. He sacrificed his
son for the salvation of Rome, because his passion for his country
was stronger than his passion as a father ; and this passion for his
country, " enlightening him as to the public interest," made him
see what a service his rigorous example would be to the state. The
other instances of the chapter point the same moral, that true
virtue consists in suppressing inducements to gratify domestic or
friendly feeling, when that gratification is hostile to the common
It may be true that the ultimate step in a strictly logical
analysis reduces the devotion of the hero or the martyr to a
deliberate preference for the course least painful to himself,
because religion or patriotism or inborn magnanimity have made
self-sacrifice the least painful course to him. But to call this
heroic mood by the name of self-love, is to single out what is
absolutely the most unimportant element in the transaction, and
to insist on thrusting it under the onlooker's eye as the vital part
of the matter. And it involves the most perverse kind of distortion. For the whole issue and difference between the virtuous
man and the vicious man turns, not at all upon the fact that each
behaves in the way that habit has made least painful to him, but

upon the fact that habit has made selfishness painful to the first,
and self-sacrifice painful to the second ; that self-love has become
in the first case transformed into an overwhelming interest in the
good of others, and in the second not so. Was there ever a
' Disc, ii, 5.

HELVJ&amp;TIUS. 333
greater perversity than to talk of self-interest, when you mean
beneficence, or than to insist* that because beneficence has become
bound up with a man's self-love, therefore beneficence is nothing
but self-love in disguise ? As if the fruit or the flower not only
depends on a root as one of the conditions among others of its
development, but is itself actually the root ! Apart from the error
in logic, what an error in rhetoric, to single out the formula best
calculated to fill a doctrine with odious associations, and then to
make that formula the most prominent feature in the exposition.
Without any gain in clearness or definiteness or firmness, the
reader is deliberately misled towards a form that is exactly the
opposite of that which Helv^tius desired him to accept
In other ways Helvetius takes trouble to wound the generous
sensibility, and affront the sense, of his public. Nothing can be
at once more scandalously cynical and more crude than a passage
intended to show that, if we examine the conduct of women of
disorderly life from the political point of view, they are in some
respects extremely useful to the public. That desire to please,
which makes such a woman go to the draper, the milliner, and
the dressmaker, draws an infinite number of workmen from
indigence. The virtuous women, by giving alms to mendicants
and criminals, are far less wisely advised by their religious
directors, than the other women by their desire to please ; the
latter nourish useful citizens, while the former, who at the best are
useless, are often even downright enemies to the nation.* All
this is only a wordy transcript of Mandeville's coarse sentences
about " the sensual courtier that sets no limits to his luxury, and
the fickle strumpet that invents new fashions every week." We
cannot wonder that all people who were capable either of generous
feeling or comprehensive thinking turned aside even from truth,
when it was mixed in this amalgam of destructive sophistry and
cynical illustration.
We can believe how the magnanimous youth of Madame
Roland and others was discouraged by pages sown with mean
anecdote. Helvetius tells us, with genuine zest, of Parmenio
saying to Philotas at the court of Alexander the Great " My
son, make thyself small before Alexander ; contrive for him now
Disc, ii. 15.

334 ^^^ VATIUS.

and again the pleasure of setting thee right ; and remember that
it is only to thy seeming inferiority that thou wilt owe his friendship." The King of Portugal charged a certain courtier to draw

