is a popular rumour of which the origin is unknown; an account of alleged fact transmitted to us by a succession of men of which the first are beyond our ken; a chain of which we hold one end but of which the other is lost in the abyss of the past. It is, therefore, essentially different from history. We can judge of an historical account by the character of its author: we can only judge of a tradition by its age, its extension, and the nature of its content." A late origin and a limited diffusion testify to the falsity of a tradition; but remoteness of origin and wide prevalence are no evidences of its truth. By increasing its volume it does not increase its weight. As to the nature of its content there are so many causes of believing traditions other than their truth, and so many motives and influences which alter and pervert them, that it speedily becomes almost impossible to ascertain whether there is any historical truth in them, or what it is. Traditions are not, indeed, mere fictions; it is even sometimes possible to perceive in a vague manner, in dim outline, the historical facts out of which they originated. "As regards, for example, the early history of Rome, there are several traditions, which, if reduced to simple and general propositions, cannot reasonably be called in question. Those which relate to the shameful defeat of the Romans near the Caudine Forks, the seditious retreats of the populace because of the cruelty exercised by the rich towards the poor, and various others, are instances." But such instances are exceptions. It is seldom that we can succeed thus far; and we can never be certain of the particulars of traditional story. The Greek, Jewish, Mohammedan, Abyssinian, Irish, Scottish, and other fabulous histories are referred to in proof. The early history of Rome is, then, again maintained to be as a whole untrustworthy; and the arguments which had been employed by Sallier and Fréret to show that it was, on the contrary, credible history resting on contemporary testimonies, are examined and rejected.

To this part of the communication Sallier replied in his Troisième Discours sur la certitude de l'Histoire des quatre premiers siècles de Rome,' read on the 10th April 1725. It closed the discussion, so far as the Academy was concerned.

The debate which I have thus summarised did honour to

all who took part in it. Its special problem was of the greatest interest and importance, and it was dealt with in a truly critical and historical spirit alike by De Pouilly and his antagonists. The former justly repelled the charge of historical Pyrrhonism which the latter brought against him. It was entirely without foundation. His views were reached on purely critical and historical grounds. There is no historical scepticism in demanding that real and adequate evidence be produced for professedly historical statements; and this was all that De Pouilly did. But perhaps the interest and importance of the debate lay as much in the general question which it brought to light as in the special question with which it directly dealt. It led to asking for the first time in a clear and general form, How authentic history is to be distinguished from merely traditional history? What are the conditions of historical credibility, and the principles of historical evidence and certitude? It directed attention to the fact that there must be a logic of historical investigation to which historians are bound to conform, and which they require to discover in order that they may be able to conform to it in the prosecution of difficult inquiries. It is on this account that I have spoken of the debate as marking an epoch in the progress of Historic.

Louis de Beaufort followed in the footsteps of De Pouilly. In his Dissertation sur l'incertitude des cinq premiers siècles de l'Histoire Romaine,' which was published at Utrecht in 1738, he maintained substantially the same views as the French Academician. He expounded and defended them, however, more elaborately, and was more successful in giving them currency. In the preface to his treatise he acknowledges that the composition of his work was suggested by the debate between De Pouilly and Sallier. The treatise itself consists of two parts: the first being "an inquiry concerning the original records, memorials, treaties, and other monuments from which proper materials could be drawn for compiling the history of the first ages of Rome, and of the historians who compiled it;" and the second being "an examination of some of the principal events that are said to have happened during that period, wherein the inconsistencies of the histories with one another,

and with the few original pieces which were saved when Rome was burned by the Gauls, is proved."

Niebuhr, who has made no mention of De Pouilly, has thus written regarding Beaufort and his book: "Beaufort was ingenious, and had read much, though he was not a philologer. One or two sections in his treatise are very able and satisfactory; others, on the contrary, feeble and superficial. Bayle is the master whom he implicitly follows throughout; the soul of his book is scepticism; he does nothing but deny or upset; or, if he ever tries to build, the edifice is frail and untenable. Yet the influence and reputation of his book spread extraordinarily. For Roman history had almost entirely escaped the attention. and care of philologers; those who chiefly interested themselves about it, though not more than about that of other nations, were intelligent men of the world; and for their use it was at that time handled by several authors, without pretensions or view to learning or research. Such of these as did not wholly overlook the earlier centuries, under the notion that they were of no importance, were so well satisfied with Beaufort's inquiry as to give them up altogether." In all respects but one Niebuhr has in these words very justly appreciated his precursor; but in that one respect he is entirely wrong. There is no evidence for thinking that Beaufort implicitly followed Bayle, or even followed him at all. There is not a trace of Bayle's influence, so far as I can see, in his book. Nor is there any warrant for saying that "the soul of his book is scepticism." There is nothing which can properly be called “scepticism” in it. It is simply a critical investigation which arrives at a result that is on the whole negative, the conclusion that the Roman tradition is for the most part merely a legend, not authentic history.

