THE

ENGLISH REVIEW,

For NOVEMBER 1789.

ART. I. Obfervations fur les Ecrits de M. de ment fur la Religion, en forme de Notes. Miniftre de la Chapelle Royale de St. James. coufu. Payne. Londres, 1788.

Voltaire, principalePar M. E. Gibert, 12mo. 2 tom. 6s.

ART. I. Obfervations on the Writings of Voltaire, &c.

VOLTAIRE is vulnerable in many parts. He wrote too much, and on subjects too widely different to be correct; he is therefore often wrong in matter of fact, even where the truth was not concealed from him by the fanaticism of infidelity. He had not fathomed the depths of metaphyfics, nor was he a profound logician; hence the many errors in his difquifitions, and the frequent unfoundness of his reafoning. If we add to this, that his paffion for incredulity, of which he confidered himself as the patriarch, led him to increase the number of his difciples at any rate, we fhall not be surprised that unfair means were frequently employed, and that he often loft fight of truth in the eagerness of the purfuit. From thefe caufes he has met with many adverfaries, who have, with more or lefs abilities, expofed his errors and his crimes.

The present opponent informs us that the end of his obfervations upon the writings of Voltaire is to fortify those who 'read them against the numerous fophifms, falfe citations and untruths, which are to be found in the works of that philoENG. REV. VOL. XIV. NOV. 1789.

X

fopher;

fopher; and that the best way of doing this was by following his author step by step. This he thought the best method, 'for two reasons: first, it would be more convenient for those who peruse the writings of Voltaire, as they would thus find an answer to the difficulties as they advanced in their reading; and, 2dly, he by this means avoided the reproach of choofing the most easy difficulties, and of paffing over the most 'embarraffing.'

The object of Mr. Gibert is certainly highly commendable; he appears to be an induftrious and laborious writer, who, by the help of thofe that have gone before him, has been enabled to oppofe his antagonist with confiderable success. But we have met with nothing of any importance in the obfervations which has not repeatedly appeared against the philofopher of Ferney; and as the remaining fix volumes which the author proposes to publish on the fame fubject may fairly be supposed to be drawn from the fources which have fupplied the present work, its great utility does not ftrike us as fo apparent. • Surcharger • le public de livres inutiles' is what the writer fays he wishes to avoid. The resolution is to be commended; but an author, in general is not the moft difcerning appraiser of his own works; and we fufpect that the public would confider fix volumes fimilar to the two now before us, merely as an addition to the mafs of books, as a repetition of a tale already told.

Though we have faid that this induftrious writer, with the affiftance he has laboriously collected, has been enabled to combat Voltaire with fuccefs, yet juftice to the public obliges us to mark fome points in which we think he has failed. ft. He fometimes takes notice of matters of fmal or no importance, and which, were they more confiderable, yet do not coalefce with the gravity and importance of his work. Why, for example, blend grammatical difquifitions with a defence of religion and morality? Whether Voltaire was, or was not miftaken with regard to the words 'hautain, haut, and altier,' did not much fignify; and had it been of importance, yet the criticism is not in its place (Vid. Tom. I. p. 17). Of the fame kind is the remark on Voltaire's mistake concerning our poet laureat (Tom. I. p. 74). More inftances are needlefs; thefet will point out the nature of the fections we do not approve.

2dly. To fave himself the trouble of going to the fountain head, he cites authorities which must be confidered as inadequate by men of learning. Mr. Gibert should have known that fuch books as The New Hiftorical Portable Dictionary' will not pass in this country, and fhould pafs in no country, for authority. Such compilations ferve the purposes of the superficial reader, but the man who is defirous of acquiring real knowledge fontibus integris gaudet.'

3

3dly.

3dly. Our author fometimes difcovers that he is not perfectly acquainted with his subject. Voltaire, as a proof that the Americans are a different race from the inhabitants of the old continent, afferts, what was formerly pretty generally believed, qu' excepté les Efquimaux, ils n'ont ni poil, ni barbe.' It would have totally defeated his argument had our author known, and had he replied that they have both. A very little reading, or a quarter of an hour's converfation with hundreds of eyewitneffes, would have enabled him to do this, which would have been more fatisfactory than the causes he has affigned for their want of beard. His antagonist, in another place, fays, The *confuls and pretors had no objection to a comic theatrical exhibition of the adventure of the Two Sofias.' Mr. Gibert had certainly forgotten his Plautus when he makes the following reply, I thall fay nothing to M. de Voltaire concerning the mirthful exhibition of the Two Sofias, which was permitted at Rome, as I know nothing about thefe Two Sofias! "Let him read the firft fcene of the Amphitrio, and then fay what he pleases on the fubject.

