mentioned in that symbol; John Locke, in his "Treatises on Toleration," excuses all variations of religious opinion except the errors of Popery; but Bayle's liberality of tolerance was without a limit. The circumstances of their lives, and their particular sentiments on some important subjects, naturally enough conducted them all to their respective conclusions on this subject.

But to return to the topic of the Pyrhonism of the Dictionary. No cause of heresy ever falls to the ground for want of ingenious support. The author states with firmness and strength the tenets of the Manicheans and the Spinozists; his replies show the folly of the religion of the one and of the philosophy of the other; but still he gives the mind no opinions to rest upon, for the futility of human reason is the conclusion to which all his arguments lead us. He does not allow himself even to repose on those probabilities, with which the academies of old were satisfied, much less would he acknowledge the wisdom of the schoolmen's practice of deciding as well as discussing. The dread of penal inflictions on himself for his indifference as to religion was obviously on the mind of Bayle, when writing most of his dictionary. He occasionally appeals to the Scriptures as if he were a faithful son of the Church; but his religious quotations are introduced so coldly, and with so little power, that the reader is continually reminded of those brief moral sentences which a novelist often thinks it decent should conclude a glowing description of voluptuousness. Bayle was as intimately acquainted with the historians and poets as with the philosophers of antiquity; and perhaps no author quotes with so much propriety. Horace seems to have been his favourite classic, for there was much similarity of taste between them, both being gay, goodhumoured, witty, and elegant. In spite, however, of his intellectual polish, no man's imagination is more riotous

and prurient than that of Bayle. He is never so happy as when the task is to explain and describe an affair of love. Page after page of his work is full of arguments, suppositions, learned references to Ovid, Tibullus, Petronius, and Catullus; and the reader, while disgusted at his author's immorality, is astonished at his genius and learning. This part of the subject is exceedingly remarkable, for it is agreed on all hands that Bayle was only a speculator in the amorous science.

What the Anatomy of Melancholy was to the wits of Queen Anne's reign, the Dictionnaire Historique et Critique was to the beaux esprits of France during the last century. Voltaire had so superficial an acquaintance with the classical languages that he could not of himself master the systems of ancient philosophy; nor did the pursuit of drawing-room applause at Paris leave this creature of vanity leisure for study or contemplation.* Books, however, were to be composed, for wit was fashionable; and a new jest, whether oral or written was occasionally necessary to dissipate the ennui of courts or to soften a monarch's frown. Infidelity, however, and immorality were the great subjects which were to be the foundation of every work. The marriages between the

* The hatred that this shallow Frenchman bore to Shakspearefor shallow he was with all his wit-led him to adopt a system of meanness and falsehood that must stamp him with eternal infamy in the mind of every honest man. Having first pillaged the poet and drest himself up in the spoil, he afterwards attempted to destroy his reputation, just as the high-way robber of old used to knock his victim on the head lest he should at any time bear witness against him. I subjoin a reference to a few of his letters illustrative of this topic, as many may like to see what this idol of the French can bring forward in disparagement of Shakspeare, who would have very reasonable objections to wading through his voluminous writings. See the Letter to the Duke of Choiseul, Lett. 288, vol. 60, p. 512.—To Horace Walpole, Lett. 287, vol. 60. p. 505.-To H. Pancoucke, Lett. 224, vol. 60, p. 377.

