Page images
PDF
EPUB

But this arrogance is sterile: throughout the dialogue Apollonius does not advance one single argument, one solitary idea; he proves nothing, he confutes nothing; he does not open his lips except to suggest a topic to Zacheus, who, on his part, takes no notice whatever of paganism nor of the philosophy of his adversary, does not refute them, scarcely makes here and there an allusion to them, and only occupies himself relating history and describing the Christian faith so as to show forth its entirety and authority. Doubtless, the book is the work of a Christian, and the silence which he makes his philosophers preserve does not prove that philosophers were really silent. But such is by no means the character of the first debates of Christianity with the ancient philosophy, when the latter was still living and powerful. Christianity at that time condescended to notice the arguments of its adversaries; it spoke of them, it refuted them; the controversy was a real and an animated one. In the work before us there is no longer any controversy at all; the Christian indoctrinates and catechises the philosopher, and seems to consider that this is all that can be required of him. Nay, he even makes this a matter of concession, a favor; discussions with pagans had by this time become a sort of superfluity in the eyes of Christians.

66

[ocr errors]

Many persons, says Evagrius, in the preface to his book, "think that we should despise, rather than refute, the objections advanced by the Gentiles, so vain are they, so devoid of true wisdom; but, in my opinion, such scorn were worse than useless. I see two advantages in instructing the Gentiles; in the first place, we prove to all how holy and simple our religion is; and secondly, the heathen thus instructed come at last to believe that which, unknowing, they had despised.... Besides, by approaching the candle to the eyes of the blind, if they do not see its light, they at all events feel its warmth." This last phrase appears to me a

fine one, full of a sympathetic sentiment.

There is one thing only which appears to me remarkable in this dialogue; it is that here the question is broadly laid down between rationalism and the Christian revelation; not that this subject is more really or more extensively developed than any other: it is only in a few sentences that the idea manifests itself, but from these it is evident that the question was full in the minds of all controversialists, and formed, as it were, the last intrenchment behind which philosophy de

fended itself. Apollonius, as you have seen, makes it an especial charge against the Christian doctrine that it is irrational; to this Zacheus replies: "It is easy for every one to understand and appreciate God, that is to say, if the Divine Word is compatible with your notion of wisdom... for your view is, that the sage believes nothing out of himself, that he is never deceived, but that he of himself knows all things infallibly, not admitting that there is anything whatever either hidden or unknown, or that anything is more possible to the Creator than to the creature. And it is more especially against the Christians that you make use of this mode of reasoning." And elsewhere: "The understanding follows. faith, and the human mind knows only through faith the higher things which come near God."

It were a curious study to consider the state of rationalism at this period, the causes of its ruin, and its efforts, its various transformations in order to avert that ruin: but it is an inquiry which would carry us too far, and, besides, it was not in Gaul that the grand struggle between rationalism and Christianity took place.

The second dialogue of Evagrius, between the Christian Theophilus and the Jew Simon, is of no sort of importance; it is a mere commentary, a mere trifling controversy on a few scriptural texts.

I might mention to you, and make extracts from, a great number of other works of the same period and the same class. This, however, were unnecessary, as I have selected from among them the two most remarkable, the most characteristic, the most calculated to convey an accurate idea of the state of mind, and of its activity at this period. That activity was great, though exclusively confined within the limits of the religious society; whatever vigor and life had remained to the ancient philosophy, passed over to the service of the Christians; it was under the religious form, and in the very bosom of Christianity, that were reproduced the ideas, the schools, the whole science of the philosophers; but subject to this condition, they still occupied men's minds, and played an important part in the moral state of the new society.

It was this movement which was arrested by the invasion of the barbarians and the fall of the Roman empire: a hundred

[blocks in formation]

years later we do not find the slightest trace of what I have been describing to you; the discussions, the travels, the correspondence, the pamphlets, the whole intellectual activity of Gaul in the seventh century, all these had disappeared.

