HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.

BY
HENRY THOMAS BUCKLE.
IN THREE VOLUMES.
VOL. II.
NEW EDITION.
TORONTO:
ROSE-BELFORD PUBLISHING COMPANY,
60 YORK STREET.
1878.

ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
OUTLINE OF THE HISTORY OF THE FRENCH INTELLECT FROMTHE MIDDLE OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY TO THE ACCESSION TO POWER OF LOUIS XIV.
PAGE
Importance of the question, as to whether the historianshould begin with studying the normal or the abnormalcondition of society[1–3]
Greater power of the church in France than in England[4]
Hence in France during the sixteenth century everythingwas more theological than in England[6–8]
Hence, too, toleration was impossible in France[9–11]
But at the end of the sixteenth century scepticism appearedin France, and with it toleration began, as was seen inthe Edict of Nantes[11–15]
The first sceptic was not Rabelais, but Montaigne[15–18]
Continuation of the movement by Charron[18–21]
Henry IV. encouraged the Protestants[23–24]
And they were tolerated even by the queen-regent duringthe minority of Louis XIII.[24–26]
The most remarkable steps in favour of toleration were,however, taken by Richelieu, who effectually humbled the church[27–34]
He supported the new secular scheme of governmentagainst the old ecclesiastical scheme[34–42]
His liberal treatment of the Protestants[42–46]
They are deserted by their temporal leaders, and the managementof the party falls into the hands of the clergy[46–51]
Hence the French Protestants, being headed by the clergy,become more intolerant than the French Catholics, who are headed by statesmen[51–55]
Evidence of the illiberality of the French Protestants[55–72]
They raise a civil war, which was a struggle of classes rather than of creeds[73]
Richelieu put down the rebellion, but still abstained frompersecuting the Protestants[73–76]
This liberal policy on the part of the government was only part of a much larger movement[76–77]
Illustration of this from the philosophy of Descartes[77–92]
Analogy between Descartes and Richelieu[92–93]
The same anti-ecclesiastical spirit was exhibited by their contemporaries[93–95]
And by Mazarin[96–98]
It was also seen in the wars of the Fronde[99–102]
But notwithstanding all this, there was a great differencebetween France and England; and the prevalence of theprotective spirit prevented the French from becoming free[102–107]
CHAPTER II.
HISTORY OF THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT, AND COMPARISON OF ITIN FRANCE AND ENGLAND.
About the eleventh century the spirit of inquiry began to weaken the church[108–110]
Coinciding with this, the feudal system and an hereditary aristocracy appeared[110–112]
The nobles displace the clergy, and celibacy is opposedby the principle of hereditary rank[112]
In England the nobles were less powerful than in France[113–116]
And were glad to ally themselves with the people against the crown[116–118]
Hence a spirit of popular independence unknown in France,where the nobles were too powerful to need the help of the people[118–119]
Effects of this difference between the two countries in the fourteenth century[119–122]
Centralization was in France the natural successor of feudality[122–126]
This state contrasted with that of England[126–127]
Power of the French nobles[128–131]
Illustration from the history of chivalry[131–135]
Another illustration from the vanity of the French andpride of the English[135–137]
Also from the practice of duelling[137]
The pride of Englishmen encouraged the Reformation[138]
Analogy between the Reformation and the revolutions ofthe seventeenth century[138–139]
Both were opposed by the clergy and nobles. Naturalalliance between these two classes[139–142]
In the reign of Elizabeth both classes were weakened[143–146]
James I. and Charles I. vainly attempted to restore their power[147]
CHAPTER III.
THE ENERGY OF THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT IN FRANCE EXPLAINSTHE FAILURE OF THE FRONDE. COMPARISON BETWEENTHE FRONDE AND THE CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH REBELLION.
Difference between the Fronde and the great English rebellion[148–150]
The English rebellion was a war of classes[150–159]
But in France the energy of the protective spirit and thepower of the nobles made a war of classes impossible[160–162]
Vanity and imbecility of the French nobles[162–170]
As such men were the leaders of the Fronde, the rebellionnaturally failed[167–173]
But the English rebellion succeeded because it was a democraticmovement headed by popular leaders[174–175]
CHAPTER IV.
THE PROTECTIVE SPIRIT CARRIED BY LOUIS XIV. INTO LITERATURE.EXAMINATION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS ALLIANCE BETWEEN THEINTELLECTUAL CLASSES AND THE GOVERNING CLASSES.
