tion of man. Diderot, in a series of early works, Lettre sur les Aveugles, Promenade d'un Sceptique, Pensées Philosophiques, &c., exhibited a good acquaintance with philosophical history and opinion, and gave sign in this direction, as in so many others, of a far-reaching intellect. As in almost all his works, however, the value of the thought is extremely unequal, while the different pieces, always written in the hottest haste, and never duly matured or corrected, present but few specimens of finished and polished writing. Bonnet (1724-1793), a Swiss of Geneva, wrote a large nuniber of works, many of which are purely scientific. Others, however, are more psychological, and these, though advocating the materialistic philosophy generally in Vogue were remarkable for uniting materialism with an honest adherence to Christianity. The half mystical writer, St Martin, also deserves notice. But the French metaphysician of the century is undoubtedly Condillac (1714-1780), almost the only writer of the time in France who succeeded in keeping strictly to philosophy without attempting to pursue his system to its results in ethics, politics, and theology; still more without desiring to anti-4 cipate such results, and to discuss the application of a philosophy before the philosophy was itself established. In the Traité des Sensations, the Essai sur l'Origine des Connaissances Humaines, and other works Condilluc elaborated and continued the imperfect sensationalism of Locke. As his philosophical view, though perhaps more restricted, was far more direct, consecutive, and uncompromising than that of the Englishman, so his style greatly exceeded Locke's in clearness and elegance. It cannot pretend to vie with the beauty and artistic suitability of the styles of Descartes and Malebranche, nor with that of Condillac's elder contemporary Berkeley. But for all that, it is a good medium of philosophical expression, and its literary character did not a little to assist the diffusion of the principles of materialism. 18th Century Theology.-To devote a section to the history of the theological literature of the 18th century in France may seem something of a contradiction; for, indeed, all or most of such literaturo was anti-theological. The magnificent list of names which the church had been able to claim on her side in the 17th century was exhausted before the end of the second quarter of the 18th with Massillon, and none came to fill their place. Very rarely has orthodoxy been so badly defended as at this time. The literary championship of the church was entirely in the hands of the Jesuits, and of a few disreputable literary free-lances like Fréron (1719–1776) and Dosfontaines. The Jesuits were learned enough, and their principal journal, that of Trévoux, was conducted with much vigour and a great deal of erudition. But they were in the first place discredited by the moral taint which has always hung over Jesuitism, and in the second place by the persecutions of the Jansen ists and the Protestants, which were attributed to their influence. No single name or work on the orthodox side has preserved the least reputation; while, on the other hand, the names of Père Nonotto and several of his fellows have been enshrined unenviably in the imperishable ridicule of Voltaire, one only of whose adversaries, Guénée (17171803), was able to meet him at something like his own weapons. At the same time, while religion and the church were never so badly off for defenders, they had never been, and have never been, so desperately in need of defence. The financial condition of the church was in scandalous contrast with the need and bankruptcy of the state. The lives of too many of its ministers were in more scandalous contrast still with it doctrines and precepts; while its political ascendency, and the use made of it, were felt to be, not merely unjust and improper in themselves, but an almost insuperable barrier to social and political reform. Meanwhile a spirit of hostility had long been growing up,

