views all parts of the history of France, events, persons, institutions, manners, customs, language; he reviews them all, and all under his pen assume a fresh appearance of life. Étienne Pasquier is more remarkable for the abundance than for the precision of his ideas; his criticism is sometimes subtle instead of just; but his book was calculated strongly to stir the minds of his contemporaries. It is the only erudite work written in the sixteenth century which one can read through without weariness, and it was reprinted even in last century."

Such is the opinion expressed regarding Pasquier's 'Researches' by an eminently competent judge. In one respect, however, I must entirely dissent from it. There is no philosophy of history in Pasquier's work. His ratiocinations on historical facts sometimes bear a superficial resemblance to those of Machiavelli in his 'Discorsi,' but, instead of being more, they are much less philosophical in character and scope; they are much more about particulars, and show much less insight into the general causes and tendencies of history. The real and distinctive merit of Pasquier is, that he was the first to make a serious and sustained attempt to trace the growth of the institutions of France. This was a very important departure,-the inauguration of a movement which has never since been arrested and which has produced numerous valuable contributions to historical knowledge. Pasquier himself must be admitted to have collected much useful material on various ancient French institutions. Few, I am inclined to believe, will read through his work without weariness, or read through it at all; but those who are in quest of information on the special subjects of which it treats may consult it with profit.

What its subjects are a brief summary will indicate. The first book treats of the character and culture of the Gauls, and the causes which led to their subjugation by the Romans; of the Frankish, Gothic, Burgundian, and Norman invasions; of the origin of the Bretons and Gascons; and of the story of the descent of the Franks from the Trojans, and the difference of opinions as to the nature of their earliest government. The second book is a dissertation on the old French parliaments and provincial assemblies, the functions of the great officers of state, the feudal nobility, and the general distribution of society

into classes, prefaced by a brief discussion as to whether chance or policy, fortune or prudence, had contributed most to the building up of the kingdom of France. The third book traces the growth of the episcopate, the gradual assumption of supremacy by the bishop of Rome, the various conflicts between the Papal See and the Gallican Church, the introduction of ecclesiastical abuses into the realm, the progress of the sect of the Jesuits, and the course of their war on the University. In chapter 44 there is inserted the famous "pladoyer" which the author had delivered in defence of the University and against the Jesuits in the suit before the Parliament of Paris in 1564. The greater portion of the fourth book treats of laws and judicial customs; the rest of it is of a very miscellaneous character. The fifth book relates to Clovis and his descendants of the first dynasty. The sixth book is occupied with the Capetian kings, the good knight Bayard, the fortunes of the house of Anjou, and sundry marvellous stories which Pasquier had the credulity to believe. The seventh book treats of French poetry. The eighth book, after discussing the origin of the French language, attempts, often very unsuccessfully, to account for many peculiar words, idioms, and proverbs. The ninth book contains much information on the history of the University of Paris, on "the Faculties," and on the spread of Roman law and its prevalence over the "droit coutumier." The last book examines the accusations made against Queen Brunehaut by Fredegar, Aimoin, and other chroniclers, and argues that they are to be deemed calumnies. The foregoing summary, short and general although it be, may, by showing what Pasquier's work was, also show what it was not.

II.

The first French writer who took a philosophical view of history was John Bodin. The years between his birth in 1530 and death in 1596 were among the most agitated and eventful in the history of France,-years of social, political, and religious transition and strife, which naturally led thoughtful men to political theorising. And of all who in that age made government and society the subject of reflection, none can be put on

an equality with Bodin as regards comprehensiveness, depth, and truthfulness of insight. The noble moral nature of L'Hôpital enabled him to apprehend as clearly some of the great practical principles of social order, and especially that of religious toleration; but neither L'Hôpital nor any other had such enlarged views of society as an object of science. As a political philosopher, indeed, Bodin had no rival among his contemporaries, and none, at least in his own country, till Montesquieu appeared. He had great native force of intellect, great learning, especially in languages, law, and history, and large legal and political experience, having taught jurisprudence at Toulouse, practised as an advocate in Paris, shared both in Court favour and disgrace under Henri III., performed admirable service as a deputy of the Tiers État in the Assembly of Blois, and filled various important offices of state. It is a striking evidence that even the greatest men may not be exempt from the most irrational prejudices of their age that this broad and sagacious thinker, although sceptical as to all positive religions, should have been an extremely credulous believer in sorcery, the virtues of numbers, and the power of the stars. In the sixteenth century it was still most difficult for the mind to emancipate itself from these delusions.1

The Republic,' first published in 1576, is undoubtedly by far the greatest of Bodin's works. In the history of the philosophy of government and legislation there are, indeed, few greater works; perhaps, as Sir Wm. Hamilton has affirmed, none in the whole interval between the appearance of the 'Politics' of Aristotle and that of the 'Spirit of Laws' of Montesquieu, although it is certainly inferior to both these treatises.2 The Historic Method' (Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem), published in 1566, has more interest and

1 The superstitious credulity of Bodin is most completely seen in his Demonomanie des Sorciers, 1581; and his religious freethinking in his Colloquium Heptaplomeres, which remained in manuscript until Guhrauer published extracts of it in 1841, and Noack the whole work in 1857.