up a despatch on an affair with which he had himself dealt

Comparing the two despatches, the King found the courtier's
much the better of the two, the courtier makes a profound
reverence, and hastens to take leave of his friends : " // is cUl over
with w^," he said, " iJie King has found out that I have more brains
than he has,^^^ Only mediocrity succeeds in the world. " Sir,"
said a father to his son, " you are getting on in the world, and
you suppose you must be a person of great merit To lower your
pride, know to what qualities you owe this success : you were
born without vices, without virtues, without character ; your knowledge is scanty, your intelligence is narrow. Ah, what claims you
have, my son, to the good-will of the world."'
It lies beyond the limits of our task to enter into a discussion
of Helv^tius's transgressions in the region of speculative ethics,
from any dogmatic point of view. Their nature is tolerably clear.
Helv^tius looked at man individually, as if each of us came into
the world naked of all antecedent predispositions, and independent of the medium around us. Next, he did not see that
virtue, justice, and the other great words of moral science, denote
qualities that are directly related to the fundamental constitution
of human character. As Diderot said,^ he never perceived it to
be possible to find in our natural requirements, in our existence,
in our organization, in our sensibility, a fixed base for the idea of
what is just and unjust, virtuous and vicious. He clung to the
facts that showed the thousand different shapes in which justice
and injustice clothed themselves ; but he closed his eyes on the
nature of man, in which he would have recognised their character
and origin. Again, although his book was expressly written to
show that only good laws can form virtuous men, and that all the
art of the legislator consists in forcing men, through the sentiment
of self-love, to be just to one another,* yet Helvetius does not
perceive the difficulty of assuming in the moralising legislator a
suppression of self-love which he will not concede to the rest
See Diderot's truer version, CEuvrsSy ii. 482.
Disc, iv. 13, &amp;c 3 (EuvreSf ii. 270. * Disc, ii. 24.

of mankind. The crucial problem of political constitutions is to
counteract the selfishness of a governing class. Helv^tius vaulted
over this difficulty by imputing to a legislator that very quality of
disinterestedness, whose absence in the bulk of the human race he
made the fulcrum of his whole moral system.'
Into this field of criticism it is not, I repeat, our present business
minutely to enter. The only question for us, attempting to study
the history of opinion, is what Helv^tius meant by his paradoxes,
and how they came into his mind. No serious writer, least of all
a Frenchman in the eighteenth century, ever sets out with
anything but such an intention for good, as is capable of
respectable expression. And w^e ask ourselves what good end
Helv^tius proposed to himself. Of what was he thinking, when
he perpetrated so singular a misconstruction of his own meaning,
as that inversion of beneficence into self-love of which we have
spoken ? We can only explain it in one way. In saying that
it is impossible to love good for good's sake, Helvetius was

thinking of the theologians. Their doctrine that man is predisposed to love evil for evil's sake, removes conduct from the
sphere of rational motive, as evinced in the ordinary course of
human experience. Helv^tius met this by contending that both
in good and bad conduct men are influenced by their interest
and not by mystic and innate predisposition either to good or to
evil. He sought to bring morals and human conduct out of
the region of arbitrary and superstitious assumption, into the
sphere of observation. He thought he was pursuing a scientific,
as opposed to a theological spirit, by placing interest at the foundation of conduct, both as matter of fact and of what ought to be
the fact, instead of placing there the love of God, or the action of
grace, or the authority of the Church.
We may even say that Helv^tius shows a positive side, which
* As Mr. Henry Sidgwick has put this : " Even the indefatigable patience
and inexhaustible ingenuity of Bentham will hardly succeed in defeating the
sinister conspiracy of self-preferences. In fact, unless a little more sociality
is allowed to an average human being, the problem of combining these
egoists into an organization for promoting their common happiness, is like
the old task of making ropes of sand. The difficulty that Ilobbcs vainly tried,
to settle summarily by absolute despotism, is hardly to be overcome by the
democratic artifices of his more inventive successor."

336 HEL vAtIUS.

is wai^ting in the more imposing names of the century. Here, for
instance, is a passage which in spite of its inadequateness of
expression, contains an unmistakable germ of true historical appreciation : " However stupid we may suppose the Peoples to be, it
is certain that, being enlightened by their interests, it was not
without motives that they adopted the customs that we find
established among some of them. The bizarre nature of these
customs is connected, then, with the diversity of interests among
these Peoples. In fact, if they have always understood, in a confused way, by the name of virtue the desire of public happiness ;
if they have in consequence given the name of good to actions
that are useful to the country ; and if the idea of utility has alwa3rs
been privately associated with the idea of virtue, then we may be
sure that their most ridiculous, and even their most cruel, customs
have always had for their foundation the real or seeming utility
of the public good." '
If we contrast this with the universal fashion among Helv^tius's
friends, of denouncing the greater portion of the past history of the
race, we cannot but see that, crude as is the language of such a
passage, it contains the all-important doctrine which Voltaire,
Rousseau, and Diderot alike ignored, that the phenomena of the
conduct of mankind, even in its most barbarous phases, are capable
of an intelligible explanation, in terms of motive that shall be
related to their intellectual forms, exactly as the motives of the most
polished society are related to the intellectual forms of such a
society. There are not many passages in all the scores of volumes
Avritten in France in the eighteenth century on the origin of society,
where there is such an approach as this to the modern view.