not merely to the church, but to Christianity and religion itself, which was not entirely due to ecclesiastical corruptions. The Renaissance by its paganism, the Reformation by its latitudinarian developments, and the growth of modern science by its materialistic tendencies, had all contributed to this anti-theological movement. Even in tho reign of Louis XIV. there was a considerable school of freethinkers at the French court, and when the restraint of that monarch's devotion was removed the number became largely increased, especially as the study of the writings of the English deists came to strengthen the tendency. It has never been at all accurately decided how far what may be called the scoffing school of Voltaire represents a direct revolt against Christianity, and how far it was merely a kind of guerilla warfare against the clergy. It is positively certain that Voltaire was not an atheist, and that he did not approve of atheism. But for his aggressive and reforming tendencies he might very likely have confined himself to the colourless and speculative deism of Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. As it was, however, he went farther, and his Dictionnaire Philosophique, which is typical of a vast amount of contemporary and subsequent literature, consists of a heterogeneous assemblage of articles directed against various points of dogma and ritual and various characteristics of the sacred records. From the literary point of view, it is one of the most characteristic of all Voltaire's works, though it is perhaps not entirely his. The desultory arrangement, the light and lively style, the extensive but not always too accurate erudition, and the somewhat captious and quibbling objections, are intensely Voltairian. But there is little seriousness about it, and certainly no kind of rancorous or deep-seated hostility. With many, however, of Voltaire's pupils and younger contemporaries the case was altered. They were distinctively atheists and antisupernaturalists. The atheism of Diderot, unquestionably the greatest of them all, has been keenly debated; but in the case of Damilaville, Naigeon, Holbach, and others there is no room for doubt. By these persons a great mass of atheistic and anti-Christian literature was composed and set afloat. The characteristic work of this school, its last word indeed, is the famous Système de la Nature, attributed to Holbach (1723-1780), but known to be, in part at least, the work of Diderot. In this remarkable work, which caps the climax of the metaphysical materialism or rather nihilism of the century, the atheistic position is clearly put. It made an immense sensation; and it so fluttered not merely the orthodox but the more moderate free-thinkers, that Frederick of Prussia and Voltaire, perhaps the most singular pair of defenders that orthodoxy ever had, actually set themselves to refute it. The extreme unpopularity and startling nature of its tenets, which we do not here judge, have been wont to reflect themselves in the criticisms passed on it merely as a book. Viewed in this light, without prejudice either way, it must be pronounced undeserving of much of this unfavourable criticism. Its style and argument are very unequal, as books written in collaboration are apt to be, and especially books in which Diderot, the paragon of inequality, had a hand. But there is on the whole a great consistency and even rigour in the argument; there is an almost entire absence of the heterogeneous assemblage of anecdotes, jokes good and bad, scraps of accurate or inaccurate physical science, and other incongruous matter with which the Philosophes were wont to stuff their works; and lastly, there is in the best passages a kind of sombre grandeur which recalls the manner as well as the matter of Lucretius. It is perhaps well to repeat, in the case of so notorious a book, that this criticism is of a purely literary and formal character; but there is little doubt that the literary merits of the work considerably assisted its didactic influence. As the Revolution approached, and the victory

of the Philosophe party was declared, there appeared for a brief space a group of cynical and accomplished phrasemakers presenting some similarity to that of which a hundred years before St Evremond was the most prominent figure. The chief of this group were Chamfort (17471794) on the republican side, and Rivarol (1753–1801) on that of the royalists. Like the older writer to whom we have compared them, neither can be said to have produced any one work of eminence, and in this they stand distin guished from moralists like La Rochefoucauld. The floating sayings, however, which are attributed to them, or which occur here and there in their miscellaneous work, yield in no respect to those of the most famous of their predecessors in wit and a certain kind of wisdom, though they are frequently more personal than aphoristic.

18th Century Moralists and Politicians.-Not the least part, however, of the energy of the period in thought and writing was devoted to questions of a directly moral and political kind. The grave social and economical evils under which France laboured made this devotion almost inevitable; and though we have already noticed under the head of his. tory a certain number of works written under this inspiration, a still larger proportion remains to be mentionedmoral, political, and economical works having had, from the time of Aristotle downwards, sufficient connexion to be treated together. With regard to morality proper the favourite doctrine of the century was what is commonly called the selfish theory, the only one indeed which was suitable to the sensationalism of Condillac and the materialism of Holbach. The pattern book of this doctrine was the De l'Esprit of Helvétius (1715-1771), the most amusing book perhaps which ever pretended to the title of a solemn philosophical treatise. There is some analogy between the principles of this work and those of the Système de la Nature. With the inconsistency-some would say with the questionable honesty-which distinguished the more famous members of the Philosophe party when their disciples spoke with what they considered imprudent outspokenness, Voltaire and even Diderot attacked Helvétius as the former afterwards attacked Holbach. Both were guilty of disregarding the curious cant of noble sentiment which was so dear to the 18th century, and with the tenacious steadiness of traditional criticism it has been usual to speak slightingly of Helvetius ever since. The truth is that, whatever may be the general value of De l'Esprit, it is full of acuteness, though that acuteness is as desultory and disjointed as its style. As Helvétius may be taken as the representative author of the cynical school, so perhaps Thomas (17321795) may be taken as representative of the votaries of noble sentiment to whom we have also alluded. The works of Thomas chiefly took the form of academic éloges or formal panegyrics,.and they have all the defects, both in manner and substance, which are associated with that style. They were, however, useful in their way, as counteracting the prevailing cynicism, and have some literary importance, as being perhaps the least dead of an enormous mass of similar literature which was composed at the time. Of yet a third school, corresponding in form to La Rochefoucauld and La Bruyère, and possessed of some of the antique vigour of preceding centuries, was Vauvenargues (1715-1747). This writer, who died very young, has produced maxims and reflexions of considerable mental force and literary finish. From Voltaire downwards it has been usual to compare him with Pascal, from whom he is chiefly distinguished by a striking but somewhat empty stoicism. Between the moralists, of whom we have taken these three as examples, and the politicians may be placed Rousseau, who in his novels and miscellaneous works is of the first class, in his famous Contrat Social of the second. The characteristics of Rousseau are too well known to need lengthy description.