French royal families and the princely houses of Italy had introduced into France those principles of infidelity which the exclusive love of classical literature had given birth to in Italy at the revival of letters. These principles were eagerly received and strongly supported in France because they suited well with the dissoluteness of the court. The powerful intellects of other times had only looked for applause from kindred minds; but the wits of the court of Louis the Fourteenth had no higher or better ambition than such fame as would be bestowed by the approbation of the great vulgar. In the one case literature dictated opinions, and men of wisdom taught the world, which then was contented to yield the proper place to merit; in the other case books were merely the echo of the prevailing taste; they were written to support it, and as it was corrupt and frivolous to a degree knowledge made no progress. By his cleverness and brilliancy Voltaire rose to be the head of those who thus degraded letters by following in the court-train and feeding all its follies. The light, thin soil of his mind could not afford subsistence to the tree of knowledge, which in his case put forth a few showy blossoms, but never ripened into fruit. Ideas must be sought somewhere, and Bayle's Dictionary was the fashionable work during Voltaire's youth. It was true that Le Clerc, and Jurien, and Jacquelot, had shown the superiority of truth over scepticism, but the wits admired the elegance of Bayle, while the ladies were delighted with his tales of gallantry, and in those days the ladies of France reigned with despotic sway over literature as well as over love. The apostle of scepticism therefore drew his principal weapons from the Dictionary, and his natural wit acquired a keener edge by communing thus closely with that of Bayle. He amplified his master's pointed sentences into elaborate systems, and by means of a lively fancy and a

L

remarkable facility of diction persuaded the world that his infidelity was the creation of his own genius.

our

But a more illustrious disciple of Bayle was one of own countrymen, the elegant and accomplished Gibbon. From resolving to write the history of the city of Rome, the idea gradually expanded into the noble project of writing the History of the Decline and Fall of the whole Roman Empire. Much of this subject had already been traced in outline. Le Beau had given the French nation a history of the Lower Empire, in continuation of Crevier's History of the Roman Emperors. Every great man has had numerous biographers, and libraries were crowded with church annals. To read and study all the original authors on the events and opinions of more than twelve hundred busy years was a task beyond the industry of Gibbon, although he was keen and sagacious, and perhaps as learned as any gentleman-author can be, who spends his mornings in his library. He benefited very considerably by those writers of modern times who had devoted years to the investigation of particular parts of his grand subject, and of the numerous topics, which he has chosen to introduce as episodes. He had the skill of making other persons' learning appear to be his own, and, it is plain, only consulted original authorities upon points of moment, to which he knew the attention of the world would be more particularly directed. His occasional criticisms on Lardner make the uninformed reader suppose that his learning even surpassed that of the illustrious champion of dissent, while, in reality, it was Lardner who furnished him with most of his facts concerning the early Christians, though, by comparing Lardner's statements with those of Tillemont, Dupin and Fleury, he might occasionally discover differences, and be enabled to give critical decisions between the combatants. In all literary opinions, Gibbon was a

Frenchman; and it is only from the circumstance of most Englishmen possessing but a very slight acquaintance with French literature that he was ever thought to be an original writer. No man borrowed so freely as Gibbon from the French compilers of memoirs, and it may with truth be said, that, while reading the Decline and Fall, we are often only being amused with an elegant version of the Abbe Bleterie, Petit de la Croix, and other authors of the same description. The very sum and substance of the papers in the Transactions of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres are to be found in the Decline and Fall. Even those, who may not be able to trace the historian's elegant plagiarisms, must yet be aware that the idiom of his work is much more French than English, and that his style is by no means a fitting object of imitation. In the last century infidelity was a fashionable qualification amongst men of literature, an assumed badge that distinguished knowledge from ignorance, and not an honest conviction. In the case of Gibbon, Bayle supplied all the quibbles and sophistries on the subject of religion, and these appear, sometimes in the text of the Decline and Fall when they are dressed up in all the pomp of history, and sometimes in the notes when they are sharpened into epigrams. But Gibbon was a man of cold temperament, and altogether wanted that enthusiasm in scepticism which distinguished his master. There are fanatical sceptics, and superstitious atheists, and it is often an even point which is the worst, the bigotry of unbelief, or the bigotry of religion. While Bayle was a Pyrhonist in all things, his disciple was satisfied with endeavouring to destroy the Christian religion. Both the master and the scholar laboured with incessant diligence to show that the Christians had always been poor, timid, pitiable beings; and that in the multitude of theological opinions truth was