The philosophical spirit of the eighteenth century first manifested itself conspicuously in the treatment of history in three works which appeared at no great distance in time from one another: Montesquieu's 'Spirit of Laws,' published in 1748, Turgot's Discourses at the Sorbonne,' published in 1750, and Voltaire's 'Essay on the Manners and Spirit of Nations,' published in 1756. Montesquieu, Turgot, and Voltaire were

1 History of Rome, preface, p. 7 (Eng. tr.)

the chief initiators of the reflective or philosophical study of history which now prevails. It is therefore incumbent on me to consider what these three remarkable men accomplished in this connection.

II.

Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, was born at La Brède, near Bordeaux, on the 18th of January 1689.1 In the twenty-fifth year of his age he became a councillor in the parliament of Bordeaux, and two years later chief-justice (président à mortier). After holding the latter office for two years he resigned, in order to devote himself entirely to study and literature. The law of France was at that time so irrational, and even brutal, that a wise and humane man like Montesquieu must have often felt the administration of it hateful; yet his practical experience as a legislator and judge was doubtless admirable preparation for the literary work which he was to accomplish. He at first occupied himself chiefly with subjects belonging to physics and natural science, and by 1719 he had sketched A History of the Earth.' It was well that he abandoned this too ambitious scheme; but the conception of it did him honour, and the labour spent on it must have been advantageous to the 'Spirit of Laws.'

At the age of thirty-two he published the 'Lettres Persanes': ce livre si frivole et si aisé à faire," as Voltaire has unjustly

1 As to the biography of Montesquieu and the bibliography of his writings and of writings regarding him, Vian's (L.) 'Histoire de Montesquieu' (1878) is indispensable. M. Brunetière's severe criticism of the work, however, is not essentially unjust (Rev. d. Deux Mondes, 1879). Compare Caro, 'La Fin du dix-huitième siècle,' tom. i. ch. 2. Bersot and Damiron have treated of Montesquieu's general philosophy. Lerminier, Heron, Bluntschli, and Janet have expounded his legal and political philosophy. Auguste Comte and Sir G. C. Lewis have made some most valuable remarks on his historical views, by which I have endeavoured to profit. Villemain, Sainte-Beuve, Nisard, and many others, have sought to delineate his personal and literary character. The best edition of his works is Laboulaye's in 7 vols., 1873-79. M. Albert Sorel's 'Montesquieu' (1887) is an excellent general monograph. Of the 'Deux Opuscules de Montesquieu, publiés par M. le Baron de Montesquieu' (1891), the first, 'Réflections sur la monarchie universelle en Europe,' which was printed in 1725, but withheld from publication, contains in germ a considerable number of the ideas which attained maturity in 'L'Esprit des Lois.' Baron de Montesquieu has since published 'Mélanges inédits de Montesquieu,' 1892.

said; "ce livre, si fort, léger en apparence, d'une gaieté habile et profondément calculée," as Michelet has truthfully characterised it. It at once placed its author in the first rank of the French writers of the age, and made him famous throughout Europe. It had the appearance of an ornamental plaything meant merely to sparkle and please, but it was in reality a terrible weapon skilfully contrived to give deep and incurable wounds to foes who could not otherwise be attacked, or only ineffectually. It satirised with consummate art both the Orient and France, their civil and spiritual governments, their authorities and traditions, their follies and vices. At the same time, it was a book essentially sound and true in spirit, ethical and constructive in purpose. It gave evidence of a singular faculty for the description and analysis of social life, habits, and motives. Many of the views afterwards developed in the 'Esprit des Lois' already found expression in the Lettres Persanes.'

་

Montesquieu sketched the plan of the former of these works as early as 1724; and after admission into the Academy in 1728, he went abroad for several years, and visited Germany, Hungary, Italy, Switzerland, Holland, and England, in order to become acquainted with their manners and institutions. His residence in England lasted from October 1729 to August 1731. In 1734 he published his Considérations sur la grandeur et la décadence des Romains.' This work may perhaps be regarded as a section of the 'Esprit des Lois,' detached from it on account of its length; but it forms of itself so perfect a whole, and has such speciality of character, that its separate publication was certainly appropriate. It is the only strictly historical work of Montesquieu which we possess, seeing that the 'Histoire de Louis XI.,' if ever completed, or not burned, has at least not yet been found. And it was also the first work in which a sustained and comprehensive attempt was made to show how the events and course of history have been determined by general physical and moral causes. It is even at the present day one of the most remarkable of the numerous studies to which the surpassing interest of Roman history has given rise. Its originality as regards all that had been previously written on the same subject must be obvious to every competently