We cannot deny Salmasius profound learning; but he was a man swayed by his humour, often judged from passion and jealousy, had too high an opinion of himself and too much contempt for others, and in fine found fault with whatever was not his own thought, as the learned Gronovius remarks.
He ventured to advance, some time after Grotius's death, that a professor of Helmsted had undertaken to prove that every page of Grotius's book contained gross blunders; and he speaks it in such a manner as gives room to think he was of the same opinion. This Professor was called John de Felde; he published his notes against Grotius in 1653. Had the great Salmasius been still alive, I believe, says M. Barbeyrac, that with all his secret jealousy against the author censured, he would have found himself greatly disappointed in his expectations from John De Felde's project: never was any thing so wretched. One would be surprised a Mathematician could reason so ill, did not other much more signal examples clearly demonstrate that the knowledge of the Mathematics does not always produce justness of thought in matters foreign to that science. We find here a man who seeks only for censure, and knows not what he would have: he fights with his own shadow, and for the most part does not understand the thoughts of the author he attacks; and when he does understand them draws the most groundless consequences that ever were heard of. His gloomy and unhappily subtle mind cannot bear the light which Grotius presents to him. The embroiled ideas and distinctions of his Peripatetic philosophy form round him a thick cloud impenetrable by the strongest rays of truth. This is Barbeyrac's judgment of him. Felde met with some partisans of Grotius who confuted him: Theodorus Graswinckel, Advocate, his relation and friend, undertook his defence; and the redoubled efforts of the Helmsted Professor did not lessen his book in the esteem of the public. Not that the work is perfect; this, his admirers and those who were most disposed to do him justice, frankly own.
His general principles touching natural law are very solid; but they are too intricate, and it requires deep meditation to unfold them. He does not sufficiently shew the chain of consequences to be deduced from them, and applied to particular subjects; which gave certain authors of little penetration, or candour, occasion to say, that after laying down his principles he makes no use of them, and builds his decisions on a quite different thing. He might have prevented these rash censures by enlarging somewhat more, and pointing out on each head the connection of the proofs he makes use of, with the general principles from whence they are drawn.
With regard to the law of nations, which he considers as an arbitrary law in itself, but acquiring the force of a law by the tacit consent of nations, Barbeyrac observes that in the sense he understands it, and has endeavoured to establish its obligation, it has been shewn to be insufficiently grounded: yet the questions which he builds upon it make a great part of his work.
It has been thought that his style is too concise; that he often expresses himself but by halves; that he supposes many things which require great study, passes over subjects of importance, and handles others which he might have omitted; such as questions relating rather to Divinity, than the science of Natural Law: in fine, it has been said that the desire of shewing his learning hurt him: and a very judicious Magistrate[151] justly observes, that by displaying less learning he would have appeared a greater Philosopher. Notwithstanding all these defects, it is universally acknowledged to be one of the finest works that ever was written.
When this book appeared at Paris, Cardinal Francis Barberin, who resided there as Legate from his uncle Pope Urbin VIII. hearing it much spoken of, was curious to see it; and read it with attention. It is said he was shocked at first that the author, in speaking of the Popes, did not give them the titles which they are wont to receive from Roman Catholic authors; but was otherwise well pleased with the book. The reading of it had been permitted at Rome two years, when on the 4th of February, 1627, it was put into the Index Expurgatorius, with his Apology and Poems[152].
FOOTNOTES:
[147] Bayle.
[148] Ep. 280. p. 104.
[149] Ep. 91. p. 782