Helv^tius's position was that of a man searching for a new

basis for morals. It was hardly possible for anyone in that century
to look to religion for such a base, and least of all was it possible
to Helv^tius. " It is fanaticism," he says in an elaborately wrought
passage, " that puts arms into the hands of Christian princes ; it
orders Catholics to massacre heretics ; it brings out upon the earth
again those tortures that were invented by such monsters as
Phalaris, as Busiris, as Nero ; in Spain it piles and lights up the
fires of the Inquisition, while the pious Spaniards leave their ports
* Disc. iL 13.


and sail across distant seas, to plant the Cross and spread desolation in America, Turn your eyes to north or south, to east or
west; on every side you se the consecrated knife of Religion
raised against the breasts of women, of children, of old men, and
the earth all smoking with the blood of victims immolated to false
gods or to the Supreme Being, and presenting one vast, sickening,
horrible charnel-house of intolerance. Now what virtuous man,
what Christian, if his tender soul is filled with the divine unction
that exhales from the maxims of the Gospel, if he is sensible of
the cries of the unhappy and the outcast, and has sometimes
wiped away their tears what man could fail at such a sight to be
touched with compassion for humanity, and would not use all his
endeavour to found probity, not on principles so worthy of respect
as those of religion, but on principles less easily abused, such as
those of personal interest would be ? " '
This, then, is the point best worth seizing in a criticism of
Helv^tius. The direction of morality by religion had proved a
failure. Helv^tius, as the organ of reaction against asceticism and
against mysticism, appealed to positive experience, and to men's
innate tendency to seek what is pleasurable and to avoid what is
painful The scientific imperfection of his attempt is plain ; but
that, at any rate, is what the attempt signified in his own mind.
The same feeling for social reform inspired the second great
paradox of L' Esprit This is to the effect that of all the sources
of intellectual difference between one man and another, organization is the least influential. Intellectual differences are due to
diversity of circumstance and to variety in education. It is not
felicity of organization that makes a great man. There is nobody,
in whom passion, interest, education, and favourable chance, could
not have surmounted all the obstacles of an unpromising nature ;
and there is no great man who, in the absence of passion, interest,
education, and certain chances, would not have been a blockhead,
in spite of his happier organization. It is only in the moral region
that we ought to seek the true cause of inequality of intellect
Genius is no singular gift of nature. Genius is common ; it is
only the circumstances proper to develop it, that are rare. The
man of genius is simply the product of the circumstances in which
' Z?w. ii. 24.