His discontent with the established social order and arrangements of the world led him, or the one hand, to advocate alterations in individual morality, such as the discarding of the vices and corruptions of civilization, and the return to a simpler and less complicated manner of living; on the other to develop and urge theories respecting the constitu tion of the body politic, which, if not altogether novel in their nature, were made so by the force of their statement and the literary beauties of its form. Rousseau's work was continued on the moral and literary rather than the political side by Bernardin de Saint Pierre. Of direct and avowed political writings there were few during the century, and none of anything like the importance of the Contrat Social, theoretical acceptance of the established French constitution being a point of necessity with all Frenchmen. Nevertheless it may be said that almost the whole of the voluminous writings of the Philosophes, even of those who, like Voltaire, were sincerely aristocratic and monarchic in predilection, were of more or less veiled political significance. There was one branch of political writing, moreover, which could be indulged in without much fear. The form of government was sacred, but the conduct of government could be discussed without much danger, for, whatever might be the divine rights of the best of princes, his intentions might always be frustrated by wicked or incapable ministers and officials. Political economy, therefore, and administrative theories, received much attention. The earliest writer of eminence on these subjects was the great engineer Vauban (1633-1707), whose Oisivetés and Dime Royale exhibit both great ability and extensive observation. A more utopian economist of the same time was the Abbé de St Pierre (1658-1743), not to be confounded with the author of Paul et Virginie. Soon political economy in the hands of Quesnay (1694-1774) took a regular form, and towards the middle of the century a great number of works on questions connected with it, especially that of free trade in corn, on which the Abbé Galiani (1728-1787), Morellet, and above all Turgot, distinguished themselves. Of writers on legal subjects and of the legal profession, the century, though not less fertile than in other directions, produced few or none of any great importance from the literary point of view. The chief name which in this connexion is known is that of Chancellor d'Aguesseau (1668-1751), at the beginning of the century, an estimable writer of the Port Royal school, who took the orthodox side in the great disputes of the time, but failed to display any great ability therein. He was, as became his profession, more remarkable as an orator than a writer, and his works contain valuable testimonies to the especially perturbed and unquiet condition of his century-a disquiet which is perhaps also its chief literary note. There were other French magistrates, such as Montosquieu, Hénault (1685-1770), Des Brosses (1706-1773), and others, who made considerable mark in literature; but it was usually (except in the case of Montesquieu) in subjects not even indirectly connected with their profession. The bench and bar of France were indeed at this time almost as full of abuses as the other departments of state; and though the parliaments, metropolitan and provincial, would occasionally withstand a corrupt ministry, it was much more in the interest of their own privileges than of the community. The Esprit des Lois stands alone.

18th Century Criticism and Periodical Literature.-Wa have said that literary criticism assumes in this century a sufficient importance to be treated under a separate heading. Contributions were made to it of many different kinds and from many different points of view. Periodical literature, the chief stimulus to its production, began more and more to come into favour. Even in the 17th century the Journal des Savants, the Jesuit Journal de Trévoux, and other publi cations had set the example of different kinds of it. Just

before the Revolution the Gazette de France was in the hands of Suard, a man who was nothing if not a literary critic. Perhaps, however, the most remarkable contribution of the century to criticism of the periodical kind was the Fevilles de Grimm, a circular sent for many years by the conirade of Diderot and Rousseau to the German courts, and containing a compte rendu of the ways and works of Paris, literary and artistic as well as social. These Leaves not only include much excellent literary criticism by Diderot, but also gave occasion to the incomparable salons or accounts of the exhibition of pictures from the same hand, essays which founded the art of picture criticism, and which have hardly been surpassed since. The prize competitions of the Academy were also a considerable stimulus to literary criticism, though the prevailing taste in such compositions rather inclined to elegant themes than to careful studies or analyses. Larger works on the arts in general or on special divisions of them were not wanting, as, for instance, that of Dubos before alluded to, and those of the Père Bouhours, the Abbé Trublet, and the Abbé Terrasson, the Essai sur la Peinture of Diderot, and others. Critically annotated editions of the great French writers also came into fashion, and were no longer written by mere pedants. Of these Voltaire's edition of Corneille was the most remarkable, and his annotations, united separately under the title of Commentaire sur Corneille, form not the least important portion of his works. Even older writers, looked down upon though they were by the general taste of the day, received a share of this critical interest. In the earlier portion of the century Lenglet-Dufresnoy and La Monnoye devoted their attention to Rabelais, Regnier, Villon, Marot, and others. Barbazan (1696–1774) and Le Grand d'Aussy (1737-1800) gathered and brought into notice the long scattered and unknown rather than neglected fabliaux of the Middle Ages. Even the chansons de gestes attracted the notice of the Comte de Caylus (1692-1765) and the Comte de Tressan (1705-1785). The latter, in his Bibliothèque des Romans, worked up a large number of the old epics into a form suited to the taste of the century. In his hands they became lively tales of the kind suited to readers of Voltaire and Crébillon. But in this travestied form they had considerable influence both in France and abroad-Wieland, for instance, writing his Oberon merely from a knowledge, and very soon after the appearance, of Tressan's version of Huon de Bordeaux. By these publications attention was at least called to early French literature, and when it had been once called, a more serious and appreciative study became merely a matter of time. The style of much of the literary criticism of the close of this period was indeed deplorable enough. Laharpe (17391803), who though a little later in time as to most of his critical productions is perhaps its most representative figure, shows criticism in one of its worst forms. He has all the defects of Malherbe and Boileau, with few of their merits and none of their excuses. The critic specially abhorred by Sterne, who looked only at the stop-watch, was a kind of prophecy of Laharpe; but such a writer is a natural enough expression of an expiring principle. The year after the death of Laharpe Sainte-Beuve was born.