The protective spirit in France, having produced thesepolitical evils, was carried into literature under LouisXIV., and caused an alliance between literature and government[176–177]
Servility in the reign of Louis XIV.[177–181]
Men of letters grateful to Louis XIV.[182]
But his system of protecting literature is injurious[183–188]
Its first effect was to stop the progress of science[188–192]
Even in mechanical arts nothing was effected[192–194]
Decline in physiology, in surgery, and in medicine[194–197]
Also in zoology and in chemistry[197]
Nor was anything done in botany[198–202]
Intellectual decay under Louis XIV. was seen in everydepartment of thought, and was the natural consequence of patronage[202–205]
Illustrations from the history of French art[205–208]
And from every branch of literature[208–210]
Universal decline of France during the latter part of thereign of Louis XIV.[210–212]
CHAPTER V.
DEATH OF LOUIS XIV. REACTION AGAINST THE PROTECTIVESPIRIT, AND PREPARATIONS FOR THE FRENCH REVOLUTION.
English literature unknown in France in the reign of Louis XIV.[213–214]
But began to be studied after his death, when the most eminent Frenchmenvisited England. This caused a junction of French and English intellects[215–227]
Admiration of England expressed by Frenchmen[228–229]
Hence liberal opinions in France, which the government attempted to stifle[229]
Consequent persecution of literary men by the French government[230–242]
Violence of the government[242–246]
In France literature was the last resource of liberty[246–247]
Reasons why literary men at first attacked the church andnot the government[247–253]
Hence they were led to assail Christianity[254–258]
But until the middle of the reign of Louis XV. the political institutionsof France might have been saved; after that period all was over[258–259]
CHAPTER VI.
STATE OF HISTORICAL LITERATURE IN FRANCE FROM THEEND OF THE SIXTEENTH TO THE END OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Historical literature in France before the end of the sixteenth century[261–265]
Improvement in the method of writing history late in the sixteenth century[266–267]
Still further progress early in the seventeenth century[268–270]
Which became more marked in Mezeray's history in 1643[271–272]
Retrograde movement under Louis XIV.[273–279]
Illustration of this from the work of Audigier[279–282]
And from that of Bossuet[282–291]
Immense improvements introduced by Voltaire[292–313]
His History of Charles XII.[292–295]
His Age of Louis XIV.[296–297]
His Morals, Manners, and Character of Nations[297–298]
His views adopted by Mallet, Mably, Velly, Villaret, Duclos, and Hénault[299–300]
His habit of looking at epochs[301]
A remark of his adopted by Constant[302]
He advocated free trade[304]
His anticipation of Malthus[304–305]
His attack on the Middle Ages[305–306]
And on the pedantic admirers of antiquity[306–308]
He weakened the authority of mere scholars and theologians[308–309]
Who had repeated the most childish absurdities respectingthe early history of Rome[309–310]
In attacking which Voltaire anticipated Niebuhr[310–313]
Ignorant prejudice against him in England[313]
His vast labours were aided by Montesquieu[314]
The works of Montesquieu, and value of his method[314–319]
The discourses of Turgot, and their influence[320–321]
All this hastened the advance of the French Revolution[321–322]
CHAPTER VII.
PROXIMATE CAUSES OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AFTER THEMIDDLE OF THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
Recapitulation of preceding views[323]
Difference between certainty and precision[324–326]
The intellect of France began to attack the state about 1750[326–327]
Rise of the political economists[327–330]
Influence of Rousseau[330–331]
Just at the same time the government began to attack the church[332–334]
And to favour religious toleration[334–336]
Abolition of the Jesuits[336–346]
Calvinism is democratic; Arminianism is aristocratic[339–342]
Jansenism being allied to Calvinism, its revival in France aided thedemocratic movement, and secured the overthrow of the Jesuits, whose doctrines are Arminian[343–345]
After the fall of the Jesuits the ruin of the French clergy was inevitable[347–348]
But was averted for a time by the most eminent Frenchmen directing theirhostility against the state rather than against the church[349–351]
Connexion between this movement and the rise of atheism[351–353]
Same tendency exhibited in Helvétius[353–357]
And in Condillac[357–360]
The ablest Frenchmen concentrate their attention on the external world[360–361]
Effects of this on the sciences of heat, light, and electricity[361–363]
Also on chemistry and geology[364–373]
In England during the same period there was a dearth of great thinkers[374–375]
But in France immense impetus was given to zoology by Cuvier and Bichat[375–376]
Bichat's views respecting the tissues[377–421]
Connexion between these views and subsequent discoveries[383–386]
Relation between inventions, discoveries, and method;and immense importance of Bichat's method[386–389]
Bichat's work on life[390–395]
Great and successful efforts made by the French in Botany[395–399]
And in mineralogy by De Lisle and Haüy[399–403]
Analogy between this and Pinel's work on insanity[403–404]
All these vast results were part of the causes of the French Revolution[405]
Physical science is essentially democratic[406–410]
The same democratic tendency was observable in changes of dress[410–412]
And in the establishment of clubs[412–415]
Influence of the American Rebellion[415–418]
Summary of the causes of the French Revolution[418–420]
General reflections[420–424]
CHAPTER VIII.
OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF THE SPANISH INTELLECTFROM THE FIFTH TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.
In the preceding Chapters four propositions have been established[425–426]
The truth of which may be further verified by studying the history of Spain[426]
In Spain, superstition is encouraged by physical phenomena[426–434]
It was also encouraged by the great Arian war with France[434–439]
And, subsequently, by the war with the Mohammedans[439–444]
These three causes influenced the policy of Ferdinand and Isabella[444–446]
Continuation of the same policy by Charles V. and by Philip II.[446–453]
Philip II., notwithstanding his repulsive qualities, was loved by the nation[453–455]
Their affection for him was the result of general causes, which, during severalcenturies, have made the Spaniards the most loyal people in Europe[455]
Origin of Spanish loyalty, and evidence of it[455–461]
Loyalty became united with superstition, and each strengthened the other[461–462]
In consequence of this union, great foreign conquestswere made, and a great military spirit was developed[461–465]
But this sort of progress, depending too much upon individuals,is necessarily unstable[465–466]
The progress of England, on the other hand, depends upon the ability of thenation, and therefore, continues, whether individual rulers are skilful, or whether they are unskilful[466–467]
In Spain, the ruling classes were supreme; the people counted for nothing;and hence the grandeur of the country, which was raised up by the able princes of the sixteenthcentury, was as quickly pulled down by the weak princes of the seventeenth[467–472]
The decay of Spain, in the seventeenth century, was connectedwith the increasing influence of the clergy[472–483]
The first use which the clergy made of their power was to expel all the Moors[483–496]
Effect of this expulsion in impoverishing Spain[497–499]
ODecline of manufactures, and of population, and increase of poverty[499–511]
In 1700, when affairs were at their worst, the Austriandynasty was succeeded by the Bourbon[513–514]
Spain was now ruled by foreigners[514–520]
Who endeavoured to improve the country by weakening the church[521–525]
But the authority of the church had so enfeebled the nationalintellect, that the people, immersed in ignorance, remained inert[525–543]
Government attempted to remedy this ignorance by calling in foreign aid[534–545]
The influence of foreigners in Spain was displayed in theexpulsion of the Jesuits, in 1767[545–546]
And in the attacks made on the Inquisition[547–548]
It was also displayed in the foreign policy of Spain[548–550]
All this was promoted by the authority and high character of Charles III.[552–554]
But it was of no avail; because politicians can do nothing,when the spirit of the country is against them[534–555]
Still, Charles III. effected great improvements, from which,on a superficial view, permanent benefit might have been expected[555–568]
Summary of what was accomplished for Spain, by the government,between the years 1700 and 1788[568–570]
Inasmuch, however, as these ameliorations were opposedto the habits of the national character, a reaction was inevitable[570–571]
In 1788, Charles III. was succeeded by Charles IV., andthe new king, being a true Spaniard, the reaction began[571–573]
In the nineteenth century, political reformers again endeavouredto improve Spain[574]
For the reasons already stated, their efforts were fruitless,notwithstanding the early establishment in that countryof municipal privileges, and of popular representation[575–576]
In this way, general causes always triumph over particular actions[577–578]
Those general causes predetermined the country to superstition,and it was impossible for individuals to make head against them[578–583]
Nothing can weaken superstition but knowledge[583]
Such failures are the more observable, because Spainenjoys immense natural advantages[583–585]
And has possessed great patriots and great legislators[585]
The Spaniards have, moreover, long been celebrated forhonour, courage, temperance, humanity, and religious sincerity[585–588]
So far, however, as national progress is concerned, thesenoble qualities are useless, while ignorance is so gross and so general[588–592]
This it is, which, isolating Spain from the rest of the civilizedworld, keeps alive that spirit of superstition, thatreverence for antiquity, and that blind and servileloyalty, which, as long as they last, will render improvementimpossible; and which must last until ignorance is removed[592–597]

HISTORY OF CIVILIZATION IN ENGLAND.

CHAPTER I.