he is placed The inequality in intelligence {esprit) that we
observe among men, depends on the government under whidi
they live, on the times in which their destiny has faDen, on the
education that they have received, on the strength of their desire
to achieve distinction, and finally on the greatness and fecundity
of the ideas which they happen to make the object of their
Here again it would be easy to show how many qualifications
are needed to rectify this egregious over-statement of propositions
that in themselves contain the germ of a wholesome doctrine.
Diderot pointed out some of the principal causes of Helv^tius's
errors, summing them up thus : " The whole of this third discourse seems to imply a false calculation, into which the author
has failed to introduce all the elements that have a right to be
there, and to estimate the elements that are there at their right
value. He has not seen the insurmountable barrier that separates
a man destined by nature for a given function, from a man who
only brings to that function industry, interest, and attention."* In
a work published after his death (1774), and entitled DcPHomnUy
Helv^tius re-stated at greater length, and with a variety of new
illustrations, this exaggerated position. Diderot wrote an elaborate series of minute notes in refutation of it, taking each chapter
point by point, and his notes are full of acute and vigorous criticism.' Every reader will perceive the kind of answers to which
the proposition that character is independent of organization lies
open. Yet here, as in his paradox about self-love, Helvdtius was
looking, and looking, moreover, in the right direction, for a
rational principle of moral judgment, moral education, and moral
improvement. Of the two propositions, though equally erroneous
in theory, it was certainly less mischievous in practice to pronounce education and institutions to be stronger than original
predisposition, than to pronounce organization to be stronger than
education and institutions. It was all-important at that moment
in France to draw people's attention to the influence of institutions
on character \ to do that was both to give one of the best reasons
for a reform in French institutions, and also to point to the spirit
in which such a reform should be undertaken. If Helv^tius had
' Disc, iii. ' (Euvres, il 271. 3 IHd., ii. 275-456.

contented himself with saying that, whatever may be the force of
organization in exceptional natures, yet in persons of average
organization these predispositions are capable of being indefinitely
modified by education, by laws, and by institutions, then he would
not only have said what could not be disproved, but he would
have said as much as his own object required. William Godwin
drew one of the most important chapters of his once famous
treatise on Political Justice from Helv^tius, but what Helv^tius
exaggerated into a paradox which nobody in his senses could
seriously accept, Godwin expressed as a rational half-truth, without which no reformer in education or institutions could fairly

think it worth while to set to work.'

The reader of Benjamin Constant's Adolphe^ that sombre little
study of a miserable passion, may sometimes be reminded of
Helv^tius. It begins with the dry surprise of youth at the opening world, for we need time, he says, to accustom ourselves to the
human race, such as affectation, vanity, cowardice, interest have
made it. Then we soon learn only to be surprised at our old
surprise ; we find ourselves very well off in our new conditions,
just as we come to breathe freely in a crowded theatre, though on
entering it we were almost stifled. Yet the author of this parching sketch of the distractions of an egoism that just fell short of
being complete, suddenly flashes on us the unexpected but penetrating and radiant moral. La grande question dans la vie, ^cst la
douleur que Pon cause the great question in life is the pain that
we strike into the lives of others. We are not seldom refreshed,
when in the midst of H^lvetius's narrowest grooves, by some
similar breath from the wider air. Among the host of sayings,
true, false, trivial, profound, which are scattered over the pages of
Helvdtius, is one subtle and far-reaching sentence, which made a
strong impression upon Bentham. " In order to love mankind^^
he writes, " we must expect little from them" This might, on the
lips of a cynic, serve for a formula of that kind of misanthropy
which is not more unamiable than it is unscientific. But in the
mouth of Hclv&lt;ftius it was a plea for considerateness, for indulgence, and, above all, it was meant for an inducement to patience
' Political Justket Bk. I. chap. iv. " The characters of men originaU tit
thir external circumstances.^*
Z 2



and sustained endeavour in all dealings with masses of men in

society. " Every man," he says, " so long as his passions do not
obscure his reason, will always be the more indulgent in proportion
as he is enlightened." He knows that men are what they must
be, that all hatred against them is unjust, that a fool produces
follies, just as a wild shrub produces sour berries, that to insult
him is to reproach the oak for bearing acorns instead of olives.'
All this is as wise and humane as words can be so, and it really
represents the aim and temper of Helv^tius's teaching. Unfortunately for him and for his generation, his grasp was feeble and
unsteady. He had not the gift of accurate thinking, and his book
is in consequence that which, of all the books of the eighteenth
century, unites most of wholesome truth with most of repellent
Disc, il la