2 Summaries of the 'Republic' sufficient to give a good general view of its character are to be found in Hallam's Lit. of Europe, vol. ii. (1st ed.), Lerminier's Introduction à l'Histoire du Droit, Heron's History of Jurisprudence, Bluntschli's Geschichte des Staatsrechts, and Janet's Hist. d. 1. Sc. Pol.; while that in Baudrillart's J. Bodin et son Temps is so exceedingly careful and excellent that scarcely a thought of any value in the original has escaped being indicated.

importance, however, for the student of the philosophy of history than the 'Republic.' Yet it is not a philosophy of history, nor does it even, although the honour is one which M. Baudrillart has claimed for it, lay the foundation of the philosophy of history. It makes itself no pretension of the kind, and is, what it professes to be, not a philosophy of history, but a method of studying and appreciating history.

One sign of the general awakening of interest in the study of history which took place throughout Europe in the sixteenth century, was the appearance of publications on the art of writing, reading, and judging of history. A few works of the kind preceded the treatise of Bodin. One of the earliest of these was the 'Theatrum scribendæ historiæ universe' of Mylaeus, published at Florence in 1548; the most popular and interesting was Patrizi's 'Della Storia dialoghi x.,' published at Venice in 1560. There was a continuous flow of such works throughout the rest of the sixteenth and almost the whole of the seventeenth century. The 'Penus Artis Historicæ,' a collection of eighteen pieces on the composition and study of history, all with two or three exceptions belonging to the sixteenth century, was published at Basle as early as 1574. The treatise of Bodin differs from the other "historic methods" of the age, not in essence nor as to design, but in involving among its practical directions considerations of scientific value. Its aim is simply to teach how history may be read in an orderly, independent, and profitable manner; not to found, and still less to elaborate a science: a great and arduous task, however, to which even genius is only competent when, circumstances favouring, it strenuously exerts itself with conscious and definite purpose, and an exclusive devotion to its fulfilment.

In the following account of Bodin's treatise I shall only seek to indicate those ideas in it which may be supposed to have some interest for a student of the science of history.

The 'Methodus' begins with a preface in which Bodin discourses on the easiness, pleasantness, and profitableness of historical study-" de facilitate, oblectatione, et utilitate historiæ." Such eulogies of history were coming into fashion when he wrote, and they continued to be much in fashion for at least a hundred and fifty years afterwards. Perhaps the one now

best remembered is Casaubon's preface to Polybius (1609), and it owes the honour chiefly to the merits of its Latinity. The only real present value of any of them is as "signs of the times" in which they appeared; they show us from what motives, or with what expectations and interests, the men of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries turned so eagerly to the writing and reading of history. Bodin and his contemporaries turned eagerly to history, not in order to explain its movement or ascertain its laws, but to find in it intellectual entertainment and practical guidance, materials for their literary and learned pursuits, and especially help in moral and political life. They conceived, in other words, of historical knowledge not as possibly constitutive of, or reducible to, science, but as instrumental and subservient to some end beyond itself. That Bodin should have believed historical study easy, although a very erroneous opinion, will not surprise us, as it is still a prevalent delusion both among the writers and readers of history. As soon as men began adequately to realise the supreme claims of truth in history they ceased to write eulogies on the uses of history; and at the same time they became aware that truth in history is very difficult to reach. This stage had not been attained in Bodin's day.

His 'Methodus' contains ten chapters, the titles of which will be found below. The first thing in it to be noted by uskeeping our special aim in view-is the account given of the nature and place of human history. History in itself is represented as equivalent to true narration or description. This allows of its being divided into human, natural, and divine. Human history has man for its subject, as natural history has the physical world, and divine history God; or, more definitely, its materials are the free actions of men in the widest sense of the term action-all human "consilia, dicta, facta." The distinctive feature of human history is that its subject is constantly changing, whereas God and nature change not; they

1 The titles referred to are: 1. Quid historia sit, et quotuplex. 2. De ordine historiarum. 3. De locis historiarum recte instituendis. 4. De historicorum delectu. 5. De recto historiarum judicio. 6. De statu rerumpublicarum. 7. Confutatio eorum qui quatuor monarchias aureaque secula statuunt. 8. De temporis universi ratione. 9. Qua ratione populorum origines haberi possint. 10. De historicorum ordine et collectione.

N