4thly. There is too much of what fome perfons would term theological bile difcernible in this production. But what else could be expected from the man who fays, I do not think 1 ought to • affect moderation towards M. de Voltaire; I do not hesitate to give a free course to the indignation with which his writings infpire me; believing that he deferves every harsh thing that I have faid.' Mr. Gibert may imagine, as he has example moftly on his fide, that fcolding and controverfy are the fame thing, that hard names give force to the argument; for our part, we think that the fevereft thing he could have said of Voltaire was to prove him in the wrong. Our author frequently condemns the rough and indecent farcafms of his adversary, while he exposes himself to condemnation for the fame fault. A long lift of this kind might be produced, but one example will be fufficient to evince that we have not made a groundless charge. Voltaire, as was to be expected, is fevere against Constantine. Among other things he fays, Conftantine had * a father-in-law; he forced him to hang himself.' Mr. Gibert concludes his defence of the emperor with the following fentence: 'We cannot say what M. de Voltaire would have done in a fimilar cafe; for he never had a lawful father-in-law." The point in queftion here is, Was the death of his father-inlaw to be imputed as a crime to Constantine? What Voltaire would have done in a fimilar cafe is nothing to the purpose, it can neither justify nor condemn; it is therefore merely an uselefs farcasm, and can only inform the reader that, though Voltaire was never married, and confequently had no lawful father

X 2

in-law,

in-law, yet, as a man of gallantry, he had many of another ftamp; but what have we to do in this place with the gallantries of M. de Voltaire, or his left-handed fathers-in-law?

5thly. Mr. Gibert fometimes either does not understand, or wifhes to mifreprefent his antagonist. Speaking of the Guebres, or worshippers of fire, Voltaire fays, The followers of Zoroafter still exift, though without a country; fomewhat like the Jews, and other fuperftitious focieties, dispersed over Afia from time immemorial.' To this Mr. Gibert replies, 'Is there any comparison between the difperfion of the Jews and Guebres? Can the attempt to bring them over to Mahometanifm be compared with the perfecution fuffered by the Jews? Or can the mountains of Perfia, and a diftrict of India, be compared to all the parts of our continent?' To all this Voltaire might have fairly answered, I never meant to fay that there was a strict resemblance between the state of the Jews and Guebres; I have only faid that there is fomewhat of a refemblance; that they both remain in a state of dispersion, a distinct people, in a foreign land. This all your queftions neither have disproved, nor can difprove. You have mifreprefented me, and are combating your own mifreprefentation. Our author concludes his obfervations on this paffage with another mistake. Can a period of 1100 years be termed

a time immemorial?' Here again he is difputing with himfelf, and not with Voltaire. If Mr. Gibert will reconfider the paffage, he will find that répandues de temps immemorial dáns

Afte, difperfed over Afia from time immemorial, does not refer to the Guebres, whofe difperfion only took place under the fucceffors of Mahomet, about 1100 years ago, but to the Jews, and other fuperftitious focieties,' to whom it may be juitly enough applied.

Voltaire afferts, with many good Chriftians, that the doctrines of the immortality of the foul and a future state of rewards and punishments, are not to be found in the law of Mofes. Many illuftrious commentators,' he fays, prove, by paffages from • Isaiah and Ezekiel, that Mofes was well acquainted with the doctrines of the immortality of the foul and of a life to come.' To fhew that this does not contradict what he had advanced, viz. that as Mofes had not divulged thefe doctrines, they were of courfe unknown to the Jews at that time. He adds, but the Hebrews, to whom Mofes fpoke, could not have read either Ezekiel or Ifaiah. To difpute concerning the fecret fentiments of Mofes is very ufelefs; the fact is that, in his public laws, he never fpeaks of a life to come, nor of any other than temporal rewards and punishments.' Such is the argument of Voltaire; here follows the obfervation of Mr. Gibert:

It gives me pleasure to be able fometimes to fanction the affer<tions of M. de Voltaire with my approbation; he is certainly in the right when he affirms that the Hebrews, who lived in < the time of Mofes, had not read either Ifaiah or Ezekiel, who appeared, the one 800, and the other 1000 years after: but at the fame time I am of opinion that, on this point, M. de • Voltaire has no opponent. One may furely cite Ifaiah and Ezekiel to prove that the Jews believed in a life to come, without falling under the lafh of this criticifm.' This is not answering Voltaire, but deftroying a fantom of the obferver's' own creation:

He makes the giants first, and then he kills them.'

To conclude our ftrictures on this publication, we are afraid, from the numerous and long citations which appear in the work (without including the text of Voltaire), that many readers will be led to confider the writer rather as a book-maker than an author.

Upon the whole, we have our doubts as to the fuccefs of this work with the public. Mr. Gibert himself feems likewise to be doubtful; and, as a prudent man, will proceed no farther without fubfcription. The author,' he fays, wifhes not to labour without profit and will judge of the public opinion by the number of fubfcribers."

ART. II. The Principles of Moral Philofophy investigated, and briefly applied to the Conftitution of Civil Society; together with Remarks on the Principle affumed by Mr. Paley as the Bafts of all moral Conclufions, and on other Pofitions of the fame Author By Thomas Gisborne, M. A. 8vo. 3s. 6d. boards. White. London, 1789.

[ Concluded. ]

ON the fubject of indemnification and punishment, our author's fyftem labours under equal inconveniencies. Sup< pofe the injured party to have undergone bodily pain or injury, or fevere anxiety of mind . . . . . . Indemnification in these, as in all other inftances, muft be rendered in property.'

Every man who has fufficient reafon to believe that another individual meditates an unjust attempt against him, has a right to inflict on that individual fuch punishment as is neceffary to prevent his defign.'

To punish by way of inflicting vengeance for crimes already perpetrated, is to ufurp the privilege of God.'