holbach's system of nature.
The System of Nature yt^s published in 1770, eight years before
the death of Voltaire and of Rousseau, and it gathered up all the
scattered explosives of the criticism of the century into one
thundering engine of revolt and destruction. It professed to
be the posthumous work of Mirabaud, who had been secretary to
the Academy. This was one of the common literary frauds of
the time. Its real author was Holbach. It is too systematic and
coherently compacted to be the design of more than one man,
and it is too systematic also for that one man to have been
Diderot, as has been so often assumed. At the same time there
are good reasons for believing that not only much of its thought,
but some of the pages, were the direct work of Diderot The
latest editor of the heedless philosopher has certainly done right
in placing among his miscellanea, the declamatory apostrophe
which sums up the teachings of this remorseless book. The
rumour imputing the authorship to Diderot was so common^ and
Diderot himself was so disquieted by it, that he actually hastened
away from Paris to his native Langres and to the Baths of
Bourbonne, in order to be ready to cross the frontier at the
first hint of a warrant being out against him.* Diderot has
recorded his admiration of his friend's work. " I am disgusted,"
he said, " with the modem fashion of mixing up incredulity and
superstition. What I like is a philosophy that is clear, definitei
' (Euvres, xvii. 329.


and frank, such as you have in the System of Nature, The author
is not an atheist in one page, and a deist in another. His philosophy is all of one piece." *
/ No book has ever produced a more widespread shock. Everybody insisted on reading it, and almost everybody was terrified
It suddenly revealed to men, like the blaze of lightning to one
faring through darkness, the formidable shapes, the unfamiliar
sky, the sinister landscape, into which the wanderings of the last
fifty years had brought them unsuspecting. They had had half a
century of such sharp intellectual delight as had not been known
throughout any great society in Europe since the death of Michael
Angelo, and had perhaps north of the Alps never been known at
all. And now it seemed to many of them, as they turned over
the pages of Holbach*s book, as if they stood face to face with the
devil of the mediaeval legend, come to claim their souls. Satire
of Job and David, banter about Joshua's massacres and Solomon's
concubines, invective against blind pastors of blinder flocks, zeal
to place Newton on the. throne of Descartes and Locke upon the
pedestal of Malebranche, wishes that the last Jansenist might be
strangled in the bowels of the last Jesuit all this had given zest
and savour to life. In the midst of their high feast, Holbach
pointed to the finger of their own divinity. Reason, writing on the
wall the appalling judgments that there is no God ; that the universe is only matter in spontaneous movement; and, most

grievous word of all, that what men call their souls die with
the death of the body, as music dies when the strings are broken.
Galiani, the witty Neapolitan, who had so many good friends
in the philosophic circle, anticipated the well-known phrase of a
writer of our own day. "The author of the System of Nature*^
he said, "is the Ahh6 Terrai of metaphysics: he makes deductions,
suspensions of payment, and causes the very Bankruptcy of knowledge, of pleasure, and of the human mind. But you will tell me
that, after all, there were too many rotten securities ; that the
account was too heavily overdrawn ; that there was too much
worthless paper on the market That is true, too, and that is
why the crisis has come."' Goethe, then a student at Strasburg,
has told us what horror and alarm the System of Nature brought
* (Ettvres, ii. 398. Carresp, cU Galiani, i. 142.


into the circle there. "But we could not conceive," he says,
^* how such a book could be dangerous. It came to us so gray,
so Cimmerian, so corpse-like, that we could hardly endure its
presence ; we shuddered before it as if it had been a spectre.
It struck us as the very quintessence of musty age, savourless,
If this was the light in which the book appeared to the young
man who was soon to be the centre of German literature, the
brilliant veteran who had for two generations been the centre of
the literature of France, was both shocked by the audacity of the
new treatise, and alarmed at the peril in which it involved the
whole Encyclopaedic brotherhood, with the Patriarch at their
head. Voltaire had no sooner read the System of Nature^ than
he at once snatched up his ever-ready pen and plunged into refutation.' At the same time he took care that the right persons
should hear what he had done. He wrote to his old patron and
friend Richelieu, that it would be a great kindness if he would let
the King know that the abused Voltaire had written an answer to
the book that all the world was talking about I think, he says, that
it is always a good thing to uphold the doctrine of the existence
of a God who punishes and rewards ; society has need of such an
opinion. There is a curious disinterestedness in the notion of
Lewis the Fifteenth and Richelieu, two of the wickedest men of
their time, being anxious for the demonstration of a Dicu vcngair.
Voltaire at least had a very keen sense of the meaning of a court
that rewarded and punished. The author of the System of Nature^
he wrote to Grimm, ought to have felt that he was undoing his
friends, and making them hateful in the eyes of the king and
the court 3 This came true in the case of the great philosopherking himself Frederick of Prussia was offended by a book which
spared political superstitions as little as theological dogma, and
treated kings as boldly as it treated priests. Though keenly occupied in watching the war then waging between Russia and Turkey,
and already revolving the partition of Poland, he found time to
compose a defence of theism. Tis a good sign, Voltaire said to
' See the article Difu in the Diet, Philosophique.