18th Century Savants.—In science and general eruuition the 18th century in France was at first much occupied with the mathematical studies for which the French genius is so peculiarly adapted, which the great discoveries of Descartes had made possible and popular, and which those of his supplanter Newton only made more popular still. Voltaire took to himself the credit which he fairly deserves of first introducing the Newtonian system into France, and it was soon widely popular-even ladies devoting themselves to the exposition of mathematical subjects, as in the case of the Marquise du Chatelet. Many of the greatest

mathematicians of the age, such as De Moivre and Laplace, were French by birth, while others like Euler belonged to French-speaking races, and wrote in French. The physical sciences were also ardently cultivated, the impulse to them being given partly by the generally materialistic tendency of the age, partly by the Newtonian system, and partly also by the extended knowledge of the world provided by the circumnavigatory voyage of Bougainville (1729-1811), and other travels. Maupertuis (1698-1759) and La Condamine (1701-1774) made long journeys for scientific purposes, and duly recorded their experiences. The former, a mathematician and physicist of some ability but more oddity, is chiefly known to literature by the ridicule of Voltaire in the Diatribe du Docteur Akakia. D'Alembert (1713-1783), a great mathematician and a writer of considerable though rather academic excellence, is principally known from his connexion with and introduction to the Encyclopédie, of which more presently. Chemistry was also assiduously cultivated, the Baron d'Holbach, among others, being a devotee thereof, and helping to advance the science to the point where, at the conclusion of the century, it was illustrated by Berthollet and Lavoisier During all this devotion to science in its modern acceptation, the older and more literary forms of erudition. were not neglected, especially by the illustrious Benedictines of the abbey of St Maur. Calmet (1672-1757), the author of the wellknown Dictionary of the Bible, belonged to this order, and to them also (in particular to Dom Rivet) was due the beginning of the immense Histoire Littéraire de la France, a work interrupted by the Revolution and long suspended, but for the last quarter of a century diligently continued. Of less orthodox names distinguished for erudition, Fréret (1688-1749), secretary of the Academy, is perhaps the most remarkable. But in the consideration of the science and learning in the 18th century from a literary point of view, there is one name and one book which require particular and, in the case of the book, somewhat extended mention. The man is Buffon (1747–1780), the book the Encyclopédie. The immense Natural History of Buffon, though not entirely his own, is a remarkable monument of the union of scientific tastes with literary ability. As has happened in many similar instances, there is in parts more literature than science to be found in it; and from the point of view of the latter, Buffon was far too careless in observation and far too solicitous of perfection of style and grandiosity of view. The style of Buffon has sometimes been made the subject of the highest eulogy, and it is at its best admirable; but one still feels in it the fault of all serious French prose in this century before Rousseau, -the presence, that is to say, of an artificial spirit rather than of natural variety and power. The Encyclopédie, unquestionably on the whole the most important French literary production of the century, if we except the works of Rousseau and Voltaire, was conducted for a time by Diderot and D'Alembert, afterwards by Diderot alone. It numbered among its contributors almost every Frenchman of eminence in letters. It is often spoken of as if, under the guise of an encyclopædia, it had been merely a plaidoyer against religion, but this is entirely erroneous. Whatever anti-ecclesiastical bent some of the articles may have, the book as a whole is simply what it professes to be, a dictionary, that is to say, not merely an historical and critical lexicon, like those of Bayle and Moreri (indeed, history and biography were nominally excluded), but a dictionary of arts, sciences, trades, and technical terms. Diderot himself had perhaps the greatest faculty of any man that ever lived for the literary treatment in a workman-like manner of the most heterogeneous and in some cases rebellious subjects; and his untiring labour. not merely in writing original articles, but in editing the contributions of others, determined the character of the whole work. There is no doubt