Was this loss of any consequence? was the movement thus put a stop to by the invasion of the barbarians an important and fruitful movement? I doubt it very much. You will perhaps remember my observations on the essentially practical character of Christianity; intellectual progress, science, espe cially so called, was not at all its aim; and although it had a connexion upon several points with the ancient philosophythough it had been very willing to appropriate the ideas of that philosophy, and to make the most of it, it was by no means anxious for its preservation, nor to replace it by any other philosophy. To change the manners, to govern the life of men, was the predominant idea of its leaders.

Moreover, notwithstanding the freedom of mind which practically existed in the fifth century, in the religious society, the principle of liberty made no progress there. It was, on the contrary, the principle of authority, of the official domination over intellect by general and fixed rules, which sought the ascendency. Though still powerful, intellectual liberty was on the decline; authority was rapidly taking its place; every page of the writings of this period proves the fact. It was, indeed, the almost inevitable result of the very nature of the Christian reformation; moral, rather than scientific, it proposed to itself as its leading aim to establish a law, to govern men's will; it was consequently authority that was above all things needful to it; authority in the existing state of manners was its surest, it smost efficacious means of action.

Now, what the invasion of the barbarians, and the fall of the Roman empire more especially arrested, even destroyed, was intellectual movement; what remained of science, of philosophy, of the liberty of mind in the fifth century, disappeared under their blows. But the moral movement, the practical reformation of Christianity, and the official establishment of its authority over nations, were not in any way affected; perhaps even they gained instead of losing this at least, I think, is what the history of our civilization, in proportion as we advance in its course, will allow us to conjecture.

:

The invasion of the barbarians, therefore, did not in any way kill what possessed life; at bottom, intellectual activity and liberty were in decay; everything leads us to believe

that they would have stopped of themselves; the barbarians stopped them more rudely and sooner. That, I believe, is all

that can be imputed to them.

We have now arrived at the limits to which we should confine ourselves, to the end of the picture of the Roman society in Gaul at the time when it fell: we are acquainted with it, if not completely, at least in its essential features. In order to prepare ourselves to understand the society which followed it, we have now to study the new element which mixed with it, the barbarians. Their state before the invasion, before they came to overthrow the Roman society, and were changed under its influence, will form the subject of our next lecture.

SEVENTH LECTURE.

Object of the lecture-Of the Germanic element in modern civilization-Of the monuments of the ancient social state of the Germans: 1. Of the Roman and Greek historians; 2. Of the barbaric laws; 3. Of national traditions-They relate to very different epochs -They are often made use of promiscuously-Error which results therefrom-The work of Tacitus concerning the manners of the Germans-Opinions of the modern German writers concerning the ancient Germanic state-What kind of life prevailed there? was it the wandering life, or the sedentary life?—Of the institutions-Of the moral state-Comparison between the state of the German tribes and that of other hordes-Fallacy of most of the views of barbarous life-Principal characteristics of the true influence of the Germans upon modern civilization.

WE approach successively the various sources of our civilization. We have already studied, on one side, what we call the Roman element, the civil Roman society; on the other, the Christian element, the religious society. Let us now consider the barbaric element, the German society.

Opinions are very various concerning the importance of this element, concerning the part and share of the Germans in modern civilization; the prejudices of nation, of situation, of class, have modified the idea which each has formed of it.

The German historians, the feudal publicists, M. de Boulainvilliers, for example, have in general attributed too extensive an influence to the barbarians; the burgher publicists, as the abbé Dubos, have, on the contrary, too much reduced it, in order to give far too large a part to Roman society; according to the ecclesiastics, it is to the church that modern civilization is the most indebted. Sometimes political doctrines have alone determined the opinion of the writer; the abbé de Mably, all devoted as he was to the popular cause, and despite his antipathy for the feudal system, insists strongly upon the German origins, because he thought to find there more institutions and principles of liberty than anywhere else. I do not wish to treat at present of this question; we shall treat of it, it will be resolved as we advance in the history of French civilization. We shall see from epoch to epoch what part

« PreviousContinue »