3 Voltaire's Corr.^ Nov. I, 177a


him, when a king and a plain man think alike : their interests are
often so hostile, that when their ideas do agree, they must certainly
be right'
The philosophic meaning of Holbach's propositions was never
really seized by Voltaire. He is, as has been justly said, the
representative of ordinary common sense which, with all its declamations and its appeals to the feelings, is wholly without weight
or significance as against a philosophic way of considering things
however humble the philosophy may be." He hardly took more
pains to understand Holbach than Johnson took to imderstand
Berkeley. In truth it was a characteristic of Voltaire always
to take the social, rather than the philosophic view, of the great
issues of the theistic controversy. One day, when present at a
discussion as to the existence of a deity, in which the negative
was being defended with much vivacity, he astonished the company by ordering the servants to leave the room, and then proceeding to lock the door. " Gentlemen," he explained, " I do
not wish my valet to cut my throat to-morrow morning." It was
not the truth of the theistic belief in itself that Voltaire prized, but
its supposed utility as an assistant to the police. D'Alembert, on
the other hand, viewed the dispute as a matter of disinterested
speculation. " As for the existence of a supreme intelligence," he
wrote to Frederick the Great, " I think that those who deny it
advance far more than they can prove, and scepticism is the only
reasonable course." He goes on to say, however, that experience
invincibly proves both the materiality of the soul, and a material
deity like that which Mr. Mill did not repudiate of limited
powers, and dependent on fixed conditions.^
Let us now turn to the book itself. And first, as to its author.
The reader of the New Heloisa will remember that the heroine,
after her repentance and her marriage, has only one chagrin in the
world ; that is the blank disbelief of her husband in the two great
mysteries of a Supreme Being and another world. Wolmar, the
' July 27, 177a
Lange's GescK d. Materialismus^ i. 369 ; where the author shows how
entirely Voltaire failed to touch Holbach's position as to the meaning of Order
m the universe.
3 CEtivres, v. 296, 303, &amp;c.


husband, has always been supposed to stand for Rousseau's
version of Holbach, and Holbach would hardly have complained
of the portrait The Wolmar of the novel is benevolent, active,
patient, tranquil, friendly, and trustful. The nicely combined
conjunction of the play of circumstance with the action of men

pleases him, just as the fine symmetry of a statue or the skilful

contrivance of dramatic effects would please him. If he has any
dominant passion, it is a passion for observation ; he delights in
reading the hearts of men.'
All this seems to have been as true of the real Holbach as of
the imaginary Wolmar. We have already seen him as the intimate friend and constant host of Diderot He was one of the
best-informed men of his time (1723-89). He had an excellent
library, a collection of pictures, and a valuable cabinet of natural
history ; and his poorer friends were as freely welcome to the use
of all of them as the richest His manners were cheerful, courteous, and easy ; he was a model of simplicity, and kindliness was
written on every feature. His hospitality won him the well-known
nickname of the maitre d'hotel of philpsophy, and his house was
jestingly called the Caf^ de TEurope. On Sundays and Thursdays, &gt;vithout prejudice to other days, from ten to a score of men
of letters and eminent foreign visitors, including Hume, Wilkes,
Shelburne, Garrick, Franklin, Priestley, used to gather round his
good dishes and excellent wine. It was noted, as a mark of the
attractiveness of the company, that the guests, who came at two in
the afternoon, constantly remained until as late as seven and eight
in the evening. To one of those guests, who afterwards became
the powerful enemy of the Encyclopaedic group, the gaiety, the
irreverence, the hardihood of speculation and audacity of discourse, were all as gall and wormw6od. Rousseau found their
atheistic sallies offensive beyond endurance. Their hard rationalism was odious to the great emotional dreamer, and after he had
(luarrelled with them all, he transformed his own impressions of
the dreariness of atheism into the passionate complaint of Julie.
" Conceive the torment of living in retirement with the man who
shares our existence, and yet cannot share the hope that makes
existence dear : of never being able with him either to bless the
N&lt;mveUe Hilme, IV. xil


works of Gody or to speak of the happy future that is promised us
by the goodness of God ; of seehig him, while doing good on
every side, still insensible to everything that makes the delight of
doing good ; of watching him, by the most bizarre of contradictions, think with the impious, and yet live like a Christian. Think
of Julie walking with her husband ; the one admiring in the rich
and splendid robe of the earth, the handiwork and the bounteous
gifts of the author of the universe ; the other seeing nothing
in it all save a fortuitous combination, the product of blind force !
Alas ! she cries, the great spectacle of nature, for us so glorious,
so animated, is dead in the eyes of the unhappy Wolmar, and in
that great harmony of being where all speaks of God in accents so
mild and so persuasive, he only perceives eternal silence."*
Yet it is fair to the author of this most eloquent Ignoratio
Elenchi, to notice that he honestly fulfilled the object with which
he professed to set out namely, to show to both the religious
and philosophical parties that their adversaries were capable of
leading upright, useful, and magnanimous lives. Whether he
would have painted the imaginary Wolmar so favourably, if he

could have foreseen what kind of book the real Holbach had in
his desk, is perhaps doubtful. For Holbach's opinions looked
more formidable and sombre in the cold deliberateness of print,
than they had sounded amid the interruptions of lively discourse.
It is needless to say, to begin with, that the writer has the
most marked of the philosophic defects of the school of the
century. Perhaps we might put it more broadly, and call the
disregard of historic opinion the natural defect of all materialistic
speculation from Epicurus downwards.* Like all others of his
school, Holbach has no perception nor sense of the necessity of
an explanation how the mental world came to be what it is, nor
how men came to think and believe what they do think and
believe. He gives them what he deems unanswerable reasons for
changing their convictions, but he never dreams of asking himself
in what elements of human character the older convictions had
their root, and from what fitness for the conduct of life they drew
the current of their sap. Yet unless this aspect of things had
' Nouvelle Hiloise, V. v. See Lange, i. 85.


been well considered, his Unanswerable reasons were sure to fall
wide of the mark. Opinions, as men began to remember, after
social movement had thrown the logical century into discredit,
have a history as well as a logic. They are bound up with a
hundred transmitted prepossessions, and they have become
identified with a hundred social customs that are the most dearly
cherished parts of nren's lives. Nature had as much to do with
the darkness of yesterday as with the light of to-day ; she is as
much the accomplice of superstition as she is the oracle of reason.
It was because they forgot all this, that Holbach's school now
seem so shallow and superficial. The whole past was one long
working of the mystery of iniquity. " The sum of the woes of
the human race was not diminished on the contrary, it was
increased by its religions, by its governments, by its opinions, in a
word, by all the institutions that it was led to adopt on the plea of
ameliorating its lot."' On lui fit adopter I But who were the on^
and how did they work? With what instruments and what
fulcrum? Never was the convenience of this famous abstract
substantive more fatally abused. And if religion, government,
and opinion had all aggravated the miseries of the human race,
what had lessened them ? For the Encyclopaedic school never
attempted, as Rousseau did, to deny that the world had, as a
matter of fact, advanced towards happiness. It was because the
Holbachians looked on mankind as slaves held in an unaccountable bondage, which they must necessarily be eager to throw off,
that their movement, after doing at the Revolution a certain
amount of good in a bad way, led at last to a mischievous reaction
in favour of Catholicism.
Far more immediately significant than the philosophy of the
System of Nature were the violence, directness, and pertinacity of
its assault upon political government. Voltaire, as has so often
been noticed, had always abstained from meddling with either
the theory or the practical abuses of the national administration.
All his shafts had been levelled at ecclesiastical superstition.
Rousseau, indeed, had begun the most famous of his political

speculations by crying that man, who was bom free, is now everywhere in chains. But Rousseau was vague, abstract, and senti* Syst, de la Nat,, I. xvL


mental. In the System of Nature we have a clear presage of the
trenchant and imperious invective which, twenty years after its
publication, rang in all men's ears from the gardens of the Palais
Royal and the benches of the Jacobins' Hall. The writer has
plainly made up his mind that the time has at last come for
dropping all the discreet^ machinery of apologue and parable, and
giving to his words the edge of a sharpened sword. The vague
disguises of political speculation, and the mannered reservations
of a Utopia or New Atlantis, are exchanged for a passionate,
biting, and loudly practical indictment. All over the world men
are under the yoke of masters who neglect the instruction of their
people, or only seek to cheat and deceive them. The sovereigns
in every part of the globe are unjust, incapable, made effeminate
by luxury, corrupted by flattery, depraved by licence and impunity,
destitute of talent, manners, or virtue. Indifferent to their duties,
which they usually know nothing about, they are scarcely concerned for a single moment of the day with the well-being of their
people ; their whole attention is absorbed by useless wars, or by
the desire to find at each instant new means of gratifying their
insatiable rapacity. The state of society is a state of war between
the sovereign and all the rest of its members. In every country
alike the morality of the people is wholly neglected, and the one
care of the government is to render them timorous and wretched.
The common man desires no more than bread ; he wins it by the
sweat of his brow ; joyfully would he eat it, if the injustice of the
government did not make it bitter in his mouth. By the insanity
of governments, those who are swimming in plenty, without being
any the happier for it, yet wring from the tiller of the soil the very
fruits that his arms have won from it. Injustice, by reducing
indigence to despair, drives it to seek in crime resources against
the woes of life. An iniquitous government breeds despair in
men's souls ; its vexations depopulate the land, the fields remain
untilled, famine, contagion, and pestilence stalk over the earth.
Then, embittered by misery, men's minds begin to ferment and
effervesce, and what inevitably follows is the overthrow of a
If France had been prosperous, all this would have passed for
* Syst, de la Nat* I. xiv, xvi. &amp;c &amp;c.


the empty declamation of an excited man of letters. As it was,
such declamation only described, in language as accurate as it
was violent and stinging, the real position of the country. In the
urgency of a present material distress, men were not over-careful
that the basis of the indictment should be laid in the principles of
a sound historical philosophy of society. We can hardly wonder

at it. What is interesting, and what we do not notice earlier in

the century, is that in the System of Nature the revolt against the
impotence of society, and the revolt against the omnipotence of
God, made a firm coalition. That coalition came to a bloody end
for the time, four-and-twenty years after Holbach's book proclaimed
it, when the Committee of Public Safety despatched Hubert, and
better men than Hubert, to the guillotine for being atheists.
Atheism, as Robespierre assured them, was aristocratic.
Holbach's work may be said to spring from the doctrine
that the social deliverance of man depends on his intellectual
deliverance, and that the key to his intellectual deliverance is
only to be found in the substitution of Naturalism for Theism.
What he means by Naturalism, we shall proceed shortly to
explain. The style, we may remark, nothwithstanding the energy
and coherence of the thought, is often diffuse and declamatory. Some one said of the System of Nature^ that it contained
at least four times too many words. Yet Voltaire, while professing
extreme dislike of its doctrine, admitted that the writer had somehow caught the ear of the learned, of the ignorant, and of women.
" He is often clear," said Voltaire, " and sometimes eloquent, yet
he may justly be reproached with declamation, with repeating himself, and with contradicting himself, like all the rest of them." *